Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

You can, David. He even says "covered in blood" if my memory serves me, so that would seemingly have been the overall appearance. Accordingly, Long will not have thought "Hey, a black rag" or "Hey, a white rag" but instead "Hey, a rag covered in blood". If he could not make out the colouration from afar, he will have thought "Hey, a rag", alternatively "Hey, whatīs that?", and on approaching it, he will have thought "Hey, a rag covered in blood".

To quote an authority out here, it is not rocket science.

There are different descriptions of the condition of the apron piece, spotted with blood is another, thats a long way from covered in blood. If it was as dirty as suggested he would have to have physically picked it up and closely examined it to be able to distinguish blood from dirt,

Another issue with Long is why did he decide to pick up that piece at that time, when given the fact that there was a market nearby and there would likely to be other forms of litter, rubbish, rags lying around. It does not seem logical to suddenly see a discarded piece of material and decide to examine it more closely. Again another un answered question which would have been put to him if his evidence had been fully tested.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: There are different descriptions of the condition of the apron piece, spotted with blood is another, thats a long way from covered in blood. If it was as dirty as suggested he would have to have physically picked it up and closely examined it to be able to distinguish blood from dirt,

I am speaking of Long himself, who saw the apron in situ. Nobody else did, as far as I understand. And he said, if I remember correctly, in his report that the apron was "covered in/with blood". That seems to imply to me that the piece of apron, that was later said to have been wet with blood in one corner, will have lain with that corner up.

Another issue with Long is why did he decide to pick up that piece at that time, when given the fact that there was a market nearby and there would likely to be other forms of litter, rubbish, rags lying around. It does not seem logical to suddenly see a discarded piece of material and decide to examine it more closely. Again another un answered question which would have been put to him if his evidence had been fully tested.

If Longs description was correct, then the blood on it will have been very evident, and it could not have been mistaken for just any dirty rag. Of course, any additional information is always welcome, but we have what we have, and it seems to be quite enough when it comes to this detail - it was evident to the naked eye that the rag had ample amounts of blood on it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: There are different descriptions of the condition of the apron piece, spotted with blood is another, thats a long way from covered in blood. If it was as dirty as suggested he would have to have physically picked it up and closely examined it to be able to distinguish blood from dirt,

I am speaking of Long himself, who saw the apron in situ. Nobody else did, as far as I understand. And he said, if I remember correctly, in his report that the apron was "covered in/with blood". That seems to imply to me that the piece of apron, that was later said to have been wet with blood in one corner, will have lain with that corner up.

Another issue with Long is why did he decide to pick up that piece at that time, when given the fact that there was a market nearby and there would likely to be other forms of litter, rubbish, rags lying around. It does not seem logical to suddenly see a discarded piece of material and decide to examine it more closely. Again another un answered question which would have been put to him if his evidence had been fully tested.

If Longs description was correct, then the blood on it will have been very evident, and it could not have been mistaken for just any dirty rag. Of course, any additional information is always welcome, but we have what we have, and it seems to be quite enough when it comes to this detail - it was evident to the naked eye that the rag had ample amounts of blood on it.

Pc Long "There appeared blood stains on it"

In another report re Pc Long "One corner was wet with blood"

One of several inquest reports quoting Dr Brown

Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?

Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Then he says something else

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

So we go from covered with blood, to stains, to spots, to smears !

I would suggest that with the apron being dirty it would be hard to see any of those without physically picking it up, and if you couldn't see them, why would you pick it up, after all, at that time it was a discarded piece of material. Long said he found it, but what we dont know is why he thought it important to pick up and examine.

Now Dc Halse tell us where the graffiti was as far as he was concerned. He says that the graffiti was inside the building and so he wouldn't have seen it at 2.20am

Now an interesting find its part of a dissertation written by someone I am not familiar with Derek Osborne for Ripper Notes I will set it out as an attachment for discussion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Apply that admirably clear thinking to Kosminski and see what happens...

Fisherman

In the case of say the supposed I'D we do have secondary sources but one has to accept no primary source.

The naming of someone called Kosminski by several senior officers is a primary data source, however again one must accept that the supposed sources the officers were using to make these statements appear to no longer exist.

And you are right of course we cannot use such unknown sources, let's say hypothetical sources to confirm an hypothesis.

Therefore of course a definitive case cannot be made against Kosminski.
.

One does always have to remember that the ID cannot be conclusively established to have taken place.
It is a personal view,but one accepted by a considerable number.


However Fisherman there is very little similarly to the sources Pierre claims to use. These are undisclosed completely, at least in the case of Kosminski the sources which are used are not hidden and are far better than many JTR suspects in that at least there are some.

Steve

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Is there any chance, Simon, that you could explain why you think these are two "very different places"?

Let's try this.

Kindly explain why you believe these two places are the same.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

I'm going entirely from memory but it's a fairly strong one. It may well be that between his 1976 and 1984 editions some discoveries were made about Long's police record which prompted his observation in 1984. It's possible that what he said related to the writing on the wall rather than, or as much as, the apron. Maybe someone who has access to the 1984 book can confirm.

If it's not in the 1984 edition then perhaps the one after that?

I've checked the 1887/1888 editions of Rumbelow and it's not in there. I'd need to check the 2004 edition but I think that would be too late for what I remember reading. I definitely read it (in a bookshop) but off the top of my head can't think of another author it could have been.

[David Orsam]

You are right again, but all evidence should be tested to ascertain the truthfulness of the witness giving that evidence and its accuracy, and reliability, there are no exceptions just because a police man give evidence is he automatically to be believed just because he is a police officer. the answer is no.

It is for a court of jury to decide after hearing all the evidence both from the prosecution and the defence. So in the case of Long I suggest we cannot accept that what he says with any certainty as being totally correct.

No-one is saying Long should automatically believed because he was a police officer but we can't test his evidence in any form of cross-examination and there was no prosecution or defence at the inquest. His evidence is what it is and it's the only evidence we have.

[Harry D]

Pierre's entered the fray. That's it. This topic has definitely gone FUBAR.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Is there any chance, Simon, that you could explain why you think these are two "very different places"?

Let's try this.

Kindly explain why you believe these two places are the same.

Yet another cop out Simon. Where I have said that I believe these two places are the same? I haven't!

You are the one saying that the two descriptions are describing "very different places". I'm asking you if you wouldn't mind explaining why you think so. It's a very simple question.

Tell you what, rather than posting a variety of evasive responses to my questions, why not have an attempt at responding to Wickerman's post #582. You know, the post that you've simply ignored.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

If they're not "very different places" they must be the same place.

Where was that place?

I'll reply to Wickerman in my own good time.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

No-one is saying Long should automatically believed because he was a police officer but we can't test his evidence in any form of cross-examination and there was no prosecution or defence at the inquest. His evidence is what it is and it's the only evidence we have.

This is what I have said all along, there are so many ambiguities especially around police evidence and in particular the constables on the ground that have arisen since researchers have taken a much more detailed look at all there is surrounding these murders, and as a result many of the old accepted facts are now brought into question, the trouble is some will not accept the fact that this is the case, and are fighting tooth and nail for whatever reason to protect the status quo.

But in this part of the mystery, we can draw inferences, and come up with other explanations as to why it could not have been there at 2.20am, and if you put those up against what is suggested as actual factual evidence, I suspect -if you ran it past 100 members of the public who have no interest in the ripper they would not be able to come to a definitive answer on this issue alone.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

If they're not "very different places" they must be the same place.

Where was that place?

I'll reply to Wickerman in my own good time.

Great logic Simon.

See Wickerman's post for the answer to your question. You know, that post you've ignored.

[David Orsam]

the trouble is some will not accept the fact that this is the case, and are fighting tooth and nail for whatever reason to protect the status quo.

I don't think that's the case Trevor.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman

In the case of say the supposed I'D we do have secondary sources but one has to accept no primary source.

The naming of someone called Kosminski by several senior officers is a primary data source, however again one must accept that the supposed sources the officers were using to make these statements appear to no longer exist.

And you are right of course we cannot use such unknown sources, let's say hypothetical sources to confirm an hypothesis.

Therefore of course a definitive case cannot be made against Kosminski.
.

One does always have to remember that the ID cannot be conclusively established to have taken place.
It is a personal view,but one accepted by a considerable number.


However Fisherman there is very little similarly to the sources Pierre claims to use. These are undisclosed completely, at least in the case of Kosminski the sources which are used are not hidden and are far better than many JTR suspects in that at least there are some.

Steve

I am aware of the differences, Steve...

[Fisherman]

Pc Long "There appeared blood stains on it"

In another report re Pc Long "One corner was wet with blood"

One of several inquest reports quoting Dr Brown

Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?

Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Then he says something else

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

So we go from covered with blood, to stains, to spots, to smears !

I would suggest that with the apron being dirty it would be hard to see any of those without physically picking it up, and if you couldn't see them, why would you pick it up, after all, at that time it was a discarded piece of material. Long said he found it, but what we dont know is why he thought it important to pick up and examine.

Now Dc Halse tell us where the graffiti was as far as he was concerned. He says that the graffiti was inside the building and so he wouldn't have seen it at 2.20am

Now an interesting find its part of a dissertation written by someone I am not familiar with Derek Osborne for Ripper Notes I will set it out as an attachment for discussion.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

"I was on duty in Goulston Street on the morning of 30th Sept: at about 2.55 AM. I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the doorway leading to Nos. 108 to 119...)

That was the exact passage I was referring to, Trevor. Itīs Longs report on the errand.

We also know that it was said that one corner of the apron piece was wet with blood. If that corner ended up on top when the apron was dropped onto the ground, the apparition may well have been that of a rag covered in blood.

As I have often stated, I believe there is a possibility that the killer cut his hand when eviscerating Eddowes. If he did, and if he used the rag as a makeshift badage, then the logical thing to do would be to grab onto one corner of the rag with the cut hand, and then wrap the cloth around the hand, grabbing onto it afterwards with the damaged hand, "locking" it in place.

If this is what happened, then the corner pressing against the wound will become wet with fresh blood. And when you unwrap the cloth, that corner will leave the hand last, so if you unwind it and let in hang towards the graound as you do so, the bloodied corner will end up on top of the pile.

This would explain why the blood was still wet, it would explain why the blood ended up in the corner, it would explain why he did not discard the rag until he stopped bleeding (otherwise he would leave a blood trail behind him, and tht would be easy enough to follow) and it would explain why he felt he needed to cut away half an apron in Mitre Square.

It is as close as I can come to covering all bases.