Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

If the piece of apron was not there at 2.20 am, but there at 2.55 am [PC Long's testimony], it must have been dropped between 2.21 and 2.54 am — 37 to 70 minutes after the discovery of Eddowes' body at 1.44 am.

Why did it take the murderer at least 37 minutes to reach Goulston Street, which was only 500 yards from Mitre Square [Times, 2nd October 1888]?

Also, if the piece of apron was noted as missing when the body reached the mortuary, it must have been missing when the body was found in Mitre Square, for the murderer had no opportunity to cut it off after 1.43 am [I am here assuming one minute for the murderer's getaway].

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

Regards,

Simon

I believe he was back at his bolt hole to get cleaned up, drop of the knife and trophies, and grab a piece of chalk to get back at those pesky jews who kept bothering him all night.

They probably didn't notice the cut apron at the scene because she was a cut up bloody mess. and there was a lot to note and take in and shock to deal with.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Fisherman,

Thank you.

That is without doubt one of the funniest, nonsensical posts I have ever read.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Thank you.

That is without doubt one of the funniest, nonsensical posts I have ever read.

Regards,

Simon

I aim to please, Simon, but I think you are being far too generous now. I know I have seen much more hilarious posts out here.

But thanks anyway!

[Trevor Marriott]

Yea weak of heart! ´Course I can!!

Now, let´s begin by establishing where you think the rag was "not likely" to be found - In Goulston Street or in the particular doorway?

Once you sorted that out, we will move on.

Well if the killer had wanted it to be found, he would have discarded in a more public place, and perhaps nearer the crime scene, and certainly not in a dark recess of a block of flats, that distance away from the crime scene, what would he achieve by that? Or he could even have sent it to the police, then we would know whether or not the killer took it, or it got there by another means.

There is really no plausible explanation for the killer to discard it there in any event. If he had a blood stained knife or hands he could have wiped both and then discarded the piece within 50 yards of the crime scene, and the taking away of the organs in it is not now even worth considering in now in the light of what I have presented previous on this topic.

So perhaps you might enlighten us all with some "plausible" explantions for the killer and Goulson Street. Not "I think" or "maybe" or "what if`s"

I see from an earlier post you have Lechmere doing a tour of the east end on his way to work. Murdering women on his way to work and then going on tour to deposit evidence. I wonder what explanation there is for this and was he ever late for work. I would have thought that by the time he got to work he was knackered with all that killing and walking about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

There is really no plausible explanation for the killer to discard it there in any event.

Well, someone did. Or are you now disputing that the apron piece was found at all?

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, someone did. Or are you now disputing that the apron piece was found at all?

No dispute that someone put it there ! But who ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Well if the killer had wanted it to be found, he would have discarded in a more public place, and perhaps nearer the crime scene, and certainly not in a dark recess of a block of flats, that distance away from the crime scene, what would he achieve by that? Or he could even have sent it to the police, then we would know whether or not the killer took it, or it got there by another means.

Aha - so what you are saying is that if the killer wanted the rag to be found, he chose an illogical place for it? And since you in your earlier post claimed that it was discarded in an unexpected venue, I take it you believe it a proven thing that the killer DID want the rag to be found?

If that is the case, I must disagree with you. I don´t think that we can work from such a suggestion as if it was proven. To my mind, the killer may just as well have been totally indifferent to whether the rag was found or not.

There is really no plausible explanation for the killer to discard it there in any event. If he had a blood stained knife or hands he could have wiped both and then discarded the piece within 50 yards of the crime scene, and the taking away of the organs in it is not now even worth considering in now in the light of what I have presented previous on this topic.

So perhaps you might enlighten us all with some "plausible" explantions for the killer and Goulson Street. Not "I think" or "maybe" or "what if`s"

No. What you ask for is certainties, and nobody can offer anything like that. What I CAN say without offering any suggestions of my own is that if you think that the distance from the murder site to the Goulston Street doorway is too long to allow for an explanation of him having wiped himself and the knife only, well then you may need to find yourself an alternative explanation that works better. And this time, we are not speaking about times, we are speaking about distances, so you have a problem with the distance covered regardless if it was covered immediately after the murder or at a later stage; you find the suggestion that the rag was used for wiping along such a long stretch unlikely.
So go find a likelier explanation, Trevor! I have one for you, but you will not listen to it since it must involve a "I think that".

I see from an earlier post you have Lechmere doing a tour of the east end on his way to work. Murdering women on his way to work and then going on tour to deposit evidence. I wonder what explanation there is for this and was he ever late for work. I would have thought that by the time he got to work he was knackered with all that killing and walking about.

What tour of the East end would that be, Trevor? Please elaborate! If he was en route to work when killing, no additional touring would be necessary, would it?
As for ever being late for work, we cannot know either way. It seems he WAS late for work on the Nichols murder morning, though. He says he arrived at 4 o´clock, but if he was at Browns as late as 3.47-3.48, he would have twelve to thirteen minutes only to reach Broad Street from there, and adding a discussion with Mizen to that, plus walking (not running) alongside Paul up to Corbett´s court, the odds are that he was some minutes off.

Now, don´t forget to tell me which tour of the Eastern End you are talking about! We´ll have it straightened out in no time at all.

[Kattrup]

No dispute that someone put it there ! But who ?

Well, the killer of course is our best guess.

But you don't subscribe to that, it seems, so barring a conspiracy on behalf of the police, I'm guessing your theory is that:

- Eddowes was not wearing an apron but was carrying around two pieces of one.
- she used one piece to clean herself after relieving herself at Goulston Street, thus accounting for blood and fecal matter.
- PC Long the dunce missed the discarded apron piece on his beat, finally noticing it at 2:55 when in fact it had been there since sometime between 1 and 1:30.

Personally, I think that a theory should be based on the facts as they are available through the sources, not on what you or I might deem reasonable or plausible.

Any theory should be able to account for the sources, and the theory which does this in the simplest manner is better. You may call this Occam's Razor, the principle of elegance or simply follow Einstein when he says "Make things as simple as possible - but no simpler."

The theory that Eddowes herself discarded the apron fails, because it does not account for all the available sources, or it does so in a convoluted and highly improbably manner.

So if that is indeed your theory, please consider that:

-Long's eyewitness account is disregarded - simply because you feel he must have been mistaken

-Statements that Eddowes was wearing the apron are disregarded - simply because...they're "only" in newspaper inquest reports? or because the eyewitnesses were cajoled or fooled into agreeing that the apron found was the one she wore? I'm not sure what your argument here is.

- you consider it a reasonable proposition that Eddowes would use and discard a piece of apron of several square feet, a rather impractical feat, when she in her possession had other, smaller rags at her disposal.


On the contrary, the sources make it abundantly clear that:

- Eddowes was wearing the whole apron when murdered
- it was cut in half afterwards
- someone deposited one apron piece in Goulston Street some time between 2:20 and 2:55.

While we have no sources about who cut the apron, or why, or carried it to Goulston Street, the overwhelming likelyhood is that the killer cut it, maybe to wrap something or to clean himself, and likewise carried it with him to Goulston Street.

Theoretically, the killer could have discarded it closer to Mitre Square, and someone else could have happened upon it and taken it along (or something like a dog), ultimately leaving it in Goulston Street.

I personally consider it extremely unlikely, but that theory has more merit than the above outlined one of Eddowes discarding it herself - because it does not contradict the available sources.

[harry]

You have no reason to doubt it Fisherman,not we.Not all of us.I keep refering to times,as times form an important part of Long's statement.An alterative to belief is disbelief.Some of us have that.
What the killer might have done on leaving Mitre Square is head quickly to his residence,taking what to him might be the shortest route home.That might have been via Goulsten Street,and even allowing for caution,reachable before 2.20.Why did he need to hide?There is no evidence for it.Read one of your own posts for confirmation of that.
If my latest reference about honesty fails to impress ,then look to an earlier post of mine,where a more learned person states his observances.They certainly do not merit taking anyone at their word,least of all a policeman.
Your sarcasm is noted,though what it proves,is beyond my understanding.

[harry]

Kattrup,
What are the facts? Sure it's a fact that long said it (the apron)wasn't there at 2.20,but has it been proven it wasn't.I thought everything is based on opinion.

