The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

pieces

Hello Tom. That makes a bit more sense.

No, I would not dismiss Long's testimony--see no reason too. In fact, the only time I throw a piece back is when it does not fit.

I agree that the lust murder markers seem not to be in place.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Get your details right..!

Eddowes cut her own apron?

Perhaps she cut her own throat and mutilated herself also.

Good lord

Don't be silly Abby.

Obviously she mutilated herself then cut her throat.

Then a Giant rat came and took the organs and the knife.

Jeez, some people...



Greg

[Rubyretro]

This also comes into play with Lynn's Peeing Thesis (LPT).........there's no way of knowing how the system of a woman in this condition with Bright's disease etc. functioned. There's probably great variability in such things...

I'd put Lynn's LPT right out of the window -but I'm ill equipped to aim so
high.

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=mariab;199385]She was carrying (recently unused) menstrual rags inside of one of her pockets, which speaks for the fact that she indeed still had periods

.

Maria -and your objection to washing ?

[Stewart P Evans]

'Traditional view'

No, Lynn. The traditional view is that he simply didn't make his rounds proper, looking into the entrance ways and so forth. Then when called to task, he denied this, proclaiming he did his job but the apron wasn't there.
...
Likewise, the graffiti appears to be inconvenient to most researchers, because it suggests something else was at play in the killer's mind besides 'lust murder', which is what the Ripper murders are generally supposed to be. Therefore, the traditional view now has the graffiti unrelated and PC Long lying. I agree that when working up a case for a suspect, it's necessary to step back and review the evidence in the fresh light supplied by research into that person, but when real case evidence and police testimony must continually be dismissed, then either the suspect doesn't fit or the writer is doing a bad job of trying to make him fit.
...
Tom Wescott

Whatever is 'the traditional view'?

I believe that Long missed the wall writing and piece of apron when he passed at about 2.20 a.m. as he didn't check all his doorways properly. However, he did look in the doorway at 2.55 a.m. and spotted the piece of apron and wall writing at that time.

This is the most logical explanation. It is also based on experience of how police officers act and how they check their beats and property. To have admitted that he did not check the doorway properly on the first occasion would have led to disciplinary action.

My belief has nothing to do with 'the graffiti being inconvenient' nor with 'what the Ripper murders are supposed to be'.

[Steve S]

Straightforward and logical...Thank You,Stewart!

[Fleetwood Mac]

I agree with you Harry however it must be noted that whilst waiting for Morris, Watkins checked the time by his own watch.

As a PC of some years he would have noted it, either mentally or in his notebook. Its in the regulations that if possible, times are noted or assessed to the nearest minute.

That said, how exact Watkins timepiece, or the Post Office clock, actually was?

To analyse to the exact and swear by them (seemingly when it suits in this case) is a futile act as we have no idea how exact the timepieces were.

Monty

Just add a little snippet to this, Monty.

I suppose it depends on the purpose of the clock.

I know that in days gone by, clocks were errected for workers to know what time she should be in work. And, such clocks were accurate in order to ensure punctuality.

[Monty]

Oh yeah,

Monty bangs on about this for months and gets labelled 'minimalist' and unwilling to think outside the box.

Stewart states basically the same and its 'Thank you Stewart, straightforward and logical"*

These Newbies, coming on here...

Monty


*Just joshing Steve.

[Steve S]

I like "Minimalist".........Probably why I don't come here much......

[Fleetwood Mac]

Whatever is 'the traditional view'?

I believe that Long missed the wall writing and piece of apron when he passed at about 2.20 a.m. as he didn't check all his doorways properly. However, he did look in the doorway at 2.55 a.m. and spotted the piece of apron and wall writing at that time.

This is the most logical explanation. It is also based on experience of how police officers act and how they check their beats and property. To have admitted that he did not check the doorway properly on the first occasion would have led to disciplinary action.

My belief has nothing to do with 'the graffiti being inconvenient' nor with 'what the Ripper murders are supposed to be'.

I'm not convinced with that.

Point being: what makes him look at 2.55 and not at 2.20? I don't think it's enough to say he fancied it second time round but not first.

Also, why does he miss the chalk when he looks into the doorway? It's white on black. My assumption would be because his view is fixed on the apron as he walks through the doorway, which would suggest he sees it from the street.

[Lechmere]

Tom
My broke local guy has a potential bolt hole if needed to fill the time void – his horse’s stable box at Pickfords!
But I still prefer the likelihood that Long was negligent – and that the graffiti was connected.
Just as Mizen was negligent in not going straight to the crime scene but continuing knocking up.
Just as Thain was negligent in not going straight for Llewellyn but went to get his cape.
Just as Spratling was negligent in not leaving Polly’s body under guard and so allowing the mortuary attendants to tamper with it.
Just as Spratling was negligent in failing to make sure that all the residents in Bucks Row were interviewed.
Just as Llewellyn was negligent in not examining Polly’s body properly first time around.
Etc. etc. etc.

Maria
I don’t like discussing such thing usually but what is a recently unused menstrual rag?
It is now an ascertained fact that these rags were menstrual rags?

[mariab]

Monty bangs on about this for months and gets labelled 'minimalist' and unwilling to think outside the box. Stewart states basically the same and its 'Thank you Stewart, straightforward and logical

What's funny is that, apart from the “traditional view“ part, SPE and Tom essentially agree about Long's viewing of the apron piece. So we have essentially the exact same statement perceived as a disagreement. :-)

[Steve S]

Much the same reasons as when I do a night-time patrol....Bored rigid,thinking of other things.......Then sometimes you spot things,sometimes you don't.....And when you do it's "S**T,was that there last time..."

[mariab]

Maria
I don’t like discussing such thing usually but what is a recently unused menstrual rag? It is now an ascertained fact that these rags were menstrual rags?

Since you're asking: Yes it's an ascertained fact, also according to Ripperology's specialists for Victorian clothing and accessories, Jane Coram and Archaic.
In the dark ages before obs were invented, women used menstrual rags that they washed and re-washed after use, not unlike bandages used by soldiers during war in the same era. Thus it's pretty clear what a recently unused menstrual rag is (as in a piece of cotton not covered in fresh blood, but with old traces of washed and re-washed old blood smears).

[Lechmere]

So it’s actually an informed interpretation based on this:
12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
rather than a fact.