Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Varqm]

It's simple really.If Eddowes threw the half part of the apron in Goulston since she used it as a sanitary device she would have thrown it there before around 1:35 am, Lawende's sighting.At 2:20 am,per Long, it was not there so this did not happen .It was brought there by the killer after 2:20 am,Eddowes was already dead or through conspiracy theory by the City police.You cannot dismiss Long.
Anything else it does not matter where the blood came from, obviously from the killing. How do you prove it was from menstruation and what Eddowes's menstrual cycle was.

[Joshua Rogan]

The police would have returned her property on leaving custody

PC Hutt, Daily Telegraph 12 Oct;
"A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous."

You are right a knife can get slippery and I would expect to see a lot of blood on both hands of the killer if he put his hands into a blood-filled abdomen and took hold of organs and remove them.

Dr Brown's evidence, Morning Advertiser 5 Oct;

"There was little or no bleeding from the abdominal injuries, showing that they were inflicted after death"

"Would you expect to find much blood on the person inflicting these wounds? - No, I should not"

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

Eddowes was not wearing any drawers and had pins in her possessions, which had she been using a piece of old white apron as a sanitary device would have been used to attach the said device by using pins to the "mans white vest" she was wearing. The cravat method previously described I would suggest could only have been used if the woman was wearing drawers/kickers these would have been needed to hold the cravat in place.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

Blood spotting is a part of the menstrual process

Smears of blood are also consistent with it being used as a sanitary device so although the doctor in this report states that it could have been caused by a hand or knife being wiped on it equally a female going through the latter stages of the menstrual process could create the same effect and as my unpaid consultant gynaecologist reliably informs me the menstrual process could be drastically limited dependant on the lifestyle of the person and as Eddowes was not living the life of luxury this might have applied to her.

If the killer had blood on both his hands which he would have had if he did what was suggested to Eddowes and he then cut a piece of apron to wipe his knife or his hands I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides on the apron piece bearing in mind if he removed the organs from a blood-filled abdomen he would without a doubt have had blood on both hands

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

The thing is, from Meigs, 1852, which covers sanitary napkins of the 1800s, they weren't held in place by pins but by strings, which were then tied to a string or ribbon tied around the waste (see Ally's point on the loose fitting, crotchless style of underwear; even today's "pads" have adhesive strips to hold them in place despite the more form fitting underwear of today). So, unless you have a source that shows that pins were also used, they are not a documented method. I could say they were glued in place simply because I thought of it, but that doesn't mean it's a viable theory. Possible doesn't mean probable, and I find it hard to believe anyone would want pins on the inside of their clothes.

Also, while blood spotting is indeed part of the menstrual cycle, it is not the only way in which spots of blood can get on cloth. Moreover, describing a cloth as being "spotted with blood" is not saying the cloth showed signs of "blood spotting", the latter describing what you mean and the former, as reported in the Telegraph, just means there were spots of blood and that could come from blood dripping from a knife, or from blood spatter during the offence if the cloth were laying near the body at the time, etc. It is certainly not a demonstration that she was menstruating. It's interesting, though, that it is the Telegraph that also clearly says the remaining piece of apron was still attached by the strings to the body; and that last part pretty much rules out the sanitary napkin argument unless one resorts to selective editing.

Moreover, that description is not found elsewhere, as you show with how the same passage is presented in the Times, where "spotted with blood" becomes "smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it." While if it only said "smears of blood", you might be able to argue that could also point to menstruation stains, the fact remains that the smears were considered consistent with a hand or knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not what a stain from menstruation would look like given that in that situation the stain would be the result of many movements while walking about over a prolonged time. That would mean a general staining, with no real discernable single movements - it all gets smeared together and "blurred", so to speak. Wiping a hand/knife would result in one or two motions over the cloth, leaving a clear stain for each "movement" of the object, only blurring where there might have been some overlap. But there would be some clear start/stop sections. Basically, the doctors would not confuse a menstrual stain with one produced by the wiping of a hand/knife.

