Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

You have lost all sense of logical understanding there is absolutely no point in trying to engage in a sensible discussion

That's a bemusing response. You agreed with me that, escaping from a murder scene, you might not be able to take the most direct route to a place of safety due, for example, to a police constable blocking your path. So you would need to take an indirect route, thus delaying your escape.

I'm perfectly satisfied that I haven't lose any sense of logical understanding, and clearly Detective Halse agreed with me on 30 September 1888 otherwise he wouldn't have bothered stopping two men in Wentworth Street. Had he taken your approach he would have assumed the killer had long since made his escape.

[Trevor Marriott]

Right, thank you, which means that if you needed to walk through Wentworth Street to get home you would now have had to take an indirect route which means that you might have taken some time to get there which means you might have been stopped and questioned by Detective Halse.

You have lost all sense of logical understanding there is absolutely no point in trying to engage in a sensible discussion

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Second choice turn and run as soon as I saw the officer

Right, thank you, which means that if you needed to walk through Wentworth Street to get home you would now have had to take an indirect route which means that you might have taken some time to get there which means you might have been stopped and questioned by Detective Halse.

[David Orsam]

There are lots of things you find strange that no one else does

I really don't think you are in any position to say what "no one else" thinks Trevor but on this occasion I'm saying I do not find it strange that Long and Halse didn't see each other. You are the one saying you find it strange, right? But it isn't.

But Halse says he stopped and spoke to two persons the inference being that there were no more on his route to speak to. If he spoke to two you would have expected him to speak to others and he would have said so. As to why he singled them out I would suggest because they were the only two he came across.

Are you having a laugh now Trevor? Is your point that you think Halse should have stopped a Metropolitan Police constable and questioned him as to what he was doing in Goulston Street?

As to Long if he was a diligent as has been suggested why did he not stop and speak to anyone, was that because there was no one else out and about to speak to and the street was quiet, the only noise would be from the footsteps of Halse and Long and the light from Longs lamp.

What are you talking about now Trevor? Why should Long have stopped to speak to anyone on his beat? There was no requirement to stop random men walking along the street. Halse only gave an order for this to be done after the discovery of the murder of Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

You might but what would happen if you saw a constable walking in your direction as you were trying to do this?

It would depend how far away from the crime scene I was.

Two choices, keep calm and blag it if stopped, because at that time that constable may not know of the murder. Second choice turn and run as soon as I saw the officer, especially if I was still carrying the knife and the rag

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Absence of evidence, Trevor, is not evidence of absence.

And it's not true to say "neither Long or Halse saw or heard each other". A correctly worded statement would be that there is no evidence that they saw or heard each other. Equally, neither of them were ever asked if they saw each other.

Assuming Detective Halse was in plain clothes, Long would have had no idea who he was. Long did not provide a report of every individual who walked down Goulston Street that night. On the other hand, Halse would not have been surprised to see a constable patrolling his beat and would not have thought it worthy of mention.

But if they didn't see each other I see nothing strange about that at all. It would just mean that they were a few minutes apart when they passed the location of the writing on the wall.

There are lots of things you find strange that no one else does

But Halse says he stopped and spoke to two persons the inference being that there were no more on his route to speak to. If he spoke to two you would have expected him to speak to others and he would have said so. As to why he singled them out I would suggest because they were the only two he came across.

As to Long if he was a diligent as has been suggested why did he not stop and speak to anyone, was that because there was no one else out and about to speak to and the street was quiet, the only noise would be from the footsteps of Halse and Long and the light from Longs lamp.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Well if I was escaping from having just committed a murder I would distance myself from the crime scene as quick as possible.

You might but what would happen if you saw a constable walking in your direction as you were trying to do this?

[Trevor Marriott]

That just depends on what route you've taken and how quickly you've moved doesn't it?

Well if I was escaping from having just committed a murder I would distance myself from the crime scene as quick as possible. The killer must have had at least 10 mins start on Halse and by that time he could have been deep into Whitechapel by then, thats of course if it is where he was heading.

Or if he was disturbed by Harvey he might have gone to ground and stayed there until daylight when more people would be on the street.

He certainty didnt go home wash up and then come out and deposit the apron piece.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

We dont seem to have any evidence that there was anyone else out at that time in the immediate vicinity, which makes it even more strange that neither Long or Halse saw or heard each other despite being in close proximity to each other.

Absence of evidence, Trevor, is not evidence of absence.

And it's not true to say "neither Long or Halse saw or heard each other". A correctly worded statement would be that there is no evidence that they saw or heard each other. Equally, neither of them were ever asked if they saw each other.

Assuming Detective Halse was in plain clothes, Long would have had no idea who he was. Long did not provide a report of every individual who walked down Goulston Street that night. On the other hand, Halse would not have been surprised to see a constable patrolling his beat and would not have thought it worthy of mention.

But if they didn't see each other I see nothing strange about that at all. It would just mean that they were a few minutes apart when they passed the location of the writing on the wall.

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again Phil your post is based on an assumption that the killer was walking along Goulston Street "at about 2am" which conflicts with the evidence of PC Long in respect of a deposit of the apron after 2.20.

In any event, I was doing no more than offering an example of men being stopped by the police in a side road. We don't seem to have records of any men being stopped in the main roads in the period after the Eddowes murder, thus suggesting that a walk along a main road might have been safer than a side road, thus negating your point that the killer would only have walked down side roads.

We dont seem to have any evidence that there was anyone else out at that time in the immediate vicinity, which makes it even more strange that neither Long or Halse saw or heard each other despite being in close proximity to each other.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Look it up yourself.

