Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

harry: Nothing I have written essentially points to me as claiming the apron piece must have been there at 2.20.I have stated I am of the opinion it might have been.

And has anybody in the whole wide world disagreed with you over that, Harry?

That is my point.It is that we should not,as Fisherman stated,begin with a presumption that Long told the truth,and the apron was not at the premises in Goulstan Street at 2.20.(or words to that effect).

Of course that must be the starting point. For it not to be true, it would take that Long got it wrong or lied, which are both less credible options than the more simple, rational and obvious one: that he told the truth and got it right.

[Trevor Marriott]

harry: Nothing I have written essentially points to me as claiming the apron piece must have been there at 2.20.I have stated I am of the opinion it might have been.

And has anybody in the whole wide world disagreed with you over that, Harry?

That is my point.It is that we should not,as Fisherman stated,begin with a presumption that Long told the truth,and the apron was not at the premises in Goulstan Street at 2.20.(or words to that effect).

Of course that must be the starting point. For it not to be true, it would take that Long got it wrong or lied, which are both less credible options than the more simple, rational and obvious one: that he told the truth and got it right.

I think you seem to be forgetting other issues surrounding the apron piece which I am going to mention again but I dont intend to open a major debate on this issue, as it has been debated many times on here.

The debate here is whether the apron piece was there at 2.20am the general consensus based Longs statement is that it was not, and this thread has explored in depth the for`s and against.

Well let me throw a hand grenade into the mix.

It is suggested that the killer dumped the apron piece. Of course thats on the belief that the killer cut or tore the apron piece from the victim. If the victim wasnt wearing an apron for him to do that then he could not have done that, so we have to ask how did it get to Goulston Street, when was it deposited and by whom, if not the killer. This is an explanation that might point to the fact that the apron piece was there at 2.20am and Long missed it or didnt even look in the recess.

Now I am sure the same statement will be made by the same posters on here negating this theory and will again put forward and use some of the witness inquest testimony to do so. But we again get back to the fact that much of the witness testimony was never expanded on and much of the testimony relative to this issue is ambiguous. Notwithstanding we have a statement from a police inspector who it would seem compiled several lists of her clothing and personal possessions at the mortuary as the body was stripped, which as they stand corroborate the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder and she was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron, which at some time formed part of a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Now I am sure the same statement will be made by the same posters on here negating this theory and will again put forward and use some of the witness inquest testimony to do so.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, then you are wrong as far as I´m concerned. I am of the meaning that your musings do not call for any answer at all, and that the issue is long since settled, the reason being that a line must be drawn between evidence and suggestions, not least if the suggestions are in conflict with the evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, then you are wrong as far as I´m concerned. I am of the meaning that your musings do not call for any answer at all, and that the issue is long since settled, the reason being that a line must be drawn between evidence and suggestions, not least if the suggestions are in conflict with the evidence.

No the line should be between evidence and ambiguities which arise from evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No the line should be between evidence and ambiguities which arise from evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If there are ambiguities arising from evidence, that may be interesting. As this is not so in the case at hand, the point is moot.

[Trevor Marriott]

If there are ambiguities arising from evidence, that may be interesting. As this is not so in the case at hand, the point is moot.

Thats your opinion, and seeing as you appear to not able to asses and evaluate evidence in an unbiased fashion, how would you know if there were any ambiguities?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

I think you seem to be forgetting other issues surrounding the apron piece which I am going to mention again but I dont intend to open a major debate on this issue, as it has been debated many times on here.

The debate here is whether the apron piece was there at 2.20am the general consensus based Longs statement is that it was not, and this thread has explored in depth the for`s and against.

Well let me throw a hand grenade into the mix.

It is suggested that the killer dumped the apron piece. Of course thats on the belief that the killer cut or tore the apron piece from the victim. If the victim wasnt wearing an apron for him to do that then he could not have done that, so we have to ask how did it get to Goulston Street, when was it deposited and by whom, if not the killer. This is an explanation that might point to the fact that the apron piece was there at 2.20am and Long missed it or didnt even look in the recess.

Now I am sure the same statement will be made by the same posters on here negating this theory and will again put forward and use some of the witness inquest testimony to do so. But we again get back to the fact that much of the witness testimony was never expanded on and much of the testimony relative to this issue is ambiguous. Notwithstanding we have a statement from a police inspector who it would seem compiled several lists of her clothing and personal possessions at the mortuary as the body was stripped, which as they stand corroborate the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder and she was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron, which at some time formed part of a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Brown's inquest testimony;

"[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body. "

[Kattrup]

Dr Brown's inquest testimony;

"[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body. "

Thank you, Joshua.

There are fortunately no ambiguities regarding the apron. She was wearing it, a piece was cut off and later deposited near Goulston Street, most likely by the killer

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Brown's inquest testimony;

"[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body. "

Dr Browns Inquest testimony

"My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with a string attached"

I would say that was an ambiguity, and like is said this has all been debated at length previously.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you, Joshua.

There are fortunately no ambiguities regarding the apron. She was wearing it, a piece was cut off and later deposited near Goulston Street, most likely by the killer

For further reading I suggest you look at Insp Collards testimony where he produces the list of her clothing and her personal possessions the latter shows she was in possession of an old piece of white apron. Primary evidence !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

For further reading I suggest you look at Insp Collards testimony where he produces the list of her clothing and her personal possessions the latter shows she was in possession of an old piece of white apron. Primary evidence !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Primary evidence? Like Longs words, you mean...?

[Joshua Rogan]

For further reading I suggest you look at Insp Collards testimony where he produces the list of her clothing and her personal possessions the latter shows she was in possession of an old piece of white apron. Primary evidence !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Inspector Collard's testimony;

"A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

[Trevor Marriott]

Primary evidence? Like Longs words, you mean...?

Ambiguites like being questioned about how did he know the piece wasnt there at 2.20am.

Questions he should have been asked to clear up the ambiguities surrounding his testimony regarding his actions at 2.20

Did you simply walk past and glance in at 2.20? not stopping?
Did you physically stop and go inside at 2.20?
Did you have your lamp on when you went past at 2.20am?
If you went inside at 2.20 for what purpose?
If you did go inside at 2.20 how far inside did you go?
Was the piece visible from the footpath when you saw it at 2.55am or did you have to go inside.?
How far from the footpath was the piece found?
How far from the path was the graffiti ?
Was the graffiti directly above the piece?
Were you checking other similar buildings on your beat
When were you first made aware of a murder
How were you made aware of a murder
Who told you?
What murder were you told about
You mention another PC 190 where did he come from
Had you met any other police men on your beat during the times referred to
When you first saw the apon piece did you know what it was or was it just a screwed up piece of rag.
What made you examine it in more detail, if it was just another piece of screwed up rag someone had disposed of.
Was it common to see discarded pieces of material on the streets during the day and night on your beats.
At the time you found the rag were you aware of one or two murders?

etc etc

I am quite happy to do the same exercise in relation to other witness testimony to highlight the ambiguities in their testimony to show that this witness testimony given by some of these police witnesses in all the murders doe not stand up to close scrutiny by reason of the need to clear up these ambiguities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector Collard's testimony;

"A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

Read it all again

[David Orsam]

Nothing I have written essentially points to me as claiming the apron piece must have been there at 2.20

I didn't say that. I didn't say you claimed it must have been there at 2.20. I said that this was the essence of your argument but that your actual claim was that Long could not possibly have seen it if it was there because he didn't have time to find it. My actual words were "The issue is that in #191 your argument was essentially that the apron must have been there, or at least that Long could not possibly have seen it if it was there because he didn't have time to find it (i.e. "No time then to check doors, windows and empty spaces")." It's strange that you respond to the first half of a sentence but ignore the second part of it.

If you had just said that you believe that the killer is unlikely to have left the apron in Goulston street at any time after 2.20 that would have been fair enough but you wanted to go even further and eliminate the evidence of Long that it wasn't there by saying that it was impossible for Long to know whether it was there or not. As a result, your argument was essentially that the apron was there at 2.20 (because you think it must have been there at that time) and Long missed it. Your argument is in tatters because that was all based on Long not having had time to find it. You have been unable to substantiate this claim.