Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Bridewell]

The statements given to the police by all the witnesses are provided to the Coroner for him to read to enable him to select suitable witnesses for the inquest.
The Coroner is selecting the best witnesses to enable the Jury to determine the whom (identity), the when, where & by what means the victim met his/her death.

So yes, the Coroner does know in advance what each witness saw, heard and did.

Some confuse the inquest with a trial, the witnesses called at a trial are selected for different reason's.

Totally agree. I'll add my own view (which I concede you may not share) that this is why Schwartz was not called to the Stride inquest. He could not identify the victim and does not help with the time and place of any fatal attack. His evidence would have been valuable to one side or the other in the event of a trial but not at the inquest.

[David Orsam]

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 ...

That is funny.

It is indeed breathtakingly astonishing that Trevor seems to think that his own views in 2016 as to what the piece of the apron should have looked like are more accurate than the evidence of the constable who actually saw it and picked it up in 1888.

[Elamarna]

I have been dealing with primary and secondary evidence for years so I do know the difference, unlike those on here who seem to in addition to accepting what police officers said without question, want to believe in all that was written in the newspapers, and thats been a major problem with ripperology over the years. It called a lack of understanding.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Not all that is published. only that which can be seen to be relevant.



Years of dealing with a subject does not mean one understands the subject, and it is a shame that at times abetter grasp of primary and secondary sources is not shown.

I truly find the attitude shown by not just you admittedly, that those who do not agree with the views put forward are lacking in understanding and somehow are holding research back to demonstrate intolerance and an inability to even accept they may not be as infallible as they believe.

The very same trait is shown by at least one other prolific poster on the forums.


Steve

[David Orsam]

I didnt bring this up, another poster was trying to suggest the large white handkerchief was in fact the apron. I merely put that to bed.

You are perfectly free to argue (and so is he) that, from other sources, the "large white handkerchief" must have been worn by Eddowes around her neck. But what you can't do is say that this is stated in Collard's list, because it isn't!

[David Orsam]

I'll reply to Wickerman in my own good time.

Hey Simon, you've had five days now to respond to Wickerman's #582 but I haven't seen any response. Does this mean you are having difficulty?

[David Orsam]

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.

So, Jon, if we combine the accounts of Halse and Warren as follows:

"The writing was in a good round hand on the jamb of the open archway or doorway, upon the black dado of the passage wall, visible to anybody in the street"

is it fair to say that there is no obvious internal contradiction within that sentence?

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Inspector Collard's list— 1 piece of red gauze Silk, various cuts thereon found on neck. 1 White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief, red and white bird's eye border. 1 Piece of old White Apron.

A number of newspapers published the official police description of Eddowes, which included "a large white handkerchief" around her neck.

The Times—

"A piece of old coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

Dr Gordon Brown—

“The throat was cut across. Below the cut was a neckerchief.”

Regards,

Simon

[PaulB]

So in effect, according to you say we should accept what everyone said in 1888 without question. Wow thats some logic,

Kindly cite where I said any such thing? And look a word-twisting idiot if you can't.

and you do need to find out the difference between primary and secondary, because at the moment you do not have a clue.

Actually, I don't. Unlike you, I already know the difference.

And Henry Matthews must have had concerns about the apron to write to Frazer and ask that question I wonder what prompted him to ask that out of the blue.

What a dim-wit to have asked for clarification. Politicians. eh?

But I am sure an explanation of some kind will be forthcoming you are never lost for words.

Maybe not. They are my words though.

[PaulB]

I have been dealing with primary and secondary evidence for years so I do know the difference, unlike those on here who seem to in addition to accepting what police officers said without question, want to believe in all that was written in the newspapers, and thats been a major problem with ripperology over the years. It called a lack of understanding.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

'primary and secondary evidence'? What has that got to do with primary and secondary sources?

As has been explained to you so, so so many times. Nothing. Now, go away and find out what primary and secondary sources are.

[David Orsam]

Inspector Collard's list— 1 piece of red gauze Silk, various cuts thereon found on neck. 1 White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief, red and white bird's eye border. 1 Piece of old White Apron.

Why have you posted a selectively edited extract from the list without making the editing clear?

[PaulB]

Trevor

It appears you really do not understand the differences between primary and secondary sources with regards to newspapers.


Articles in general, which are drawing on other sources are normally considered secondary,

A letter to an editor may be judged primary. depending on the context.

Editorials are of course opinion and are secondary sources.

However eyewitness reports are usually considered primary if the report has been made directly to the paper which publishes and is not syndicated.


Indeed a simply definition maybe given, that if an event is written about by someone who either witnessed it or partook in the event and such writing is made contemporaneously to the event then it is a primary source.


Steve

Thank goodness you had the patience to explain it to him. Don't expect him to understand though. I've explained it about forty times and he hasn't grasped it yet. Just for clarification, a newspaper report that records what was believed to have happened at the time (or close to when it happened) is a primary source. But an account that draws upon and is a distilation of multiple primary (and possibly secondary) sources is a secondary source. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a primary source even though the authors didn't witness the events they described. A bad example, but....

[David Orsam]

Thank goodness you had the patience to explain it to him. Don't expect him to understand though. I've explained it about forty times and he hasn't grasped it yet. Just for clarification, a newspaper report that records what was believed to have happened at the time (or close to when it happened) is a primary source. But an account that draws upon and is a distilation of multiple primary (and possibly secondary) sources is a secondary source. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a primary source even though the authors didn't witness the events they described. A bad example, but....

Yes, I believe there is often confusion by some people about the difference between first hand accounts and primary sources. I appreciate that it can be hard to grasp the distinction but they are two different things.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Because she wasn't wearing the rest of her clothing around her neck.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Because she wasn't wearing the rest of her clothing around her neck.

Are you saying that Collard's list indicates that those three items in your post, and only those three items, were being worn by Eddowes around her neck?

[PaulB]

Yes, I believe there is often confusion by some people about the difference between first hand accounts and primary sources. I appreciate that it can be hard to grasp the distinction but they are two different things.

Thank you, David.