Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=harry;396386]

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.
/QUOTE]

The A-Z makes the claim that Dew said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black.

Dew, in his book, does not say this. He instead says that the apron was a black apron, that is to say it was made of black cloth.

I believe that this points to a mistake on behalf of the authors of the A-Z. Until you produce the actual source where Dew claims that the rag appeared to be black on account of being dirty, there can be no other conclusion to make.

If there IS such a source, then I am happy to be corrected. If not, you must accept that the claim you make is wrongful. And please donīt say that it is not you that make the claim, it is the A-Z. You see, you DO make the same claim, and you DO support your take on things on it.

So please give me a straighforward answer, Harry: Can you produce the source?

[harry]

Thanks Phil,
Yes,I do agree with you as to what Warren would have seen.

Regards.

[Phil Carter]

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.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

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.

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.

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).

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.

Hello Harry,

Fear not..I at least will converse with you in even tone.. even if others cannot.

Apart from the last paragraph, I agree with you.
I will fault Warren..because it was just "starting" to get light. The sight may not have been all that clear as we assume it was from the street.
Plenty of time for a photographer too.

Hope you are well?



Phil

[Phil Carter]

Now if you want to talk conspiracies take a closer look at Halse. He went to the crime scene, and so if she had have been in possession of two pieces of apron, what would stop him removing one and taking it off with him depositing in the door way. He then meets Long and says "best check you doorways etc" and voila Long finds the apron piece. thus taking the heat away from the City police.

Far fetched as it may seem you have to remember the letter from Mathews to Frazer asking if the piece could have been removed from the crime scene and deposited in GS. Now that seems to me to be a question out of the blue, and why was it asked? clearly if it was as clear cut as we have been led to believe why would that question be asked, no smoke without fire.!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Just for the sake of argument. .let us not call the above a conspiracy. .but a plausibility..however unlikely.

For that scenario to be true.. the thing that strikes me is why..if there was a deliberate reason, Halse would place said apron piece under the writing.

A possible answer may come in the form of the attitude of certain policemen towards the Jewish population with regard to from which background the "suspected" came from.
And it is at this point I think of Anderson. He cannot have been the only one expressing views that reflected a supposed guilt upon a Jew.

Whoever planted that rag...if it was deliberate.. then it was certainly MEANT to cast aspersions upon the Jews.

IF it was deliberate.

This is only mild thought. We cannot know who planted it..if it was planted. But one anti semite thinker.. whoever it was..Halse or not... may have done it. The only problem with this is how to show a person to be of such character.

That it turn leads to another question.
If Halse did do it. . Under who's instructions? And why?

We cannot know either way. But yes..an anti semite policeman is not going to be uncommon.
You only have to see the record of the police of the Capital and its surrounding areas since with regard to any form of prejudice against foreigners.
They havent exactly the reputation for being whiter than white on that front.
Tis an interesting thought if nothing else.


Phil

[harry]

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.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Roy Corduroy]

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

[Joshua Rogan]

One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

I don't think there were any common lodging houses between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, although there were some further along Wentworth Street.

[Phil Carter]

Yes just organising the xmas party for the Rocket Science Club !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strange.. I am doing the same for the 'I don't believe it's not butter amateur detective club".😎


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Trevor.


Hope all is well with you and yours ?


Phil

Yes just organising the xmas party for the Rocket Science Club !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly Trevor.


Hope all is well with you and yours ?


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not necessarily about "the greater chance of being seen". It could be about the greater chance of being stopped. If there is one man in a small dark street or lots of men in a better lit main road, who has got the greater chance of being stopped?

Because, of course, you could have made your escape along Wentworth Street...and then been stopped by Detective Halse. Drat!

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

It's not necessarily about "the greater chance of being seen". It could be about the greater chance of being stopped. If there is one man in a small dark street or lots of men in a better lit main road, who has got the greater chance of being stopped?

Because, of course, you could have made your escape along Wentworth Street...and then been stopped by Detective Halse. Drat!

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi, again, Trevor. Again, the only thing which has anything to do with body parts is number 1. I know one person who wrote 1., Wickerman.