And that wiping stain suggests the reason JtR took the cloth with him - to clean up. While the idea of using it as a bandage is entertained by some, and one can see some merit in that line of thinking, from the reports we have the most apparent reason for the taking of the cloth was simply to clean up. The distance from Mitre Square to Goulston street is around a 6 minute walk at an average walking speed. JtR probably leaves around 1:41 (when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage), and once in the safety of Mitre Street, I think it fair to say his first concern is distance, so he's likely to be moving a bit quicker (though he might not run unless he was pretty sure there was nobody around to see him - that would draw too much attention if he was seen). Anyway, that puts his potential arrival at Goulston Street around 1:47, and given we can only estimate PC Long's times of being in that area (and he's estimated to be there around 1:45), we're now so close to both being there at the same time that we can't really be sure who came first. But, if JtR's first priority is distance from the scene, then he only grabs the cloth upon leaving. Personally, I tend to think the apron was cut at the start of the attack, and just to get it out of the way, I don't think he cut it with any use in mind. So he may simply have grabbed it in the middle realizing he had to get out of the area quickly as PC Harvey approaches. Getting some distance from the area of possible capture means he doesn't start wiping up until after a bit of time. He then wipes his hands, and picking up the cloth somewhere in the middle, and folding it to a more manageable size for cleaning, means the cloth need only have such stains on one side of it.

And, just for the dramatic flair of it, if he arrives at Goulston Street just after PC Long has gone past, he may have spotted PC Long in the distance and so discards the cloth and walks on in the other direction. For extreme Hollywood, he sees PC Long coming towards him, and ditches the cloth, moves to the far side of the street and distracts PC Long from the stairwell with a "Good evening sir" type greeting, and vanishes into the night, leaving us with the cryptic reference of the PC who saw JtR near Mitre Square. But even I think that's a load of rubbish.

Basically, the evidence and statements we have available to us are more consistent with JtR having dropped the apron piece there after the murder than with the apron piece being a sanitary napkin that Eddowes herself put there. So in my view, the alternative you are offering is less of a fit to the information we have than the hypotheses that involve JtR dropping the apron. As to when JtR dropped the apron? My personal preference is the "while fleeing", and even though that means I think PC Long overlooked the apron at 2:20, I think that is more probable than the idea of JtR coming back outside to discard the apron piece. If my evaluation on those relative probabilities is wrong, then my preference is wrong, which is why I do entertain the possibility that JtR did have somewhere he could go in the vicinity.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Trevor,

The thing is, from Meigs, 1852, which covers sanitary napkins of the 1800s, they weren't held in place by pins but by strings, which were then tied to a string or ribbon tied around the waste (see Ally's point on the loose fitting, crotchless style of underwear; even today's "pads" have adhesive strips to hold them in place despite the more form fitting underwear of today). So, unless you have a source that shows that pins were also used, they are not a documented method. I could say they were glued in place simply because I thought of it, but that doesn't mean it's a viable theory. Possible doesn't mean probable, and I find it hard to believe anyone would want pins on the inside of their clothes.

Also, while blood spotting is indeed part of the menstrual cycle, it is not the only way in which spots of blood can get on cloth. Moreover, describing a cloth as being "spotted with blood" is not saying the cloth showed signs of "blood spotting", the latter describing what you mean and the former, as reported in the Telegraph, just means there were spots of blood and that could come from blood dripping from a knife, or from blood spatter during the offence if the cloth were laying near the body at the time, etc. It is certainly not a demonstration that she was menstruating. It's interesting, though, that it is the Telegraph that also clearly says the remaining piece of apron was still attached by the strings to the body; and that last part pretty much rules out the sanitary napkin argument unless one resorts to selective editing.

Moreover, that description is not found elsewhere, as you show with how the same passage is presented in the Times, where "spotted with blood" becomes "smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it." While if it only said "smears of blood", you might be able to argue that could also point to menstruation stains, the fact remains that the smears were considered consistent with a hand or knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not what a stain from menstruation would look like given that in that situation the stain would be the result of many movements while walking about over a prolonged time. That would mean a general staining, with no real discernable single movements - it all gets smeared together and "blurred", so to speak. Wiping a hand/knife would result in one or two motions over the cloth, leaving a clear stain for each "movement" of the object, only blurring where there might have been some overlap. But there would be some clear start/stop sections. Basically, the doctors would not confuse a menstrual stain with one produced by the wiping of a hand/knife.

And that wiping stain suggests the reason JtR took the cloth with him - to clean up. While the idea of using it as a bandage is entertained by some, and one can see some merit in that line of thinking, from the reports we have the most apparent reason for the taking of the cloth was simply to clean up. The distance from Mitre Square to Goulston street is around a 6 minute walk at an average walking speed. JtR probably leaves around 1:41 (when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage), and once in the safety of Mitre Street, I think it fair to say his first concern is distance, so he's likely to be moving a bit quicker (though he might not run unless he was pretty sure there was nobody around to see him - that would draw too much attention if he was seen). Anyway, that puts his potential arrival at Goulston Street around 1:47, and given we can only estimate PC Long's times of being in that area (and he's estimated to be there around 1:45), we're now so close to both being there at the same time that we can't really be sure who came first. But, if JtR's first priority is distance from the scene, then he only grabs the cloth upon leaving. Personally, I tend to think the apron was cut at the start of the attack, and just to get it out of the way, I don't think he cut it with any use in mind. So he may simply have grabbed it in the middle realizing he had to get out of the area quickly as PC Harvey approaches. Getting some distance from the area of possible capture means he doesn't start wiping up until after a bit of time. He then wipes his hands, and picking up the cloth somewhere in the middle, and folding it to a more manageable size for cleaning, means the cloth need only have such stains on one side of it.

And, just for the dramatic flair of it, if he arrives at Goulston Street just after PC Long has gone past, he may have spotted PC Long in the distance and so discards the cloth and walks on in the other direction. For extreme Hollywood, he sees PC Long coming towards him, and ditches the cloth, moves to the far side of the street and distracts PC Long from the stairwell with a "Good evening sir" type greeting, and vanishes into the night, leaving us with the cryptic reference of the PC who saw JtR near Mitre Square. But even I think that's a load of rubbish.

Basically, the evidence and statements we have available to us are more consistent with JtR having dropped the apron piece there after the murder than with the apron piece being a sanitary napkin that Eddowes herself put there. So in my view, the alternative you are offering is less of a fit to the information we have than the hypotheses that involve JtR dropping the apron. As to when JtR dropped the apron? My personal preference is the "while fleeing", and even though that means I think PC Long overlooked the apron at 2:20, I think that is more probable than the idea of JtR coming back outside to discard the apron piece. If my evaluation on those relative probabilities is wrong, then my preference is wrong, which is why I do entertain the possibility that JtR did have somewhere he could go in the vicinity.

- Jeff

hi jeff
im not even going to comment on your trevor response stuff because at this point, his apron as sanitary napkin theory nonsense isnt worth wasting any more space on. however, I am very surprised anout your preference in that the apron was there and long missed it the first time around. your ususally a very analytical and evidence based guy and everything we know about it is that tje apron was not there at longs first pass. He was pretty adament it wasnt there. I think we need to go with the cop who was actually there. dont you?

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
im not even going to comment on your trevor response stuff because at this point, his apron as sanitary napkin theory nonsense isnt worth wasting any more space on. however, I am very surprised anout your preference in that the apron was there and long missed it the first time around. your ususally a very analytical and evidence based guy and everything we know about it is that tje apron was not there at longs first pass. He was pretty adament it wasnt there. I think we need to go with the cop who was actually there. dont you?

Hi Abby,

We only have PC Long's statement that he believed it wasn't there, and if he missed it, that would be his belief. He doesn't go into detail, like say "I checked that very stairwell, and it was empty..." for example, he just says it wasn't there when asked. As such, we can't evaluate his statement by comparing it to his actions, or find corroborating evidence from others (note, there is one detective who also passes around 2:20, but he says he could have missed it, which opens the possibility that PC Long could have too). All we can do is consider the possibility that he missed it, and so believes it wasn't there at 2:20.

I just find the notion that JtR would make it home, and then go back out into a high risk area just to toss an apron away and possibly scribble some cryptic graffitti to be more improbable than PC Long, who was doing the beat for the first time that night, overlooked a piece of cloth in a stairwell when he had no reason to think anything was up that night. It sounds to me like he hadn't heard of the murder in Mitre Square until closer to 2:55, so would just be doing his rounds. The stairwell didn't have a door for him to check, so all it would take is for him to be patrolling closer to the other side of the road, or some such thing. It's a subjective thing, which seems more improbable, PC Long missed a piece of cloth, or JtR goes back out at a time when the police will be buzzing around the place? To me the latter seems the more unlikely, hence my preference. But as I say, if the probabilities seem more the other way to you, then your preference will be the opposite. Just because we have different ideas about those relative probabilities doesn't mean one of us is being more/less analytical or evidence based, we just weight the evidence differently because there is no objective way to weight those things available to us and we have to weight them somehow (even to say "either is equally valid" is just to weight them equally after all).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

The sheer lack of facts you have about the case is staggering. First you don't realize that Catherine Eddowes, was homeless. Bouncing from lodging house to lodging house based on earning enough for a bed, is not being housed. Now you don't know that the coroner matched the cloth found in Goulston street with the apron, that had a piece cut from it. Your concerted effort to continuously display your ignorance about the most basic facts about that case you are arguing... is staggering in it's lack of intelligence. "I know nothing about the actual facts of this case, but I'm going to vehemently argue my point anyway!" Because facts don't matter if they conflict with your devoutly held beliefs. Are you sure you don't think Cross is the Ripper?

How she affixed her sanitary devices is irrelevant. What's relevant is, you are 100 percent wrong about how many sanitary rags a woman would need. You are also 100 percent wrong about a woman ripping up an apron to use as sanitary device, when she has 12 alternates in her possession.


No, it's not.

If I were you I would take a step back from this your posts are becoming irrational and repetitive

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

The thing is, from Meigs, 1852, which covers sanitary napkins of the 1800s, they weren't held in place by pins but by strings, which were then tied to a string or ribbon tied around the waste (see Ally's point on the loose fitting, crotchless style of underwear; even today's "pads" have adhesive strips to hold them in place despite the more form fitting underwear of today). So, unless you have a source that shows that pins were also used, they are not a documented method. I could say they were glued in place simply because I thought of it, but that doesn't mean it's a viable theory. Possible doesn't mean probable, and I find it hard to believe anyone would want pins on the inside of their clothes.

These are Victorian street women we are talking about not the normal Victorian women there is a saying needs must when the devil calls so I think it is wrong to dismiss the suggestion that eddowes could not have affixed a sanitary device to the man's vest by using the pins it would have been a simple exercise with the sanitary device attached to the back and the front on the bottom of the vest

Also, while blood spotting is indeed part of the menstrual cycle, it is not the only way in which spots of blood can get on cloth. Moreover, describing a cloth as being "spotted with blood" is not saying the cloth showed signs of "blood spotting", the latter describing what you mean and the former, as reported in the Telegraph, just means there were spots of blood and that could come from blood dripping from a knife, or from blood spatter during the offence if the cloth were laying near the body at the time, etc. It is certainly not a demonstration that she was menstruating. It's interesting, though, that it is the Telegraph that also clearly says the remaining piece of apron was still attached by the strings to the body; and that last part pretty much rules out the sanitary napkin argument unless one resorts to selective editing.

The spots of blood/smears of blood were only on one side of the apron piece and on that same side traces of faecal matter were found it is not hard to imagine a scenario that the blood spots/smears were as a result of it being between her legs

Moreover, that description is not found elsewhere, as you show with how the same passage is presented in the Times, where "spotted with blood" becomes "smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it." While if it only said "smears of blood", you might be able to argue that could also point to menstruation stains, the fact remains that the smears were considered consistent with a hand or knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not what a stain from menstruation would look like given that in that situation the stain would be the result of many movements while walking about over a prolonged time. That would mean a general staining, with no real discernable single movements - it all gets smeared together and "blurred", so to speak. Wiping a hand/knife would result in one or two motions over the cloth, leaving a clear stain for each "movement" of the object, only blurring where there might have been some overlap. But there would be some clear start/stop sections. Basically, the doctors would not confuse a menstrual stain with one produced by the wiping of a hand/knife.

The doctors did not even consider alternatives and as I keep saying to negate this suggestion is that the blood spots and smears were only on one side, the killer would have had blood on his hands when and if he cut the apron he would have had to take hold of the material and then wipe his knife or hands how likely is that that there would have not been traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece? it matters not how he folded it

And that wiping stain suggests the reason JtR took the cloth with him - to clean up. While the idea of using it as a bandage is entertained by some, and one can see some merit in that line of thinking, from the reports we have the most apparent reason for the taking of the cloth was simply to clean up. The distance from Mitre Square to Goulston street is around a 6 minute walk at an average walking speed. JtR probably leaves around 1:41 (when PC Harvey patrols Church Passage), and once in the safety of Mitre Street, I think it fair to say his first concern is distance, so he's likely to be moving a bit quicker (though he might not run unless he was pretty sure there was nobody around to see him - that would draw too much attention if he was seen). Anyway, that puts his potential arrival at Goulston Street around 1:47, and given we can only estimate PC Long's times of being in that area (and he's estimated to be there around 1:45), we're now so close to both being there at the same time that we can't really be sure who came first. But, if JtR's first priority is distance from the scene, then he only grabs the cloth upon leaving. Personally, I tend to think the apron was cut at the start of the attack, and just to get it out of the way, I don't think he cut it with any use in mind. So he may simply have grabbed it in the middle realizing he had to get out of the area quickly as PC Harvey approaches. Getting some distance from the area of possible capture means he doesn't start wiping up until after a bit of time. He then wipes his hands, and picking up the cloth somewhere in the middle, and folding it to a more manageable size for cleaning, means the cloth need only have such stains on one side of it.

Oh come on now we are getting into the realms of desperation to prop up this theory if the killer had blood on his hands however he touched the apron some blood would have been transferred to both sides

And, just for the dramatic flair of it, if he arrives at Goulston Street just after PC Long has gone past, he may have spotted PC Long in the distance and so discards the cloth and walks on in the other direction. For extreme Hollywood, he sees PC Long coming towards him, and ditches the cloth, moves to the far side of the street and distracts PC Long from the stairwell with a "Good evening sir" type greeting, and vanishes into the night, leaving us with the cryptic reference of the PC who saw JtR near Mitre Square. But even I think that's a load of rubbish.

Drama is clearly not your forte!

Basically, the evidence and statements we have available to us are more consistent with JtR having dropped the apron piece there after the murder than with the apron piece being a sanitary napkin that Eddowes herself put there. So in my view, the alternative you are offering is less of a fit to the information we have than the hypotheses that involve JtR dropping the apron. As to when JtR dropped the apron? My personal preference is the "while fleeing", and even though that means I think PC Long overlooked the apron at 2:20, I think that is more probable than the idea of JtR coming back outside to discard the apron piece. If my evaluation on those relative probabilities is wrong, then my preference is wrong, which is why I do entertain the possibility that JtR did have somewhere he could go in the vicinity.

And why would he wait so long before discarding the apron piece when if as has been suggested he cut it to wipe his knife and hands on, that process would have taken moments and he could have wiped both on her clothes before leaving the crime scene why leave a murder with incriminating evidence in your possession and then wait 10 mins before discarding it? and the suggestion that he cut a piece before he carried out the mutilations is in my opinion a cop-out and another feeble attempt to try to show the killer cut the apron piece I have to ask why would he bother to do that at that stage when if we are to be believed that he murdered mutilated rifled her pockets and then removed organs time would have been of essence to him.

We see no evidence of clothes or aprons being cut in any of the other murders

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Hi Abby,

We only have PC Long's statement that he believed it wasn't there, and if he missed it, that would be his belief. He doesn't go into detail, like say "I checked that very stairwell, and it was empty..." for example, he just says it wasn't there when asked. As such, we can't evaluate his statement by comparing it to his actions, or find corroborating evidence from others (note, there is one detective who also passes around 2:20, but he says he could have missed it, which opens the possibility that PC Long could have too). All we can do is consider the possibility that he missed it, and so believes it wasn't there at 2:20.


- Jeff

Hi Jeff

this is unfortunately incorrect. Long stated unequivocally that the cloth was not there at 2:20. He did not state that he believed it wasn't there, he said it wasn't there. Your own weighing up of the probability of JtR actions versus the probability of Long being wrong does not invalidate his statement, which stands. It's neither subjective nor a matter of probability. The apron was not in the stairwell at 2:20.

[harry]

If the apron was cut at the murder scene,was it a forethought or afterthought on the part of the killer? Being as the clothing was bunched up around Eddowes midsection,it would hardly have been an afterthought,as the apron would probably have been inaccessable for cutting.So why was it cut before commencing the mutilations?

[FISHY1118]

Hi Jeff

this is unfortunately incorrect. Long stated unequivocally that the cloth was not there at 2:20. He did not state that he believed it wasn't there, he said it wasn't there. Your own weighing up of the probability of JtR actions versus the probability of Long being wrong does not invalidate his statement, which stands. It's neither subjective nor a matter of probability. The apron was not in the stairwell at 2:20.

Good point , finally something that is a simple fact he said 'it wasnt there''The apron was not in the stairwell at 2:20. can we all agree on that ?if not why not ?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Long did say that the apron wasn’t there so there has to be reasonable chance that it wasn’t but……and yes there’s always a but….can we be at all certain that Long wasn’t covering his own a**e? If he hadn’t actually checked the doorway properly at 2.20 he might have said that it wasn’t there just to show that he’d been diligent in his duty. Of course we can’t prove or disprove this but it remains a possibility imo. Unlikely perhaps but nowhere near an impossibility. And the fact that he was sacked 6 months later for drunkenness points at least to him possibly not being the most trustworthy of officers.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh come on now we are getting into the realms of desperation to prop up this theory if the killer had blood on his hands however he touched the apron some blood would have been transferred to both sides

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Take a towel - fold it in half - apply tomato ketchup to both hands - pick up the folded towel - wipe hands.

Result - ketchup on one side.

As an experiment it’s hardly the Large Hadron Collider Trevor. Why the issue?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

this is unfortunately incorrect. Long stated unequivocally that the cloth was not there at 2:20. He did not state that he believed it wasn't there, he said it wasn't there. Your own weighing up of the probability of JtR actions versus the probability of Long being wrong does not invalidate his statement, which stands. It's neither subjective nor a matter of probability. The apron was not in the stairwell at 2:20.

Hi Kattrup

I agree he states it unequivocally, but that just means that is his belief. People can be very convicted and still be mistaken. What we do not have is him stating how he came to that belief, meaning he never clarifies if he actually looked into that stairwell. As such, for all we know he walked by and just didnt see it, and because he didnt see it he believes it wasn't there. Im not doubting he didnt see it, I just think it is possible he could have missed it. And I think that possibility us greater than JtR re emerging, hence my preference in the ordering if those theories. Note, I am not saying he must have missed it, so I am not ruling out the kess preferred.


- Jeff

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup

I agree he states it unequivocally, but that just means that is his belief. People can be very convicted and still be mistaken. What we do not have is him stating how he came to that belief, meaning he never clarifies if he actually looked into that stairwell. As such, for all we know he walked by and just didnt see it, and because he didnt see it he believes it wasn't there. Im not doubting he didnt see it, I just think it is possible he could have missed it. And I think that possibility us greater than JtR re emerging, hence my preference in the ordering if those theories. Note, I am not saying he must have missed it, so I am not ruling out the kess preferred.


- Jeff

Sorry Jeff, that's not how it works. Long said it wasn't there and he knew for certain it wasn't there (we do not know how he knew but the obvious implication would be that he did his duty and checked the doorway the first time round). (conversely, one might ask how did he manage to notice the apron the second time - precisely because it wasn't there the first).
You've no evidence that contradicts this, therefore his statement stands. For all witness statement we can speculate that he or she might have lied, might have been mistaken, might have been part of a conspiracy - however, without empirical basis, such speculation is invalid. It is of course still very common around here.

As I've mentioned some time ago, probability is not very relevant in history, because either something happened or it did not. Whether you personally think Long lying or being mistaken is more probable than JtR venturing out again after a kill is completely irrelevant.

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't matter when he cut it or how he handled it is what he did thereafter, he had blood on both of his hands and when handling the piece of apron traces of blood would be transferred to both sides. If he wiped his knife he would have to have held the knife in one of his bloody hands if he had wiped his hands even more blood would be transferred to both the back and front of the piece and it would not be in the form of blood spots

www.trevormarriott.co.uk