Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

Well, it wasn't any particular one, it was just a general observation that the Juews-spelling is mentioned in the papers in the time immediately after the inquest. The spelling therefore precedes his report.

Besides the Morning Advertiser, a quick search reveals at least the Irish Times, St. James Gazette, People and the Manchester Guardian as using the Juews-spelling.

Oh yes. Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements. Indeed.

The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.

It is not what they are, but what they are not.

Ju--es.

Blamed for nothing.

Thank you, Kattrup the Historian.

[Pierre]

Harry D: That would only show that you are both selective and contradictory in your appraisal of the contemporary police force in order to prop-up your suspect.

Explain to me why a working force of thousands of men must be regarded as a homogenous group, please. I think that the force was generally speaking prejudiced, I know that they made mistakes and were sometimes lax, and I am quite aware that there were PC:s who nevertheless did a top notch job.

What you are doing is trying to present me with a case of "if I win you loose, but if you loose, I win". If we were to listen to you, I must be either unfairly presenting policemen as infallible - or it is a case of me being selective and contradictory.

That would mean that either way, you win. And we all know that is not correct - you regularly end up on the loosing side, so we can see that your reasoning is flawed.

You claim that the police were too incompetent or prejudiced not to zero-in on an "obvious" suspect such as Lechmere, but you also claim that Mizen & Long must be taken at face value, even though there are valid grounds to doubt both of them.

Is there a contradiction? Could the police not be incompetent and prejudiced if Mizen and Long were correct? I donīt get the idea here, Harry. Maybe you can explain?

It is all very simple:

1. The police can be shown to have been and lax in various degree on various matters. They were therefore not infallible.

2. What we know about Mizen is that he was highly ranked as a policeman when he retired, he was a former gardener who took over his fathers farm and made it a success story, he was deeply religious. Of course, these matters are no guarantee that he was not Al Capones mentor, but overall, if we are to think up a description of a good man, it will be hard to beat these parameters.
Any suggestion that he was a rotten egg, a liar and a bad cop needs substantiation that is not there.

3. There is no reason to believe that Alfred Long was not correct. Not a shred of evidence speaks against what he says.

So there we are - that is how I can say that I think the better choice is to believe Mizen and Long, whilst admitting that the police DID make mistakes.

Thatīs how it goes, Harry. Your juvenile accusations about me corrupting myself to push my theory remains just that - childish nonsense. Itīs ripperology turned into a television soap. I guess thatīs the world you are living in.

Hahaha! The prejudiced, incompetent and fallible police - and the reliable Mizen!

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

Oh yes. Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements. Indeed.

The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing.

Right, so the word was "Juwes". I'm glad we've finally got that solved. Thanks Pierre.

[Wickerman]

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

Simon.

You appear to have no reservations about criticizing the police for making errors. Yet, when they described the nondescript remnant of the piece of apron as a "large white neckerchief, around her neck", you change your tune.
Now you try to promote the idea that the City Police could not make a mistake?

Here are the words of Constable Hutt, spoken at the inquest, in reply to a juror. Eddowes had just arrived at the station, drunk.

"I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief."

A "wrapper" is a colloquial term for an apron.

https://www.zazzle.ca/wrapper+aprons

And, it was around her neck.

Which in turn just might explain why Charles Warren described the portion of apron still attached to the body as a "bib".

The Times changed their wording of Eddowes possessions to reflect the more common term.
Quote
"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

The official city police press release merely described the remaining portion of apron, by now a nondescript piece of cloth, as a "large white neckerchief, around her neck".

[Pierre]

Right, so the word was "Juwes". I'm glad we've finally got that solved. Thanks Pierre.

Yes, the word that Halse reported was Juwes. Everyone except from you already knows this.

[David Orsam]

Yes, the word that Halse reported was Juwes. Everyone except from you already knows this.

I was referring to your post: "Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements."

It's good to know that you are now prepared to accept the evidence of the detective in the case.

[Pierre]

I was referring to your post: "Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements."

It's good to know that you are now prepared to accept the evidence of the detective in the case.

I see. You are satisfied with imposing your own words on people and making believe those words come from them.

[David Orsam]

I see. You are satisfied with imposing your own words on people and making believe those words come from them.

Not at all Pierre. I actually quoted your words. Didn't you spot them? Well I'll repeat them:

"Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements."

[Pierre]

Not at all Pierre. I actually quoted your words. Didn't you spot them? Well I'll repeat them:

"Iīll stick to Halse and his inquest statements."

No, you did not. You are not even aware of what you write here, David.

What you did impose on me in your post was:

"It's good to know that you are now prepared to accept the evidence of the detective in the case."

That is a lie. It is your own lie. It is your own words.

As usual, you impose your own interpretations on peopleīs writings here and then you play the fool

In this case you use the seemingly innocent word "accept". You do it to confuse my own words "stick to" with your lie.

But "accept" and "stick to" are not the same concept in my interpretation. So I do not accept the word "accept".

Therefore you can not impose your "accept" on my "stick to" without seriously misinterpreting my words.

That is how you work, David. You do it with me, you do it with many here. It is truly disgusting, since I see that it is the only way you can communicate to feel satisfied.

