Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Abby Normal]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What? And what?

Another stupid nonsensical post from a member of the It ain't Rocket Science club.

master detective Trevor even manages a contradict himself twice TWICE! in a three sentence post. Classic. Absolutely classic.

[Wickerman]

As to Longs testimony he says he found the rag "Lying in a passage leading to the staircases"...

The entryway is a passage, you enter the passage from the street to ascend the stairs.

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

Warren placed the graffiti at the entrance (of the passage), and the piece of apron was found beneath the graffiti - so both items were at the entrance, the entrance of the passage.

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.

This is the quote I have:
When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it.

The GS piece was quite large - "about half of it".

[Darryl Kenyon]

It must be understood that the rag was the one and only piece of evidence the police had that could be tied directly to the killer. We should therefore accept that the police regarded it as an object of very great importance, and we may rest assured that it was scrutinized from every angle and that all information that could be gathered from it was collected by the police.

Accordingly, they most certainly will have asked Long about anything he had to offer on it´s whereabouts at 2.20.

This as got to be the most important point made on this thread so far

[Fisherman]

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

Nope. Dew does not say that the apron was so dirty that it at first glance looked black. He simply misremembers and writes: "She had been wearing a black apron".

So he thought that the fabric was black, not that is was white and so grimy as to look black.

Of course, Dew may have heard it said that the apron was so dirty as to look black, but it equally applies that he may have mixed it up with how Warren said that the writing was on the black dado of the wall. There are, I believe, mentionings of how the apron was dirty, but it is nevertheless reported throughout as a white apron. And we know that there was dirt on it in the shape of feces and blood.

Using Dews words to prove that the apron was of a completely black appeareance due to it´s dirty state does not work, though. That was not what Dew said or meant.

[Trevor Marriott]

The entryway is a passage, you enter the passage from the street to ascend the stairs.

No, you enter from the entrance, which leads to a passageway lets be politically correct

Long says "lying in a passage leading to the stairs that could have been anywhere there I belive there were more than one set of stairs in that building.

Long does not say the apron piece was in the entrance, those are your words not his, stop making it up. I have made the point in a previous post that if the grafffiti was at the front almost on the footpath, the apron could not have been under it, especially as it was said to be in the stairwell, and that would not be visible from the front in the dark.

Warren placed the graffiti at the entrance (of the passage), and the piece of apron was found beneath the graffiti - so both items were at the entrance, the entrance of the passage.

But Long places the piece somewhere else

This is the quote I have:
When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it.

The GS piece was quite large - "about half of it".

So the apron piece has now evolved from a portion/piece to half an apron again different quotes different descriptions. I have commented on the issues of unfolding if it were as large as half of an apron. Notice this witness doesnt say an apron she was wearing.

As to quotes as has been pointed out there are many different quotes kicking around all relating to the same incident as to which is right and which isnt who knows.

So many ambiguities surround this ripper mystery most relate to police officers testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope. Dew does not say that the apron was so dirty that it at first glance looked black. He simply misremembers and writes: "She had been wearing a black apron".

So he thought that the fabric was black, not that is was white and so grimy as to look black.

Of course, Dew may have heard it said that the apron was so dirty as to look black, but it equally applies that he may have mixed it up with how Warren said that the writing was on the black dado of the wall. There are, I believe, mentionings of how the apron was dirty, but it is nevertheless reported throughout as a white apron. And we know that there was dirt on it in the shape of feces and blood.

Using Dews words to prove that the apron was of a completely black appeareance due to it´s dirty state does not work, though. That was not what Dew said or meant.

You dont know what he meant so stop making it up to suit a purpose. You seem like others to want to accept what a police officer says if it suits your theories, but when it doesn't you make up some excuse as to why it should not be regarded as fact,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You dont know what he meant so stop making it up to suit a purpose. You seem like others to want to accept what a police officer says if it suits your theories, but when it doesn't you make up some excuse as to why it should not be regarded as fact,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course I know what he means. It is blatantly obvious. Here is the passage:

"This victim was just as shabbily dressed as her fellow in Berners Street.

She had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing. The torn portion was found later by a police-constable on the steps of a block of buildings in Goulston Street, nearby. It was covered with blood, and had obviously been used by the woman's assailant to wipe his bloodstained hands as he ran away."

