Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Kattrup]

Hi All,

DC Halse: "I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre Square [from the mortuary], when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street." [Daily Telegraph, 12th October 1888].

How could anyone have known it was a piece of apron?

At that moment, Halse was the only person who knew that a piece was missing from Eddowes' apron.

Regards,

Simon

The title of this thread is misleading, in that it uses the word 'rag' for something that was easily identifiable as a piece of apron.

If I find half an apron, I can surely refer to it as such.

Calling it a 'rag' gives a false impression. It was a sizable piece of cloth, and white. Not that difficult to notice.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I wondered when you might pop up and fill in the details of what we know with a piece of invention.

I have no problem understanding this. Which is very different from being in denial about it.

PC Long did not know it was a piece of apron. How could he? Halse at the mortuary was the only person who knew a piece of Eddowes' apron was missing. But Long found this allegedly key piece of evidence twenty minutes before Halse even noticed it was missing.

Nobody in Mitre Square could have known that PC Long had found "a piece of apron," or even something that resembled a piece of apron.

Whilst we're on the subject, you might care to educate everyone on how "a piece of apron" is uniquely identifiable as such.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Nobody in Mitre Square could have known that PC Long had found "a piece of apron," or even something that resembled a piece of apron.

Would you care to explain why not?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

No.

You're the know-it-all telling me that I have a problem with my understanding and how this series of events is unremarkable and mundane.

So it is incumbent on you to explain how anyone in Mitre Square could have known that PC Long had found "a piece of apron," or even something that resembled a piece of apron.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

No.

You're the know-it-all telling me that I have a problem with my understanding and how this series of events is unremarkable and mundane.

So it is incumbent on you to explain how anyone in Mitre Square could have known that PC Long had found "a piece of apron," or even something that resembled a piece of apron.

Well that's fine. It's just that you made a positive statement, telling me that nobody in Mitre Square could have known that Long had found something resembling a piece of apron and I was wondering what possible basis you had to make such an extraordinary statement. I take it from your answer that you had no basis.

Now my response to everything you've asked me is that it's all very simple. What must have been reasonably obvious from the start was that the bloodstained material was a piece from some recently worn item of female clothing (not an old rag, as some seem to think). Long's discovery of the material would not have been a secret within the police and it is 100% clear from Halse's evidence that the news of the discovery had filtered across to Mitre Square. As soon as Halse mentioned that a piece of Eddowes' apron was missing, it did not require the presence of Sherlock Holmes in the square for someone who knew about Long's discovery to suggest that the material found by Long was probably the missing piece of apron.

Consequently I just can't see what problem you are having with this Simon. It's child's play. Just common sense. And I might add that I haven't said that the piece of apron was "uniquely identifiable" as such but when Halse mentioned the missing piece of apron it's nothing more complicated than adding 2 + 2 to get 4 for someone to work out that Long's bloodstained item of clothing must have been the missing piece of the apron. Like I said, Sherlock Holmes not needed to solve this particular case.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Your response is pathetic.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Your response is pathetic.

My response was quite a detailed one in three paragraphs, Simon. Yours was four words.

So I think we can let the readers of this thread decide for themselves whose response is pathetic.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

That makes less sense than your last post.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

That makes less sense than your last post.

Let's see if others manage to understand it Simon.

[Pierre]

The title of this thread is misleading, in that it uses the word 'rag' for something that was easily identifiable as a piece of apron.

If I find half an apron, I can surely refer to it as such.

Calling it a 'rag' gives a false impression. It was a sizable piece of cloth, and white. Not that difficult to notice.

Important point.

And another thing: why did he chose a bit of the apron?

Why not a bit of some other clothing?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Important point.

And another thing: why did he chose a bit of the apron?

Why not a bit of some other clothing?

I wonder if this really is an "Important point", Pierre.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David

Why do you need the belief of others in order to understand?

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Why do you need the belief of others in order to understand?

It's nothing to do with the "belief" of others Simon.

You claimed that my posts did not make sense. I'm suggesting that not only do they make sense but that others will understand them. If others understand them then, QED, they must make sense.

[Pierre]

I wonder if this really is an "Important point", Pierre.

Good. Tell me when you have reached some sort of conclusion.

[David Orsam]

Good. Tell me when you have reached some sort of conclusion.

Okay, I have.

No, I don't think it is an important point.