The Apron

[Monty]

Hello Don,

What I am saying is if you start to apply time regulations for Halse and Long in their testimonies.. then TIME regulations apply all round to everyone's testimonies throughout the entire case.

We are TOLD that the testimony of a policeman in the bang on and trustworthy. We are told we have no reason to doubt their word. You cant have it both ways. IF they were in the same street at the same tiime as they both said, then they would either be walking towards each other, with lamps or not, and eventually meet, or they one would be behind the other. So ONE must have seen the other at some point, if we are to believe their inquest testimony.

The IMPORTANT bit here is the direction of Halse's walk.. if he followed Long's beat, i.e. the same direction, and was a distance behind him, Long didn't see the apron BEFORE 2.20a.m, nor the writing. Ok he just missed it perhaps. But hang on.. what if it WASN'T there when he passed the spot previously.. that he WAS a diligent cop, that he DID look in all the alleyways and doorways..and saw nothing... that means the apron piece was possibly placed there AFTER he passed the spot. Thereby he sees it next time around. Nothing wrong wiith all that--but it means the dropper of the apron came AFTER he had passed the place just before 2.20am. and before he next saw it at 2.55am. And Halse was where before 2.20am? Mitre Square, ordering policemen OUT in order to catch jtr. He was in the street GS, at 2.20..after Long passed the spot where the apron would have been.

I am not saying he DID and WAS an accomplice.. but picking up an apron piece and dumping it later is very possible.. especially given the times under oath. Whether the writing was there or not.. the placement seems deliberate.. if the writing wasn't there it was written by the dumper.. if the writing was there...it was known to have been there from before..hence the use of the pumping place to attract attention to it with said apron piece..

It may not have been the policeman who knew this of course.. could have been the killer himself- like I said.. we will never know.

But ruling out Halse in my honest opinion as being involved because he was a policeman is incorrect.

Take it whichever way you wish to. Makes no odds to me.

It is inquest testimony given by serving policemen, and we have no reason to doubt it, time wise, unless all timings from everyone is suspected as well on the same line as these two.


kindly


Phil.

Obviously I'm still on ignore.

Again, the timing of the two Constables is aproximations. Its quite possible the two missed each other as it obvious their round ups, or downs, to the nearest 5 mins. The only time you will see an exact time is when a precise time is noted (I.e 1.44 am) or a reference to a timepiece is made.

Also, why is Phil not mentioning the stop search? As this is crucial in his proposition.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

The reverse of beat would have either been issued by the Station Inspectors or Station Sergeants or the beat Sergeants. In some cases, by Smith himself.

Halse, CID would not have issued such an order because a) not CIDs concern and b) Halse was a constable and had no rank authority to issue such an instruction.

Halse was not the only CID man at the initial crime scene. He was with Marriott and Outram. It was decided they fanned out from the scene and Halse happened to head towards Whitechapel. As a crime had taken place, recent too, he was within his right to persue the perp.

We do not know Longs beat route. Therefore cannot state where he was. Both he and Halse say they were in Goulston St at 2.20am. Actually they approximated the time. PCs, when unaware of the exact time, round it off to the nearest 5 minutes. Its quite possible Long arrived after Halse. We know Halse stopped searched in Wentworth street before entering Goulston st, meaning he came into the street from the west and north.

Of course, this event of a stop search is convinienty ignored, as it doesn't fit Phils absurb scenario, throwing it into chaos.

Its also begs the question why Halse would do this.

Far from peoples views, I'm no Police apologist. I'm well aware of the faults, but seriously, the above is quite simply ridiculous and makes one wonder what direction this field is taking.

Monty.

I don't think Phil can read your posts?

[Monty]

I don't think Phil can read your posts?

He can now.....whooo ha ha haaaa, the cabal wins again!

Monty

[Phil Carter]

I don't think Phil can read your posts?

Hello Rob,

This poster is on my ignore list for a reason, so it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else quote this person's posts or not... as I will not comment on any posting from this poster nor the meanings of the posting's contents either. This subject is off topic, and I suggest we return to the thread..the apron.

kindly

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

This poster is on my ignore list for a reason, so it doesn't matter whether you or anyone else quote this person's posts or not... as I will not comment on any posting from this poster nor the meanings of the posting's contents either. This subject is off topic, and I suggest we return to the thread..the apron.

kindly

Phil

Just trying to be helpfull.

[Phil Carter]

Just trying to be helpfull.

Hello Rob,

In itself, it's meaning is appreciated. Thank you for the effort in doing so.

kindly

Phil

[Monty]

La la laaaa

I can't hear you

La la laaaa

I was hoping the content, rather than the messenger, mattered. I guess I was asking too much from Phil.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

To clarify one thing. If the testimony of the policemen is approximated and not exact, then we have all sorts of trouble with Watkin's testimony too. Then one must question that in relation to the arrival of Sequira etc. What I am trying to say, perhaps unclearly, is if we accept testimony of some but not others as time wise, exact, then questions can be asked all over the JTR murders. The clock chiming in any known street for example.. as it wasn't Big Ben, how do we know that the exact time on any given clock, with it's chimes, were actually correct time? Answer, we assume the clock's chimes are correct.. we do not actually know, unless a secondary time is taken in paralell to the clock chiming to confirm it. What if ther clocks were 4 minutes slow, or fast? Somewhere we must accept what we are told to be exact, time wise, surely?

