Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[DJA]

If I was the killer I would have used the apron to carry away my trophies to my base and then I would go out again, bringing the apron and a piece of chalk with me, write my message to someone in a place of my own choice and put the apron in front of my writing. After that, I would leave Whitechapel for a few days.

Pierre 1....failed cops 0

[John Wheat]

If I was the killer and there was a lot of graffiti about the area I wouldn't have cared if I dropped a piece of apron near some writing.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Neither the official City of London Police press release of Eddowes sent to the press, nor the official City of London Police inventory of her clothing mention her wearing an apron.

Are you really going to waste your time arguing with these two official descriptions?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Simon.

I do know which one of us is wasting their time.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I am not lying.I am not distorting anything.I gave the source from which I made my statement.I gave it word for word as it was written.No need for me to re phrase or alter anything.I did not see the apron piece.It might have appeared black to Dew.I do not know,I cannot read his mind.I repeat,the description did not originate from me.Do not insinuate it did.

That it might have faded and grayed out as material does,I can accept.That Eddowes might have neglected to keep it clean,I can accept.That there was blood and s*it on it I can accept.What I can't accept is that it appeared white.
It was a discoloured piece of material,lying against a black background,at night.
Difficult to see from a person just passing by,in the second or two needed to pass.

But what's your point? Is it that if the apron piece was not lying there, then the killer could not be there at about 2.20.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

So, the City of London Police omitted to mention in its press communique an apron as part of Eddowes' clothing, and also made the same omission in the official inventory of her clothing which was produced at her inquest.

Now who's wasting their time?

Regards,

Simon

[Abby Normal]

Hi Wickerman,

So, the City of London Police omitted to mention in its press communique an apron as part of Eddowes' clothing, and also made the same omission in the official inventory of her clothing which was produced at her inquest.

Now who's wasting their time?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon.
Who's more of a dumb ass? You trevor or Pierre?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395007]

"Clearly understood"? What is "juwes"? What is "juews"?

Quod erat confusiatum.

The word "Jews" misspelt by someone who is only semi-literate.

The solution is therefore incallidus

[Fisherman]

Such vitriol. Must have struck a nerve.

Vitriol, Harry? Not at all - I was being completely factual.

You made the claim that I feel I must have Long being correct, because otherwise, somehow, it would mean that Mizen may also have been less than correct.

So if one PC is incompetent or lying, it would mean that another PC in another errand also may have been incompetent and lying.

To begin with, that is rather a dumb suggestion. To carry on, you failed to recognize that I am one of the posters out here who has been hardest criticized on account of my pointing to how the police seems to have been incompetent, prejudiced and lax.

So where does that put you suggestion? It puts your suggestion right where it belongs - on the scrapheap.

What´s worse is that the suggestion as such implies that I am willing to tamper with the facts to make my suggestion that Lechmere was the killer look likelier.

So that was what you were up to: You made baseless accusations with the clear intent to mislead and to tarnish me.

There can be many words for such a thing. Five of them are "juvenile", "illogical", "inconsequential" and "outright stupid".

When I get vitriolic, you will notice. Promise.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I am not lying.

Good for you, Harry. I never said you was.

I am not distorting anything.

Yes, you are.

I gave the source from which I made my statement.I gave it word for word as it was written.

The source you gave was Dew. And here is what you said:

The apron was so dirty,that at first glance it seemed black.
Who said that? Walter Dew is reported as saying it.

So you are saying that Walter Dew is reported as saying that the apron was so dirty, that at first glance it seemed black.

But Walter Dew never said that the apron was dirty, or that it seemed black at first glance. Walter Dew said that the apron de facto WAS black:

This victim was just as shabbily dressed as her fellow in Berners Street.

She had been wearing a black apron. Part of this was missing.

No need for me to re phrase or alter anything.

And yet you did.

I did not see the apron piece.It might have appeared black to Dew.I do not know,I cannot read his mind.I repeat,the description did not originate from me.Do not insinuate it did.

Why would I insinuate that the description came from you? I am perfectly aware that it came from Dew. But it did not come the way you claim it came. You are saying that Dew stated that the apron was so dirty as to seem black at first glance. That is not true. He never said that. He said that the apron Eddowes had been wearing was a black apron. And that means that the fabric was black, not that the apron was so dirty as to seem black.

That it might have faded and grayed out as material does,I can accept.That Eddowes might have neglected to keep it clean,I can accept.That there was blood and s*it on it I can accept.What I can't accept is that it appeared white.

I don´t care in the least about what you can accept or cannot accept. It seems to me that you can allow yourself a lot, going by how you misrepresent Walter Dew. I have no problems at all imagining the apron piece in Goulston Street as a piece of old, grimy, white cloth, stained with blood and feces. Nor did any of the ones involved in the case seem to have such difficulties. Because that was what it was.

It was a discoloured piece of material,lying against a black background,at night.

"Discoloured"? Doing a bit of time-travelling, are we? You have no idea if it was discoloured, and there is not a soul involved in the case that says it was. It would not have been shiny white on the whole, it will probably not have been shiny white at all, but it WILL have been recognizably white to an extent, and the rest of it will have been smeared with blood and feces.

Difficult to see from a person just passing by,in the second or two needed to pass.

You cannot possibly know how easy or difficult it was to spot.

But what's your point? Is it that if the apron piece was not lying there, then the killer could not be there at about 2.20.

My point in this exchange with you is that you are misrepresenting the facts. My overall point on the thread is that many people prefer to ditch the evidence in favour of their own theorizing, which is wrong. As for what we can learn from the apron not being in place at 2.20 - if that was the case - is that the killer did not go directly to Goulston Street to drop the apron after the Eddowes murder. That opens up for many different scenarios, but these must be suggestions only until further notice.

[DJA]

[QUOTE=John G;395039]

The word "Jews" misspelt by someone who is only semi-literate.

The solution is therefore incallidus

Neat school boy hand,yet semi-literate.
Now, who's being simple

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=John G;395039]

The word "Jews" misspelt by someone who is only semi-literate.

The solution is therefore incallidus

I dont think the word Jews was mispelt. All the other words were spelt correctly. The word Jews would have been just about the most common known and identifiable word in The East End at that time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He wasn't aware of a murder having been committed at 2:55 either, was he?

[John G]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;395045]

I dont think the word Jews was mispelt. All the other words were spelt correctly. The word Jews would have been just about the most common known and identifiable word in The East End at that time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

That's a fair point, however, I would point out that lots of common words are frequently misspelt. For instance, take the word "misspelt". This is the English variant, whereas the American varient is "misspelled."

Moreover, there is conflicting evidence as to how the word was spelt. Detective Hales, for instance, remembered the spelling as "Juwes"; conversely PC Long's recollection was "Juews". And, in Sir Henry Smith's book, From Constable to Commissioner, the word is referred to by its correct spelling, "Jews".

[David Orsam]

I dont think the word Jews was mispelt. All the other words were spelt correctly. The word Jews would have been just about the most common known and identifiable word in The East End at that time.

Well Trevor if you are going to repeat almost word for word a post you made four months ago, I'm going to repeat my response.

The fact that Jews, in your view, and without any evidence, "was probably the most common known and identifiable word" in a local area does not mean that everyone in the country, or even in that area, could spell it correctly.

And there is a difference, isn't there, in a name being commonly known and it being commonly known in written form? Jose Mourinho is perhaps the most famous football manager in this country but loads of football fans can't spell his surname properly. That's even with it being in all the newspapers all the time. If you don't know how to spell a word you just don't know. The spelling might have derived from "Judas". Also, think of the word "true". It rhymes with "Jew" but is spelt very differently. If you are trying to work out a spelling of "Jew" based on how similar words or names in the English language such as "Judas" and "true" are spelt it can be very confusing.

As you are no doubt aware, the spelling of "Jews" as "Jewes" was common in the seventeenth century and one can find it spelt that way even in the nineteenth century. See my sub-article "Reading the Writing on the Wall" in http://www.orsam.co.uk/somethoughts.htm. It only needed (for example) someone to believe that the word "Jew" (or "Jewe"), which they were familiar with in spoken form, was derived from "Judas" (or vice versa) to think that the correct spelling was "Juwe".

If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist. Yet in a post on this forum on 17 June 2010 you spelt the surname of Tom Wescott first as "Westcot" then, in the same post, as "Westcott", and in your book, 'Jack the Ripper – The Secret Police Files', you also spelt it as "Westcott". Unless you were talking of a different person than Tom Wescott how is such a thing possible?

You might also have missed me pointing out single spelling mistakes in a couple of otherwise perfectly spelt postings in this very forum. In one, the poster, despite spelling a number of long words correctly, spelt "diseases" as "deceases". In another perfectly spelt post the same person also typed "knew" instead of "new". A different poster, in an otherwise perfectly spelt post, wrote "proberbly" for probably.

All of those words were commonly known words but, for various reasons, people who can spell most words correctly can spell simple words wrongly at times. I could continue pointing such errors out on this forum but it would be rather tiresome and annoying for all concerned.