Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pc Long and the piece of rag.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    I do not debate with Pierre. I see no reason to - he has brought nothing but a quarrelsome ignorance to the boards, and he has an unhealthy attitude to any information concerning Charles Lechmere.

    It is therefore not to him I turn in quoting from Evansīand Skinnersībook, Gordon Brown speaking:

    "My attention was called to the apron - It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

    What is very clear here - though perhaps not to Mr Marriott - is that the part spoken of as having a string attaching to it, was the part found on the body. No other source reports differently.

    Now, can we rely on the official inquest report being the correct one, never mistaken and always superior to the paper reports?
    Not at all. It is not a taperecording of what was said, it is the work of a clerk who wrote down, as best as he could, what he heard the witnesses saying.

    There is absolutely no reason to accept that the official inquest records are more accurate than the paper reportings.

    If we scrutinize what is said, what do we get? We get the information that the apron piece left on the body was " a corner" with "a string attached".

    Joshua Rogan produced the inquest as it was recorded in six different papers. Two of them did not write down the characterization of the part of apron found on Eddowes, but the four others did: a PORTION of the apron.
    As opposed to the inquest clerkīs suggestion: a CORNER of the apron.

    So, here we have five sources. Four say "portion", on says "corner". Which is the likeliest to apply? is it more likely that four people got it wrong, than just the one?

    Is there any logic to look at? Yes, there is. Would a corner of the apron, with just the one string attaching to it, actually still be on the body?
    And how did the killer cut his oiece away?
    For the official inquest report to work, he would first have to split the apron halfway down the centre. Then he would have to make a 90 degree turn with the knife, cutting towards the side, leaving just a corner, a quarter of the size of the apron.
    After that, he would need to untie the apron so that he could loosen the odd piece of cloth he had cut himself, and walk away with it. After that, he needed to cut his string away, otherwise Brown would have said at the inquest that Phillipsī part of the apron ALSO had a string attaching to it.

    Itīs either that, or the inquest clerk got it wrong, and all the papers who are in accordance with each other got it right: a PORTION of the apron -arguably the upper one - was left on Eddowes, and the strings kept that portion tied around her in death.

    If somebody should be ignorant enough to think that the official inquest files must be a better source than the paper reports from the inquest, then itīs time to think again. The original files are just one out of many reports, all of which must be closely compared before we can say that we are as close to the truth as we can be. The clerk and the reporters alike heard the same inquest, the exact same words from the exact same people at the exact same time.

    And I am still not talking to Pierre.
    But Brown at some point would have had to read and signed his deposition as being correct.

    Comment


    • Harry D: For PC Long, of course. Funny how he can't remember other details but suddenly has an eidetic memory when it comes to the apron. How would it look if he stated that he couldn't remember if it was there or not? That would suggest that he didn't carry out his duties properly and may have missed a vital piece of evidence.

      But if Long wanted to seem infallable, then he should not have wavered at all. And whatīs this tosh about an eidetic memory - you of course donīt need that to establish that a doorway was empty when you looked into it. Reasonably he checked all the doorways of the house as part of his duties, and there was nothing to find at 2.20. How hard can it be? How eidetic a memory do you need to remember that? He checked, there was nothing, end of story.

      Iīm sorry, but you are as stuck as all the rest of us with the fact that Long said very clearly that there was no apron piece in the doorway at 2.20. If you think that is in some twisted manner proof of him lying, then do so, by all means.


      It's a theory. It hasn't been disproven. I take nothing back.

      So itīs just a theory? Not proven, therefore? And you think it is okay to throw such an unsavoury suggestion out with no evidence at all?

      What if I was to say that I have a theory that you are a rapist, a small time crook and a closet transvestite? How would that sound to you? Preposterous, false and extremely insulting, perhaps?

      Is that how we should conduct ourselves in a debate out here? Or should we take great care not to tarnish people with no evidence at all?

      For my part, I donīt think you are a rapist, a small time crook or a closet transvestite. All I see is a very immature character who has not yet arrived at the stations of decency we all need to arrive at sooner or later if we expect to be taken seriously.

      You have some serious soulsearching before yourself, Harry. I wish you the best of luck with it for the simple reason that I have to deal with you on a frequent basis. I would much prefer if you managed to debate along a more mature line, therefore.
      Last edited by Fisherman; 11-17-2016, 09:08 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
        How on earth do you know what he was taking about you are simply guessing and guessing wrongly ?

        The balance of probability based on his official inquest testimony is as I have already stated. There are only two pieces of apron The Mortuary piece and the GS piece.

        He is quite clear and concise. He talks about the mortuary piece and then refers to The Gs piece. End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        What are you talking about Trevor?

        Yes he refers to the piece of apron removed from the body at the the mortuary, the piece with string, there is no other mention of an apron in his testimony.
        Up until this point his testimony as been about what he found on arrival at Mitre Square and later his postmortem report.

        There is no guessing he is not at that point talking about anything found anywhere else.

        Only after mentioning this piece (with string) does he go on an mention the GS piece of apron..

        Yes you are right, two pieces, one with string found on the body and which he talks about first and one without string produced by Dr Phillips, found in Goulston street.


        why is that hard to follow? that is how it reads!


        Steve
        Last edited by Elamarna; 11-17-2016, 09:19 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          But Brown at some point would have had to read and signed his deposition as being correct.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Was this so? Did all the witnesses get to read what the clerk had written, and then they signed it? Really, Trevor?

          When I tried the string "sign* the inquest file*" or the string "sign* the inquest report*" or the string "sign* his inquest", absolutely nothing came up on the net.
          It was until I tried the string "sign* the inquest" that I got a hit. It was from the book "Doctor Death: A Madeleine Carno mystery".... It referred to some strange French ritual, apparently. Maybe you should read the book?

          Or maybe you can point me to where it says that the witnesses must read and sign the official inquest files? I am out of my comfort zone in this issue.

          I believe the Eddowes inquest can be reached via the net. Is it signed by Brown?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
            Was this so? Did all the witnesses get to read what the clerk had written, and then they signed it? Really, Trevor?

            When I tried the string "sign* the inquest file*" or the string "sign* the inquest report*" or the string "sign* his inquest", absolutely nothing came up on the net.
            It was until I tried the string "sign* the inquest" that I got a hit. It was from the book "Doctor Death: A Madeleine Carno mystery".... It referred to some strange French ritual, apparently. Maybe you should read the book?

            Or maybe you can point me to where it says that the witnesses must read and sign the official inquest files? I am out of my comfort zone in this issue.

            I believe the Eddowes inquest can be reached via the net. Is it signed by Brown?



            Fisherman,

            surely it is not if he signed it, but how we understand what he meant?

            I believe the issue is how we read it.

            You Joshua and I read it one way, Trevor another.

            Steve

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
              What are you talking about Trevor?

              Yes he refers to the piece of apron removed from the body at the the mortuary, the piece with string, there is no other mention of an apron in his testimony.
              Up until this point his testimony as been about what he found on arrival at Mitre Square and later his postmortem report.

              There is no guessing he is not at that point talking about anything found anywhere else.

              Only after mentioning this piece (with string) does he go on an mention the GS piece of apron..

              Yes you are right, two pieces, one with string found on the body and one without found in Goulston street.


              why is that hard to follow? that is how it reads!


              Steve
              Its not hard to follow for me, but it is for you as you seem to have another agenda. The mortuary piece is the corner piece with the string attached. The Gs piece is exactly that, which matched the mortuary piece by the seams.

              He clearly says that in his testimony in which he refers to the GS piece after he finishes talking about the mortuary piece.

              I wonder do you argue for the same of arguing

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                Fisherman,

                surely it is not if he signed it, but how we understand what he meant?

                I believe the issue is how we read it.

                You Joshua and I read it one way, Trevor another.

                Steve
                Yes, of course it is how we read it that governs our thinking. But it would be interesting to see if Brown really was asked for to sign the inquest, as Trevor says.

                Not that it in any way alters the fact that the inquest clerk was the only listener to write "corner" where all the reporters apparently wrote "portion".

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                  Yes, of course it is how we read it that governs our thinking. But it would be interesting to see if Brown really was asked for to sign the inquest, as Trevor says.

                  Not that it in any way alters the fact that the inquest clerk was the only listener to write "corner" where all the reporters apparently wrote "portion".
                  A string can be attached to a portion, or a corner of a portion. That doesnt change the fact that a corner piece or a portion with a string attache could only have come from two parts of the apron top left or top right

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    A string can be attached to a portion, or a corner of a portion. That doesnt change the fact that a corner piece or a portion with a string attache could only have come from two parts of the apron top left or top right

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    A corner of a portion? Aha. But none of the ones reporting from the inquest, not the clerk and not the reporters, spoke of a corner of a portion, did they?

                    I otherwise agree - the fewest carry their aprons upside down and tie them around their ancles.

                    Now, how about telling me if Browns signature was on the Eddowes inquest?

                    PS. Not even in the official files does it say "corner piece". It says "the corner of the apron".
                    Last edited by Fisherman; 11-17-2016, 09:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                      A corner of a portion? Aha. But none of the ones reporting from the inquest, not the clerk and not the reporters, spoke of a corner of a portion, did they?

                      I otherwise agree - the fewest carry their aprons upside down and tie them around their ancles.

                      Now, how about telling me if Browns signature was on the Eddowes inquest?

                      PS. Not even in the official files does it say "corner piece". It says "the corner of the apron".
                      Well how many corners of the apron would have strings attached. I say again top left or top right !!!!!!!!!!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Well how many corners of the apron would have strings attached. I say again top left or top right !!!!!!!!!!

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Has anybody disagreed with that, Trevor?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                          Has anybody disagreed with that, Trevor?
                          If they havent, or dont, that will be a first with any of my posts

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            If they havent, or dont, that will be a first with any of my posts

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Maybe you should check before you make the assumption? No?

                            Any progress on that Brown signature?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                              Its not hard to follow for me, but it is for you as you seem to have another agenda. The mortuary piece is the corner piece with the string attached. The Gs piece is exactly that, which matched the mortuary piece by the seams.

                              He clearly says that in his testimony in which he refers to the GS piece after he finishes talking about the mortuary piece.

                              I wonder do you argue for the same of arguing

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Trevor

                              Yes, no problem with that at all.

                              It seems to be your view that the apron at the mortuary has only one corner with attached string, is that correct?


                              Steve

                              Comment


                              • For those interested, it seems some inquest records are available to view at the London Metropolitan Archives as a negative. Ref COL/AC/17/1579

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X