The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Trevor Marriott]

i am speaking from past experience when an officer comes on duty there would normally be a briefing given by a sergeant. During that briefing the various beats would be allocated. When an officer is given a new beat and he queeried where his beat was he might be told it would be all streets to to the left of a major road for a distance of ? or the various beats might have been in the form of a list of streets incorporating that specific beat.

He might not have wanted to stray to far into the dark back streets and alleys for fear of getting lost !!!!!!

[Wickerman]

Hi Trevor,

As an ex-copper maybe you can answer this question.

PC Alfred Long had been drafted in from A Division [Whitehall]. It "was the first time I had been on duty there [Goulston Street]."

Why would he have been patrolling alone in alien territory?

Here's a thought, who's responsibility was it to make a newly drafted PC become familiar with his beat, the duty Sargeant?
PC's came on duty about 10 pm, it only takes 15-30 mins to walk around the beat, so by 10:30 pm Long would be on his own anyway, wouldn't he?

[Trevor Marriott]

i would imagine it was all about not having enough manpower to send someone out with him. He was not an new officer they probably gave him a rough idea where his beat started and finished but it would not have been written in stone that he should stick to the actual parameters. He might have had hourly meeting points with his sergeant at specific points within his beat.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

As an ex-copper maybe you can answer this question.

PC Alfred Long had been drafted in from A Division [Whitehall]. It "was the first time I had been on duty there [Goulston Street]."

Why would he have been patrolling alone in alien territory?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

...

Mrs. Harriet King, 2, Ponsonby-terrace, Pimlico, corroborated this witness, and said that she told the police they had murdered her husband, and asked why they had not examined his pockets to get his address. They replied, "We are not allowed to pick pockets." Inspector Swanston explained that by the regulations it was forbidden to search a drunken man, or any one else not charged with a felony. The Times, 15 October 1864.

I could be wrong to suggest the above is applicable to the City Police in 1888, and we all know that the City police was a separate entity from the Metropolitan Police......

The above seems to be pretty consistent with the statement by PC George Hutt, concerning the detention of Eddowes:
"Prisoners were not searched who were brought into the station drunk....", though how the police can also removed anything potentially harmfull from them, while not searching them is a puzzle.
Asking a drunk to turn out their pockets may not always be successfull.

[Trevor Marriott]

i dont know when the regulations were changed perhaps sometime between 1864-1888. It was a good point to raise

[Dave O]

Thank you for the reply, Trevor. This following is from an 1864 inquest by Samuel Langham and is in reference to A Division, Westminster. The police had arrested a gasman who had been blowing through gas pipes, showed signs of being drunk, and was observed taking a hard fall in Green Park. The prisoner died from his injuries either sustained in the fall or from a beating in his cell:

Mrs. Harriet King, 2, Ponsonby-terrace, Pimlico, corroborated this witness, and said that she told the police they had murdered her husband, and asked why they had not examined his pockets to get his address. They replied, "We are not allowed to pick pockets." Inspector Swanston explained that by the regulations it was forbidden to search a drunken man, or any one else not charged with a felony. The Times, 15 October 1864.

I could be wrong to suggest the above is applicable to the City Police in 1888, and we all know that the City police was a separate entity from the Metropolitan Police. Obviously, something from a regulation manual or Police Act would be much better than a newspaper, but this is what I have read.

Cheers,
Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

In answer to the question i wil be totally honest and cannot quote a source but perhaps Stewart or Don Rumbellow can assist.

The reason for taking property of a prisoner has always been to
Safeguard their property
To prevent them harming themselves
To prevent them harming others
To secure and preserve any evidence.

[Observer]

Hi Wick

What possibly concerns you is that within the five minutes of finding a bloodstained apron, only then, that is after he saw the apron, but before he left to report his finding at the Station, this is when he heard of another murder.
He does say that he left to find another constable to stand watch for him, therefore, we might be allowed to assume that this other PC was the source of Long's information that another murder had been committed.

There's nothing mysterious about this.

And Supe

Observer,

To follow up on Wickerman's observation, you should beasr in my that PC Long had been drafted in from A division because of a serires of murders that plagued the area and were already exciting people around the globe. This was his first night on his new beat and he finds part of a woman's apron with fresh blood. Rather doubtrful he would think "bloody nose" or a menstrual flow expedient. Indeed, iit is hard not to believe he thought of anything but murder and, if he had any ambition at all, just possibly a promotion shortcut.

Don.

OK Gentlemen I'm convinced, point taken

all the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Fisher

Observer writes:

"I have my doubts whether he found it where he said he did though"

Grounded on what, Observer?

The best,
Fisherman

His failure to see the section of apron at 2:20...if that where he said he found it it must of been it must of been there at that time, right?

all the best

Observer

[Dave O]

Hi Michael,

With all respect, when we make assertions about Victorian procedure, they ought to be based upon a source that is contemporary to the period as possible, not upon how we think things might have worked. This is a fair and courteous way to proceed if people want to be taken seriously and make progress. Trevor has made an assertion and it's reasonable for anyone to ask him for his source.

Edit: I see that Trevor has posted this: Buy hey ho its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opionion it a shame some opinions are not based around common sense No, this is wrong--you are entitled to an opinion based on facts, and no one is entitled to make up their own facts.

I see Trevor has posted since I have but has not replied to my message. So I will ask him a second time--was the regulation different in the City than in the Metropolis, and what is your source for saying so?

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

not everyone described the apron piece in that way and besides as i have alreday said if the apron piece had been used to wipe the knife and the hand surerly the knife mark would have been on one side and the "hand marks on the other,
Besides other posters have also made the observation that he could have wiped the knife on her clothes as she laid on the ground and he could have done the same to clean his hands, no need to cut the apron piece.

Buy hey ho its a free world and everyone is entitled to their opionion it a shame some opinions are not based around common sense

and to also mention that blood spotting is part of rhe menstruation process

and to conclude my contribution to this topic it is quite clear that some posters on here plainly cant see the wood for the trees.

if anyone wishes to discuss these matters further with me please feel free to message me. i do not intend to covet these matters any further on here. Alternativley if anyone has any questions for my team of medical experts namely a forensic pathologist/a consultant gynecologist/an enviscerator and a master butcher again feel free to message them to me and i will post both questions and answers on here in due course.

Like i said before if anyone has any postive eveidence to suggest that the accepted facts are to be relied upon please feel to post it

[The Good Michael]

I have a problem. I'm having my period and I need something to stuff between my legs. Let's see... I have a lot of little pieces of cloth, but what if I defecate simultaneously? Hmmm... I have this big apron that I recently patched. It's completely serviceable, but do I really need the whole thing? Half an apron tied to me should look alright. How about if I tear off more than a third of it and see if that plugs up the leaks? Yeah, I know that it's a good apron, and that I spent some time making it useful, still, a lady's got to do something, ain't she?

Kate

[Sam Flynn]

Eddowes would not have need to crap herself to leave facecal smearing. i am sure women have the equivalent of "skid marks" in there underwear. which certainly has the appearnce of smearing

Not to the extent where the apron had the appearance of a hand or knife having been wiped on it, though - unless Eddowes' sphincter had the circumference of an organ-pipe.

[Trevor Marriott]

my friends the suggestion that the apron piece was used by eddowes and then discarded has been put forward as an alternative explantion as to how it came to be cut/torn and found so decsribed in Goulston St.

If you accept the new findings based on the tests and photos then it should not be dismiised lightly unless of course anyone has another explantion not previoulsy mentioned

FAO Ally
Eddowes would not have need to crap herself to leave facecal smearing. i am sure women have the equivalent of "skid marks" in there underwear. which certainly has the appearnce of smearing, and besides dont forget that these women didnt go much on personal hygene !!!!!!!!!!!