Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

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.

Okay, David - thanks for checking!

[Fisherman]

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

I am still waiting for you to explain how the Mizen scam would be affected by Longs statement about the rag. If you please?

[Simon Wood]

Whoops! No Apron

Hi All,

London Evening Standard, 1st October 1888 -



Regards,

Simon

[Harry D]

I am still waiting for you to explain how the Mizen scam would be affected by Longs statement about the rag. If you please?

I thought it was obvious.

PC Long cannot seem to be mistaken or misleading. He must be taken at face value, otherwise we might have to question the testimony of other policemen at time, i.e. Mizen's account that Cross told him he was “wanted by a policeman", despite no corroboration.

[Pierre]

At 2.20am he was not aware of a murder so there was no need for him to do a through examination of the properties on his beat, and so he might not have gone inside at 2.20am. But I accept what you say, but the depositing of the apron piece if by the killer, should not be disregarded when assessing the truthfulness of Long. 1.44 time of murder- anytime up to 60 mins for the killer to be wandering around with incriminating evidence and in possession of the murder weapon, that is illogical in anyone's books. If you were the killer would you do that?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If I was the killer I would have used the apron to carry away my trophies to my base and then I would go out again, bringing the apron and a piece of chalk with me, write my message to someone in a place of my own choice and put the apron in front of my writing. After that, I would leave Whitechapel for a few days.

[Fisherman]

I thought it was obvious.

PC Long cannot seem to be mistaken or misleading. He must be taken at face value, otherwise we might have to question the testimony of other policemen at time, i.e. Mizen's account that Cross told him he was “wanted by a policeman", despite no corroboration.

But then how do you explain that I say that there was grave police incompetence involved in how the residents of Bucks Row were not all questioned initially?

You see, you can´t have it both ways.

Plus, of course, I have no trouble accepting that Long may have been mistaken or misleading. I have said as much a number of times already. What I am saying is that since there is no obvious reason to suggest that Long would have been mistaken or misleading, the better suggestion is that he was correct. But that is not the same as saying that he MUST have been correct.

So based on this, your babbling about the Mizen scam seems juvenile, illogical, inconsequential and outright stupid.

Maybe you have a better explanation to offer, though?

[Pierre]

Hi Harry,

The apron piece and the chalked message are the two non-clues of all time.

All that kerfuffle simply to establish that the murderer made his way back into Whitechapel.

Regards,

Simon

On the contrary. They were two sides of one communication to someone.

Regard, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;394870]

Why would he be careless? The writing, if not the meaning of the writing, could be clearly understood. The wall's purpose was merely functional, and it served its function.

Quot erat demonstrandum.

"Clearly understood"? What is "juwes"? What is "juews"?

Quod erat confusiatum.

[Harry D]

But then how do you explain that I say that there was grave police incompetence involved in how the residents of Bucks Row were not all questioned initially?

You see, you can´t have it both ways.

Plus, of course, I have no trouble accepting that Long may have been mistaken or misleading. I have said as much a number of times already. What I am saying is that since there is no obvious reason to suggest that Long would have been mistaken or misleading, the better suggestion is that he was correct. But that is not the same as saying that he MUST have been correct.

So based on this, your babbling about the Mizen scam seems juvenile, illogical, inconsequential and outright stupid.

Maybe you have a better explanation to offer, though?

Such vitriol. Must have struck a nerve.

[Pierre]

"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. It´s 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.

Jack the Ripper would not have liked that description.

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

London Evening Standard, 1st October 1888 -

[ATTACH]17781[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

Yes Simon, it's already here:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_standard/18881001.html

What do you think the last item on the official list of Eddowes personal possessions refers to?

"1 Piece of old White Apron".

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;395003]


"Tied to apron strings"

Wholly dependent on or controlled by a woman.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

I would suggest it's what The Times, 1st October 1888, described thus:

"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

No more, no less.

Prove she was wearing a full apron and I'll award you the much coveted Green Rabbit Award.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

If I was the killer I would have used the apron to carry away my trophies to my base and then I would go out again, bringing the apron and a piece of chalk with me, write my message to someone in a place of my own choice and put the apron in front of my writing. After that, I would leave Whitechapel for a few days.

If you were the killer they would have hung you !!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

I would suggest it's what The Times, 1st October 1888, described thus:

"a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

No more, no less.

Prove she was wearing a full apron and I'll award you the much coveted Green Rabbit Award.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.

Your earlier post seemed to indicate the body of Eddowes was not wearing an apron, or even part of an apron, when found.
You pointed to this:
"a large white neckerchief round neck,". from the Evening Standard.

Interestingly, the Morning Advertiser & Daily News of the same date not only gives us:
" a large white handkerchief round the neck.", but also:
"a white pocket handkerchief,", which the Evening Standard had omitted to mention.

We already know from the inquest that Eddowes had a red silk neckerchief around her neck which was frayed by a sharp instrument.

Next we have the Times, which mentioned all three pieces, two of which were around the neck.
"and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."
And found on the body:
"a common white handkerchief with a red border,"

The official list of possessions gives us:
"1 piece of red gauze silk".
"1 White Cotton Pocket Hankerchief, red and white birds eye border".
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

We know the red silk neckerchief was around her neck.
Your Evening Standard also gives us a large handkerchief around her neck.
The Times also adds a piece of old white course apron, also around her neck.
How much clothing are we to believe she wore around her neck?
The "large handkerchief" in the Evening Standard account, is the "old white course apron" of the Times account.
They are the same item.

So, the Official list has four items, not three.
The Third item, "1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained", is your handkerchief that was tied around the neck, as the Evening Standard mentioned, which is why it was blood stained.
The Fourth item in the Official list is the Goulston Street piece of apron.

Conclusion, Eddowes had been wearing an apron when murdered. Both halves of the apron (items 3 & 4) were produced at the inquest.