The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not missing the point, Trevor. The point is that your opinion (based on goodness knows what) is that PC Long would not have taken any interest in the apron. However, in 1888 that's what PC Long says he did and everyone at the time seems to have accepted that he did it, and there is no reason to suppose he did otherwise, as far as the historical record is concerned that is what happened.

Even if PC Long's behaviour was odd, which I don't think it was, but even if it was odd, people do odd things. People don't always do what you would expect them to do or what is logical. If you think PC Long did other than what he claimed, you need to support that with source-based evidence. You're not doing that or even coming close.

You know as well as I do that there is never now going to be any source based evidence. I simply originally stated that I was concerned as to how Pc Long came to find the apron piece, and why he chose to pick it up and examine it, when at the time he was not aware of any murder that night, and why that particular discarded piece against other discarded items of a similar nature that he might have come across on is beat, having regards to that area was an area where a market was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Would PC Long have been aware of the Stride murder before he found the apron?

And irrespective of this, he had been drafted into Whitechapel to deal with the Ripper scare. Given those circumstances, a bloodied rag would be cause for pause.

[PaulB]

Almost everything is repetition.If a poster finds it unacceptable or of no value,that poster has an opportunity to neither read nor post.
I distinctly wrote,that the scene should have been left as Long found it,which indicates the cloth should not have been taken anywhere,untill a senior officer made a decision.

A poster can indeed choose to neither read nor post, but on the other hand he may have such a regard for the facts and a desire to protect the waters of history from being muddied by repeated error that he feels compelled to read and post. Or he may be struggling to see if there is any sense in the arguments being advanced.

So, PC Long took the apron piece himself, instead of staying with it and sending PC Bettles to the police station. Again, even assuming that that's what he should have done, people don't always to whatthey should do or what we expect them to do. Is there anything in the evidence to suggest that PC Long did differently to what he claimed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. She was wearing one when she went out that morning, she was wearing one when found drunk, she was wearing one when in Bishopsgate Police Station, and she was wearing one with a piece missing when in the mortuary. Nobody, NOBODY, so much as questioned that. Eddowes was not wearing a pretty and decorative maid's apron, but the sort of coarse protective apron commonly worn at the time. It is even described in some sources as a bibbed apron. If it was clearly visible then people must have seen it and DC Halse says he did see it. Nobody says they didn't see it, nobody questioned that she was wearing an apron. The weight of evidence is overwhelming that she was wearing one. Except you, 130 years later, claiming that scholarship and what not is the incorrect way to look at the case, and trying to make out that Eddowes was wearing a decorative maid's apron like she was about to serve afternoon tea and thin cucumber sandwiches.

So you want to completely ignore the lists made at the time, and the ambiguous statement made by Collard, both clearly create a doubt, and the fact that if she had have been wearing one where it should have appeared on the lists. An apron of that size could not have been missed when the body was stripped.

But lets not get carried away with this issue, whether or not she was wearing one or not, is academic in the grand scheme of things. The things to be concerned with are how did it get to GS and who deposited it there.

Because even is she was wearing an apron when she left the police station does that conclusively prove that the killer cut or tore it, and took it away with him? If it is suggested he did, then for what purpose, to take away the organs, no that has been ruled out in my opinion. To wipe his knife or hands, well we have to look at the time he had available to him at the crime scene,and the degree of difficulty in cutting a piece from the apron which would have been the most difficult of all the clothing to locate and cut or tear from.

If he did cut or tear a piece to wipe his hands or knife that could have been done at the scene without the need to cut or tear.

Would it have taken him, the time it would have taken him to get to Gs before depositing the apron piece to wipe his hands of knife, would he have wanted to travel that far with incriminating evidence.

You see all of the above are what have been suggested happened in real time. But as you can see when you look at each of them there are doubts about whether any of those really did happen. So I say that it is right to look closely at these, and also look at what maybe be other plausible explanations.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Would PC Long have been aware of the Stride murder before he found the apron?

And irrespective of this, he had been drafted into Whitechapel to deal with the Ripper scare. Given those circumstances, a bloodied rag would be cause for pause.

As has been pointed out several times, PC Long stated that he had heard of the murder in Mitre Square and a rumoured second murder before he went to the police station. It is not stated that he had heard of either before he searched the tenement. At the inquest it appears that he thought he might find an injured or dead person inside the building, so it can be posited that he would not have expected to find a body inside if he knew one had been found in Mitre Square.

Given those circumstances you cite, a bloodied rag would indeed have been cause for pause. That's what we've been saying.

[Harry D]

I've never really understood the suggestion that the Kelly murder was more 'personal!' I assume that the suggestion is therefore Barnett?

Especially when people overlook the fact that Eddowes' face was also mutilated, not to the same extent, but that brings us back to the time constraints of the killer.

I've postulated in the past that Mary Kelly's youth and attractiveness compared to the previous victims may have also contributed to the extensive butchering and dehumanisation. 13 Miller's Court and its poor tenant were just the perfect storm for the killer to take his depraved fantasy to the next level.

