Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396936]

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body.

Yes, David, but you see, for Fisherman the only hope lies in centimeters.

Centimeters = found by the body.

That is the tendency of all the sources produced by Fisherman. It is explained by the motive of Fisherman.

[Pierre]

To be more exact, what is established through corroboration is that he was found by Nicholsī body.

It may seem a small detail, but the implications differ rather a lot.

Of course, I would have a lot more reason to correct Pierre, but I prefer to speak to people where I get some sort of sound resonance.

What are the upper and lower limit in centimeters for standing "by Nicholsī body"?

Have you calculated this?

And would 1 centimeter closer to Nichols body increase the suspicion that Lechmere was a killer with 1 point?

[David Orsam]

Great insight as usual Pierre.

But I don't think Fisherman needs to trouble himself to respond to your posts.

[Pierre]

Great insight as usual Pierre.

But I don't think Fisherman needs to trouble himself to respond to your posts.

Thank you, David.

No, Fisherman must protect the centimeters. And the minutes.

I myself, on the other hand, have nothing to protect.

The problem is that I do not have the historical right to ignore what the sources are indicating.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Like you..I am not perfect.

However, the point stands. Matthews may have entertained the possibility..as you yourself agreed with.


Phil

Sorry, Phil, I am not been at my computer for a few days. Actually I said, "I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street..." You then said it couldn't be ruled out, which I obviously agreed with, since we cannot get inside Henry Matthews' head and know with certainty what he thought. But I'd already said I doubted it very much. I must say, however, that I was far less concerned with some imagining of Henry Matthews' thought processes than I was without pointing out that his question raised the question of whether Eddowes was wearing an apron and whether or not it was observed that a piece was missing from it. I assume - and I would suggest that the sources confirm - that efforts were made to establish the answers to those questions, and that the answers were to the positive. I'd also suggest that the sources confirm that the apron piece was not taken to Goulston Street by an onlooker. I'm not sure that you made any reply to that. What I did not do, was agree that Matthews may have entertained the idea that a policeman took the apron piece.

[Pierre]

Sorry, Phil, I am not been at my computer for a few days. Actually I said, "I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street..." You then said it couldn't be ruled out, which I obviously agreed with, since we cannot get inside Henry Matthews' head and know with certainty what he thought. But I'd already said I doubted it very much. I must say, however, that I was far less concerned with some imagining of Henry Matthews' thought processes than I was without pointing out that his question raised the question of whether Eddowes was wearing an apron and whether or not it was observed that a piece was missing from it. I assume - and I would suggest that the sources confirm - that efforts were made to establish the answers to those questions, and that the answers were to the positive. I'd also suggest that the sources confirm that the apron piece was not taken to Goulston Street by an onlooker. I'm not sure that you made any reply to that. What I did not do, was agree that Matthews may have entertained the idea that a policeman took the apron piece.

Matthews did not say anything about any policeman taking a piece of the apron. That is just an historical fact.

[PaulB]

Matthews did not say anything about any policeman taking a piece of the apron. That is just an historical fact.

Hi Pierre
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. I know Matthews didn't say anything about a policeman taking the apron piece. However, Phil speculated that Matthews was implying that and said I had agreed with him. I didn't agree, that that's what Matthews was implying, I only acknowledged that I couldn't altogether rule it out, which I can't. There's nothing to support such a conjecture, however, and, as David has spelt it out, it's so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration. Phil's interpretation of the surce is wrong.

Paul

[Charles Daniels]

It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.

Yes, there has to be some room for the fact that he is highly unlikely to say under oath "Sorry, I missed my 2.20am pass of that area because I was engaging in community outreach by accepting the offer of a quick half made by the landlord of The Ten Bells."

If he was asked why he didn't spot it at 2.20am, either it wasn't there or he wasn't or it was a pretty non-descript old apron and the geezer didn't notice.
Or is it possible he walked down the street the other way, and therefore saw the scene from a different angle?

Is it possible that someone else encountered the apron, maybe a local vagrant, and examined it before discarding it at Goulston Street?

I am happy to take PC Long's testimony into consideration as testimony from a source who was at the scene, but does his testimony answer questions or raise them?

Either he's incorrect -- innocently or not -- and introducing inconsistencies and mudding the waters. OR he's giving us a vital clue about the killer remaining in the area for some reason.

Both of these should be sort of, kept in mind and played with I think.
Keep our ideas flexible and see where other pieces of evidence lead us.

[Fisherman]

Yes, there has to be some room for the fact that he is highly unlikely to say under oath "Sorry, I missed my 2.20am pass of that area because I was engaging in community outreach by accepting the offer of a quick half made by the landlord of The Ten Bells."

If he was asked why he didn't spot it at 2.20am, either it wasn't there or he wasn't or it was a pretty non-descript old apron and the geezer didn't notice.
Or is it possible he walked down the street the other way, and therefore saw the scene from a different angle?

Is it possible that someone else encountered the apron, maybe a local vagrant, and examined it before discarding it at Goulston Street?

I am happy to take PC Long's testimony into consideration as testimony from a source who was at the scene, but does his testimony answer questions or raise them?

Either he's incorrect -- innocently or not -- and introducing inconsistencies and mudding the waters. OR he's giving us a vital clue about the killer remaining in the area for some reason.

Both of these should be sort of, kept in mind and played with I think.
Keep our ideas flexible and see where other pieces of evidence lead us.

As has been pointed out (by Wickerman), there were a number of instances when Long said he did not know, could not say, was not sure etcetera of different matters. So he very clearly was willing to admit when he was unable to establish things.
The very fact that he never wavered for a second about the rag suggests to me that this was not such a matter; here, he was certain. And there is nothing at all to suggest that he could not have been.

[Charles Daniels]

As has been pointed out (by Wickerman), there were a number of instances when Long said he did not know, could not say, was not sure etcetera of different matters. So he very clearly was willing to admit when he was unable to establish things.
The very fact that he never wavered for a second about the rag suggests to me that this was not such a matter; here, he was certain. And there is nothing at all to suggest that he could not have been.

That's very valuable to know in weighing the testimony.
Having a witness who candidly admits to the limitations of their knowledge is very helpful indeed and more trustworthy than the one who has an answer for everything.

So seems the mystery here is -- we need a safe place for the killer to be hanging around for at least 35 minutes, with a piece of incriminating evidence on his person, and better yet for having some feeling of safety in going to Goulston Street and ditching the evidence where he did.

If the killer was using the apron to help him transport some trophy or other, then he might drop it off somewhere nearby and then leave this drop off point in order to ditch the apron. I guess it's possible he thinks better of having the apron and maybe transfers anything it may have contained elsewhere on his person.

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

So yeah, lots of questions, I'll keep pondering.
Cheers mate!

[Trevor Marriott]

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

Well spotted that man, you are clearly another who is not prepared to accept the old previously accepted theories.although with this one it is a contemporary theory which many ripperologists have been happy to go along with because it fits with the killer removing the organs from the victim at the crime scene, and of course we now know that didnt happen

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

That's very valuable to know in weighing the testimony.
Having a witness who candidly admits to the limitations of their knowledge is very helpful indeed and more trustworthy than the one who has an answer for everything.

So seems the mystery here is -- we need a safe place for the killer to be hanging around for at least 35 minutes, with a piece of incriminating evidence on his person, and better yet for having some feeling of safety in going to Goulston Street and ditching the evidence where he did.

If the killer was using the apron to help him transport some trophy or other, then he might drop it off somewhere nearby and then leave this drop off point in order to ditch the apron. I guess it's possible he thinks better of having the apron and maybe transfers anything it may have contained elsewhere on his person.

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

So yeah, lots of questions, I'll keep pondering.
Cheers mate!

Hello Charles,

Lots of questions indeed.
The "bespotted" piece of apron causes another problem. If said piece was used for trophy transport (I doubt it) ..then if the bearer dumped the rag..either he was still carrying the trophy or he had already dumped it elsewhere.
Both scenarios are in my opinion of little worth. Dumping the trophy in a separate place to the apron seems obscure..especially given the short distance from Mitre Square to Goulston St. All areas in between would have been searched after the discovery of the body.
Similarly, carrying the trophy around AFTER the apron piece was dumped just asks for impending trouble. Red handed..etc.

My own belief is that the rag was not dumped by the killer.


Phil

[Charles Daniels]

Well spotted that man, you are clearly another who is not prepared to accept the old previously accepted theories.although with this one it is a contemporary theory which many ripperologists have been happy to go along with because it fits with the killer removing the organs from the victim at the crime scene, and of course we now know that didnt happen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor! And cheers!

I think when you are looking at facts and statements from such a far distant vantage point, and when one is fully aware that many "facts" are actually press invention, later speculation, and even pure and myth and utter tosh -- then it pays to always hold open every possibility, or keep the light on.

That doesn't mean that you entertain totally ludicrous ideas, such as say Lewis Carol, but that, before you find yourself saying "The killer MUST HAVE done this" or "The victim MUST HAVE done that" -- that you sit back and think very carefully about exactly WHY you are coming to such a firm conclusion. And to be honest, in the Whitechapel Murders, every time I've ever found myself wanting to say "MUST" and I've sat down and honestly thought it through, I have found myself deleting the word "Must" with lightning haste.

