The Apron Again

[Stewart P Evans]

Police Experience

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.

Your view is that of a person with no police experience.

I walked my first foot beat back in 1969. It took about an hour to cover this beat. We were expected to check all the vulnerable property on our beats every hour and to discover any break-ins that occurred during the night. The theory was, as there was little else to do on night foot patrol you should be able to regularly check your beat in this way. There were many policemen who went home to bed at 6.00 a.m. after a night shift, only to be woken up a few hours later when a burglary was reported on their beat which they had not found. The usual way round this was to say that the property was okay the last time you checked it during your last hour of duty, even if you hadn't checked. Then hope that the burglar wasn't caught and the time of the break in discovered to be earlier. You would then be in trouble.

You see, policemen are only human and it was not unusual for policemen to fail to check every property on every tour round their beat. There could be several reasons for this, laziness, stopping for a tea break with a night watchman somewhere, chatting to some night worker in warm premises somewhere, etc. Then trusting to check the property less times or every other hour. The thing was it was a disciplinary transgression to fail to do your regular checks.

At the time of the murders there was no doubt an order that every doorway and every possible hiding place should be religiously checked at every pass by all officers on their beats. I doubt that many actually stuck rigidly to that instruction. The alternative of the murderer hanging around until after 2.20 a.m. (when Long stated he passed through the street and there was nothing there) to deposit the piece of apron and write a chalk message in a doorway is very unlikely - in my humble opinion. Especially as the Mitre Square hue and cry had been raised at 1.45 a.m., a full 35 minutes earlier.

[Stewart P Evans]

True

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..."

How very true.

[mariab]

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

What else could they have been used for, Lechmere? Nosebleeds?
For most of the time historical analysis occurs through informed interpretation and reconstruction of facts.

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Monty, all,

it's a sad fact of life that occasionally we are in agreement here. That said, there is one thing I'd like to add.

In determining time related issues in any criminal case, especially involving the three elements of the public, the police and the Doctors, at some point a line must be drawn ö the likelyhood of what is nearer straight forward fact and what is interpreted to be reasonably accepted fact.
Nowadays of course all calls to and from the public to the police and emergency services are digitally logged.

Returning to 1888, I would ask whether it is reasonable to assume that a Doctor who declares time of being a) alerted of the crime and b) time of arrival at the crime scene is considered factually certain? On these two points, I would say 'yes'.
Now. The third time frame involves the Doctor's estimation as to time of death. I put it forward that the longer time AFTER the crime is commited to when the Doctor arrives, the more the estimate becomes with a greater time frame window, hence less exact.
This is shown in Sequiera's EXACT estimation of 15mins prior to hìs arrival, and Brown's estimation of 30-40mins BEFORE his arrival.
i would therefore say that Sequiera's estimate is more certain. I would also add that a Doctor of Sequiera's experience would EASILY recognise a fresh corpse when he saw it.we have no reason to donbt it.

That puts a spanner in the works. Brown stated that the cutting of the throat was the killing cut. He also stated that all other cuts and mutilations came AFTER the cut to the throat and finally that the whole action would take at least 5mins.
THAT means that the time of 1.50 for the killer to have finished his work.

If the above is considered factually true, as seems totally logical and reasonble, then Watkins and Morris must BOTH be wrong- even though they MUST have been referring to DIFÈRING time pieces, as Morris refers to time BEFORE Watkins knocke at hìs door. Now that BOTH men give agreed times of events of each other, it is NOT reasonable to assume that BOTH sets of timepieces Were EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME WRONG in relation to the very reasonable accept of Sequiera's time of death.
Because at 1.50am, thex were already at the scene of the crime and had been for 4 and 5 mins. ..exactlx when the throat was cut and during the time needed, according to Brown, for ALL the mutilations to be complete.

i could understand Watkins being wrong, but Morris too by a differing time piece apparently 'wrong' , I just find that TOO unreasonable to accept.
Thats not conspiratorial logic, for I make no decision as to why's, or theory as to whom killed Eddowes. I have thougts based on the above only.

Sequiera's time is EXACT. It also brings the Watkins and Morris time testimony into the realms of falsity.

Respectfully

Phil

[John Bennett]

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..."

Let's not forget that Long was from another division and there was more than one doorway, all of which looked pretty much the same...

[Steve S]

Let's not forget that Long was from another division and there was more than one doorway, all of which looked pretty much the same...

yep,just as valid.......Human nature & foul-ups explain most things.......

[Lechmere]

What else could they have been used for, Lechmere? Nosebleeds?

Well she was a prostitute and I imagine she may need wipes

[Fleetwood Mac]

Your view is that of a person with no police experience.

I walked my first foot beat back in 1969. It took about an hour to cover this beat. We were expected to check all the vulnerable property on our beats every hour and to discover any break-ins that occurred during the night. The theory was, as there was little else to do on night foot patrol you should be able to regularly check your beat in this way. There were many policemen who went home to bed at 6.00 a.m. after a night shift, only to be woken up a few hours later when a burglary was reported on their beat which they had not found. The usual way round this was to say that the property was okay the last time you checked it during your last hour of duty, even if you hadn't checked. Then hope that the burglar wasn't caught and the time of the break in discovered to be earlier. You would then be in trouble.

You see, policemen are only human and it was not unusual for policemen to fail to check every property on every tour round their beat. There could be several reasons for this, laziness, stopping for a tea break with a night watchman somewhere, chatting to some night worker in warm premises somewhere, etc. Then trusting to check the property less times or every other hour. The thing was it was a disciplinary transgression to fail to do your regular checks.

At the time of the murders there was no doubt an order that every doorway and every possible hiding place should be religiously checked at every pass by all officers on their beats. I doubt that many actually stuck rigidly to that instruction. The alternative of the murderer hanging around until after 2.20 a.m. (when Long stated he passed through the street and there was nothing there) to deposit the piece of apron and write a chalk message in a doorway is very unlikely - in my humble opinion. Especially as the Mitre Square hue and cry had been raised at 1.45 a.m., a full 35 minutes earlier.

Seems your argument is as follows:

1) He simply skipped it at 2.20 but didn't at 2.55.
2) He must have done because the murderer wouldn't have dropped it after 2.20.
3) 1 and 2 should be elevated beyond the alternative because you're an ex policeman and you say so.

Well:

1) I'd quite like to know what made him not skip it at 2.55, and why Long was adamant it wasn't there.
2) He must not have done; there are a few variables. Not least: did he have to return to that area? The police were probably in the immediate vicinity when he left the square - how did he get past them? Did he lie low for a while?
3) I'm a mere accountant, Stewart, with a degree in history, but on the plus side it means I'm a massive fan of valuing and assessing options beyond mere: "he simply skipped it once but not twice". For an historian or an accountant, that simply isn't enough when arriving at a conclusion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sequiera's time is EXACT. It also brings the Watkins and Morris time testimony into the realms of falsity.

Respectfully

Phil

That's not my reading.

The timelines fits providing you accept Dr Brown was out by a minute or two in that he could have done it within 3/4 minutes.

Watkins 1.44.
Sequiera arrives 1.55.
Those two times support one another.
Both doctors estimated earliest time of death at 1.40.
Lawende is there at 1.35; according to Levy it was about 1.38 (neither would exclude the woman being Eddowes).

Given all of that, either he walked right past the police or hid in a doorway or such; or he left by the Orange Market bit.

[Phil Carter]

time

Hello FM,

Thanks fos the reply.
According to the Official written inquest statements records, kept in writing at The Corporation of London Records Office, Sequira said-

"I was CALLED ON the 30th September at 5 to 2 and was the firt medical man to arrive"
"Life had not been extinct more than a quarter of an hour"

My emphasis

the testimony given verbally at the inquest is given by the Times. Here, Sequira says-
...as above with the addition
" .first to arrive , being on the scene of the murder at 5 mins to 2, "

Now when Brown was "called upon" in his written testimony, it was " shortly after 2 o'clock. I reached about 18mins past two" ' same verbally.

Watkins states that Holland arrived, followed by Sequiera, and that Inspector Collard arrived "about 2" ( verbal and written)

Collard states he arrived "two or three mins PAST 2"
(written and verbally.


CALLED ON means when he was alerted. Sequiera lived locally at 34 Jewry St Aldgate. Unless he sprouted wings and got there in seconds, he simply cannot have been both "called on" and "arrive" at the same time. I estimate it took him 4 or 5 mins to arrive. collard "followed hìm" at "2 or 3mins after 2"
That tells me that Sequira arrived 1.59 or 2.00. That still puts Watkins and Morris' time out and taking 15mins off, time of death at 1,44 or 1,45,

best wishes

Phìl

[Monty]

Inquest testimony of PC Alfred Long

Coroner - Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

Coroner - Which did you hear of?
Long- I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

Now this is in relation to Long having just searched the dwellings after finding the apron piece and about to leave to report his find.

So at 2.55am he is aware of a murder. Not at 2.20am. Therefore, having heard of a murder, he was more vigilant at 2.50am. He saw no reason at 2.20am.

Monty

[Steve S]

Exactly...............

[lynn cates]

aim high

Hello Ruby.

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

As are ALL ladies. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

through the looking glass

Hello All. In looking over today's posts on this thread I am struck by:

1. The fact that those posters who often remove the police from criticism, criticise them now.

2. The fact that those posters who often subject the police to criticism, remove them from criticism now.

Not making any points here, it's just that I feel like Alice.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

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).

But that was surely relative to those who were able to wash them and re use them I doubt street women were afforded thd luxury to be able do that.