Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

harry: Regardless of white or black,Dew's remarks are that the appearance of the apron when found was such that it looked black.

No, Harry - it was not a question of the apron "appearing" black. Dew obviously mistakenly thought that the apron was one made of black fabric. It was not, it was made of WHITE fabric. Whether Dew ever saw the apron piece is anybody´s guess, but it remains that he got it wrong when it comes to the colour of cloth it was made from.

Against a dark background it would have been difficult to see.

If it was black, yes. But that was a mistake on behalf of Dew, and you cannot use that mistake to establish that the apron appeared to be black. It would be in conflict with the evidence, It would be using a misconception to promote an argument that otherwise cannot be promoted. It would be faulty and misleading. So let´s go with what we know - the apron was made of white cloth, and therefore it would be a lot easier to see. The bloodstains and the feces would to some degree have made the apron look darker, but that is all we can say.

The writing however appeared to be fresh,therefor fresh white chalk against a black background would stand out more distinctly.

Harry, why do yo do this? You know as well as I do that there were those who said that it looked fresh, and there were those who said it looked old. Let´s be honest enough to acknowledge that BOTH views were given, shall we?

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.

Not very, no. Writing is twodimensional and an apron is threedimensional. That makes your reasoning onedimensional, by the way.

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.

Completely true. There is no need to accept that the killer must have carried the organs in the apron piece.
There you go, Harry - in the end, you got one matter right. If you can stay on track now...

[Fisherman]

Warren never saw the apron !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Did I say that? I said that Warren was there, and he spoke to the people who were informed about the errand.
Do you think that Warren walked away from Goulston Street uninformed about the apron, where it had lain, how it looked etcetera?

Plus how do you know that Warren did not see the apron? Sure enough, it had been transported away to the police station when Warren arrived in Goulston Street, but that is all we can say. Whether Warren saw it afterwards is another matter.

[Fisherman]

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

Prove that, Trevor, please!

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.

Why must the mortuary piece of the apron gave cuts to it, Trevor? It could be shoved to the side, unlike the other garments. However, since it was just half, I think we can safely bank on it having at least one cut to it. And we don´t know if that cut came before the eviscerations or after.
As for blood on it, I believe it has already been quoted on this thread that there WAS blood on that part too. But you will have to go looking for it yourself, I won´t babysit you.
I CAN tell you that your favourite Collard said that there was no blood on the front of Eddowes. Make of that what you want.

The only Grimm thing here is yourself. Only in fairytales could an ex-copper be that thick.

[Jon Guy]

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.

Stabbed through her outer clothing ?
Where did you get this from ?
Yes, items that were around her waist were cut through (for obvious reasons) but where did you get these stabs from?
Where are the corresponding wounds on Eddowes body ?

[Fisherman]

Stabbed through her outer clothing ?
Where did you get this from ?
Yes, items that were around her waist were cut through (for obvious reasons) but where did you get these stabs from?
Where are the corresponding wounds on Eddowes body ?

Hmmm? Why do I seem to be the origin of the post? For a moment there, I was asking myself how it had gone awry.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Prove that, Trevor, please!
Its simple the stairs were set back from the entrance.

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.

Why must the mortuary piece of the apron gave cuts to it, Trevor? It could be shoved to the side, unlike the other garments. However, since it was just half, I think we can safely bank on it having at least one cut to it. And we don´t know if that cut came before the eviscerations or after.

The killer stabbed her initially through the outer clothing that is a proven and irrefutable fact. if she had been wearing an apron that to would have stab marks, cuts or blood on it. There were neither. All this crap about moving it aside, or cutting the apron first its fantasy island stuff made up to muddy the waters.

As for blood on it, I believe it has already been quoted on this thread that there WAS blood on that part too. But you will have to go looking for it yourself, I won´t babysit you.

There was no blood on the mortuary piece, and only spots on the GS piece and on that there were no signs of cut or stabs. so we have two pieces which are supposed to make up an apron she was wearing at the time of here murder, which contain no cuts or stab marks and only a small trace of blood on one piece.

I CAN tell you that your favourite Collard said that there was no blood on the front of Eddowes. Make of that what you want.

To be fair I do not readily accept much of the police testimony as being reliable when you look at it in total

The only Grimm thing here is yourself. Only in fairytales could an ex-copper be that thick.

Now I see your are back to the name calling, and throwing your dolly out of the pram as you always do when you cant get your own way.Your bullying tactics dont wash with me

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Stabbed through her outer clothing ?
Where did you get this from ?
Yes, items that were around her waist were cut through (for obvious reasons) but where did you get these stabs from?
Where are the corresponding wounds on Eddowes body ?

This has been gone through before trust me there are wounds that coincide with the stab marks to her clothing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

This has been gone through before trust me there are wounds that coincide with the stab marks to her clothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think this questionable fact of yours will always be questioned until you provide the evidence.

[Harry D]

It's a shame that topics such as this become bogged down by people pushing their transparent agendas. Fisherman needs PC Long to be infallible, otherwise the "Mizen scam" falls apart at the seams, and Trevor's back to obfuscating the debate with his worn out theory about the apron piece being a menstrual rag. Le sigh.

[PaulB]

It's a shame that topics such as this become bogged down by people pushing their transparent agendas. Fisherman needs PC Long to be infallible, otherwise the "Mizen scam" falls apart at the seams, and Trevor's back to obfuscating the debate with his worn out theory about the apron piece being a menstrual rag. Le sigh.

The slight difference, Harry, is that it is generally and rightly accepted that Eddowes was wearing an apron and that the piece found in Goulston Street was torn or cut from it. Fish is therefore arguing the accepted case. It is the conclusion which has been accepted for over a hundred years and is accepted today by the most knowledgeable commentators on the case. On the other hand, Trevor has come up with what was once an interesting theory, but which has been analysed and dismissed by everyone I am aware of. It is, as you say, worn out.

I wouldn’t object if Trevor wrote a detailed dissertation, article or even a post, in which he presented all his evidence, clearly and sourced. People could then read his case and decide for themselves. All this back and forthing, rudeness, insults, and childish behaviour in which he likes to indulge and even manages to provoke from people who should know better, does nothing but obfuscate, as you say. I agree. Le sigh, indeed.

[Abby Normal]

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.

right next to his Rocket Science club trophy and the Inspector Clouseau trophy.

[Fisherman]

It's a shame that topics such as this become bogged down by people pushing their transparent agendas. Fisherman needs PC Long to be infallible, otherwise the "Mizen scam" falls apart at the seams, and Trevor's back to obfuscating the debate with his worn out theory about the apron piece being a menstrual rag. Le sigh.

Harry, could you please explain to me how the Mizen scam would be in any way affected by whether the apron piece was in place or not at 2.20? Myself, I utterly fail to see any connections at all in this respect, so I´ m afraid I am going to need your help.

It´s not that I aim to abandon my, ehrm, "transparent agenda", but I cannot for the life of me see how Long and the apron business has any influence at all on it. So if you please...?

[Fisherman]

I wouldn’t object if Trevor wrote a detailed dissertation, article or even a post, in which he presented all his evidence, clearly and sourced.

I wouldn´t object to the effort as such, but almost certainly to the finished result. As it is, he thinks he has proven that the apron could not be seen from the street, since Dew fifty years later wrote that it was found "on the stairs"... But on the whole, yes, let him state his case, detailed and exhaustive, and we shall see...

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn’t object if Trevor wrote a detailed dissertation, article or even a post, in which he presented all his evidence, clearly and sourced. People could then read his case and decide for themselves. All this back and forthing, rudeness, insults, and childish behaviour in which he likes to indulge and even manages to provoke from people who should know better, does nothing but obfuscate, as you say. I agree. Le sigh, indeed.

No need to write a dissertation, all the details and explantion and eviednce in full can be found in "Jack the Ripper The Secret Police Files" In addition with regards to verbal explanations there is also a visual approach which can be found on my DVD. Both can be obtained from my website www.trevormarriott.co.uk

By the nonsensical explanations given by some on here relative to these issues they have clearly not availed themselves of either. So if they cant be bothered to read or view them thats their loss.

[Trevor Marriott]

I wouldn´t object to the effort as such, but almost certainly to the finished result. As it is, he thinks he has proven that the apron could not be seen from the street, since Dew fifty years later wrote that it was found "on the stairs"... But on the whole, yes, let him state his case, detailed and exhaustive, and we shall see...

There you go again found on the stairs, thats not in the entrance as you suggest. I am sick of having to keep going over the same things. Take your head out of the sand and try to apply some modicum of common sense to what you are reading.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk