Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[PaulB]

[

I am not proposing he was sitting on the stairs or drinking tea. What was suggested that he was perhaps not even in GS at 2.20am, or if he was he didnt look to see if the rag was there or not, and when he said it wasnt he was covering his back, knowing what Halse had said that at 2.20 he saw nothing either.

I know you're not proposing that he was sitting on the stairs drinking tea, but whether you are suggesting he wasn't in the street or didn't look to see if the apron piece was there or was on the stairs or drinking tea, it all amounts to the same thing. Unless you have some sort of evidence that he wasn't doing what he said he was doing, you are speculating to no good purpose.

Halse also says he passed by as does Long, so you pays your money and you takes your choice as to whether you believe that Long made a thorough check at 2.20am. Personally I dont think he did but I cant prove that, as I cant disprove what he says, but when you weigh up the evidence surrounding the finding of the piece I think it tips the scales in favour of him not finding it when in fact it was there at 2.20am

There isn't any evidence to tip the scales. P.C. Long was asked if the apron piece was there at 2:20am and he said it wasn't. There isn't a jot of evidence to show differently. In fact, for what it is worth you have the corroborating evidence of Detective Halse's that he didn't see the apron piece when he passed through the street at 2:20am either.

I dont think there is a record of any detailed report, or any record of questioning by his superiors on these issues, and to suggest so is mere conjecture on your part. His inquest testimony as recorded and signed by him is lacking in detail and very brief.

Of course it is conjecture upon my part, but it is conjecture based upon what I understand was required and expected at the time. That's what I mean by conjecturing on the basis of "evidence". If my understanding of what was required and probable is wrong, that's fine.

[David Orsam]

His statement does not indicate it was a summary. It reads as if it was given by him without being prompted. He was interrupted and asked a question but then continued with giving his evidence. This is what he then signed, anything reported thereafter may or may not be accurate.

So you don't understand how a deposition was taken at an inquest. How many more suprises are you going to pull out of your hat Trevor?

Yes, it does read as if it was given by Long without being prompted because that is exactlly how depositions were written and exactly how they were supposed to be written.

Long's depotision was, of course, accurate but that does not mean it included everything that Long said. The newspaper reporters had the advantage because theiy could take notes in shorthand whereas the deposition was written in longhand so had to be an edited version of the evidence, otherwise the witness would have been there all day.

Yes, newspaper reporters could get things wrong, especially due to poor acoustics or a misreading of their notes, but ask yourself, would they really get the colour of the apron wrong? I mean, the apron that was produced in court and visible to all? I just don't think so Trevor.

[PaulB]

But are we not dealing with evidence, is it not our role to assess and evaluate the real evidence and not get false pic by referring to these sources as you refer to them as?

You cannot rely on primary sources as being accurate, and thats been the problem with ripperology to many people have been doing just that. For example with the Eddowes murder, the original signed depositions are still available, yet we have newspapers quoting different facts and comments from the same inquest testimony and researchers relying on them to prop up theories.

What do you mean by "evidence", "real evidence"? You can't rely on any sources. Not a one. But then you don't have any past, of course, because the only voices you have coming back from yesterday are primary sources. So, to obtain any understanding of times gone by, you have to use primary sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you don't understand how a deposition was taken at an inquest. How many more suprises are you going to pull out of your hat Trevor?

Yes, it does read as if it was given by Long without being prompted because that is exactlly how depositions were written and exactly how they were supposed to be written.

Long's depotision was, of course, accurate but that does not mean it included everything that Long said. The newspaper reporters had the advantage because theiy could take notes in shorthand whereas the deposition was written in longhand so had to be an edited version of the evidence, otherwise the witness would have been there all day.

Yes, newspaper reporters could get things wrong, especially due to poor acoustics or a misreading of their notes, but ask yourself, would they really get the colour of the apron wrong? I mean, the apron that was produced in court and visible to all? I just don't think so Trevor.

It was a piece of white apron. If three identical pieces from three identical aprons were produced how would the correct one be identified. its laughable. If I met you today and I was wearing a white shirt, and I met you again tomorrow how would you know if I was wearing the same shirt. You would be able to tell if you saw I had a red mark on the sleeve on the shirt I wore today ut otherwise it would be guesswork.

What made that apron piece special that they were able to say it either came from her apron, or it was the one she was wearing, and the latter does not apply because we know that the GS piece was not a full apron.

The issue is, was she wearing an apron at the time of her murder. In addition the question is also was she wearing an apron earlier. As you have pointed out the evidence says she was but i am pointing out the flaws in that evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What do you mean by "evidence", "real evidence"? You can't rely on any sources. Not a one. But then you don't have any past, of course, because the only voices you have coming back from yesterday are primary sources. So, to obtain any understanding of times gone by, you have to use primary sources.

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

It was a piece of white apron. If three identical pieces from three identical aprons were produced how would the correct one be identified. its laughable. If I met you today and I was wearing a white shirt, and I met you again tomorrow how would you know if I was wearing the same shirt. You would be able to tell if you saw I had a red mark on the sleeve on the shirt I wore today ut otherwise it would be guesswork.

What made that apron piece special that they were able to say it either came from her apron, or it was the one she was wearing, and the latter does not apply because we know that the GS piece was not a full apron.

I simply don't know what you mean Trevor. The piece of apron found in Goulston Street (as produced by Dr Phillips who got it from the inspector at Commercial Road who got it from PC Long) was identified by Dr Brown in his deposition so you can't even challenge it as "secondary evidence".

"I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street....I fitted the piece of apron which had a new material on it which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding".

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[PaulB]

Yes some of that is real good evidence

Pc Hutt 13 days after the event says he remembers her wearing an apron.What was so special about the apron for him to remember, after all white aprons were common with women. I wonder if he had been asked what color skirt or jacket was she wearing would he have remembered.

Then he refers to the GS piece which had been entered as evidence and says yes that was the one she was wearing how good is that, what was so identifiable about it to make him certain? and in any event the Gs piece was just that and not a full apron.

The we have Pc Robinson again 13 days after the event who says she was wearing an apron in the cells. He arrested her but no mention of an apron on arrest.Then when shown the GS piece he says that it was the apron she was wearing which is wrong it wasn't an apron.He could have been shown anything white and he would still have said it was what she was wearing.

Then we have Sgt Byfield the station sgt who booked her in and discharged her later mentions nothing about her wearing an apron.Now you would have expected him to have said one thing or the other bearing in mind he would have had her in his view for some time after arrest and before discharge why doesn't he corroborate the other two

So when analysing and assessing and evaluating this evidence, it is fair to say that is stinks and if it were ever put before a jury it would be laughed out of court.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But it is what they said. Good or bad, it's what they said. And the cumlative weight of what they said matters, unless you are postulating a conspiracy of some kind.

And the way you are going, casting doubt on every statement that runs contrary to your own favoured theory, your objectivity is open to question and doubt.

[Trevor Marriott]

But it is what they said. Good or bad, it's what they said. And the cumlative weight of what they said matters, unless you are postulating a conspiracy of some kind.

And the way you are going, casting doubt on every statement that runs contrary to your own favoured theory, your objectivity is open to question and doubt.

I have been trying to look at the statements and evidence in unbiased fashion right from day one. I have no agenda. As to the apron piece it got to GS somehow, as to when, and how, well there are arguments for, and against what has been accepted, and equally the same arguments for and against the other alternatives. So we will leave it at that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

Forgive me Trevor but that doesn't even make sense.

Was Reid's "statement" in the newspaper signed? Did he make the "statement" on oath"?

If not, how is the reporting by NOW of what Reid said to its journalist any different from a newspaper journalist's report of Long's evidence in court?

Do we know if the journalist took accurate notes of what Reid said to him? could he have misheard him at any time? Could the editor have changed the copy?

I just don't understand how a newspaper report of testimony under oath in court proceedings by a serving police officer in 1888, describing events of a few days earlier, is considered by you as "secondary evidence" whereas a newspaper report of an interview given by a retired police officer in 1896, describing events of eight years earlier, is considered by you to be "primary evidence". Perhaps you can help me here?

[PaulB]

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course you can use other newspapers for corroboration such as citing those newspapers which stated that Kelly's heart wasn't missing to support Inspector Reid's statement. But those newspapers as well as the newspapers which claimed that is was missing are all primary sources.

You are still using the words "primary evidence". I keep telling you that primary sources and secondary sources have nothing to do with primary and secondary evidence. I will have one more try at explaining what primary and secondary sources are. A primary source is one that dates from or close to the time of the events it describes. A secondary source is one that was written at a later date and which draws upon two or more primary sources. In other words, a newspaper from 1888 is a primary source, a Scotland Yard report to the Home Office from 1888 is a primary source, a letter written by my great-great granny in 1888 is a primary source, and the autobiography of someone who was a copper in 1888 is a primary source. A book that draws upon all or some of these primary sources is a secondary source.

A primary source is important because it tells us what was believed at the time, whereas a secondary source is the result of what lots of sources said, the researcher/historian/whatever acting like a kidney to filtering out the crap and hopefully giving a clear picture of what actually happened. The quality or accuracy of that picture is dependent on the knowledge and ability of the researcher/historian, which is where peer review and tons of other stuff comes into play.

Newspapers are for the most part primary sources. The term carries no implication of accuracy. At its very simplest the term distinguishes sources dating from the time from sources written or compiled from multiple sources at a later date.

[PaulB]

I have been trying to look at the statements and evidence in unbiased fashion right from day one. I have no agenda. As to the apron piece it got to GS somehow, as to when, and how, well there are arguments for, and against what has been accepted, and equally the same arguments for and against the other alternatives. So we will leave it at that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I haven't questioned that you have been trying to look at the statements and evidence in an unbiased way. You do have an agenda, however; you believe that the apron piece was used as a toilet rag by Eddowes and dropped by her in Goulston Street, and further that Eddowes was not wearing an apron on the night she was murdered, and it is also therefore important to you that the apron piece was present when P.C. Long passed by at 2:20am. So, when you discount the testimony of three policemen that she was wearing an apron when at Bishopsgate, Halse's statement that she was wearing an apron with a pice missing when he saw her in the mortuary, an P.C. Long's clear statement that the apron was not there at 2:20am, it is only fair and reasonable that others will question your objectivity.

I don't give a tinkers damn about the apron. I don't have a theory it figures in. I am not uncritically accepting what the newspapers say, but I am pointing out that Eddowes was wearing an apron that morning, that it was customary for her to wear the apron, that three policemen at Bishopsgate testified that she was wearing an apron when in the cells, that people saw her apron when dead in Mitre Square, and a policeman saw the apron on her body in the mortuary. The cumulative weight of that testimony favours the conclusion that she was wearing an apron. Dr Brown saw the apron and concluded the stains on it had been left by the murderer wiping his knife or his hands. P.C. Long and Detective Halse both stated that the apron wasn't there at 2:20am. And it seems to have been universally accepted that Eddowes was wearing the apron from which the piece found in Goulston Street was taken. Overall, that's not a bad case in favour of the traditionally accepted story.

Well, it can be left at that, but what we have are all the people at the time apparently satisfied that the apron piece was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer, and we have some people 100+ years later suggesting that it wasn't. What is under examination is whther or not the people questioning that it wasn't taken by the murderer have a strong argument in their favour or not. It seems that every piece of evidence to show that Eddowes was wearing an apron and that the piece in Goulston Street match the piece missing from it, and that the marks on the apron suggested that it was used by the murderer to wipe his hands and or knife, are coutered by an argument that maybe those involved were doing something else

[Wickerman]

How white was the apron?
Was the black brick covered in smooth or shiny paint? Was the paint matte or eggshell?
Dildos and Dodos?!? (nice work there Simon!)

What a bunch of nonsense.

Yes let's continue to debate black rectangles, glazed bricks and longs drinking habits and other such sad and desperate crap to obfuscate the obvious. Like the evidence that the apron was not there at 2:20 from a police officer under oath.

Such a waste when a much more interesting debate could be going on based off the known evidence, like what are the implications of the apron NOT being there at 2:20?

Like the obvious question, why the killer took so long to get from mitre square to Goulston street? What was he doing? Was he hiding out? Was he trapped somewhere by the increased police presence? Was his bolt hole near, far? Did he live in the went worth buildings?

How about this question- how long would it take someone, to travel on foot away from mitre square, and allowing for approx. 5 minutes for bolt hole cleaning up and dropping off, and then to travel back to Goulston street by 2:20?

What would be the maximum distance radius one could reach?

I would posit that the killers bolt hole and or home must be within that radius.

Sometimes it is necessary to cut through the crap, thankyou.

The evidence that has come down to us taken at face value, because we have nothing with which to contradict it, tends to suggest the killer lived or had a hiding place close to Goulston St.

[Elamarna]

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

This is really interesting to put it mildly.

In your post #833 in this thread, when you replied to my post #832 you raised no objections and indeed implied you accepted the view posted:


"It is Paul Begg you should be addressing not me I know the difference."


It is however really very clear from your post #1085 that the above statement is incorrect

You continue to claim newspaper reports of inquest testimony are secondary sources, this is despite what has been explained, that this would be the case if such reports were syndicated, not if recorded and written by a journalist attending an inquest (post#832).

The acceptance of Reid's interview carried out some 8 years later as a Primary source, when taken in conjunction with the above is truly remarkable.


Such statements as contained in post#1085 are clear and undeniable evidence that you do really not understand the differences between Primary and Secondary sources; either that or you ignore said differences when it suites.



Steve

[Wickerman]

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You do not seem to understand the evidence you are consulting.

When talking about PC Long, this is not a newspaper story - it is inquest coverage. It may have gone completely over your head but press coverage of inquests is among the most reliable criminal coverage.
In no way can you or anyone who understands the difference compare press speculations, or even paraphrasing, about Kelly's heart with inquest coverage.

Articles composed by the press, even witness statements to the press, are far from being as reliable as the press coverage of inquest testimony.

[Observer]

Sometimes it is necessary to cut through the crap, thankyou.

The evidence that has come down to us taken at face value, because we have nothing with which to contradict it, tends to suggest the killer lived or had a hiding place close to Goulston St.

And sometimes it's necessary to cut through the crap that's cutting through the crap Jon. Why does the evidence suggest that the killer had a "bolt hole" near to Goulston street ? I presume you base this assumption on Long being correct in his claim that the apron section was not sitting in the doorway in Goulston Street at 2 :20 a.m. ?