Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Elamarna]

See post 824

Post 824 gives no supporting evidence, just ideas. thats fair enough , but it is not established and accepted fact

This reply #825 exposes the whole charade.


Somethings never change.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

You are right, there are three pillars which have kept this mystery propped up all these years

1. All of the women were murdered by a single killer

Which women ?

[PaulB]

Well they are ambiguous to all those who are unbiased and to us now trying to asses and evaluate those statements etc

What rubbish are you talking about? Back in 1888 witnesses were called, questions were asked, facts were established, and everyone accepted and believed that Eddowes was wearing an apron. They clearly didn’t see any ambiguities in the evidence. But you apparently think they were biased? What balderdash, Trevor.

The procedures for dealing with homicide victims at mortuaries has hardly changed since 1888. Three courses of action
1. Removal of clothing carefully from top to bottoms listing all clothing individuall as it come off the body
2. Listing any cuts or marks on the clothing as can be seen
3. Listing all possessions in possession of that person.
Thats wwhat they did and thats how the lists were made up
Thats primary evidence. The body was stripped and the list made up soon after the body reached the mortuary. The apron piece didnt arrive at the mortuary until the next morning.

Yes, that’s how it was supposed to be done, that’s very probably how it was done, but you always raise doubts about trusting what people say, and citing ambiguities, so I applying your logic, if you'll forgive the expression, to you: that's how it was done, how do you you know that it was done? I've shown you how and why it can be argued that two lists existed.

Newspaper articles you have been told before -SECONDARY evidence

You do not, never have, and I suspect you will forever be unwilling to make any effort to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, Trevor. However, whether newspapers are primary, secondary, or come from the moon wrapped up in pretty ribbon is neither here nor there, that isn’t a reason to discount what they report, especially when the reports are made in several newspapers and don’t appear derived from a press agency.

No assumptions, you show what there is as hard evidence to show I am not right about the lists being prepared at the time the body was stripped. In fact when Halse went to the mortuary his ambiguous comment reads "I saw the body stripped" that could mean he was there when it was stripped, or the body had been stripped prior to his arrival

There isn’t much ambiguity about Detective Halse’s statement. He said, “I came through Goulston Street about twenty minutes past two, where the apron was found, and then went back to Mitre square. I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to the station…”

That's clear: "I saw the dexeased stripped". The only ambiguity is introduced by you trying to suggest that he meant something else. You suggest a past tense that isn't anywere suggestedby what Halse said.

Irrelevant to you but not to those who understand and will accept new facts which dispel the old ones.

Okay, you've got me. I don't have any idea what are you chuntering on about.

So if it was only on one side does that not make you think? implications, my arse, again you are making it up. If you have blood on your hands and want to wipe them on a cloth how do you not get blood on both sides? You are going to leave marks on both sides

This is the one and only time I will tolerate you refering to you arse in any discussion of faecal smearing. It is not a pleasant image to have created. However, it reminded me of a television commercial for toilet paper which asked if you were a scruncher or a folder? Some people tear a handful of paper from the roll, scrunch it up, and wipe away, whereas others take a strip of tissue from the roll, fold, and wipe, even folding one or more times, doing their bit for the environment. You see, the murderer doesn’t have to have scrunched up the apron piece, he could have folded the material over the knife and wiped, or rubbed his hand. Anyway, it hardly matters. It isn't some fantasy that only one side of the apron was stained, it is what Dr Brown, who examined it, actually said. So, yes, I think we can safely assume that smearing on one side implies it was used to wipe away a residue, not hands just pulled from the innards of some poor bugger’s corpse and dripping with blood.

The inquest testimony relative to the apron ID is somewhat of a joke. Not all the witnesses in any event mention her wearing an apron. I have previously discussed at length the misgivings about the aforementioned testimony and I am not going over it again

Not every witness said that Eddowes was wearing an apron. That's true. Bt almost every witness who was in a position to know said she was. Not one said she wasn't. None. Zero. Zilch. The police, doctors, journalists, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny, everyone accepted and believed that Eddowes had been wearing an apron. Nobody, not a single person, said otherwise or so much as raised the teeniest doubt. And at the end of the day, that’s the unanimous opinion of those at the time. It carried a little more weight than your half-baked, self-serving opinions.

There is only one who is having us on here and that is you, with your made up explanations

I'm hurt. Why don't I merit one of those gems you usually pluck from your second-rate music-hall comedian’s rag-bag of jolly japes and comic wheezes?

[Trevor Marriott]

Which women ?

Take your pick 5 and 5 only, or all of those set out in the Met Police Whitechapel murders file. Because the 5 an 5 only should have bee dead and buried years ago.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Take your pick 5 and 5 only, or all of those set out in the Met Police Whitechapel murders file. Because the 5 an 5 only should have bee dead and buried years ago.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

They were. I have seen their graves.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well they are ambiguous to all those who are unbiased and to us now trying to asses and evaluate those statements etc

What rubbish are you talking about? Back in 1888 witnesses were called, questions were asked, facts were established, and everyone accepted and believed that Eddowes was wearing an apron. They clearly didn’t see any ambiguities in the evidence. But you apparently think they were boased? What balderdash, Trevor.

The procedures for dealing with homicide victims at mortuaries has hardly changed since 1888. Three courses of action
1. Removal of clothing carefully from top to bottoms listing all clothing individuall as it come off the body
2. Listing any cuts or marks on the clothing as can be seen
3. Listing all possessions in possession of that person.
Thats wwhat they did and thats how the lists were made up
Thats primary evidence. The body was stripped and the list made up soon after the body reached the mortuary. The apron piece didnt arrive at the mortuary until the next morning.

Yes, that’s how it was supposed to be done, that’s very probably how it was done, but you always raise doubts about trusting what people say, and citing ambiguities, so I applying your logic, if you'll forgive the expression, to you: that's how it was done, how do you you know that it was done? I've shown you how and why it can be argued that two lists existed.

Newspaper articles you have been told before -SECONDARY evidence

You do not, never have, and I suspect you will forever be unwilling to make any effort to understand the difference between primary and secondary sources, Trevor. However, whether newspapers are primary, secondary, or come from the moon wrapped up in pretty ribbon is neither here nor there, that isn’t a reason to discount what they report, especially when the reports are made in several newspapers and don’t appear derived from a press agency.

No assumptions, you show what there is as hard evidence to show I am not right about the lists being prepared at the time the body was stripped. In fact when Halse went to the mortuary his ambiguous comment reads "I saw the body stripped" that could mean he was there when it was stripped, or the body had been stripped prior to his arrival

There isn’t much ambiguity about Detective Halse’s statement. He said, “I came through Goulston Street about twenty minutes past two, where the apron was found, and then went back to Mitre square. I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to the station…”

That's clear: "I saw the dexeased stripped". The only ambiguity is introduced by you trying to suggest that he meant something else. You suggest a past tense that isn't anywere suggestedby what Halse said.

Irrelevant to you but not to those who understand and will accept new facts which dispel the old ones.

Okay, you've got me. I don't have any idea what are you chuntering on about.

So if it was only on one side does that not make you think? implications, my arse, again you are making it up. If you have blood on your hands and want to wipe them on a cloth how do you not get blood on both sides? You are going to leave marks on both sides

This is the one and only time I will tolerate you refering to you arse in any discussion of faecal smearing. It is not a pleasant image to have created. However, it reminded me of a television commercial for toilet paper which asked if you were a scruncher or a folder? Some people tear a handful of paper from the roll, scrunch it up, and wipe away, whereas others take a strip of tissue from the roll, fold, and wipe, even folding one or more times, doing their bit for the environment. You see, the murderer doesn’t have to have scrunched up the apron piece, he could have folded the material over the knife and wiped, or rubbed his hand. Anyway, it hardly matters. It isn't some fantasy that only one side of the apron was stained, it is what Dr Brown, who examined it, actually said. So, yes, I think we can safely assume that smearing on one side implies it was used to wipe away a residue, not hands just pulled from the innards of some poor bugger’s corpse and dripping with blood.

The inquest testimony relative to the apron ID is somewhat of a joke. Not all the witnesses in any event mention her wearing an apron. I have previously discussed at length the misgivings about the aforementioned testimony and I am not going over it again

Not every witness said that Eddowes was wearing an apron. That's true. Bt almost every witness who was in a position to know said she was. Not one said she wasn't. None. Zero. Zilch. The police, doctors, journalists, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny, everyone accepted and believed that Eddowes had been wearing an apron. Nobody, not a single person, said otherwise or so much as raised the teeniest doubt. And at the end of the day, that’s the unanimous opinion of those at the time. It carried a little more weight than your half-baked, self-serving opinions.

There is only one who is having us on here and that is you, with your made up explanations

I'm hurt. Why don't I merit one of those gems you usually pluck from your second-rate music-hall comedian’s rag-bag of jolly japes and comic wheezes?

So in effect, according to you say we should accept what everyone said in 1888 without question. Wow thats some logic, and you do need to find out the difference between primary and secondary, because at the moment you do not have a clue.

And Warren and Matthews must have had concerns about the apron to write to Frazer and ask that question I wonder what prompted him to ask that out of the blue. But I am sure an explanation of some kind will be forthcoming you are never lost for words.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Trevor

It appears you really do not understand the differences between primary and secondary sources with regards to newspapers.


Articles in general, which are drawing on other sources are normally considered secondary,

A letter to an editor may be judged primary. depending on the context.

Editorials are of course opinion and are secondary sources.

However eyewitness reports are usually considered primary if the report has been made directly to the paper which publishes and is not syndicated.


Indeed a simply definition maybe given, that if an event is written about by someone who either witnessed it or partook in the event and such writing is made contemporaneously to the event then it is a primary source.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

It appears you really do not understand the differences between primary and secondary sources with regards to newspapers.


Articles in general, which are drawing on other sources are normally considered secondary,

A letter to an editor may be judged primary. depending on the context.

Editorials are of course opinion and are secondary sources.

However eyewitness reports are usually considered primary if the report has been made directly to the paper which publishes and is not syndicated.


Indeed a simply definition maybe given, that if an event is written about by someone who either witnessed it or partook in the event and such writing is made contemporaneously to the event then it is a primary source.


Steve

It is Paul Begg you should be addressing not me I know the difference.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

It is Paul Begg you should be addressing not me I know the difference.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Sorry, but it is so clear from your posts that you do not, or at least ignore when it suites.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Pay attention !!!!!!!!!!!!

He mentions a large white bloodstained handkerchief after the red silk gauze around her neck, which suggests that is where the handkerchief had been. I am sure they would have known the difference between a handkerchief and a bib of an apron.

Why does it "suggest" that the handkerchief was around her neck? Collard's list says that red silk gauze was "found on her neck" but there is no such indication for the handkerchief. It's pure assumption on your part - and pretty irrational actually - to say that the handkerchief was around the neck simply because it is in the list after the silk gauze. Had it been on the neck one would have expected Collard's list to say so.

Even by your own account you are wrong. You said, "The list of Eddowes clothing as produced by Collard shows a large white handkerchief around the neck" but you now admit that it is no more than a suggestion. So really Trevor you are the one who needs to pay attention, not me.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Sorry, but it is so clear from your posts that you do not, or at least ignore when it suites.


Steve

I have been dealing with primary and secondary evidence for years so I do know the difference, unlike those on here who seem to in addition to accepting what police officers said without question, want to believe in all that was written in the newspapers, and thats been a major problem with ripperology over the years. It called a lack of understanding.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I have quoted the juryman as I read it.It was given from a person(the juryman) who had sat for two days,listening to evidence and observing witnesses.Although the word policeman is made it obviously refers to Long.

There are and were then,four reasons a policeman on duty could enter premised.If he suspected a crime had been committed there.If he suspected a crime was being committed there.If invited by an occupant.In pursuit of an offender.There are others but they do not apply in the case under discussion
None of the four I have mentioned applied to Long.He does not claim they did.He claims he found the apron piece there,while on the premises..He does not say why he was in the premises,or w hat circumstances led him to being there. That is what I believe the jury man was hinting at.

Harry, I have already explained what the juryman was saying. He wasn't "hinting" at anything. He was expressing surprise that Long failed to conduct a search of the premises after his discovery of the bloodstained apron.

Please see my post #760.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why does it "suggest" that the handkerchief was around her neck? Collard's list says that red silk gauze was "found on her neck" but there is no such indication for the handkerchief. It's pure assumption on your part - and pretty irrational actually - to say that the handkerchief was around the neck simply because it is in the list after the silk gauze. Had it been on the neck one would have expected Collard's list to say so.

Even by your own account you are wrong. You said, "The list of Eddowes clothing as produced by Collard shows a large white handkerchief around the neck" but you now admit that it is no more than a suggestion. So really Trevor you are the one who needs to pay attention, not me.

I didnt bring this up, another poster was trying to suggest the large white handkerchief was in fact the apron. I merely put that to bed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Dr Brown said lots of things about the apron and the apron piece, but there is a big difference as I keep saying between the terms "covered in blood", "spotted with blood" and "smeared with blood" It seems some resarechers are cherry picking as to which one suits their theory the best

As to the smears, as an experiment, try dipping your hands in a paint pot and then wiping them on a cloth, you will find that there will be paint on both sides of the cloth and it will be heavily smeared.

As what he says about the smears, that is just an un corroborated opinion and not a fact. Did he try an experiment to prove or disprove either?

Well would you believe I did?

The other issue with his opinion is when could the killer have cut or torn the apron. especially if he was disturbed, certainly not at the outset surely because if his design was on organ taking then he would have gone prepared, and if that had have been the case would he have inflicted those abdominal wounds which would likely as not damaged organs?

We already know that the clothes were up around her waist, with any apron she was wearing the furthest point away from the killer and the most difficult piece to find and cut from because of its position, and as I keep saying no blood or cuts or faecal matter found on the mortuary piece which she was supposed to have been wearing.

The more you study all of these witness statements the more ambiguities you find.

Trevor, one should certainly look at the totality of the evidence and not "cherry pick", but cherry picking is exactly what you did when you lasered in on the word "spotted" and then from that single word, amazingly, came to the conclusion that Long could not have seen any blood on the apron!

When one looks at the totality of the evidence it is perfectly clear that the apron seen by Long was bloodstained and this means that there was sufficient blood on it for him to see it.

You've missed the point about Dr Brown's evidence. It's irrelevant whether the smears he described were caused by the killer's hands, his knife or something else. It's simply the fact that the apron was smeared with blood so that the blood was visible to Long.

The condition of the remaining piece of apron is also irrelevant to this point. The only issue here is whether there was blood on the apron seen by Long and it's perfectly obvious from the totality of the evidence that there was.

Consequently, there is absolutely nothing odd about Long's discovery of the apron.

[David Orsam]

It was recorded as a white handkerchief with blood stains as that, because thats what it was, thats what it says from the list taken down at the time, and you and others cant see that. No matter what you say that is prime evidence, and I accept that there is an ambiguity with Collards testimony whereby he uses the term "apparently wearing"

So the very person who prepared the list of Eddowes' clothing, a police inspector, tells us on oath that Eddowes appeared to have been wearing the apron and for some reason that is not good enough for you? Somehow it's an "ambiguity". Do you think he was giving evidence in code or something? So when he said she appeared to be wearing an apron he meant, "No, I don't really think she was wearing it but I can't say this or the conspirators will kill me"? I mean, come on Trevor, get real.