I know of no source for 2, 3, and 4. Do you? I know that none of these theories 1. to 4. are contained in Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow, a book which I know you haven't read, because you told me so on How Brown's site.

I'm not arguing any reason. I've never given a reason for why the killer cut a piece of her apron and took it. I don't have to. Simply the fact everyone from 1888 to today agrees it happened, because it is very clear from the physical evidence at the time. It doesn't need a reason. You are the only one arguing reasons.

You are the only one arguing that if there was no good reason, it didn't happen. Which is the opposite of evidence. The opposite of police work. What you said you did. The evidence is he cut the piece of apron and deposited it in Goulston Street.

You seem to be arguing against yourself Trevor. And believe, me, I'm Okay with that.

Roy

If the killer cut or tore it he must have had a reason to do so. If any of the 4 I mentioned do not apply, then what was the reason? Because I am struggling to think of a plausible one as to why he would cut it or tear it, and why he would then take it away, dumping it an obscure location 9 mins away from the crime scene, when there would be every likelihood that it would never be found, and if it was, would it ever be linked to a murder. Again there is no plausible explanation for the dumping at that location.

Now those two dont sit to well, when it just so happens that this piece of apron was found at that obscure location withing 70 mins of the murder by a police officer who didn't even know a murder had been committed.

Now if you want to talk conspiracies take a closer look at Halse. He went to the crime scene, and so if she had have been in possession of two pieces of apron, what would stop him removing one and taking it off with him depositing in the door way. He then meets Long and says "best check you doorways etc" and voila Long finds the apron piece. thus taking the heat away from the City police.

Far fetched as it may seem you have to remember the letter from Mathews to Frazer asking if the piece could have been removed from the crime scene and deposited in GS. Now that seems to me to be a question out of the blue, and why was it asked? clearly if it was as clear cut as we have been led to believe why would that question be asked, no smoke without fire.!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

You'll forgive me if I don't accept your numbers. I'm not interested in the content, because I've already accepted that there were differences (although I suspect you are including ridiculous things like different capitalisation in your total of six and ignoring Long's correction), but would you mind providing the four "different versions of places the writing actually was written", with some evidence, please?

Look it up yourself.

[Phil Carter]

Do you mean Pierre or me?



I am not looking at what we are told and believing it to be true. That's a tired old accusation trotted out by anyone trying to cast doubt on the correct and proper teatment of the sources.



Long might not have been telling the whole story. On the other hand, Long might acually have told the whole story. I tell you what, why don't you bin all the sources on the grounds that they could be wrong, a lie, unreliable, or whatever you want to claim it might be? That's the way you are heading. As I have said, if you think P.C. Long's story was different to what he said, present some good evidence, not just the possibility that he might have left stuff out.



I don't think I have croaked about anything, not yet anyway. And I am glad that you take each comment on its merits, and you don't have to believe anything you don't want to believe, but if you don't have good evidence for what you do believe, you'll probably be alone believing it. Which is fine, of course.

Hello Paul,

Apologies for the name mix up. It certainly was not meant. I wrote without my glasses on! Hehe.

I look at it this way.

I simply do not believe what I have been told to believe. By policemen there and then. .retired policemen afterwards or in some cases, authors. Such is choice.

What I do know is that this series of cases have not..from the time of their happening..until now, hatched any clear answers. We have asked the conventional questions following conventional detection. More often than not..it ends up in a riddle.

So instead..I look at it differently. I look at possibles ..whether less plausible or not.
Therefore.. look at the performance of the police on the Eddowes case. Honestly..it is very poor indeed.
Thetefore I consider a reason why.
Given all the mistakes in thus case.m I look at the Nov 6th report of Swanson..to be passed up the line. No way is that going to reflect badly on his men. So backside covering will be needed if needed.
That applies to the individual policemen too..when giving their statements. If X was really having a cuppa instead of being at position Z.. he will need to cover it up.
If Long saw a suspicious person and fsiled to make chase he would cover his comments. Etc etc


Phil