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you want to completely ignore the lists made at the time, and the ambiguous statement made by Collard, both clearly create a doubt, and the fact that if she had have been wearing one where it should have appeared on the lists. An apron of that size could not have been missed when the body was stripped.

But lets not get carried away with this issue, whether or not she was wearing one or not, is academic in the grand scheme of things. The things to be concerned with are how did it get to GS and who deposited it there.

Because even is she was wearing an apron when she left the police station does that conclusively prove that the killer cut or tore it, and took it away with him? If it is suggested he did, then for what purpose, to take away the organs, no that has been ruled out in my opinion. To wipe his knife or hands, well we have to look at the time he had available to him at the crime scene,and the degree of difficulty in cutting a piece from the apron which would have been the most difficult of all the clothing to locate and cut or tear from.

If he did cut or tear a piece to wipe his hands or knife that could have been done at the scene without the need to cut or tear.

Would it have taken him, the time it would have taken him to get to Gs before depositing the apron piece to wipe his hands of knife, would he have wanted to travel that far with incriminating evidence.

You see all of the above are what have been suggested happened in real time. But as you can see when you look at each of them there are doubts about whether any of those really did happen. So I say that it is right to look closely at these, and also look at what maybe be other plausible explanations.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Or he could have taken it to 'sign post' the GSG.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or he could have taken it to 'sign post' the GSG.

But why pick a location away from the crime scene, a location where it may never have been linked to any murder, and may never have been found, unless of course Pc Long was pointed in that direction by Dc Halse.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But why pick a location away from the crime scene, a location where it may never have been linked to any murder, and may never have been found, unless of course Pc Long was pointed in that direction by Dc Halse.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because he would have needed to get away from the scene of the crime quickly. It's possible that he was aware of police beats. He wrote it on the jamb of the doorway in clear view of anyone passing (yes Long didn't see it at first but it was dark.) I don't understand why you say 'where it may never have been linked to any murder,' the apron (from Eddowes) was in the same doorway. Of course it would have been found, if not by a police officer then by someone leaving or entering the building (a bloody rag on the night of a double murder?)
The idea that Long wrote the graffito is completely baseless and ludicrous. Evidence is required before suggestions like that can be considered and there isn't a scintilla of it!
If we keep pursuing lines just because they aren't 'physically impossible' then we really are going to round in circles. There comes a time when, after considering certain angles, you just have to say...ok I was wrong.
Long didn't write the graffito. Eddowes was wearing an apron. The ripper took away body parts. These are proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

[PaulB]

You know as well as I do that there is never now going to be any source based evidence. I simply originally stated that I was concerned as to how Pc Long came to find the apron piece, and why he chose to pick it up and examine it, when at the time he was not aware of any murder that night, and why that particular discarded piece against other discarded items of a similar nature that he might have come across on is beat, having regards to that area was an area where a market was.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You asked unanswerable questions. Unless those questions are answered in the sources, and they're not, the answers are now beyond the reach of the living. But what the sources do suggest is that PC Long's account of himself was accepted at the time, and it's probably safe to assume that he was questioned fairly thoroughly by his superiors (that being what was done) and as no doubts are known to have been raised, his account was presumably found satisfactory. Your questions, even if not specifically asked, are inherently answered by any analysis of the sources failing to throw up any suggestion that Long's story was disbelieved.

And be honest, you didn't simply ask innocent questions, you weighted and have always weighted those questions with the heavy implication that PC Long wouldn't have done those things and that there had to be an alternative explanation.

[Wickerman]

.....
Heres a little test.Take a small quantity of blood,a small amount of any substance that resembles excrement,rub it well over your hands,then attempt to wipe it off with a dirty white piece of material for a couple of minutes.See what you come up with.
Long did not,in his testimony,associate his discovery in Wentworth Building with any crime.

I'm not seeing what your little test is intended to prove, Harry.
My first three years out of school was as a Butchers apprentice, so I am well aware of the problems associated with trying to wipe blood from your hands.
Sure, you can largely remove the red stuff, but the hands remain sticky. A cloth doesn't wipe your hands clean, for that you need water.

Anyone who had their hands in blood for 10 minutes or so, cannot remove the blood by simply wiping their hands on some cloth.
Blood becomes ingrained in the skin and around the fingernails, the hands remain sticky, your fingers stick together and the skin feels stiff.

And, as to the appearance of the piece of apron, we cannot expect to recreate what it looked like; smears, spots, streaks and all.
The excrement could have splashed onto the apron as her organs were being removed. We don't know if it was smeared on from the fingers or sprayed on from the mutilations, prior to the piece of apron being sliced off.

[Elamarna]

The Final Chapter ?

Why would you think that?
There is every indication that these unsupported ideas will continue to be posted and while that is the case the rebuttal with continue.

