Originally posted by harry
View Post
Where, for you, does fiction and fact separate? You have pointed out that PC Long was there, alone and unobserved, and could have written the message. That's true. It can be taken on board and considered. But there is absolutely no evidence that he did so. Nothing. It’s something that could have happened, but there’s not a scrap of evidence that it did happen.
When asked why Long might have done it, it's not good enough to think up some plausible explanation (and there are those who would dispute that a prank is at all plausible). Anybody can do that. And it's complete fiction. Utterly lacking any supportive evidence.
Even if the list of Eddowes’ possessions doesn’t mention the piece of apron, that alone doesn’t make a case that she may not have been wearing one. The overwhelming evidence from the time is that she was. Trevor has laid out his case time and time again, and it’s always met with the same objections from people who have a very good understanding of this case and a good grasp of the facts. There's a reason for that.
People defecated in the street and still do, and nobody has disputed that. But that’s not evidence that the Goulston Street piece of apron was used for toilet purposes. In fact, there isn’t any evidence that it was used that way. None. There isn’t a single source, not anywhere, that suggests the apron was used liked that. And for what it’s worth, a doctor who saw and handled it said it looked like a knife had been wiped on it. Whatever reason the murderer had for taking the apron piece, the impression gained by the doctor was not that someone had used it to clean themselves but that residue had been wiped from a knife.
So when does an utterly unsupported piece of speculation become a worthwhile historical possibility? Because I can’t see where any of the above is elevated beyond the level of unsupported speculation.
Comment