PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

You are as deluded as Wickerman you are missing the point !

McWilliams report dated 1 month after the event, that's not contemporaneous.

And so it came to pass:-

"Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory."

You hang your dismissal of McWilliams' evidence (Primary & Best Evidence) on my use of the word "contemporaneous" and point out that the report was compiled 4 weeks after the murder. Do you think that report was compiled off the top of his head or was it based on written notes he made at the time, at the crime scene and at the mortuary? Pocket Note Books, Trevor. We all carried them. Sometimes we needed to refer to them in order to compile witness statements and written reports - just as McWilliams did. You know his report was based on a contemporaneous note; it had to be. Just for once concede a point.

[Trevor Marriott]

And so it came to pass:-

"Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory."

You hang your dismissal of McWilliams' evidence (Primary & Best Evidence) on my use of the word "contemporaneous" and point out that the report was compiled 4 weeks after the murder. Do you think that report was compiled off the top of his head or was it based on written notes he made at the time, at the crime scene and at the mortuary? Pocket Note Books, Trevor. We all carried them. Sometimes we needed to refer to them in order to compile witness statements and written reports - just as McWilliams did. You know his report was based on a contemporaneous note; it had to be. Just for once concede a point.

Contemporaneous was your word when referring to his report. I was merely highlighting the flaws in that as far as his report was concerned. As evidence goes it is not worth the paper its written on It takes this issue no further, just another smoke screen.

If it were contemporaneous and his evidence so important as you suggest why was he not called to give evidence. What about Major Smith he was there also yet he didn't write his "report" until 1910 he must have been a slow writer and I would be surprised if he even had a pocket book

I will gladly concede a point when its is concedeable but not in this case .

[Bridewell]

As evidence goes it is not worth the paper its written on

So police reports are not now best evidence, despite your insistence in previous posts that they are. He was there at the time but he didn't know what he was talking about because, 126 years later, ex Dc Trevor Marriott disagrees with him.

McWilliams states quite categorically, in an official report, that Eddowes was wearing the apron but this we have to disregard as "just another smokescreen"? Trevor, Eddowes was wearing her apron or what was left of it. It is simply ludicrous to pretend otherwise rather than accept the truth.

At this point I will take my leave from this particular discussion. You can only bang your head against a brick wall for so long before getting a headache. I admire your enthusiasm but your leaps of logic are simply breath-taking.