Can you see any mentioning of grime and dirt? Or is Dew simply stating that Eddows wore a black apron - and apron made of black cloth? It was a common enough item to wear.

It is beyond discussion that this was what Dew meant. And that is because it is exactly what he wrote.

[Trevor Marriott]

What? And what?

Another stupid nonsensical post from a member of the It ain't Rocket Science club.

master detective Trevor even manages a contradict himself twice TWICE! in a three sentence post. Classic. Absolutely classic.

You keep it going, you are in line for the numpty of the month award and the prize is a holiday to troglodyte towers, oh sorry I forgot thats where you already are

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

So the apron piece has now evolved from a portion/piece to half an apron again different quotes different descriptions. I have commented on the issues of unfolding if it were as large as half of an apron. Notice this witness doesnt say an apron she was wearing.

As to quotes as has been pointed out there are many different quotes kicking around all relating to the same incident as to which is right and which isnt who knows.

So many ambiguities surround this ripper mystery most relate to police officers testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Most of the ambiguitites of this case exist in your mind only, and represent an endless ingenuity on your behalf when it comes to twisting the evidence. Nothing else.

The apron was not a full one, but instead only a waist-down apron. It was white. She was wearing it as she died. The killer cut away a portion of it that made up around half the apron. It was found at 2.55, smeared with feces and fresh blood. It was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20, according to Alfred Long.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course I know what he means. It is blatantly obvious. Here is the passage:

"This victim was just as shabbily dressed as her fellow in Berners Street.

She had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing. The torn portion was found later by a police-constable on the steps of a block of buildings in Goulston Street, nearby. It was covered with blood, and had obviously been used by the woman's assailant to wipe his bloodstained hands as he ran away."

Can you see any mentioning of grime and dirt? Or is Dew simply stating that Eddows wore a black apron - and apron made of black cloth? It was a common enough item to wear.

It is beyond discussion that this was what Dew meant. And that is because it is exactly what he wrote.

Note, he says the piece was found on the steps, for Wickermans attention thats not the street entrance and could not have been under the graffiti if Warren says it was on the jamb at the entrance.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

You keep it going, you are in line for the numpty of the month award and the prize is a holiday to troglodyte towers, oh sorry I forgot thats where you already are

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The numpty of the month award is not up for grabs, Trevor. When somebody has earned it three times, it stays in the possession of this person, just like the Jules Rimet cup.

If you have been wondering what the ugly trophy on your desk is, then there´s your answer.

[Fisherman]

Note, he says the piece was found on the steps, for Wickermans attention thats not the street entrance and could not have been under the graffiti if Warren says it was on the jamb at the entrance.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Note that he says that the apron was black, Trevor. He is no first-hand witness. Warren was there, Dew was not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Most of the ambiguitites of this case exist in your mind only, and represent an endless ingenuity on your behalf when it comes to twisting the evidence. Nothing else.

The apron was not a full one, but instead only a waist-down apron. It was white. She was wearing it as she died. The killer cut away a portion of it that made up around half the apron. It was found at 2.55, smeared with feces and fresh blood. It was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20, according to Alfred Long.

It wasn't in the doorway, it was much further back and couldn't be seen from the path without going inside.

How come the mortuary piece did not have any cuts on it, nor did it have any traces of blood, which it would have done had she been wearing it at the time of her death, as we know she was stabbed through her outer clothing and all the other clothing around the waist and the abdominal area had cuts and was blood stained. I cant wait for this answer from you, another "grimm" explanation no doubt.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Note that he says that the apron was black, Trevor. He is no first-hand witness. Warren was there, Dew was not.

Warren never saw the apron !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Regardless of white or black,Dew's remarks are that the appearance of the apron when found was such that it looked black.Against a dark background it would have been difficult to see.The writing however appeared to be fresh,therefor fresh white chalk against a black background would stand out more distinctly.Both were in a sphere of vision of a person glancing into the building,but Long can only say the cloth was not there.Interesting.

If the apron piece was used to carry the organs? Need it be? why could not the killer have taken two pieces of cloth from Eddowes possession.An extra piece that we know nothing about,because we do not know what was in her possession when she was killed.