The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Trevor Marriott]

and one day a man wil land on the sun

[Sam Flynn]

and one day a man wil land on the sun

What I like most about you, Trevor - apart from evidently being a good sport - is your optimism

[Trevor Marriott]

ever the eternal thats me Sam ! i guess i am always likely to stay that way thats at least until opticians around the world stop selling rose tinted spectacles to some casebook posters

[Observer]

Hi all

I've always wondered what drew Longs attention to the apron section, after all (as has been pointed out) it would hardly have looked out of place, why was he drawn towards it?

Could it be that the graffiti was the first thing to attract his attention, he then noticing the section of apron shortly afterwards?

Is it possible that the graffiti was not there at 2:20 the time at which Long had been in Goulston Street on his previous visit?

all the best

Observer

all the best

[Sam Flynn]

I've always wondered what drew Longs attention to the apron section, after all (as has been pointed out) it would hardly have looked out of place, why was he drawn towards it?

He noticed it and decided to have a closer look - I don't see anything wrong with that, anymore than I find it odd that he might have overlooked it the first time round.

Could it be that the graffiti was the first thing to attract his attention, he then noticing the section of apron shortly afterwards?

That's not what happened, Obs. Long saw the apron first, and only found the graffito as he examined the entranceway for further "clues".

[Wickerman]

Hi all

I've always wondered what drew Longs attention to the apron section, after all (as has been pointed out) it would hardly have looked out of place, why was he drawn towards it?

Could it be that the graffiti was the first thing to attract his attention, he then noticing the section of apron shortly afterwards?

Is it possible that the graffiti was not there at 2:20 the time at which Long had been in Goulston Street on his previous visit?

Well, the pavement (sidewalk) is only narrow, he would not need 20-20 vision to see a large piece of cloth while practically walking over it. Perhaps the blood stain drew him to bend down to pick it up? - he doesn't say.

Long's own police statement say's he first saw the apron, then on looking up saw the (small) graffiti (very small) :-)

Why do you ask if its possible, isn't nearly anything possible in this case?

Going on memory here, but the last time I read up on the details I thought there was a statement that the graffiti was on the right side of the archway.
Didn't we establish (in 2006) that there was a lamppost just south (to the right) of that doorway?
If that be the case then any graffiti artists writing on the right-hand side of the inner archway, at night, would be writing in the shadow, the lamplight would be in his eyes. This is conjecture of course, like many other proposals in this case.
If it was written at night wouldn't we expect it to be on the left side, with the lamplight over his shoulder, so he can see what he's writing?, (being that it was so small)

[Jane Coram]

Hi Michael,

I'm so sorry, about the hanky thing. I was probably thinking more in terms of a piece of oil skin or some thicker material and probably just missed your hanky comments. I'm really sorry anyway. A nice big hanky would probably have done as well as anything else. I just wouldn't fancy having to do the laundry afterwards. Lol.

Much love

Jane

xxxxx

[Observer]

Hi Sam and Wick

Long was not aware at the time (upon finding the apron section 2:55) that any murder had been commited, and yet a piece of cloth in a darkened steet aroused his attention, not only that, his behavior upon finding the apron clearly shows that he suspected foul play. It seems so unlikely to me. There is more to it than meets the eye, I feel that Long is not entirely telling the truth.

You know he could well have been aware of the aprons presence at 2:20, was he aware of the murders prior to 2:55? Could he have heard the whistles, and then remembering the bloodied apron retrieved it at 2:55, and then not wanting to get into trouble, he revealed that he had not noticed it art 2:20.

all the best

Observer

[perrymason]

ever the eternal thats me Sam ! i guess i am always likely to stay that way thats at least until opticians around the world stop selling rose tinted spectacles to some casebook posters

Hi Trevor,

Not being as obtuse as you'd imagined, perhaps youd like to challenge the salient points...exactly what evidence is there that allows us to say definatively that he headed East after dropping the apron section,...specifically what evidence is there that negates his use of the apron section as a carryall,...if the killer came with a hanky, then why would he bother taking extremely precious time and risk the noise now hunched over a murdered woman to remove the apron section, instead of just wiping his hands on the hanky first, or on her,...and what is a logical reason for his carrying the cloth for more than 30 seconds after he leaves the square, or does wiping hands take longer? In fact maybe as long as 70 minutes, if the section was not there when it was not seen 20 past 2.

You would think by that smugness that you had the support of the proven factual evidence on your side Trevor, when in fact you have opinions that you are portraying as "the answer". Its clear by the variables still on the table that there is no answer yet. At least officially....unless thats coming?

Best regards

[Ben]

Agreed on the whole, Mike, especially with regard to the apron-as-carryall hypothesis, but I consider it only common sense that he probably continued East after disposing of the apron. I'm really not sure why you're envisaging him doubling back in the direction of the City Police!

Best regards,
Ben

[Monty]

Long was drawn to the apron because "there appeared to be bloodstains on it". This after a cursory look into the entrance.

Rose tinted specs? This from a guy whose seems to be visually impared when viewing the facts.

[The Good Michael]

The organs may have been just a bit of fast food. The chip shop was closed, and there were no curry houses. Shake a kidney a bit, get rid of the excess fluid, and quicker than you can say, "Bob's yer uncle", you have a relatively dry and filling meal. No need to use an apron for 'organ'ic takeout when you're on the go.

I think the apron was taken because he didn't let go of it. I mean that sincerely.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Before i finally opt out of this debate i would reply to a number of issue raised by other memebers.

1. Insp Collard would have kown the difference between a cut and a tear someone suggested. Well i would contest that. He might have if he had been a female who sows a lot or a dress maker but to the ordinary man i would suggest not. i would be honest enough to say i personally would have difficulty its not every day you are involved with handling cut or torn garments and asked to distinguish

2. Someone else stated it would only take 30 seconds to get to Goulston St from Mitre Square i dont somehow think this is correct.

3. As far as the direction of travel of the killer is concerned i have no views on that issue the truth is no one knows for sure like lots of issues everyone just speculates.

4.As far as the apron piece is concerned we can only try to imagine what state it was by the decsription left to us. That description to me does not conjuour up a heavily blood stained apron quite the contrary. It is suggested that the apron was used for either to take the organs away in or to wipe his hand and the knife on.

As i have stated the tests carried out were done with a view to either proving or disproving the aforementioned scenarios. The photograhic results of both tests go a long way to clearly show both scenarios to not now be relied upon.

It is now up to individuals as to whether they accept of reject the new tests and the results.

For those who will obvioulsy reject them outright i would say come forward and present evidence to support your own theories instead of keep posting wild uncorrobrated wild speculative theories snd dismissing outright what others suggest. Its quite simple put up or shut up !!!!!!!!

[Observer]

Hi Monty

I agree, there's more than meets the eye regarding Longs statement. Long was in possesion of the apron section at 2:55, I have my doubts whether he found it where he said he did though, I am also suspicious regarding the time of discovery.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Observer writes:

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

Grounded on what, Observer?

The best,
Fisherman