Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

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.

If you knew that Dr Brown testified that the apron was marked with "smears" of blood as if someone had wiped his hands upon it - and I'm happy to accept your word that you did - then it is utterly remarkable that you premised your argument in the way that you did, selectively using the word "spotted" which can, of course, mean many things and is not, in fact, inconsistent with the apron being smeared, stained or covered with blood. So your entire argument really collapses and you are wasting your time.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Pay attention !!!!!!!!!!!!

He mentions a large white bloodstained handkerchief after the red silk gauze around her neck, which suggests that is where the handkerchief had been. I am sure they would have known the difference between a handkerchief and a bib of an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

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.

I'm not sure what your point is, but it reads somewhat sardonic.

I was pointing out that the word was reported with the spelling Juews in some papers.

You earlier mentioned that Long's spelling of Juews was suspect, because it was from a later source (November 6th). I would agree, as I also stated - however, in this case, the spelling is documented as early as the 12th of October, that is, the same day the other inquest reportings were brought.


I might add that Halse's spelling also varies in the reportings. Some papers quote him spelling out "Juwees", "Juees", "Juews", "Juwes".

So, Pierre, how do you pick which spelling is correct?

[Trevor Marriott]

If you knew that Dr Brown testified that the apron was marked with "smears" of blood as if someone had wiped his hands upon it - and I'm happy to accept your word that you did - then it is utterly remarkable that you premised your argument in the way that you did, selectively using the word "spotted" which can, of course, mean many things and is not, in fact, inconsistent with the apron being smeared, stained or covered with blood. So your entire argument really collapses and you are wasting your time.

No you are wasting your time arguing for the sake of arguing.

If she was wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore it, how come there were no cuts or any signs of blood on the mysterious mortuary piece. That would really be spooky wouldn't it, after all the rest of her clothing was cut and bloodstained, she had been stabbed through her outer clothing at a point where the apron would have been, and yet no traces of faecal matter apparently found on any other clothing. Yet the GS piece finishes up with traces of blood, and faecal matter on it and no cuts or tears consistent with that old theory. a miracle perhaps.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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

Of course, that list was the source for the City press release.

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

Correct, the court recorder called it an apron, in the same exchange.

[Wickerman]

If she was wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore it, how come there were no cuts or any signs of blood on the mysterious mortuary piece.

There was, the item reads:
"1 large white handkerchief, blood stained."


The final item:
"1 Piece of old White Apron", was the GS piece.

Both pieces being presented at the inquest as two halves of a whole apron.

Go back to the inquest testimony, and refresh yourself with the fact there were two sections of apron, then ask yourself where are they on the list of possessions?

They have to be there.

[David Orsam]

No you are wasting your time arguing for the sake of arguing.

If she was wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore it, how come there were no cuts or any signs of blood on the mysterious mortuary piece. That would really be spooky wouldn't it, after all the rest of her clothing was cut and bloodstained, she had been stabbed through her outer clothing at a point where the apron would have been, and yet no traces of faecal matter apparently found on any other clothing. Yet the GS piece finishes up with traces of blood, and faecal matter on it and no cuts or tears consistent with that old theory. a miracle perhaps.

The answer to your puzzle, Trevor, is literally staring you in the face, if you read my earlier post. Dr Brown testified that it looked like the killer had used the piece of cut off apron to wipe his hands. In fact, in the Times it was reported that Dr Brown said, "there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it". So that would explain why the cut off piece of apron was covered with blood but the one on the body was not.

In any event, the evidence of Dr Brown was that the piece of apron on Eddowes' body bore "stains of blood" (Morning Advertiser) or "blood spots of recent origin" (per Dr Brown's deposition, confirmed by the Times) and personally I think the word "spotted" probably applied to that part of the apron, so that the Telegraph reporter was confused, but either way it doesn't matter.

[harry]

If there was reflected light,it would have shown the writing.There is no evidence of light inside the building,or light coming from outside into the building.

Whether the authors of the A to Z are correct or not is beside the point,I explained where I got the information,and you Fisherman insinuated I was a liar.Not my place to critizise them,or confirm their claims.

I have quoted the juryman as I read it.It was given from a person(the juryman) who had sat for two days,listening to evidence and observing witnesses.Although the word policeman is made it obviously refers to Long.

There are and were then,four reasons a policeman on duty could enter premised.If he suspected a crime had been committed there.If he suspected a crime was being committed there.If invited by an occupant.In pursuit of an offender.There are others but they do not apply in the case under discussion
None of the four I have mentioned applied to Long.He does not claim they did.He claims he found the apron piece there,while on the premises..He does not say why he was in the premises,or w hat circumstances led him to being there. That is what I believe the jury man was hinting at.

Policemen then could not be on premises illegally.Long appears to have been,and by coincidence finds a piece of apron connected to a murder.

There was an old saying when I was young.Go tell that to the marines.

[Wickerman]

Long wouldn't need to be on the premises if the cloth was at the foot of the jamb, as implied by Warren in stating where the graffiti was located.
Technically, a "jamb" is where a door is mounted, this opening did not have a door. Therefore, it is not a jamb, it is a wall.
The entrance is only an opening in a wall, there is no change in the architecture on either side of the opening, no pillar, no post, and more importantly the wall was never intended to carry a fixture like a door.
Both Long & Halse call the location of the graffiti as "on the wall".

Long said:
"The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase"
and:
"Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Halse also located the the graffiti on the wall:
"I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."

We have no reason to doubt Long, Halse or Warren, the foot of the wall/jamb is the entrance of the passage leading to the stairs.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Jamb—

1. Architecture, Building Trades.

either of the vertical sides of a doorway, arch, window, or other opening.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

The answer to your puzzle, Trevor, is literally staring you in the face, if you read my earlier post. Dr Brown testified that it looked like the killer had used the piece of cut off apron to wipe his hands. In fact, in the Times it was reported that Dr Brown said, "there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it". So that would explain why the cut off piece of apron was covered with blood but the one on the body was not.

In any event, the evidence of Dr Brown was that the piece of apron on Eddowes' body bore "stains of blood" (Morning Advertiser) or "blood spots of recent origin" (per Dr Brown's deposition, confirmed by the Times) and personally I think the word "spotted" probably applied to that part of the apron, so that the Telegraph reporter was confused, but either way it doesn't matter.

Dr Brown said lots of things about the apron and the apron piece, but there is a big difference as I keep saying between the terms "covered in blood", "spotted with blood" and "smeared with blood" It seems some resarechers are cherry picking as to which one suits their theory the best

As to the smears, as an experiment, try dipping your hands in a paint pot and then wiping them on a cloth, you will find that there will be paint on both sides of the cloth and it will be heavily smeared.

As what he says about the smears, that is just an un corroborated opinion and not a fact. Did he try an experiment to prove or disprove either?

Well would you believe I did?

The other issue with his opinion is when could the killer have cut or torn the apron. especially if he was disturbed, certainly not at the outset surely because if his design was on organ taking then he would have gone prepared, and if that had have been the case would he have inflicted those abdominal wounds which would likely as not damaged organs?

We already know that the clothes were up around her waist, with any apron she was wearing the furthest point away from the killer and the most difficult piece to find and cut from because of its position, and as I keep saying no blood or cuts or faecal matter found on the mortuary piece which she was supposed to have been wearing.

The more you study all of these witness statements the more ambiguities you find.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course, that list was the source for the City press release.



Correct, the court recorder called it an apron, in the same exchange.

It was recorded as a white handkerchief with blood stains as that, because thats what it was, thats what it says from the list taken down at the time, and you and others cant see that. No matter what you say that is prime evidence, and I accept that there is an ambiguity with Collards testimony whereby he uses the term "apparently wearing"

The list of possessions shows an old piece of white apron, not old white apron with piece missing. The term old might also go some way to prove that the apron was dirty.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Long wouldn't need to be on the premises if the cloth was at the foot of the jamb, as implied by Warren in stating where the graffiti was located.
Technically, a "jamb" is where a door is mounted, this opening did not have a door. Therefore, it is not a jamb, it is a wall.
The entrance is only an opening in a wall, there is no change in the architecture on either side of the opening, no pillar, no post, and more importantly the wall was never intended to carry a fixture like a door.
Both Long & Halse call the location of the graffiti as "on the wall".

Long said:
"The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase"
and:
"Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Halse also located the the graffiti on the wall:
"I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."

We have no reason to doubt Long, Halse or Warren, the foot of the wall/jamb is the entrance of the passage leading to the stairs.

Thanks for that. It shows where the writing and the apron were probably - almost certainly - located. I observed sometime earlier on this thread that wherever the apron and writing were located, they had to be clearly visible from the street and that any form of covering could easily be torn down by anyone passing in the street. Had that not been the case, Warren's reason for erasing the writing would have made no sense at all.

[DJA]

We already know that the clothes were up around her waist

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wrong once again.
Have you not viewed the sketch of Eddowes body at Mitre Square!

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: 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.

Okay, so now I have to choose between you and Long to decide who is the better suited man to know. Letīs see, hmmm, Long or Trevor, Trevor or Long ...

We know that when the apron piece was unfolded, it had most of the blood in one corner. But if that corner was on top of the rag when found by Long, it may well have appeared to be covered in blood.

The degree of filth on it is unestablishable, end of story.

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?

One corner of the rag was wet with blood. Long said both this and that the rag was covered in blood. So either he lied about it for some exotic reason, or he was able to see the blood. If he did so immediately, or if he just checked out of interest when he found the rag, and saw the blood in the light of his lamp is open to discussion. But he said he saw the blood, and I find no reason at all to doubt him.
The idea that he must have picked the rag up to see the blood is stupendeous. Itīs nothing but your suggestion, and it is in conflict with the evidence. It does not belong to any serious discussion of the case.

Then again, neither do you.