There doesn't have to be evidence to create a doubt. There has to be evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever the issue is, and besides the evidence that is available is unsafe in any event so you nor anyone else cannot say that you are totally right and others are totally wrong.

"Create a doubt," as in manufacture.
There either is doubt or there is not. Doubt is not created or manufactured, it comes from fresh evidence.
Just saying there is a doubt does not make one.

The Flat and Hollow Earthers say there is doubt that the Earth is either a sphere or solid, they claim there is doubt about the scientific evidence, that does not mean there is.

The same applies to the "unsafe" term YOU apply to evidence and sources, just because you think it is does not make it so. To do that you need to counter what exists with actual evidence that it is unsafe, this you have singularly failed to do; instead quoting generalisations about some sources and semantics in a futile attempt to support the claim.

Such statements are based on over 40 years of assessing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases, so I think that gives me a slight edge.

Nothing shows that arrogance more than that statement.
You continual demonstrate a failure of how to asses sources.

The examples I gave of statements are truly "classic" of self deception.

The only arrogance I see is from you as one who thinks he knows it all, and that your interpretation of the facts should be believed. against all others

I certainly do not know it all and make mistakes, and when I do I put my hand up and admit it.
I will consider and accept ideas when they are backed by Evidence, but not when there is NONE.

Ideas that are plausible !

Let's look are they possible?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definiti...
Definition of possible - able to be done or achieved, that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.

So yes they are not impossible .

Are they plausible ?

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/.../...
Definition of plausible - (of an argument or statement) seeming reasonable or probable.


Not really given that there is no evidence given which firstly counters the standing arguments and none is given to support the new ideas. They are not probable for those reasons and are not at the stage of plausible.

It seems clear that you have neither the desire to produce Evidence or the Evidence itself to support the ideas.



Steve

[Elamarna]

So you want to completely ignore the lists made at the time, and the ambiguous statement made by Collard, both clearly create a doubt, and the fact that if she had have been wearing one where it should have appeared on the lists. An apron of that size could not have been missed when the body was stripped.

People are not ignoring the list, they are viewing it and seeing it differently from you.
That is they for one thing are not seeing it as any more or less infaliable than the other Primary source material.

Collard does not make an ambiguous statement. "Apparently" DOES not mean he doubts it, he also cleary says the remaining part was found outside of the dress.

If it was FOUND outside of the dress it clearly was not missed.
So we have TWO statements from Collard, BOTH of which make it clear Eddowes had been wearing an apron in his opinion, or are you accusing him of perjury on top of Hutt and Robinson?


Steve

[Elamarna]

So

Because even is she was wearing an apron when she left the police station does that conclusively prove that the killer cut or tore it, and took it away with him? If it is suggested he did, then for what purpose, to take away the organs, no that has been ruled out in my opinion.

Yes in your opinion and it may surprise you to hear that i consider the suggestion unproven, that is based on the description of the stains which seem to argue at first glance against it being used to carry organs.
However it may be that the organs were wrapped in the sautuarated corner. The problem is the report is just not pricise enough to decide.
One must stress that does not rule the possability out, but it does ask a serious question.

To wipe his knife or hands, well we have to look at the time he had available to him at the crime scene,and the degree of difficulty in cutting a piece from the apron which would have been the most difficult of all the clothing to locate and cut or tear from.

Not if it extended to the neck, in which case it may have been the easiest given a quick pull.


Steve

[Wickerman]

But again you miss the point if he did not know at the time he saw the apron piece that there had been any murders ......

Who says he didn't know?
This is you predicating your theory on an "if" (speculation).
He said he was aware of rumours of a murder, before he learned of the City murder.

.....why did he react the way he did because at that time it would have just been an old piece of discarded material, and nothing more than that. Its all about what made him look at that piece of discarded material on his beat at that particular time.

Then, in the absence of knowing when he learned of the rumour, isn't it reasonable to assume this knowledge was the reason he picked the bloodstained apron up to start with?
Indicating, he may have been aware of the rumour before he picked it up.

Alternately, the reason could have been that he knew it was not there 30 minutes previous.
Either explanation is quite plausible.

This statement is a combination of the different descriptions

Of course it is, and it demonstrates that different people describe stains and smears in different ways. Nothing is contradictory.
You really need to listen to yourself Trevor, "one said spots, another said smears - somebody's lying!!!"
This kind of argument hi-lites just how desperate your position has become.

Now look at your apron pic and imagine how the killer went about his work and why it was not possible to do all that he is said to have done had she been wearing that type of apron, and for sure when the body was stripped and the lists made up, that type of apron would be clearly visible..

You don't seem to know that there were different aprons for different purposes. There were 'upstairs' aprons, and 'downstairs' aprons.
Eddowes was clearly not an 'upstairs' servant.
Women of the street all wore 'downstairs' aprons, fully covering their clothes. Some wore the bib up and around the neck, and others wore it turned down behind the waste band.

I can't decide if you genuinely do not know this stuff, or if you are intentionally ignoring it to serve a purpose.