You do it only for you own pleasure. And by doing that, you destroy the words of other people as well as valuable discussions. All for your own little cheap pleasure.

[David Orsam]

No, you did not. You are not even aware of what you write here, David.

What you did impose on me in your post was:

"It's good to know that you are now prepared to accept the evidence of the detective in the case."

That is a lie. It is your own lie. It is your own words.

As usual, you impose your own interpretations on peopleīs writings here and then you play the fool

In this case you use the seemingly innocent word "accept". You do it to confuse my own words "stick to" with your lie.

But "accept" and "stick to" are not the same concept in my interpretation. So I do not accept the word "accept".

Therefore you can not impose your "accept" on my "stick to" without seriously misinterpreting my words.

That is how you work, David. You do it with me, you do it with many here. It is truly disgusting, since I see that it is the only way you can communicate to feel satisfied.

You do it only for you own pleasure. And by doing that, you destroy the words of other people as well as valuable discussions. All for your own little cheap pleasure.

It's funny that in all that rambling, Pierre, you don't actually explain what you did mean.

If you say that you will stick to Halse and his inquest statements what else can you possibly mean but that you are accepting Halse's evidence?

That is my interpretation of what you said and, indeed, it's the only possible meaning.

So I will stick to what I said.

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron was "covered in blood" (Alfred Long in his report) and "wet with blood" (Alfred Long, from the inquest.
We do not know to what extent the blood was very liquid, but it seems to me that there was a significant amount of it and that it was wet. Consequentially, it may well have reflected light.
As I said, not that it had to - Long may simply have noted the rag first, and then shone his lamp on it.
It seems a very simple matter to me.

It was not covered with blood. It unclear as to exactly what amount of blood was on it, and bearing in mind the apron piece was filthy, again making it hard to tell exactly.

However Dr Brown said it was spotted with blood in one account, if that be the case then how could Long have managed to see the blood in the first place to arouse his suspicions? He would have to have physically picked it up, and if that be the case why would he do that to that specific piece of rag and not any others, especially at the time of finding if he was not aware of any other murder, and how did he come to be told of the Mitre Sq murder and not that of Stride when Strides murder was some time previous and within his jurisdiction?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon.

You appear to have no reservations about criticizing the police for making errors. Yet, when they described the nondescript remnant of the piece of apron as a "large white neckerchief, around her neck", you change your tune.
Now you try to promote the idea that the City Police could not make a mistake?

Here are the words of Constable Hutt, spoken at the inquest, in reply to a juror. Eddowes had just arrived at the station, drunk.

"I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief."

A "wrapper" is a colloquial term for an apron.

https://www.zazzle.ca/wrapper+aprons

And, it was around her neck.

Which in turn just might explain why Charles Warren described the portion of apron still attached to the body as a "bib".

The Times changed their wording of Eddowes possessions to reflect the more common term.
Quote
"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

The official city police press release merely described the remaining portion of apron, by now a nondescript piece of cloth, as a "large white neckerchief, around her neck".

The list of Eddowes clothing as produced by Collard shows a large white handkerchief around the neck, not a mention of a wrapper/apron.

Hutt does not mention anything about a wrapper in his signed inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.u

[David Orsam]

It was not covered with blood. It unclear as to exactly what amount of blood was on it, and bearing in mind the apron piece was filthy, again making it hard to tell exactly.

However Dr Brown said it was spotted with blood in one account, if that be the case then how could Long have managed to see the blood in the first place to arouse his suspicions? He would have to have physically picked it up, and if that be the case why would he do that to that specific piece of rag and not any others, especially at the time of finding if he was not aware of any other murder, and how did he come to be told of the Mitre Sq murder and not that of Stride when Strides murder was some time previous and within his jurisdiction?

Trevor, your premise is horribly flawed. I think you are trying to say that there were only a few small spots of blood on the apron found in Goulston Street but that is clearly not true.

From the Morning Advertiser's report on the evidence of Dr Brown:

"On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains."

So it's clear and absolutely unambiguous. There were "smears" of blood on the apron. Consequently, there is no reason why those smears could not have been visible to PC Long with his lamp.

Isn't it time to give up this hopeless crusade?

[David Orsam]

The list of Eddowes clothing as produced by Collard shows a large white handkerchief around the neck, not a mention of a wrapper/apron.

I'm looking at Collard's list now, Trevor, and he doesn't say anything about a large white handkerchief "around the neck". On the neck he only mentions a red gauze silk.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, your premise is horribly flawed. I think you are trying to say that there were only a few small spots of blood on the apron found in Goulston Street but that is clearly not true.

From the Morning Advertiser's report on the evidence of Dr Brown:

"On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains."

So it's clear and absolutely unambiguous. There were "smears" of blood on the apron. Consequently, there is no reason why those smears could not have been visible to PC Long with his lamp.

Isn't it time to give up this hopeless crusade?

The only hopeless crusade would seem to be by you in trying to muddy the waters. I previously pointed out the different descriptions of the apron piece in an earlier post. So yes there is an ambiguity.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk