Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

Additionally to my last post.. I may very well have heard the police whistle being blown. I would hear the direction from whence it came. I may even see a policeman or two running towards said area. Ipso facto.. I make my way AWAY from the area without being noticed if possible. I do not run. I do not attract any attention to myself. I may br looking for an alleyway..a ginnel. Failing that. .a dark spot..either to hide until I feel more secure..or if having a destination, to travel to that spot asap but carefully.

Please go on with story Phil. Have you ever thought of writing Ripper fiction?

[David Orsam]

Do I walk along a better lit street or a dark back street? Where is the greater chance of being seen?. Logic. Quiet..dark street. More chance to hide. More shadow if needed. Not hard to envisage this.

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!

[David Orsam]

I am the carrier of a bloody piece of cloth connecting me to a murder in the immediate vicinity.

Erm...and a bloody knife and possibly a woman's recently removed kidney.

[David Orsam]

There were at least 6 different versions of the content. At least 4 different versions of places the writing actually was written. All within the same confined area..but different places.
Its all in the police evidence comments.

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?

[Phil Carter]

Additionally to my last post.. I may very well have heard the police whistle being blown. I would hear the direction from whence it came. I may even see a policeman or two running towards said area. Ipso facto.. I make my way AWAY from the area without being noticed if possible. I do not run. I do not attract any attention to myself. I may br looking for an alleyway..a ginnel. Failing that. .a dark spot..either to hide until I feel more secure..or if having a destination, to travel to that spot asap but carefully.


Phil

[PaulB]

Pierre,

Do you mean Pierre or me?

This is a point that shows dead theorising. Not just you. But many over the years.
We look at what we are told and believe it to be true. Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement. So...the police comments on the simplest of evidence is faulty.
Ergo..think outside the box. What if Long is just coceting his backside? Policemen do that. Often.

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 may not be telling the whole story.

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.

And while you and others will croak about "sensationalism" etc... I take each comment on their merits. Given the debacle of evidence presented... I dobt HAVE to beliece the police were all that capable of doing their jobs. Warren..Swanson included.

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.

[Phil Carter]

It's bizarre that you put quotes around the phrase "crowded streets" which is something I simply did not say. It's also odd that you refer to Halse's evidence (in which he refers to stopping two people in Wentworth Street but does not say in his written deposition there was no-one on any main road). You didn't say anything about any particular main road and nor did I. At 2am there were plenty of main roads in Whitechapel on a Saturday night/Sunday morning where there lots of people. So I was suggesting that the killer could have headed to such a main road before diverting later to Goulston Street.

What you think I have "asked for", I really have no idea.

Scenario. .

I am the carrier of a bloody piece of cloth connecting me to a murder in the immediate vicinity.
It is 01 50. There are few people around.
There are policemen patrolling the area.
Thr main Roads are invariably better lit that the back streets.
I have to "disappear" from the scene..preferably without being noticed.

Do I walk along a better lit street or a dark back street? Where is the greater chance of being seen?. Logic. Quiet..dark street. More chance to hide. More shadow if needed. Not hard to envisage this.

Phil

[Phil Carter]

It's true that there was a difference of opinion as to the exact contents of the writing but I'm not aware of any difference of opinion as to placement, which seems to be something conjured up in the overactive imagination of some members of the forum.

David,

There were at least 6 different versions of the content. At least 4 different versions of places the writing actually was written. All within the same confined area..but different places.
Its all in the police evidence comments.

Phil

[PaulB]

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
The marks on the apron were apparently consistent with the apron having beeen used by the murderer to wipe his hands or knife. That was the opinion of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, who, unlike us, actually saw the apron. I am not aware of any good case that Dr. Brown's conclusion was wrong.

I am of course aware of your experiment, but I am sure Dr. Brown was sufficiently experienced to know the difference between the marks that would be left by someone wiping their knife on a cloth and someone wiping hands just taken from inside a corpse. Getting someone to wipe hands just taken fom a corpse was unlikely to reproduce the light staining on one side of the material that Dr. Brown saw, so your experiment, an admirable first-hand experiment, proved only that nobody wiped heavilly blood-covered hands on the apron piece. It did not prove that what Dr. Brown saw was wrong. 2 and 3 have not been disprovedl. Unless you have evidence to the contrary

[David Orsam]

Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement.

It's true that there was a difference of opinion as to the exact contents of the writing but I'm not aware of any difference of opinion as to placement, which seems to be something conjured up in the overactive imagination of some members of the forum.

[David Orsam]

You have asked for this.

Its nigh on 2am.

Halse testified he only met people. .and not on the main Road.

No other policeman searching saw a soul.

So "crowded streets"????


Yes. I am serious. Think.

It's bizarre that you put quotes around the phrase "crowded streets" which is something I simply did not say. It's also odd that you refer to Halse's evidence (in which he refers to stopping two people in Wentworth Street but does not say in his written deposition there was no-one on any main road). You didn't say anything about any particular main road and nor did I. At 2am there were plenty of main roads in Whitechapel on a Saturday night/Sunday morning where there lots of people. So I was suggesting that the killer could have headed to such a main road before diverting later to Goulston Street.

What you think I have "asked for", I really have no idea.

[David Orsam]

Not content with telling Pierre how to write a post..it is my turn now. Very rude.

Give it a rest David. Now.

And don't try a come back to this. I'm not interested in your compulsive replying.

If you ever come up with any ideas of your own. . Do give us fair warning. We don't want to die of shock.

I'll reply to whatever I like Phil. Just because you've messed up your post doesn't mean you need to get aggressive with me.

And might I say that it's the coming up with "ideas" that seems to be the problem here. The ones I keep reading here are wacky ideas, unsupported by evidence or based on a misunderstanding of the evidence. So thanks for the invitation but I think I'll avoid developing the types of "ideas" that you seem to find so fascinating.

[Phil Carter]

Are you serious?

Do you walk along a main road where there are lots of people with whom you can blend in or do you walk along a dark back street where you might encounter a police officer who will wonder why you are walking along a dark back street?

I'm not saying that the killer must have walked along a main road, only that your so called "logic" is not logic at all, just a random assumption.

For all we know the killer did try to walk the fastest route but saw a constable patrolling the street he wanted to walk down so headed off in a different direction requiring him to come back later. Or perhaps he hid somewhere to avoid being stopped by the police near the crime scene.

So many options that I just can't see the point of what you are attempting to do.

You have asked for this.

Its nigh on 2am.

Halse testified he only met TWO people. .and not on the main Road.

No other policeman searching saw a soul.

So "crowded streets"????


Yes. I am serious. Think.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I understand that we don't know for certain that it was deposited before 2.20 but shouldn't your post have made clear that your premise is that PC Long's evidence was wrong and that it must have been deposited prior to 2.20? In fact, shouldn't you have made clear that your premise is that it was deposited as soon as possible following the murder?

Otherwise your claim about where the carrier of the apron "logically" would have been in relation to Long doesn't make sense does it?

Not content with telling Pierre how to write a post..it is my turn now. Very rude.

Give it a rest David. Now.

And don't try a come back to this. I'm not interested in your compulsive replying.

If you ever come up with any ideas of your own. . Do give us fair warning. We don't want to die of shock.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Work it out yourself David. It isnt hard.
Im not here to help you. You don't seem to need it.

No, you're right, I don't need help. I know that can't answer the question in a sensible way which is obviously why you haven't even attempted to do so. But I did want to give you the opportunity.