If I say there is a dirty bloodied piece of apron lying on the floor of my unit,and it wasn't there half an hour ago,have I proved my claim? There are no witnesses,I am alone.It is entirely my word you have to contend with..I could be lying.How are you to know..I could have left my door open,it could have been half an hour since I was last in my unit.It could have been night and very dark.

[Abby Normal]

Well, the killer of course is our best guess.

But you don't subscribe to that, it seems, so barring a conspiracy on behalf of the police, I'm guessing your theory is that:

- Eddowes was not wearing an apron but was carrying around two pieces of one.
- she used one piece to clean herself after relieving herself at Goulston Street, thus accounting for blood and fecal matter.
- PC Long the dunce missed the discarded apron piece on his beat, finally noticing it at 2:55 when in fact it had been there since sometime between 1 and 1:30.

Personally, I think that a theory should be based on the facts as they are available through the sources, not on what you or I might deem reasonable or plausible.

Any theory should be able to account for the sources, and the theory which does this in the simplest manner is better. You may call this Occam's Razor, the principle of elegance or simply follow Einstein when he says "Make things as simple as possible - but no simpler."

The theory that Eddowes herself discarded the apron fails, because it does not account for all the available sources, or it does so in a convoluted and highly improbably manner.

So if that is indeed your theory, please consider that:

-Long's eyewitness account is disregarded - simply because you feel he must have been mistaken

-Statements that Eddowes was wearing the apron are disregarded - simply because...they're "only" in newspaper inquest reports? or because the eyewitnesses were cajoled or fooled into agreeing that the apron found was the one she wore? I'm not sure what your argument here is.

- you consider it a reasonable proposition that Eddowes would use and discard a piece of apron of several square feet, a rather impractical feat, when she in her possession had other, smaller rags at her disposal.


On the contrary, the sources make it abundantly clear that:

- Eddowes was wearing the whole apron when murdered
- it was cut in half afterwards
- someone deposited one apron piece in Goulston Street some time between 2:20 and 2:55.

While we have no sources about who cut the apron, or why, or carried it to Goulston Street, the overwhelming likelyhood is that the killer cut it, maybe to wrap something or to clean himself, and likewise carried it with him to Goulston Street.

Theoretically, the killer could have discarded it closer to Mitre Square, and someone else could have happened upon it and taken it along (or something like a dog), ultimately leaving it in Goulston Street.

I personally consider it extremely unlikely, but that theory has more merit than the above outlined one of Eddowes discarding it herself - because it does not contradict the available sources.

Hi Kattrup
Good assessment.
I would also add that the apron, may have been cut as part of a trophy and/or for the purposes of "signing" the GSG. It would explain, the time gap, as the killer would want to drop off the organs, knife ect., at his bolt hole and maybe grab some chalk.
It would explain why long said it wasn't there at 2:20.
It's obviously a very plausible scenario because many (most?) of the police thought it was written by the killer.
It's not uncommon for serial killers to write messages at crime scenes and or try to leave things or stage crime scenes to throw off police.
The message is consistant with the rippers activity that night being seen/interrupted by several Jewish men that night.

[Fisherman]

You have no reason to doubt it Fisherman,not we.Not all of us.I keep refering to times,as times form an important part of Long's statement.An alterative to belief is disbelief.Some of us have that.
What the killer might have done on leaving Mitre Square is head quickly to his residence,taking what to him might be the shortest route home.That might have been via Goulsten Street,and even allowing for caution,reachable before 2.20.Why did he need to hide?There is no evidence for it.Read one of your own posts for confirmation of that.
If my latest reference about honesty fails to impress ,then look to an earlier post of mine,where a more learned person states his observances.They certainly do not merit taking anyone at their word,least of all a policeman.
Your sarcasm is noted,though what it proves,is beyond my understanding.

Sorry, Harry - it remains that there IS no reason to doubt Long. It would take somebody else saying that the rag WAS there or probably there, but there is no such person.

The fact that you personally ALLOW yourself to doubt Long on no factual grounds at all speaks volumes.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup,
What are the facts? Sure it's a fact that long said it (the apron)wasn't there at 2.20,but has it been proven it wasn't.I thought everything is based on opinion.

If I say there is a dirty bloodied piece of apron lying on the floor of my unit,and it wasn't there half an hour ago,have I proved my claim? There are no witnesses,I am alone.It is entirely my word you have to contend with..I could be lying.How are you to know..I could have left my door open,it could have been half an hour since I was last in my unit.It could have been night and very dark.

If you say that the apron piece was not there half an hour ago, it MUST be assumed that you have a reason for saying so. The most credible reason is that you were able to check, and that you checked.

It is the EXACT same thing as Long, therefore.

When you say a thing like this Harry: "There is an object A on the floor of my unit, and it was not there half an hour ago", tell me - do you say such a thing regardless of whether you believe it was there or not half an hour ago, or because you are of the opinion that it was certainly not?
And do you expect to be believed about it, or would it be fair to say that a reasonable assessment of the ones listening to you would be that it is just as likely that you are wrong?

Try to give these questions some long, hard afterthought, and then please - PLEASE! - return and tell me what conclusions you arrived at.

[Elamarna]

Well, the killer of course is our best guess.

But you don't subscribe to that, it seems, so barring a conspiracy on behalf of the police, I'm guessing your theory is that:

- Eddowes was not wearing an apron but was carrying around two pieces of one.
- she used one piece to clean herself after relieving herself at Goulston Street, thus accounting for blood and fecal matter.
- PC Long the dunce missed the discarded apron piece on his beat, finally noticing it at 2:55 when in fact it had been there since sometime between 1 and 1:30.

Personally, I think that a theory should be based on the facts as they are available through the sources, not on what you or I might deem reasonable or plausible.

Any theory should be able to account for the sources, and the theory which does this in the simplest manner is better. You may call this Occam's Razor, the principle of elegance or simply follow Einstein when he says "Make things as simple as possible - but no simpler."

The theory that Eddowes herself discarded the apron fails, because it does not account for all the available sources, or it does so in a convoluted and highly improbably manner.

So if that is indeed your theory, please consider that:

-Long's eyewitness account is disregarded - simply because you feel he must have been mistaken

-Statements that Eddowes was wearing the apron are disregarded - simply because...they're "only" in newspaper inquest reports? or because the eyewitnesses were cajoled or fooled into agreeing that the apron found was the one she wore? I'm not sure what your argument here is.

- you consider it a reasonable proposition that Eddowes would use and discard a piece of apron of several square feet, a rather impractical feat, when she in her possession had other, smaller rags at her disposal.


On the contrary, the sources make it abundantly clear that:

- Eddowes was wearing the whole apron when murdered
- it was cut in half afterwards
- someone deposited one apron piece in Goulston Street some time between 2:20 and 2:55.

While we have no sources about who cut the apron, or why, or carried it to Goulston Street, the overwhelming likelyhood is that the killer cut it, maybe to wrap something or to clean himself, and likewise carried it with him to Goulston Street.

Theoretically, the killer could have discarded it closer to Mitre Square, and someone else could have happened upon it and taken it along (or something like a dog), ultimately leaving it in Goulston Street.

I personally consider it extremely unlikely, but that theory has more merit than the above outlined one of Eddowes discarding it herself - because it does not contradict the available sources.

Hi Kattrup

It is certainly possible that the Apron could have been moved after an initial disposal by the killer, and such does fill the gap of long not seeing it at 2.20.

Overall a clear assessment I think

While I do not rule out the possibility that Long just did not see the apron earlier than 2.55, that would just be a normal human failing with no need to suggest any deliberate lie; it is more probable that it was deposited at the site after 2.20.


Steve


Steve

[Michael W Richards]

Since there is no contradictory evidence with respect to whether the cloth was there before 2:20, and since Long states... not presumes, that "it was not there" at 2:20, we are compelled to accept this as a reasonable truth.

What that does is allows us to eliminate that it was dropped directly on the way home from Mitre Square, which in turn allows us to accept that the person who killed in Mitre Square could have left the square in any direction that would still allow him to reach Goulston Street before Longs next pass.

Ergo...with this explanation there is no reason to assume that Eddowes killer must have been located in the East End.