The Apron Again

[Monty]

Some cannot accept the reality, they need the fantasy.

Its what's driving the serious study of this case backwards and deeper into the sewer of untruth and falsity. No wonder we are regarded as cranks.

All in the name of the victims.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

What reality would that be?

Regards,

Simon

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Simon,

just another point that indicates what we have been told does not add up, how long will it be before ALL the things that are put down to co-incidence, mis-reporting and defence of the "way we are told" without getting the old cop out thrown at those that do question the official evidence actually gets questioned with open eyes and not get "conspiracist" launched from fencesitters who dare not contemplate that LIES may have been told all through the Eddowes story? Some people wont see it because it would throw many years of "sensible" "guided" presented study down the drain. Shame. I'd rather keep my eyes open to the reality- something. And I dont know what- was driving this along. And a few people in the know knew it too.
I wonder sometimes if some today actually know?Thanks for showing another example of why the "safe" option of believing everxthing we are told rhould be questioned. The Mitre Square story is all wrong. Its that simple.

Kindly

Phil

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories re any subject.

I tend to think that most people play by the book, and actually most people have their own politicial and social costs/consequences to attend to, and such costs tend to keep people tied up.

But, I feel there is always room for one or two individuals being a touch creative with a situation.

Happens all the time: a few ethically loose accountants, doctors etc.

So, I'd go with the possibility that the apron was put there by someone else. It follows from what I've said that I wouldn't go with a mass cover up but more one or two people who felt it expedient to place the apron in the dwellings. I wouldn't go with anything particularly sinister, such as police involvement in the murders, but I could go with it being placed their to deflect responsibility from the City Police to The Met. People have done far worse in order to manage the personal cost.

I don't think this idea is in the realms of fantasy, but it certainly does lack evidence.

Edited to add: having said this, it would surely make Watkins at least an accomplice. So, we're getting into the realms of mass cover up, and I'm not a fan of that sort of thinking.

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

The one that doesn't involve phantom knives on Kellys table, dogs taking evidence from the scene of crimes, unfounded accusations of police skullduggery and twisting of testimony to fit ones own agenda.

Cue Wormtongue.

Monty

[Supe]

Neil,

Its what's driving the serious study of this case backwards and deeper into the sewer of untruth and falsity. No wonder we are regarded as cranks.

I quite agree. Unfortunately, Gresham's Law -- that bad money drives out good money -- also applies to currency of the mind and bad ideas drive out good ones.

Don.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Harsh words considering:

a) If the apron is there at 2.20, and PC Long misses it, then quite clearly PC Long isn't looking in the nooks and the crannies of doorways on his beat. So, with this in mind, how does he spot at 2.55?

b) If Jack places it there between 2.20 and 2.55, then where is he for a good hour?

Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do.

Edited to add:

Long is adamant he would have seen it first time round, so that tells us that whatever action he took to spot the apron, he did the same thing 35 minutes earlier. He could have said: "well, I didn't look that way first time round, but did the second time". Which he didn't.

[Monty]

Harsh words considering:

a) If the apron is there at 2.20, and PC Long misses it, then quite clearly PC Long isn't looking in the nooks and the crannies of doorways on his beat. So, with this in mind, how does he spot at 2.55?

b) If Jack places it there between 2.20 and 2.55, then where is he for a good hour?

Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do.

Edited to add:

Long is adamant he would have seen it first time round, so that tells us that whatever action he took to spot the apron, he did the same thing 35 minutes earlier. He could have said: "well, I didn't look that way first time round, but did the second time". Which he didn't.

There's a difference between placing reasonable doubt and claiming cover up and conspiracy FM.

You do the former above.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

The only point I'd make, Monty, is this:

If we go with Long missing the apron first time round, even though he is adamant it wasn't there, then what are we saying about Long?

[Monty]

So we question Longs integrity without giving him the benefit of error?

The first time around Long wasn't aware of any murder.

Monty

[lynn cates]

Iago

Hello Mac.

"Whichever way you go here, there's some explaining to do."

Indeed. Very astute observation.

Sounds to me like Iago and the handkerchief.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi All,

At what time did Dr. Brown fit the missing piece of apron "which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body"?

Eddowes was stripped upon her arrival at Golden Lane mortuary [3.15 - 3.30 am?], yet almost two hours later when Dr. Brown left the mortuary at 5.20 pm, Dr. Phillips, who had taken possession of the missing piece of apron at Leman Street police station, had yet to arrive [Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September].

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding the question, but I believe it was the Lloyds reporter who left at 5:20 (a.m. not p.m.). They make no mention when Dr. Gordon left.

'...At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there...'

McWilliams stated in his Home Office report of Oct. 27 that sometime in the early morning of Sept. 30 that he "... went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane, where the body had been taken by the direction of Dr. Gordon Brown and saw the piece of apron- which was found in Goulstone Street- compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded..."

[Fleetwood Mac]

So we question Longs integrity without giving him the benefit of error?

The first time around Long wasn't aware of any murder.

Monty

My logic would be:

1) Long states it wasn't there.
2) In order to conclude this he must have taken the same actions at 2.20 and 2.55, otherwise Long could not have been certain of it not being there.
3) If Long takes the same actions, then how does he miss it first time round but see it second time round?

Put simply, in order to state, at an inquest, that it wasn't there then he really should have been sure about that. Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it, so surely the same applies to Long?

[lynn cates]

not his beat

Hello Mac.

"Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it"

Of course, There's a possibly good reason for that--this was not only not part of Halse's beat, but it wasn't even his jurisdiction.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hello Mac.

"Halse said he wouldn't necessarily have seen it"

Of course, There's a possibly good reason for that--this was not only not part of Halse's beat, but it wasn't even his jurisdiction.

Cheers.
LC

Meaning?

Halse didn't have a 'beat' and had every right to be in the Met territory of Goulston Street.

How many times must this be mentioned?

Monty

[lynn cates]

the beat goes on

Hello Neil.

"Halse didn't have a 'beat'"

Exactly. And anyone not on a beat would perhaps not look as carefully as one who did.

" [he] had every right to be in the Met territory of Goulston Street."

Although I'm not sure what a "right" is, whatever it is, I'm sure he had a right to be there--or any other place he bloody well desired. But surely one is less observant when away from home territory?

Cheers.
LC