Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I have the evidence if you cant be arsed to go check, then dont come here suggesting it is not a fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

I have the evidence if you cant be arsed to go check, then dont come here suggesting it is not a fact.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know it`s not a fact.
I was just wondering what you`d use to support this notion

[Trevor Marriott]

I know it`s not a fact.
I was just wondering what you`d use to support this notion

It is a fact, its just another part of this mystery that has been overlooked all of these years.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

It is a fact, its just another part of this mystery that has been overlooked all of these years.

No, I think it`s just you misinterpreting evidence

But why not just show me these stab wounds, and the doctors remarks referring to them.

I`m happy to be corrected.

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Considering where YOU have YOUR head stuck, I find it relatively comforting to have mine stuck in the sand...

Once again, the ONLY source there is for the rag having been found on "the stairs" is Dew, who wrote fifty years later and who we know full well has a number of things wrong.
Conversely, there are numerous sources from 1888, and not one of them says that the rag was found on the stairs. For example:
McWilliam: In Goulstone Street
Swanson: In the bottom of a common stairs
Long: In the passage of the doorway leading to No:s 108 to 119
Halse: I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found (did he climb the stairs...?)

It is also said about Halse and the apron piece that "If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building." Nota bene that it does NOT say "If it was there then, he could not have seen it, for it was in the building. It says that he should NOT NECESSARILY have seen it, quite clearly telling us that he COULD have seen it. It was therefore in the building = it was inside the doorway, but it was NOT on the stairs or hidden in the shallow recess immediately to the right when you entered the passage. It was on the floor of the passage and visible to passers-by - but they would not necessarily have seen it since it was under the shadowing roof. Since it was said that the writing was on the jamb, and since the apron was stated to be under the writing, it stands to reason to conclude that it was not very far from the jamb.

[Abby Normal]

Considering where YOU have YOUR head stuck, I find it relatively comforting to have mine stuck in the sand...

Once again, the ONLY source there is for the rag having been found on "the stairs" is Dew, who wrote fifty years later and who we know full well has a number of things wrong.
Conversely, there are numerous sources from 1888, and not one of them says that the rag was found on the stairs. For example:
McWilliam: In Goulstone Street
Swanson: In the bottom of a common stairs
Long: In the passage of the doorway leading to No:s 108 to 119
Halse: I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found (did he climb the stairs...?)

It is also said about Halse and the apron piece that "If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building." Nota bene that it does NOT say "If it was there then, he could not have seen it, for it was in the building. It says that he should NOT NECESSARILY have seen it, quite clearly telling us that he COULD have seen it. It was therefore in the building = it was inside the doorway, but it was NOT on the stairs or hidden in the shallow recess immediately to the right when you entered the passage. It was on the floor of the passage and visible to passers-by - but they would not necessarily have seen it since it was under the shadowing roof. Since it was said that the writing was on the jamb, and since the apron was stated to be under the writing, it stands to reason to conclude that it was not very far from the jamb.

bingo. it was found under the writing on the door jamb. ie.-on the ground in the door way. end of discussion.

cmon. it aint rocket science!

[Trevor Marriott]

Considering where YOU have YOUR head stuck, I find it relatively comforting to have mine stuck in the sand...

Once again, the ONLY source there is for the rag having been found on "the stairs" is Dew, who wrote fifty years later and who we know full well has a number of things wrong.
Conversely, there are numerous sources from 1888, and not one of them says that the rag was found on the stairs. For example:
McWilliam: In Goulstone Street
Swanson: In the bottom of a common stairs
Long: In the passage of the doorway leading to No:s 108 to 119
Halse: I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found (did he climb the stairs...?)

It is also said about Halse and the apron piece that "If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building." Nota bene that it does NOT say "If it was there then, he could not have seen it, for it was in the building. It says that he should NOT NECESSARILY have seen it, quite clearly telling us that he COULD have seen it. It was therefore in the building = it was inside the doorway, but it was NOT on the stairs or hidden in the shallow recess immediately to the right when you entered the passage. It was on the floor of the passage and visible to passers-by - but they would not necessarily have seen it since it was under the shadowing roof. Since it was said that the writing was on the jamb, and since the apron was stated to be under the writing, it stands to reason to conclude that it was not very far from the jamb.

"Not very far" Thats a very open ended comment. I live not very far from the riverbank but I cant see it from where I live. It is impossibe to say exactly where the apron piece was, but it is possible to say it was not by the jamb where the graffiti was found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

"Not very far" Thats a very open ended comment. I live not very far from the riverbank but I cant see it from where I live. It is impossibe to say exactly where the apron piece was, but it is possible to say it was not by the jamb where the graffiti was found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, it is not. It could well have been by the jamb and simultaneously inside the building. Inside the building is any place where a rain falling straight down would not hit the ground.

[Fisherman]

Harry D, I am still waiting to see what connection you are making inbetween the Mizen scam and Longs assertion that the rag was not in place at 2.20. How is it that the Mizen scam falls apart at the seams if the rag WAS there at 2.20?

I think you owe me an explanation.

[Jon Guy]

"Not very far" Thats a very open ended comment. I live not very far from the riverbank but I cant see it from where I live. It is impossibe to say exactly where the apron piece was, but it is possible to say it was not by the jamb where the graffiti was found.

Long testified that the GSG was above the rag and Warren reported that the GSG was on the jamb.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, it is not. It could well have been by the jamb and simultaneously inside the building. Inside the building is any place where a rain falling straight down would not hit the ground.

But the jamb is at the front, no where near the stairs were take a look at these look how far back the stairs were. The white post in the normal pic is where the stairs start in the second pic. It would be impossible to see anything in that recess in the dark by simply passing by on the path outside, and besides we know that there were railings outside and so the distance from the path to the stairs would be even greater to anyone walking past.

So that shows Long was perhaps less than liberal with the truth about what he did or didnt see.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

But the jamb is at the front, no where near the stairs

Why do you need the stairs to figure in all this ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Long testified that the GSG was above the rag and Warren reported that the GSG was on the jamb.

Long also says it was lying in a passage ! How far into the passage is arguable. The crux of this thread is was it there at 2.20 and Long missed it, and lied later to save his face when he says he found it at 2.55am

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Why do you need the stairs to figure in all this ?

To show how far the stairs were from the entrance.

[David Orsam]

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.

Trevor, when was it ever a "screwed up rag"? Who called it that? I don't see it in the evidence.

You may be right about the amount of time which passed before it was formally identified as matching but, as I've already said to Simon, one did not need to be Sherlock Holmes to have already worked out that the piece of white material found by PC Long was probably the piece of white material noted as missing by Detective Halse at the mortuary.