Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

So I say again if it was there at 2.20am he could not have seen it without physically going inside.

To which I reply, so what? If he had to physically go inside to see the apron then we know he physically went inside at 2.55am. If he physically went inside at 2.55am why could he also not physically have gone inside at 2.20am?

[David Orsam]

As to Longs testimony he says he found the rag "Lying in a passage leading to the staircases" ....There are clearly ambiguities here especially as it was supposed to be directly under the graffiti which was at the entrance.

If the graffiti was "at the entrance", as you say, then might I suggest that the supposed "ambiguity" is easily resolved if the piece of white material was found at the start of the passage leading to the staircases, i.e. at the entrance?

Does that not mean all the evidence is consistent?

[David Orsam]

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.

I'm aware, Trevor, of your theory from JTR forums but I'm afraid I don't find it all convincing bearing in mind all the evidence that Eddowes was wearing the apron. It's been argued inside and out and I don't see any point in going over the arguments save to add a possible suggestion that Halse might have taken the apron from Eddowes' body (in order to assist him in finding the missing piece) so that it wasn't present when Collard compiled his list and he tagged it on at the end.

[PaulB]

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.

I have read your book and watched your DVD, Trevor. However, since they were published your theorising has been extensively criticised and utterly rejected by many of the best informed commentators on the case. I thought that you would want to answer your critics and present your sources for doing so. Clearly I assumed wrongly. Personally, I don't think you take on board any criticism of your thinking; you just make the same argument over and over again, so your argument probably hasn't change from what you wrote.

As for people not having read your book or watched your DVD, life is short, Trevor. However, what books on this subject have you read? I don't think you've read any. Not one. Unless it's free on Google, and probably not even then. I have asked you several times - how many, six or seven? - and you've doged the question every time. I'm sure you will again, but it doesn't matter. It's just that criticising people for not having read your book is a serious case of pot calling, don't you think?

[PaulB]

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...

I expect this point has already been made, but wasn't the apron said to have been found on the floor below the Juwes writing? If so, the writing was clearly visible from the street, which was why Sir Charles Warren wanted the writing erased. If the writing could be seen from the street, so could the apron.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

A juror asked DC Halse how he accounted for the chalked message having been recently written.

Halse replied, "Because it seemed fresh, and if it had been long written it would have been rubbed by people passing. It was written on the black brick in good schoolboy's handwriting. The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion. The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white."

In answer to another juror, Halse said, "The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall."

Sir Charles Warren described the message as being "on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street."

And Donald Swanson described the message as "blurred."

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

And Donald Swanson described the message as "blurred."

You pays yer money and you takes yer choice.

I don't see any contradiction here Simon.

When you write with chalk on a rough surface, aren't the written letters always somewhat diffuse, i.e. blurred?

[David Orsam]

In answer to another juror, Halse said, "The writing was in the passage of the building itself, and was on the black dado of the wall."

Sir Charles Warren described the message as being "on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street."

Are you saying these statements are contradictory Simon?

If so, could you explain the contradiction?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Of course they're contradictory.

It seems to be only you who cannot see the contradiction.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Of course they're contradictory.

It seems to be only you who cannot see the contradiction.

Yet you evidently had trouble with my question: "If so, could you explain the contradiction?"

A contradiction that you are unable to explain. How curious.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I have absolutely no trouble with your question, but I don't see why I should waste my time stating the obvious.

What I will tell you, though, is that I know when someone is making a bad job of trying to wind me up.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I have absolutely no trouble with your question, but I don't see why I should waste my time stating the obvious.

What I will tell you, though, is that I know when someone is making a bad job of trying to wind me up.

Well, Simon, I can tell you that I know when someone is having difficulty answering a question and offers up with a feeble excuse for not doing so. It's generally known as being evasive.

[Pierre]

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

Thank you, Steve.

[John Wheat]

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.

Hi Pierre

I hope your wife is okay.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

I expect this point has already been made, but wasn't the apron said to have been found on the floor below the Juwes writing? If so, the writing was clearly visible from the street, which was why Sir Charles Warren wanted the writing erased. If the writing could be seen from the street, so could the apron.

That is the long and the short of it, yes.

It is however not the Marriott of it...