Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

So now we are expected to ignore Walter Dew.

No, we should ignore you, since you claimed that Dew said that the apron was black ON ACCOUNT OF BEING DIRTY.

Very clearly, this was never true since Dew never said anything at all about any dirt on the apron. What he said was that the apron was a black apron. Meaning that the apron was made out of black cloth.

The addition of the dirt was your own, which is why I said - and say - that you are actively misleading. If you can find any other source telling us that the apron had a black appearance, I would like to see that source. And even if you should find such a source, it will not change Dews wording.

That is how it works, Harry.

[Fisherman]

Hi

Just been catching up on the additions to the thread today by our very own historian.

Once again we have claims which are said not to be personal opinion but backed by data sources. And yet again we are told we may not know the sources yet.

I repeat for the untold time.

IF A DATA SOURCE CANNOT BE REVEALED IT MUST BE DEEMED NOT TO EXIST UNTIL SUCH TIME IT IS REVEALED.

steve

Apply that admirably clear thinking to Kosminski and see what happens...

[Trevor Marriott]

No, we should ignore you, since you claimed that Dew said that the apron was black ON ACCOUNT OF BEING DIRTY.

Very clearly, this was never true since Dew never said anything at all about any dirt on the apron. What he said was that the apron was a black apron. Meaning that the apron was made out of black cloth.

The addition of the dirt was your own, which is why I said - and say - that you are actively misleading. If you can find any other source telling us that the apron had a black appearance, I would like to see that source. And even if you should find such a source, it will not change Dews wording.

That is how it works, Harry.

Eddowes had just returned from hop picking there is no way the apron would have been snow white as you infer, stained to the point of it almost being black would seem to be more fitting. That might explain it being described as a piece of discarded rag.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Because at 2.20am he was not aware of any murder having been commited

But you are simply assuming that he conducted more extensive searches at 2.55 than at 2.20 (because he became aware of the murder after 2.20). There is no evidence for this assumption. I'm not saying it isn't possible but for all we know the news of the murder changed nothing about the way he patrolled his beat.

In any event, your response does not answer my question "If he physically went inside at 2.55am why could he also not physically have gone inside at 2.20am?" If you were being honest, the answer is that there is no reason why he could not physically have gone inside at 2.20 if he did so at 2.55.

[David Orsam]

But we dont know exactly where it was found several different descriptions

We know that the apron was found below the graffiti and the graffiti was found above the apron. Once we consider all the descriptions and use a little bit of common sense we can work out where they were. I think about 100 people have already told you where they were but you don't seem to take it in.

[harry]

Fisherman,
What I wrote in post 419 of this thread was,'The apron was so dirty,that at fist glance it seemed black'.I never wrote black ON ACCOUNT OF IT BEING DIRTY.

I also added that is what was reported.

You will find my reference in The Jack the Ripper AtoZ.Page 82.

Don't insinuate I am manufacturing information.

[David Orsam]

Eddowes had just returned from hop picking there is no way the apron would have been snow white as you infer, stained to the point of it almost being black would seem to be more fitting. That might explain it being described as a piece of discarded rag.

Who is saying it was "snow white"? The very clear contemporary evidence is that the apron was white.

As for it being described as "a piece of discarded rag", I thought you told us it was described as "a screwed up rag"? Perhaps you have forgotten but in #465 I asked you to tell me who described it as such.

[Trevor Marriott]

But you are simply assuming that he conducted more extensive searches at 2.55 than at 2.20 (because he became aware of the murder after 2.20). There is no evidence for this assumption. I'm not saying it isn't possible but for all we know the news of the murder changed nothing about the way he patrolled his beat.

That is why there are ambiguities because he was never asked about his movements. I believe but cannot prove the fact that he and Halse might have met up and the news of the murder relayed to him from Halse, thereafter he decided to make a more thorough examination of properties on his beat, thus finding the rag at 2.55am.

In any event, your response does not answer my question "If he physically went inside at 2.55am why could he also not physically have gone inside at 2.20am?" If you were being honest, the answer is that there is no reason why he could not physically have gone inside at 2.20 if he did so at 2.55.

At 2.20am he was not aware of a murder so there was no need for him to do a through examination of the properties on his beat, and so he might not have gone inside at 2.20am. But I accept what you say, but the depositing of the apron piece if by the killer, should not be disregarded when assessing the truthfulness of Long. 1.44 time of murder- anytime up to 60 mins for the killer to be wandering around with incriminating evidence and in possession of the murder weapon, that is illogical in anyone's books. If you were the killer would you do that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

As to the chalked message—

"The writing was in a good round hand, upon the black dado of the passage wall." DC Halse, Morning Post 12th October.

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street." Sir Charles Warren, 6th November report.

Two very different places.

Is there any chance, Simon, that you could explain why you think these are two "very different places"?

[Trevor Marriott]

Who is saying it was "snow white"? The very clear contemporary evidence is that the apron was white.

As for it being described as "a piece of discarded rag", I thought you told us it was described as "a screwed up rag"? Perhaps you have forgotten but in #465 I asked you to tell me who described it as such.

Ok a discarded piece of rag which had clearly been discarded. Happy now

Do you argue just for the sale of arguing ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

At 2.20am he was not aware of a murder so there was no need for him to do a through examination of the properties on his beat, and so he might not have gone inside at 2.20am.