If we take the description of the apron having specks or spots of blood, was it? Then the idea of some bloody, fresh, internal organ and viscera being inside it suddenly doesn't match what your expectations would be.

Cleaning the knife with the apron also seems unlikely, I would think, because you'd have streaks or maybe slashes or long columns of blood?

I guess what someone COULD do, if they were a butcher and had a spare moment or two, would be to remove pig organs, wrap them in an apron, walk about a few minutes, open up the apron and seeing what it looks like.
My guess would be a soaked mess.

So, maybe the apron was torn in the murder process itself, ending up in the killers hand, and he walked off with it?

Hmmm... don't know.

But having an open mind allows you to turn over new ideas in a way that knowing things MUST have been shuts the door on.

Anyway, long ramble there.

[Charles Daniels]

Hello Charles,

Lots of questions indeed.
The "bespotted" piece of apron causes another problem. If said piece was used for trophy transport (I doubt it) ..then if the bearer dumped the rag..either he was still carrying the trophy or he had already dumped it elsewhere.
Both scenarios are in my opinion of little worth. Dumping the trophy in a separate place to the apron seems obscure..especially given the short distance from Mitre Square to Goulston St. All areas in between would have been searched after the discovery of the body.
Similarly, carrying the trophy around AFTER the apron piece was dumped just asks for impending trouble. Red handed..etc.

My own belief is that the rag was not dumped by the killer.


Phil

You know Phil your post has just fired off a little memory for me.

I think it was when I was reading an account of the French Revolution in school that the people witnessing the executions would frequently rip or forcefully remove items of clothing from the bodies of the executed.
And I seem to have a faint memory reading that this was actually a very common practice with public executions across the board -- that grisly souvenirs were collected.

So, here's an idea I haven't had.
What if the killer just leaves the scene, as you would expect them to do.
But some other colourful East End character decides to take a souvenir, after all it would be a piece of memorabilia direct from one of the heinous crimes of old Leather Apron/Jack the Ripper himself.

They could of course quickly change their mind, or have some companion impress upon them that their souvenir could well see them hang.

The arguments against my little notion of the moment being --

1) Very short time window likely for the prize to be found and discreetly collected. Likely a window of less than 10 minutes?

2) The only person we know of who had unrestricted controlled access to the body who could have removed the piece was the killer


Anyway Phil, if not the killer, what was your thinking if I may ask?

Cheers
Charlie

[Fisherman]

That's very valuable to know in weighing the testimony.
Having a witness who candidly admits to the limitations of their knowledge is very helpful indeed and more trustworthy than the one who has an answer for everything.

So seems the mystery here is -- we need a safe place for the killer to be hanging around for at least 35 minutes, with a piece of incriminating evidence on his person, and better yet for having some feeling of safety in going to Goulston Street and ditching the evidence where he did.

If the killer was using the apron to help him transport some trophy or other, then he might drop it off somewhere nearby and then leave this drop off point in order to ditch the apron. I guess it's possible he thinks better of having the apron and maybe transfers anything it may have contained elsewhere on his person.

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

So yeah, lots of questions, I'll keep pondering.
Cheers mate!

As always, Charles, it boils down to which testimony you choose to go with. Some sources say that the apron piece had stains on it, but Long himself says that the apron was "covered in blood".
It was also said that one corner of the apron piece was "wet with blood". I therefore tend to think that when Long first spotted the apron, that corner was the part that presented itself to the viewer - in other words, it lay on top of the pile formed by the apron.

The question why the killer did not immediately head for home, but instead lingered somewhere in the vicinity of the murder area for a longish time, may or may not point to different circumstances. For example, if the killer did not live alone, but instead together with somebody, then he may have wanted to clean up before arriving back home, in order to minimize the risks of detection.
Likewise, if his home was situated some way away from the murder site and required a longish trek, then he would be at risk to run into a pc or two along the way, not least if he - as is generally believed - doubled back into MEPO areas, not far from where Stride had been killed earlier. That too could make him want to clean up before embarking on the risky trek.
It could also be that he had a bolthole where he stashed his trophies - if he actually did this, something than can be no certainty - and that this bolthole offered seclusion somewhere not too far from the murder site.
A final suggestion would be that the killer may have been set on yet another victim, and prowled the streets with that intention: if he could kill two, then why not three?

At any rate, making the assumption that he must have left the murder site area and put as much distance between himself and that area as possible, is a very tenuous thing to do. In the end, it all boils down to the circumstances, and they remain hidden to us to a great deal.