That may seem like nit picking.. so what are we left with? Halse's testimony says he was in Goulston Street at 2.20am. Long said the same. Yet we are not told they saw each other. That Halse entered one end of the street from Wentworth Street is a useful thing.. because it means that if LONG was in the street at the time, either Long was walking towards Halse or away from him, in the same direction...as he testified he was in the same street at the same time. Presuming they would have certainly mentioned meeting each other, we must assume that if they were in the same street they were travelling one behind the other in the same direction--we do not know the distance between them.

Now you would have thought that a policeman behind another would see a lamp being shone..likewise one coming towards him. As the policeman was probably wearing regular boots, we have no impression that Long wore any rubber soled shoes.. then the familiar timed walk of a policeman's booted stride could have been heard in the quiet of ther evening. No one else was seen in the street remember.. no mention of any person, horse, cart..nothing. We must therefore assume Goulston Street to be empty of people. Unless someone can produce evidence against this of course. It isnt in the inquest terstimony.

Now if these timings are wrong... and only approximations.. do these approximations only apply conveniently to Halse and Long? What about Watkins?...what about the policemen near Buck's Row, those around Berner Street..etc etc etc.. then we have the non police witnesses.. how approximate are their testimonies?

We have to take inquest testimony as said.. or it is moving the goalposts to fit whatever objection one has to anything. Additionally, as these times 2.20 and 2.55 are specific, we do not know if either policeman wore a pocket watch or not. They must have got their times from somewhere. In a high profile case such as this, I think the timing testimony is of the utmost importance.

kindly


Phil

[Monty]

Watkins had a watch.

And lamps would have been closed unless needed. The reason is for stealth.

Still, Phil lives in his own lil world.

Monty

[lynn cates]

menu

Hello Phil. Looks like you and Mac have given much food for thought. Thank you.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Rob, how about if you quoted Monty's posts? Then they'd be visible even if on ignore.
I'm back in Paris and will look up your stuff mid next week (as the Police Museum archives open on Wednesday).

She was reported to be wearing the apron by the police at the jail.
She left at 1 o'clock in the direction of Mitre Square, not Spitafields.
If she used it as a sanitary napkin, it sure soaked up some blood in just 40 minutes... plus fecal matter.
Her apron would have been a prized possession for her. She had even mended it.
The apron was cut and Eddowes was not found with a knife on her.
She had plenty of other rags in her possession that would have been of better use than half of an apron.
The remaining portion of the apron was reported to still be attached by the string to the body.
This is a dead fish.

Like I'm always saying, when Hunter contributes evidence is brought up and things get serious and tidy. Thanks for also mentioning Eddowes' (blunt) table knife and spoon.

[Fleetwood Mac]

There are many uncertainties in relation to this case, but the evidence that Kate Eddowes was wearing her apron, the killer cut it at some point and took it with him is irrefutable.

She was reported to be wearing the apron by the police at the jail.
She left at 1 o'clock in the direction of Mitre Square, not Spitafields.
If she used it as a sanitary napkin, it sure soaked up some blood in just 40 minutes... plus fecal matter.
Her apron would have been a prized possession for her. She had even mended it.
The apron was cut and Eddowes was not found with a knife on her.
She had plenty of other rags in her possession that would have been of better use than half of an apron.
The remaining portion of the apron was reported to still be attached by the string to the body.

This is a dead fish.

Hunter,

I'll start by saying that the most likely explanation is Jack took the apron, but it isn't a dead fish.

For a start, your proposition rests on the value of the apron.

Well:

1) Eddowes was part of a couple who pawned a pair of boots. Surely of greater value than an apron.

2) Eddowes had the pawn ticket. Presumably because she was going to retrieve the boots. By what means would she pay?

3) Which of these were of greater value: the boots, the apron, clients (perhaps cleaning herself made the difference between having clients or otherwise)?

It would be an interesting turn of fate if Eddowes walked up with Jack and asked if she could borrow his knife to cut the apron in order to clean up.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So, Long is convinced the apron wasn't there at 2.20am.

I suppose I have to accept that the apron wasn't there at that point. There's always the argument that Long didn't want to be caught out through missing a vital clue at 2.20am, and so he overplayed his certainty; but that would be moving away from the evidence.

So:

Either Jack didn't put it there or

Jack is in hiding before emerging, or he really does come back onto the street or something else that has't been considered.

[Rob Clack]

Rob, how about if you quoted Monty's posts? Then they'd be visible even if on ignore.
I'm back in Paris and will look up your stuff mid next week (as the Police Museum archives open on Wednesday).

Silly me.

Okay good luck.

Rob

[mariab]

Okay good luck.
Rob

No problemo. Need more luck not to freeze my a$s off in this place over the roofs of Paris, 17°C with the heat full blast on.