You do realise don't you Phil that I am saying that the police did not provide four different versions of places the writing was written? In other words, I am saying there is nothing to look up.

So telling me to look it up myself is quite ridiculous isn't it?

However, your answer, and your inability to provide any evidence to support your statement, confirms what I already thought, namely that the various police officers gave a consistent account of the location of the writing.

[David Orsam]

But you would have been ahead of Halse by at least 10 mins and long gone from there by then.

That just depends on what route you've taken and how quickly you've moved doesn't it?

[David Orsam]

Look at a map. Look at the direction Halse took.
Then look to the other end of Goulston St.
Then see when Halse ..at the latest..could have stopped one of his two men he saw (ca. 02.17)

plenty of time to miss Halse if walking towards Wentworth St along Goulston St at about 2am.

Drat indeed.

Once again Phil your post is based on an assumption that the killer was walking along Goulston Street "at about 2am" which conflicts with the evidence of PC Long in respect of a deposit of the apron after 2.20.

In any event, I was doing no more than offering an example of men being stopped by the police in a side road. We don't seem to have records of any men being stopped in the main roads in the period after the Eddowes murder, thus suggesting that a walk along a main road might have been safer than a side road, thus negating your point that the killer would only have walked down side roads.

[PaulB]

Well if the rants and abuse used towards me and others, are thought to be superior argument,so be it.doesn't say much for the person writing it,or those believing it.

I don't think anyone would claim that rants and abuse consistute superior argument, but they probably reflect the utter frustration felt by those who not unreasonably irritated by your favourite litany of what ifs and maybees. However, if you prove to be correct, you can have the well-deserved pleasure of seeing them wipe the egg from their faces.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

What personal letter?

I have reread one author who speaks of this letter.He also states the apron piece was found in the passage,near the stairs,and the writing was there above it.Which puts the writing where? Does that agree with Warren?One other author also places the apron in the passage near the stairs.

Lots of authors put the writing in the passage, near the stairs. It was the most logical place to have located it, and the entrance to the stairs could just about be described as a 'jamb', but, as Howard Brown wrote years ago, they thought of the writing in terms of modern graffiti and visualised it scrawled i large letters across the wall, like it was depicted in Murder By Decree. That thinking had to change when people began to appreciate that it was written in small letters, literally on the jamb at the entrance, where any covering could have been torn away. I wouldn't place much store in what writers have said in the past. Our understanding of the case evolves, what was believed and written ten, twenty or thirty years ago need no longer apply.

Long,with an education similar to mine ,English elementary,and probably leaving school at the same age 14,probably wouldn't have understood the term Janb,to him as to me it would have been the doorway.If he had found the cloth in the doorway,he would have said doorway and not passage.

We have two witnesses, P.C. Long and Sir Charles Warren, and we have to decide which of them to accept. You favour P.C. Long, but I have yet to see you produce a single piece of evidence-supported argument to support him, or, more importantly, for not believing Sir Charles Warren. I'm afraid your supposition about what you think P.C. Long might have said, isn't persuasive.

I suppose if you dip a white handkerchief in a tin of black paint,it's still a white handkerchief,whatever it looked like afterwards.Might seem over the top,but one can understand Dew,s observation that something white can appear other than that colour.That's my observation too,and probably why Long wouldn't have noticed the cloth at 2.20.(no ,not because it had been dipped in black paint).

We have a statement by P.C. Long made within days of his finding it, that the apron that it was white. And we have a statement made thirty years later by Dew, who may not even have seen the apron, that it was black. And you prefer the testimony of Dew! And the argument has now degenerated to such a level that one is arguing whether a white apron is still a white apron even though it's been dipped in a tin of black paint. C'mon, do we have to sink to such a banal level just to make the point that the apron was white

In daylight or by the light of lamps,it would have been possible to see the interior walls,or writing on them,from outside,so cannot fault Warren there. It's just the word jamb.Perhaps Warren got that wrong.

Perhaps Warren did get the word 'jamb' wrong. Now prove that he did! As has been pointed out far too often, you have a penchant for 'perhapsing', but you don't produce much evidence to back it up.

Anyway, it's not just being able to see the writing, it's also about people passing in the street being able to easily tear down any covering. They'd have needed elastic arms to do that if the writing had been on the wall by the stairs.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay Trevor thanks for the second reply,

I'll start over and try to make this as simple and understandable as possible, because I want to help you.

In your theory that the killer did NOT take the body parts from Catherine Eddowes, and instead someone at City of London mortuary, Golden Lane, took the body parts, then the following things do not matter - These things have no bearing on your theory about how the body parts were removed.

1. The killer cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

2. The police cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street where they then 'discovered' it. It doesn't matter

3. The apron piece was actually a menstrual rag which Catherine Eddowes left in Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

4. Whether Catherine Eddowes was even wearing an apron, which you propose she wasn't. It doesn't matter.

I hope this helps to clarify things,

Roy

I fully understand and agree, but my original objective was to show that the body parts were removed at the mortuary and not by the killer, in addition to trying to show that those other three explanations did not stand up to close scrutiny.

What then followed was the discovery of Collards list, and then the ambiguities that arose as a result of closely scrutinising the witness statements, and the evidence from my team of medical experts, which then led to the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, but simply at some time prior to her murder been in possession of two pieces and that the killer could not have taken the organs away in the piece

I agree that the apron piece however it got there, and by whom is of no real evidential value in the grand scheme of things especially if you eliminate those 4 explanations

I hope this helps to clarify thing from my perspective.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk