Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

It's not necessarily about "the greater chance of being seen". It could be about the greater chance of being stopped. If there is one man in a small dark street or lots of men in a better lit main road, who has got the greater chance of being stopped?

Because, of course, you could have made your escape along Wentworth Street...and then been stopped by Detective Halse. Drat!

But you would have been ahead of Halse by at least 10 mins and long gone from there by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

But you would have been ahead of Halse by at least 10 mins and long gone from there by then.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Exactly Trevor.


Hope all is well with you and yours ?


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly Trevor.


Hope all is well with you and yours ?


Phil

Yes just organising the xmas party for the Rocket Science Club !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

Yes just organising the xmas party for the Rocket Science Club !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Strange.. I am doing the same for the 'I don't believe it's not butter amateur detective club".😎


Phil

[Joshua Rogan]

One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

I don't think there were any common lodging houses between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, although there were some further along Wentworth Street.

[Roy Corduroy]

Okay Trevor thanks for the second reply,

I'll start over and try to make this as simple and understandable as possible, because I want to help you.

In your theory that the killer did NOT take the body parts from Catherine Eddowes, and instead someone at City of London mortuary, Golden Lane, took the body parts, then the following things do not matter - These things have no bearing on your theory about how the body parts were removed.

1. The killer cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

2. The police cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street where they then 'discovered' it. It doesn't matter

3. The apron piece was actually a menstrual rag which Catherine Eddowes left in Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

4. Whether Catherine Eddowes was even wearing an apron, which you propose she wasn't. It doesn't matter.

I hope this helps to clarify things,

Roy

[harry]

Well if the rants and abuse used towards me and others, are thought to be superior argument,so be it.doesn't say much for the person writing it,or those believing it.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

I have reread one author who speaks of this letter.He also states the apron piece was found in the passage,near the stairs,and the writing was there above it.Which puts the writing where? Does that agree with Warren?One other author also places the apron in the passage near the stairs.

Long,with an education similar to mine ,English elementary,and probably leaving school at the same age 14,probably wouldn't have understood the term Janb,to him as to me it would have been the doorway.If he had found the cloth in the doorway,he would have said doorway and not passage.

I suppose if you dip a white handkerchief in a tin of black paint,it's still a white handkerchief,whatever it looked like afterwards.Might seem over the top,but one can understand Dew,s observation that something white can appear other than that colour.That's my observation too,and probably why Long wouldn't have noticed the cloth at 2.20.(no ,not because it had been dipped in black paint).

In daylight or by the light of lamps,it would have been possible to see the interior walls,or writing on them,from outside,so cannot fault Warren there.
It's just the word jamb.Perhaps Warren got that wrong.

[Phil Carter]

Now if you want to talk conspiracies take a closer look at Halse. He went to the crime scene, and so if she had have been in possession of two pieces of apron, what would stop him removing one and taking it off with him depositing in the door way. He then meets Long and says "best check you doorways etc" and voila Long finds the apron piece. thus taking the heat away from the City police.

Far fetched as it may seem you have to remember the letter from Mathews to Frazer asking if the piece could have been removed from the crime scene and deposited in GS. Now that seems to me to be a question out of the blue, and why was it asked? clearly if it was as clear cut as we have been led to believe why would that question be asked, no smoke without fire.!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hello Trevor,

Just for the sake of argument. .let us not call the above a conspiracy. .but a plausibility..however unlikely.

For that scenario to be true.. the thing that strikes me is why..if there was a deliberate reason, Halse would place said apron piece under the writing.

A possible answer may come in the form of the attitude of certain policemen towards the Jewish population with regard to from which background the "suspected" came from.
And it is at this point I think of Anderson. He cannot have been the only one expressing views that reflected a supposed guilt upon a Jew.

Whoever planted that rag...if it was deliberate.. then it was certainly MEANT to cast aspersions upon the Jews.

IF it was deliberate.

This is only mild thought. We cannot know who planted it..if it was planted. But one anti semite thinker.. whoever it was..Halse or not... may have done it. The only problem with this is how to show a person to be of such character.

