PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Would somebody kindly guide me towards, or show me, in as many examples as possible the answers to the following queries, written down officially somewhere at the time?..Thank you :-) (My memory isnt as good as it once was, apologies.)


Now, questions that need some sort of official explanation please?

a) If Halse gave orders to others and he himself travelled from Mitre Square soon after arrival at 1.55 (1.58)am in the direction of Middlesex Street, into Wentworth Street (where he stopped two innocent passers by--either individually or together, we do not know.. and didnt take their names even, so innocent did he consider them...) then turned almost straight away into Goulston Street.. where he said he was at approx 2.20am.. how come it took him roughly 20 mins to complete a walk that in normal pace would take, well, 6 mins? (and he must have walked faster... he was looking for a killer...adrenelin flows quicker etc)..you see the stopping of the two men, if as innocent as they where, would not take anything more than 5 mins combined....maximum.. Ask a few questions... on your way lads... two and a half mins each... 5 mins total. (anything more than that he would have been taking theitr particulars and writing them down..which he obviously didnt do).

b) How come it took Halse approx (and at least) a full 30 mins to get back to Mitre Square from being in Goulston Street when the route he took, if I am not very mistaken (forgive me oh practised beat walkers alike) would not have taken him more then 8 mins?

c) IF Long, who found the apron piece carried it off to the nearest police station, and the PC who was with him (either called for or?...) had to stand guard at the site of the dropped apron piece and not move.... (and we have no knowledge of any other person going to the guarding pc in Goulston Street between 2.50am and when the next batch of officers appear).... how did the policemen in Mitre Square get to know that an apron piece had been found at 2.50am by the time Halse came back in order to inform Halse that said apron piece had been found?

I can understand that police officers wired each other from station to station, but I am not aware of any police officer having travelled from any station to Mitre Square to relay any specific news of the apron piece found in Goulston Street. Perhaps I am mistaken?

d) exactly what time did Halse report that he arrived back at Mitre Square after his report of the 2.20am (approx) appearance in Goulston Street?

(You see, I am a little concerned... but if PC Long didnt find the apron piece in Goulston Street until 2.50am.. and went with said piece to (?Leman St?) the police station... Halse could not have known if he arrived back at Mitre Square at 2.50am. because that is when Long found the apron piece... which brings me back to the original question... how come it took so long for Halse to get back to Mitre Square from Goulston Street?

e) DS Outram was a Detective Sergeant (described as such Oct 3rd when escorting 6 poeple to Golden Lane mortuary). I would have thought that a DS took his instructions from a superior officer, not a DC (Halse).. when being told (according to Halse who "instructed" men) to scatter to different parts. Perhaps I am mistaken.

Just posing questions looking for definitive factual official answers. Thank you.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hi Carol.

We have Dr Gordon Brown, at the mortuary, describing the portion of apron still attached to the body.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?

[Brown] Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Hello Jon,

A question for you.

Let us suppose that the killer wanted to wipe his hands and or carry organ pieces in said apron piece... for whatever reason...

This killer is so wary of time.... he does not, which is easilty the most logical thing to do... snip the apron strings to get at the apron which is a front facing apron... oh no... he carefully cuts a piece.. a square, a rectangle... from the apron that is still attached to the body.

one snip each side of the apron at the hips where the strings lie releases the whole damn thing in 2 secs... no... this fella takes the time (which he hasnt got) to cut away at the apron to get to a piece....in limited light.

Does that make sense to you?

best wishes


Phil

[Hunter]

He obviously had time to do everything else, which was quite extensive.

The apron was likely initially cut in the middle when the other garments were cut, which was at the waistband area so he could more easily access the abdomen.

[Trevor Marriott]

He obviously had time to do everything else, which was quite extensive.

The apron was likely initially cut in the middle when the other garments were cut, which was at the waistband area so he could more easily access the abdomen.

When the body was found the clothes were up around the waist

The apron could not have been cut in the middle because there were no cuts or blood noted on the Mortuary piece and in ant case that would have resulted in two halves of a full apron both with a string attached.

When you look at the second official list of the clothing she was wearing. First notice again no sign of an apron or apron piece being worn.

Second the cuts made by the killer with the knife were inflicted through the outer clothing in the first instance at least 5. some in and around the waistband area going across and in a downwards direction

Third if she had been wearing an apron then the mortuary piece would have cut to it and there would have been significant amounts of blood on it.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would agree, Neil. I'm definitely not going there again though! It got very ugly last time ...even without Trevor joining in!

Debs
The truth takes many different forms ugly is just one of them

[Hunter]

Brown stated that the portion of apron found on the body was spotted with blood.

[Trevor Marriott]

Brown stated that the portion of apron found on the body was spotted with blood.

Yes you are correct but he doesn't state it was found on the body and no mention of cuts relative to stab wounds or cuts which would have detached the apron from the body which suggested your earlier

Here is a part of the second of the three official lists prepared by Insp Collard

“Black Cloth Jacket- imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt”-three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice- Black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat- White waist band cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very old green Alpaca Skirt-Jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very old ragged blue skirt- Red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

“White Calico Chemise- Very much blood stained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front“Mans white vest- Button to match down front, two outside pockets, torn at back, very much bloodstained at back, blood and other stains on front.

Note all the items are described as being heavily blood stained or simply blood stained had the apron been worn it would have been surely described as blood stained and visibly cut somewhere.

As it was simply spotted and of course we don't know the degree of spotting but if it had been bloodstained Dr Brown would have said. That spotting could be consistent with it being in her possession but of course we cannot say where in her possession

You also have to take into account that much of the heavy blood staining could have occurred when the she was stabbed, and additional staining when the clothes were lifted up and came in contact with the open abdominal wounds.

This statement about Dr Brown fitting The GS piece to the apron still left on the body is totally wrong. It didnt happen and could not have happened and another classic example of the press not reporting the inquest correctly. Or maybe they did and the news editors decided to embellish the truth.

Do I hear you say, no that doesn't happen, it couldn't happen well we know it did in 1888 and tts still going on with the press 126 years later.

[Wickerman]

This statement about Dr Brown fitting The GS piece to the apron still left on the body is totally wrong. It didnt happen and could not have happened and another classic example of the press not reporting the inquest correctly. Or maybe they did and the news editors decided to embellish the truth.

Or, maybe the press coverage is being miss-reported here.

I can't find anywhere that Dr Brown claimed to fit the missing piece to the original piece "while the original piece was still on the body".

In all cases he fit the missing piece to the original piece, "that was found on the body".

[Hunter]

The press did get things wrong at times. The Daily Telegraph either mistranscribed or incorrectly edited Brown's apron testimony to the point that they had him describing the wrong piece. It was the piece found with the body that was presented as evidence at the inquest.

[Trevor Marriott]

The press did get things wrong at times. The Daily Telegraph either mistranscribed or incorrectly edited Brown's apron testimony to the point that they had him describing the wrong piece. It was the piece found with the body that was presented as evidence at the inquest.

I disagree with you a the mortuary piece was so described corner piece with a string attached I went to great lengths to make you aware of other significant facts which you have conveniently chosen to ignore.

You cannot rely on the newspaper reports as being primary evidence especially in this case when it is plainly clear there are significant differences first of all between the various newspaper reports and the official inquest testimony.

Forget about who said what and when with regards to he apron/apron piece because as has been proved much of it is in conflicting with the next.

The unbiased way of looking at this is as I have done by relying on those official lists and by applying a common sense approach to examining the facts sensibly not with blinkers on.

I know there are many who firmly believe she was wearing an apron but continually want to use specific newspaper reports to do prop that up, and are not prepared to think outside the box.

When I first suggested the fact that she might not have been wearing an apron I fully expected a hostile reception which was forthcoming and still is.

But my belief was based on assessing and evaluation all the facts surrounding these two apron pieces. I firmly believe the official lists are the key to this issue. Not just because of how they read but when you look at them and then look closely at the mortuary piece.

Forget about whether it had one string or two and ask yourself if she had been wearing an apron at the time she was murdered what would have happened to it. To answer that question you have to go back to the lists and look at the angle of the cuts, the length of the cuts the amount of blood found on them and ask the question if she was wearing an apron why was the mortuary piece not cut and blood stained in line with the rest of the clothing? Because if she was wearing an apron it would have been around her waist.

The lists show the killer stabbed her through her outer clothing at least 5 times those initial entries made by the knife were focused around the waistband.

The apron being on top would have borne the brunt of all those knife entries and would have without a doubt been described in similar fashion to the rest of her clothes. Dr Brown described the mortuary piece as being spotted, now you can argue that blood stains are sometime described as blood spots but I am sure he knew the difference and had it been stained he would have said so.

Looking at the two apron pieces they were both described as being spotted with blood. What we don't know but only assume, perhaps wrongly is that the blood spots were relative to the murder.

How do we know that blood spots found on the two pieces, which at some point formed part of a full apron were not already there by reason of something that happened long before the murder not even the same night and those blood spots may not even have been her blood, cut finger.nose bleed etc.

So if you an others cannot see or are even prepared to consider there are major flaws in the old accepted theory, then there is no hope for you. All of what I have written is called thinking outside the box I wonder how many will take off the rose tinted spectacles and blinkers and do just that. I wont hold my breath

[Trevor Marriott]

Or, maybe the press coverage is being miss-reported here.

I can't find anywhere that Dr Brown claimed to fit the missing piece to the original piece "while the original piece was still on the body".

In all cases he fit the missing piece to the original piece, "that was found on the body".

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street
Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

The press coverage is unreliable as I keep saying but somehow it isn't sinking in

[Jon Guy]

The lists show the killer stabbed her through her outer clothing at least 5 times those initial entries made by the knife were focused around the waistband.

Yes, the items around the waist were cut. This was done to access the sternum.

If he stabbed Eddowes through the clothing, where are the corresponding 5 wounds on her body ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the items around the waist were cut. This was done to access the sternum.

If he stabbed Eddowes through the clothing, where are the corresponding 5 wounds on her body ?

Incorporated within the overall abdominal mutilations the sternum is located above the waistband area your explanation is not viable ss the cuts go down and across from the waist band

[Jon Guy]

Incorporated within the overall abdominal mutilations the sternum is located above the waistband area your explanation is not viable ss the cuts go down and across from the waist band

Yes, the killer had to cut through the items tied around her waist so that he could access the sternum (chest).

Does the Doctor`s report note these stabs to the abdomen? They may be noted but I can`t see any mention?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the killer had to cut through the items tied around her waist so that he could access the sternum (chest).

Does the Doctor`s report note these stabs to the abdomen? They may be noted but I can`t see any mention?

I think you need to go back and look again at the cuts in the clothing see where your theory falls down some of her clothing only started at waist level and went down,
The sternum is located about 7 inches above the waist

Dr Brown dors refer to stab wounds and cuts in parts of the abdomen