Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

Okay, I have.

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

Bye then and we will wait to hear what Kattrup has to say about it.

[Pierre]

Okay, I have.

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

And by the way, my wife has taken ill and is in the hospital, so my generosity is limited.

You will be ignored from now on.

[David Orsam]

And by the way, my wife has taken ill and is in the hospital, so my generosity is limited.

You will be ignored from now on.

I'm very sorry to hear about your wife, Pierre, and I hope she recovers quickly, but you did ask me to tell you when I had reached a conclusion and that's exactly what I did.

[John G]

And by the way, my wife has taken ill and is in the hospital, so my generosity is limited.

You will be ignored from now on.

I hope your wife recovers soon, Pierre. This must be a difficult time for you, and any recent out of character posts you may have made are therefore completely understandable at what must be a very stressful time.

Best wishes to you and your wife.

John

[Pierre]

I hope your wife recovers soon, Pierre. This must be a difficult time for you, and any recent out of character posts you may have made are therefore completely understandable at what must be a very stressful time.

Best wishes to you and your wife.

John

I do not agree with the idea of "out of character posts" of course, but thanks John.

[Kattrup]

Happy to oblige....

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

Why not a bit of some other clothing?

Regards, Pierre

I do not know, but I would guess there could be two reasons for picking the apron: it was the outermost piece of clothing, so if he wanted a piece of cloth before starting on the abdominal mutilations, it was the first in line.

And it was white, so perhaps more clearly distinguished from the other clothes.

If we believe the killer deliberately wanted to leave evidence from the murder (perhaps to draw attention to the GSG), the white apron would be more likely to be noticed than some of her perhaps darker skirts.


Sorry to hear about your wife - I hope she recovers soon. God bedring.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Kattrup;394649]

Happy to oblige....

I do not know, but I would guess there could be two reasons for picking the apron: it was the outermost piece of clothing, so if he wanted a piece of cloth before starting on the abdominal mutilations, it was the first in line.

Good, so here we have a functional explanation of the type "the apron had a function". This is often used in history on both micro and macro level, as we both know.

And it was white, so perhaps more clearly distinguished from the other clothes.

Another functional explanation here, yes. The colour had the function of making the apron more visible or possible to distinguish.

If we believe the killer deliberately wanted to leave evidence from the murder (perhaps to draw attention to the GSG), the white apron would be more likely to be noticed than some of her perhaps darker skirts.

Another explanation of the same type and it is connected to the motive explanation as well: the motive of the killer was to leave evidence and the function of the evidence was to be visible since it was white.

That is rather advanced, that´s good.

There was also some symbolic meanings of the apron in the 1880s. Rather interesting. I´ll wait to hear if someone knows anything about them.

Sorry to hear about your wife - I hope she recovers soon. God bedring.

Very kind of you, Kattrup, thanks a lot.

Best wishes, Pierre

[Abby Normal]

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.

simons woods response, like most of his cryptic, ask- another- question- instead- of- answering posts is pathetic.

As usual yours David, was very easy to understand, as was Kattrups.

[Pierre]

simons woods response, like most of his cryptic, ask- another- question- instead- of- answering posts is pathetic.

As usual yours David, was very easy to understand, as was Kattrups.

Kattrup´s interpretation is good. It throws light on the hypothetical motive for placing a white, visible piece of apron in that place.

Abby - why do you think he chose the apron?

[David Orsam]

simons woods response, like most of his cryptic, ask- another- question- instead- of- answering posts is pathetic.

As usual yours David, was very easy to understand, as was Kattrups.

Thank you Abby.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You, nor anyone else has any idea what size it was. If it was screwed up then it wasnt very big at all. Yuu try screweing up a large piece of cloth and throwing it down it will soon unfold to its original size.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The issue here is when did it change from being a piece of screwed up rag to being a piece of Eddowes apron. I would suggest that it was not formally identified until 10 hours later when they carried out the post mortem. When Dr Brown when giving his post mortem testimony says he matched the two pieces. I dont think there is any evidence of formal identification until then.
Dr Phillips had possession of the Gs piece and he it would seem didnt go to the mortuary until the post mortem.

As to Longs testimony he says he found the rag "Lying in a passage leading to the staircases" The term "In the entrance" would be more fitting if he were able to see it wasnt there at 2.20am, having regard it was no doubt pitch black inside the stairwell, and of course there is no evidence to show he went inside the entrance at 2.20am. So I say again if it was there at 2.20am he could not have seen it without physically going inside.

There are clearly ambiguities here especially as it was supposed to be directly under the graffiti which was at the entrance.

On another ambiguity regarding Halse in another report he says he went to the mortuary and saw the body stripped and found a piece missing. That could be interpreted to mean that when he went to the mortuary he saw the body but it had already been stripped.

And another, Collard produces the list of clothing which doesn't show any apron, suggesting she wasn't wearing one. Then in another report he is quoted as saying when referring to the mortuary piece she was "apparently wearing" it. Either she was, or she wasn't a simple question asked at the time would have cleared this up, especially as so much emphasis was put on the apron pieces.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

And by the way, my wife has taken ill and is in the hospital, so my generosity is limited.

You will be ignored from now on.

Dear Pierre,

having been on the road all day, i have only just seen this post.

so very sorry, i hope she recovers fully.

please accept my best wishes for the pair of you.


Steve

[harry]

The apron was so dirty,that at first glance it seemed black.
Who said that? Walter Dew is reported as saying it.

A seemingly black piece of cloth,lying on a black background(the floor),on a dark night,in a dark recess,and a second or two's glance by a person passing by,and it would be easy to see.Then we have someone who surpasses even Hutchinson for a wonderful gift of sight,and recall.

Long states about 2.20,Halse states about 2.20,and they didn't see each other,and there is no ambiguity?As trevor states it's full of it.

[harry]

The bolt hole.