Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Monty]

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

I assume that's a rhetorical question Debs

Monty
🙂

[Fisherman]

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.

Chalk does not reflect light the way liquid does, Harry. Apples and pears.

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 do not insinuate things, Harry. It is not ny ballgame at all. I said that you were EITHER lying, or you had misunderstood the whole matter.
Whereupon you said you were not lying, and I said "Good for you", accepting that you had misunderstood.
It appears that you have instead bought how the A-Z misunderstood Dew, unless you can produce a document where Dew states that the rag WAS so dirty as to seem black. If you can do that, I am the one who have missed out. But letīs see before we celebrate, shall we?
Now, can you stop saying that I insinuated that you lied? I said flat out that you EITHER lied or you misunderstood.

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.

What quotation are you talking about? Have we left the subject of what Dew said now? If so, where did we go? Please be a bit more clear if you can!

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.

Would he not have an excellent reason to suspect foul play, given that he had just found a bloodied rag?

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.

Oh, NOW I see! You are talking about whether the rag was in the building or not. Well, Harry, if it was in the doorway and visible from the street, was there any rule that said that a passing PC was not allowed to flash his light on it? If there was no such legislation, was there any law saying that a PC who did so, was not allowed to enter the building once he had found that the rag was dripping with blood?

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.

That only applies if he stepped into the house while looking for the apron. And the rag was lying in the open doorway, and it was quite probably visible from the street. So I think this whole argument on your behalf is... ridiculous. Yes, ridiculous was definitely the word I was searching for! It covers all aspects.

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

It often appears to me you are still very young, given some of your arguments.

[Debra A]

I assume that's a rhetorical question Debs

Monty
🙂

Do you mean me, Neil? Or is DJA called Debs too? We share initials but not DNA!-I'm myself on all boards!.Someone else asked me about this the other day..

[Jon Guy]

Long was not aware on any murder when he found the apron.:

I have also seen all these newspaper reports, and I`m still not as convinced as you that this was the case.

With your scenario, Long finds a bloodied rag and immediately makes a note of the writing above the rag, and searches the stairwell for a possible victim -all without knowing that a murder had taken place ?

And, still not knowing a murder has taken place he decides to carry the rag to the police station and calls a nearby colleague to stand guard at the location.

At this point he is now aware of the murder.

The patrolling policemen would pass within talking distance, and even the Sergeant (possibly Badham) would have been walking from beat to beat.

If PC Bettles on the adjoining beat knew of the murder (who else could have informed Long of the murders between 2.55 (when Long didn`t know) and 3am (when he knew)

The fact that Long described it as common knowledge doesn't sound like he`d just been given this nugget of info.

But I am aware that most students of the case seem to believe that Long did not know at 2.55, which I have taken on board.

[DJA]

I assume that's a rhetorical question Debs

Monty
🙂

No question about it

Due to rain,Eddowes' apron would be dirty from where she lay if she was wearing it.

Ain't Debs

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly so, Jon. On an earlier thread I made this exercise, showing why I think you have the writing spot on, and why it was divided up in five lines:

"The perhaps best pointer to Warren being right about the writing being on the jamb is how the message was divided into five lines. Warrenīs report has the message:

The Juwes are
the men that
Will not
be Blamed
for nothing

The longest portion of this message is the top one, containing 11 letters.

It was said that the letters were about 3/4 of an inch high, meaning that we will have an estimate of approximately the same for the width of them.

3/4 of an inch is around 19 millimetres. Eleven letters will make a grand total of 209 millimeters, thus.

There will also be the spaces between the letters to consider. Normally these spaces will be a bit smaller than the letters themselves, whereas the space between words will be a bit larger.

There were eight spaces between the letters, If they were, say, ten millimetres wide, then we must add 80 millimetres to the 209, giving 289 millimetres.

There were two spaces inbetween words, perhaps amounting to thirty millimetres a piece. So we need to add sixty millimetres to the 289, and we get a final score of 349 millimetres.

A normal brick would have been around 190 millimetres, according to information on the net. The jamb was two bricks deep. That makes 380 millimetres. Then we should add e seam of concrete between the two bricks, a seam of perhaps 15 millimetres, giving a total depth of 395 millimetres.

So where do we end up? We end up with a line that was 349 millimetres, written on a jamb that allowed a 395 millimetre area to write on. This leaves 23 millimetres of space on either end of the line.

If the killer did write on the jamb, then splitting the message into these five lines make emionent sense to me.

It makes a whole lot less sense to divide the text into five lines when you have a metre and a half to write on. In that case, you could - and probably would - just stick with the one line. Unless you wanted the letters bigger, in which case the larger area would offer a lot of space to write on nonetheless.

The jamb, however, would only allow for small letters, if the message was not to be divided into very, very many lines, making the text a lot harder to read and forcing the writer to either begin writing very high up - or to end up lying down, completing the message.

I think this is the real key to the question. I hope those who are in favour of simple solutions - Occamīs razor and all that - will agree.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I know that an "l" is not 19 millimeters wide. For example. I trust the principle will be very understandable nevertheless."

[DJA]

Do you mean me, Neil? Or is DJA called Debs too? We share initials but not DNA!

Crikey! Now I'm confused.

D is for Dave.
On Whirlpool my handle is Monte (Carpetsnake).

Now I'm more confused.

[Debra A]

Crikey! Now I'm confused.

D is for Dave.
On Whirlpool my handle is Monty (Carpetsnake).

Now I'm more confused.

We have the same initials and it looks like Monty presumed I was now posting using this as a username.

[PaulB]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
It seems that apart from the saturated corner, one side of the material was smeared with blood and faecal matter. The quantity was insufficient to penetrate the material, which, even allowing for the material being designed to be as far as possible non-absorbant, probably means the it was used to wipe a residue from hands or a knife. It is also probable that the marking on the apron suggested to the doctor, who acually saw the apron piece, that it had been used for wiping hands or a knife.I don't think you can make comparisions with dipping hands in paint pots.

I have also asked you more times than I can remember, and every time you have avoided explaining, why nobody, absolutely nobody, is on record as saying that Eddowes was not wearing an apron. Nobody appears to have doubted it. Nobody questioned it. Nobody so much as queried it. In fact, we have the reported statements o people who actually saw Eddowes body wearing the apron! Why do you dismiss the widespread acceptance of the apron by everyone who was there? The apron wasn't a bit of unimportant taradiddle, Trevor. It suggested that the murderer was heading into and was possibly resident in the East End, and, more importantly, the police speculated that the murderer cleaned up in a lodging house in the vicinity of Goulston Street/Middlesex Street. That the piece of apron came from Eddowes and was dropped in Goulston Street by the murderer was therefore important, perhaps hugely so, so somebody should have questioned it if it was not the case. Nobody did. Was it a secret?

[DJA]

We have the same initials and it looks like Monty presumed I was now posting using this as a username.

Don't like his chances of catching Jack the Ripper

Is Monty another ex copper.....only kidding.

[PaulB]

I have also seen all these newspaper reports, and I`m still not as convinced as you that this was the case.

With your scenario, Long finds a bloodied rag and immediately makes a note of the writing above the rag, and searches the stairwell for a possible victim -all without knowing that a murder had taken place ?

And, still not knowing a murder has taken place he decides to carry the rag to the police station and calls a nearby colleague to stand guard at the location.

At this point he is now aware of the murder.

The patrolling policemen would pass within talking distance, and even the Sergeant (possibly Badham) would have been walking from beat to beat.

If PC Bettles on the adjoining beat knew of the murder (who else could have informed Long of the murders between 2.55 (when Long didn`t know) and 3am (when he knew)

The fact that Long described it as common knowledge doesn't sound like he`d just been given this nugget of info.

But I am aware that most students of the case seem to believe that Long did not know at 2.55, which I have taken on board.

I think there are some mis-timings here. I can't think of any statement that PC Long noted down the writing onthe wall in his notebook before searching the stairs and landing. The only comments about that, that I recall offhand, was when Long returned to Goulston Street with the inspector. Anybody could have informed PC Long about the murder, but the only person we know he spoke to was PC Bettles. I don't think Long said it was common knowledge that two murders had been committed - in fact, he actually stated that it was rumoured that there had been another murder - but was asked at the inquest that as was common knowedge that there had been two murders that night, which had he heard about, and he replied the one in Mitre Square.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Yes have you read Pc Watkins signed testimony "her clothes up above her waist" the man who found the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

have you read Pc Watkins signed testimony

"Her clothes were thrown up"

Pretty much like the police commissioned sketch.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
It seems that apart from the saturated corner, one side of the material was smeared with blood and faecal matter. The quantity was insufficient to penetrate the material, which, even allowing for the material being designed to be as far as possible non-absorbant, probably means the it was used to wipe a residue from hands or a knife. It is also probable that the marking on the apron suggested to the doctor, who acually saw the apron piece, that it had been used for wiping hands or a knife.I don't think you can make comparisions with dipping hands in paint pots.

I have also asked you more times than I can remember, and every time you have avoided explaining, why nobody, absolutely nobody, is on record as saying that Eddowes was not wearing an apron. Nobody appears to have doubted it. Nobody questioned it. Nobody so much as queried it. In fact, we have the reported statements o people who actually saw Eddowes body wearing the apron! Why do you dismiss the widespread acceptance of the apron by everyone who was there? The apron wasn't a bit of unimportant taradiddle, Trevor. It suggested that the murderer was heading into and was possibly resident in the East End, and, more importantly, the police speculated that the murderer cleaned up in a lodging house in the vicinity of Goulston Street/Middlesex Street. That the piece of apron came from Eddowes and was dropped in Goulston Street by the murderer was therefore important, perhaps hugely so, so somebody should have questioned it if it was not the case. Nobody did. Was it a secret?

I dismiss it because we have primary evidence in the form of a list compiled at the time the clothes were taken off her body. That is good evidence, what we have thereafter are a number of ambiguous statements suggesting she was wearing an apron and no chance to clear up those ambiguities. So which do we accept the primary evidence or the ambiguous ones, or do we sit in the fence and look for other forms of evidence to prove or disprove whether or not she was wearing an apron

I dismiss it because no one has come up with any plausible provable explanation as to how or why the apron piece was cut or torn if it ever was. The organs were not taken away in it thats for sure.So why would the killer deposit it there? There is no logical reason as to why, never find all the clap trap that he went home and came out again, even if he was on his way home why there? If he wanted to wipe his hands or knife it would not have taken him all that way to do that before disposing of the piece.

As to wiping hands I put that to the test with a pathologist wiping blood stained hands on a piece of white material hands that had just come out of a body. So a good example as you can see. Now if the killer hands were not that blood stained why would he need to wipe them and then no need for a piece of apron.

With regards to the pic I wil say it is a little exaggerated in as much as the pathologist was weaering surgical gloves, and blood will stick to the gloves more so than to hands, but the pic has the desired effect of showing how much blood would be deposited on a cloth under those circumstances and the GS piece I doubt was so covered with blood.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

"The organs were not taken away".

Actually have a look at the sketch.
This is ridiculous.
Where's Pierre!