That it turn leads to another question.
If Halse did do it. . Under who's instructions? And why?

We cannot know either way. But yes..an anti semite policeman is not going to be uncommon.
You only have to see the record of the police of the Capital and its surrounding areas since with regard to any form of prejudice against foreigners.
They havent exactly the reputation for being whiter than white on that front.
Tis an interesting thought if nothing else.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Well if the rants and abuse used towards me and others, are thought to be superior argument,so be it.doesn't say much for the person writing it,or those believing it.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

I have reread one author who speaks of this letter.He also states the apron piece was found in the passage,near the stairs,and the writing was there above it.Which puts the writing where? Does that agree with Warren?One other author also places the apron in the passage near the stairs.

Long,with an education similar to mine ,English elementary,and probably leaving school at the same age 14,probably wouldn't have understood the term Janb,to him as to me it would have been the doorway.If he had found the cloth in the doorway,he would have said doorway and not passage.

I suppose if you dip a white handkerchief in a tin of black paint,it's still a white handkerchief,whatever it looked like afterwards.Might seem over the top,but one can understand Dew,s observation that something white can appear other than that colour.That's my observation too,and probably why Long wouldn't have noticed the cloth at 2.20.(no ,not because it had been dipped in black paint).

In daylight or by the light of lamps,it would have been possible to see the interior walls,or writing on them,from outside,so cannot fault Warren there.
It's just the word jamb.Perhaps Warren got that wrong.

Hello Harry,

Fear not..I at least will converse with you in even tone.. even if others cannot.

Apart from the last paragraph, I agree with you.
I will fault Warren..because it was just "starting" to get light. The sight may not have been all that clear as we assume it was from the street.
Plenty of time for a photographer too.

Hope you are well?



Phil

[harry]

Thanks Phil,
Yes,I do agree with you as to what Warren would have seen.

Regards.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=harry;396386]

I suppose if you dip a white handkerchief in a tin of black paint,it's still a white handkerchief,whatever it looked like afterwards.Might seem over the top,but one can understand Dew,s observation that something white can appear other than that colour.
/QUOTE]

The A-Z makes the claim that Dew said that the apron was so dirty as to appear black.

Dew, in his book, does not say this. He instead says that the apron was a black apron, that is to say it was made of black cloth.

I believe that this points to a mistake on behalf of the authors of the A-Z. Until you produce the actual source where Dew claims that the rag appeared to be black on account of being dirty, there can be no other conclusion to make.

If there IS such a source, then I am happy to be corrected. If not, you must accept that the claim you make is wrongful. And please don´t say that it is not you that make the claim, it is the A-Z. You see, you DO make the same claim, and you DO support your take on things on it.

So please give me a straighforward answer, Harry: Can you produce the source?

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay Trevor thanks for the second reply,

I'll start over and try to make this as simple and understandable as possible, because I want to help you.

In your theory that the killer did NOT take the body parts from Catherine Eddowes, and instead someone at City of London mortuary, Golden Lane, took the body parts, then the following things do not matter - These things have no bearing on your theory about how the body parts were removed.

1. The killer cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

2. The police cut a piece of her apron and took it away to Goulston Street where they then 'discovered' it. It doesn't matter

3. The apron piece was actually a menstrual rag which Catherine Eddowes left in Goulston Street. It doesn't matter.

4. Whether Catherine Eddowes was even wearing an apron, which you propose she wasn't. It doesn't matter.

I hope this helps to clarify things,

Roy

I fully understand and agree, but my original objective was to show that the body parts were removed at the mortuary and not by the killer, in addition to trying to show that those other three explanations did not stand up to close scrutiny.

What then followed was the discovery of Collards list, and then the ambiguities that arose as a result of closely scrutinising the witness statements, and the evidence from my team of medical experts, which then led to the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, but simply at some time prior to her murder been in possession of two pieces and that the killer could not have taken the organs away in the piece

I agree that the apron piece however it got there, and by whom is of no real evidential value in the grand scheme of things especially if you eliminate those 4 explanations

I hope this helps to clarify thing from my perspective.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Well if the rants and abuse used towards me and others, are thought to be superior argument,so be it.doesn't say much for the person writing it,or those believing it.

I don't think anyone would claim that rants and abuse consistute superior argument, but they probably reflect the utter frustration felt by those who not unreasonably irritated by your favourite litany of what ifs and maybees. However, if you prove to be correct, you can have the well-deserved pleasure of seeing them wipe the egg from their faces.

This personnel letter from Warren.Anyone seen it?

What personal letter?

I have reread one author who speaks of this letter.He also states the apron piece was found in the passage,near the stairs,and the writing was there above it.Which puts the writing where? Does that agree with Warren?One other author also places the apron in the passage near the stairs.

Lots of authors put the writing in the passage, near the stairs. It was the most logical place to have located it, and the entrance to the stairs could just about be described as a 'jamb', but, as Howard Brown wrote years ago, they thought of the writing in terms of modern graffiti and visualised it scrawled i large letters across the wall, like it was depicted in Murder By Decree. That thinking had to change when people began to appreciate that it was written in small letters, literally on the jamb at the entrance, where any covering could have been torn away. I wouldn't place much store in what writers have said in the past. Our understanding of the case evolves, what was believed and written ten, twenty or thirty years ago need no longer apply.

Long,with an education similar to mine ,English elementary,and probably leaving school at the same age 14,probably wouldn't have understood the term Janb,to him as to me it would have been the doorway.If he had found the cloth in the doorway,he would have said doorway and not passage.

We have two witnesses, P.C. Long and Sir Charles Warren, and we have to decide which of them to accept. You favour P.C. Long, but I have yet to see you produce a single piece of evidence-supported argument to support him, or, more importantly, for not believing Sir Charles Warren. I'm afraid your supposition about what you think P.C. Long might have said, isn't persuasive.

I suppose if you dip a white handkerchief in a tin of black paint,it's still a white handkerchief,whatever it looked like afterwards.Might seem over the top,but one can understand Dew,s observation that something white can appear other than that colour.That's my observation too,and probably why Long wouldn't have noticed the cloth at 2.20.(no ,not because it had been dipped in black paint).

We have a statement by P.C. Long made within days of his finding it, that the apron that it was white. And we have a statement made thirty years later by Dew, who may not even have seen the apron, that it was black. And you prefer the testimony of Dew! And the argument has now degenerated to such a level that one is arguing whether a white apron is still a white apron even though it's been dipped in a tin of black paint. C'mon, do we have to sink to such a banal level just to make the point that the apron was white

In daylight or by the light of lamps,it would have been possible to see the interior walls,or writing on them,from outside,so cannot fault Warren there. It's just the word jamb.Perhaps Warren got that wrong.

Perhaps Warren did get the word 'jamb' wrong. Now prove that he did! As has been pointed out far too often, you have a penchant for 'perhapsing', but you don't produce much evidence to back it up.

Anyway, it's not just being able to see the writing, it's also about people passing in the street being able to easily tear down any covering. They'd have needed elastic arms to do that if the writing had been on the wall by the stairs.

[David Orsam]

Look at a map. Look at the direction Halse took.
Then look to the other end of Goulston St.
Then see when Halse ..at the latest..could have stopped one of his two men he saw (ca. 02.17)

plenty of time to miss Halse if walking towards Wentworth St along Goulston St at about 2am.

Drat indeed.

Once again Phil your post is based on an assumption that the killer was walking along Goulston Street "at about 2am" which conflicts with the evidence of PC Long in respect of a deposit of the apron after 2.20.

In any event, I was doing no more than offering an example of men being stopped by the police in a side road. We don't seem to have records of any men being stopped in the main roads in the period after the Eddowes murder, thus suggesting that a walk along a main road might have been safer than a side road, thus negating your point that the killer would only have walked down side roads.

[David Orsam]

But you would have been ahead of Halse by at least 10 mins and long gone from there by then.

That just depends on what route you've taken and how quickly you've moved doesn't it?