But wasn't he brought specially to Whitechapel from 'A' Division as a result of the murders? So isn't it fair to say that the one thing he needed to ensure was that there were no dead bodies or killers hiding in any of the passages on his beat? Thus, is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have carried out checks of such spaces on his beat?

But I accept what you say

Thank you and I've very glad to hear it.

but the depositing of the apron piece if by the killer, should not be disregarded when assessing the truthfulness of Long. 1.44 time of murder- anytime up to 60 mins for the killer to be wandering around with incriminating evidence and in possession of the murder weapon, that is illogical in anyone's books. If you were the killer would you do that?

We know the killer took the knife away with him rather than leave it at any of the crime scenes so that risk of being caught carrying it was always there. If he was hiding from the police following the murder then he certainly might have carried the apron with him along with the murder weapon.

But of course I also accept what you say and that it is always possible that Long didn't carry out proper searches and lied. It can't be entirely ruled out but the Metropolitan Police report of 6 November states that Long visited the location at 2.20 am "and there was nothing there at that time". That was Long's evidence at the inquest. That's the evidence Trevor. You can accept it or not as you please but it's still the evidence in the case and will always be so.

[David Orsam]

Ok a discarded piece of rag which had clearly been discarded. Happy now

Do you argue just for the sale of arguing ?

I don't argue for the sake of arguing Trevor but you've claimed that the apron was described both as a "discarded piece of rag" and a "screwed up rag". It transpires that what you are saying is that this is how you think it must have been thought of by Long when he found it, which is something totally different.

Can I suggest that the most important thing about the material that Long saw was that it appeared to be bloodstained?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
What I wrote in post 419 of this thread was,'The apron was so dirty,that at fist glance it seemed black'.I never wrote black ON ACCOUNT OF IT BEING DIRTY.

I also added that is what was reported.

You will find my reference in The Jack the Ripper AtoZ.Page 82.

Don't insinuate I am manufacturing information.

I am not insinuating it, Harry, I am stating it out loud. And I have proof! Here is the exact wording from your post:
"The apron was so dirty,that at first glance it seemed black.
Who said that? Walter Dew is reported as saying it."

So there we are, you are claiming that Walter Dew said that the apron was so dirty that it seemed black. And we can all see that what Dew wrote was that the apron was a black apron, meaning that it was sewn from black cloth.

You may have misunderstood it, you may be lying about it, you may have a hard time admitting when you are wrong, and you know what? I could not care less. But I DO care about the evidence and the facts, and I donīt want to see it tampered with or distorted, and that is exactly what is going on here.

Now, be a bit clever and admit that you were wrong, and the matter is over and done with. If it hurts, do it anyway - there is no other way out. I wonīt rub it in, but I wonīt stand for it unamended and repeatedly rehashed as some sort of makeshift truth.

[Fisherman]

I don't argue for the sake of arguing Trevor but you've claimed that the apron was described both as a "discarded piece of rag" and a "screwed up rag". It transpires that what you are saying is that this is how you think it must have been thought of by Long when he found it, which is something totally different.

Can I suggest that the most important thing about the material that Long saw was that it appeared to be bloodstained?

You can, David. He even says "covered in blood" if my memory serves me, so that would seemingly have been the overall appearance. Accordingly, Long will not have thought "Hey, a black rag" or "Hey, a white rag" but instead "Hey, a rag covered in blood". If he could not make out the colouration from afar, he will have thought "Hey, a rag", alternatively "Hey, whatīs that?", and on approaching it, he will have thought "Hey, a rag covered in blood".

To quote an authority out here, it is not rocket science.

[Trevor Marriott]

But wasn't he brought specially to Whitechapel from 'A' Division as a result of the murders? So isn't it fair to say that the one thing he needed to ensure was that there were no dead bodies or killers hiding in any of the passages on his beat? Thus, is it not reasonable to suppose that he would have carried out checks of such spaces on his beat?



Thank you and I've very glad to hear it.



We know the killer took the knife away with him rather than leave it at any of the crime scenes so that risk of being caught carrying it was always there. If he was hiding from the police following the murder then he certainly might have carried the apron with him along with the murder weapon.

But of course I also accept what you say and that it is always possible that Long didn't carry out proper searches and lied. It can't be entirely ruled out but the Metropolitan Police report of 6 November states that Long visited the location at 2.20 am "and there was nothing there at that time". That was Long's evidence at the inquest. That's the evidence Trevor. You can accept it or not as you please but it's still the evidence in the case and will always be so.

You are right again, but all evidence should be tested to ascertain the truthfulness of the witness giving that evidence and its accuracy, and reliability, there are no exceptions just because a police man give evidence is he automatically to be believed just because he is a police officer. the answer is no.

It is for a court of jury to decide after hearing all the evidence both from the prosecution and the defence. So in the case of Long I suggest we cannot accept that what he says with any certainty as being totally correct.

Just because no one was arrested and put on trial, that doesn't mean to say we should not look at the evidence in the same way as if someone was arrested and on trial, and hypothetically ask the questions of a witness that might be asked at a trial which might clear up the ambiguities we now are faced with. Because at the moment with Long all we have is what he said, nothing to corroborate him, so it is unsafe to readily accept his evidence without question in the light of other facts which might prove him wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk