The Apron Again

[Lechmere]

Long claimed not to know of the murder when he actually found the apron and graffiti. Not just when he went around earlier.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Long claimed not to know of the murder when he actually found the apron and graffiti. Not just when he went around earlier.

It's unclear.

Apparently he knew before proceeding to the police station, but it's not clear as to when he was informed and by whom.

Regardless, Long didn't connect the apron to Eddowes, which in turn suggests he wasn't expecting to find anything there relating to Eddowes.

So, according to Long there's no reason for him to be particularly dilligent beyond his normal duties. Was he searching every single doorway? If so, then that's some beat; if not, then there's no reason for hm to search that particular doorway and so it must have been visible from the footpath; and it follows how then did he miss it first time round?

[Steven Russell]

I think it is pertinent to this argument to find out what sort of state the streets were in. Was there rubbish all over the place or were they relatively clean? If the former then PC Long is to be applauded for spotting the apron piece at all and forgiven for possibly missing it on his first pass. If the latter then that's a different matter.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Phil Carter]

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

....and this is what is driving the wheels of the magic roundabout called Ripperology. Peopje too blind to see the wood for the trees, afraid to step off the fence of safety, accept anxthing wrong in the slightest and naively thinking that men in power dont keep schtumm at all costr if they have to, (History is full of it- a Swede has shown that with Wikileaks)



The serious study IS continuing WITHOUT the efforts of the few trying in vain to stop it by pouring scorn over it as shown again above. It is THIS approach that does no good by doing nvthing bu belittle plausibilities by calling them fantasies..

Knives on tables? How about made up photos (MJK 3) Not to mention a senior policemen parading an album of victims photographs taken from the archives and pqesented in an album that nobody has ever seen before, asking the question why a photo album only contained 7 photos and what else has been nicked and by whom along the way.

Bad taste in the mouth? I should say so. "there is nothing at all wrong with what we have been given" is a bile producing load of rubbish carried about by those who THINK they can keep the same old pot boiling.

News from the archives. The pot dried up yeas ago. Like it or not, more and more people are finding more and more holes in the safety net.

IE there was something untoward, it is nothing shocking, politicians and people in a position of self believed power have done it for centuries. In Ripperology, no one is in power anymore. The select group of those with knowledge and opinion is now a world wide group, not just a few. And nn person belongs to an "elite" group. Quote SPE "THERE IS NO ELITE IN RIPPEROLOGY" no matter how pompous. Perhaps Mr Souden disagrees with Mr Evans?

He wheels of the "MELVILE 3" fell off ages ago-(thank you Mr Sugden for the initial push) and that is why the staid ideas are no longer applicable.

Shame. For the victims families who want some kind of answer, some are trying. Others belittle and bemoan like a protective net ready to caste aside anything possibly naughty.

So what IF the apron piece was dumped by Eddowes herself? It only means that the whole story of the supposed single maniac doing it is out of the window. Therefore a major rethink is needed. Likewise an accomplice doing it. Whoever that could have been. Both are plausible.

Just because some refuse to see doesnt mean we who do should be blind to it. The blind nolonger lead the blind- only themselves- into ...nowhere. Just like the efforts of those who belittle the point in legal battles to get whatever scraps of info that are still extant.

Best wishes

Phil

[Steven Russell]

Would it be asking too much for you to translate the above post into English, Phil?

[Supe]

Phil,

So what IF the apron piece was dumped by Eddowes herself? . . . Likewise an accomplice doing it. Whoever that could have been. Both are plausible.

Do you really think Eddowes rending her apron for use as a temporary sanitary napkin, given all we know about the case, Eddowes and feminine hygiene, is really plausible? Not possible, but plausible; that is, valid or likely. Nor can both your possibilities (Eddowes or an accomplice) be equally plausible as they are mutually exclusive.

Think outside the box all you wish and more power to you, but as you play with ideas beyond the pale make sure you don't confuse the possible with the plausible.

Don.

[Supe]

Phil,

Perhaps Mr Souden disagrees with Mr Evans?

I do recall that at the conference in Wolverhampton he and I did seemingly disagree on what to have for breakfast. Does that count?

Don.

[Monty]

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

Lynn,

I think Halses statement is more to do with where he was actually walking along Goulston St (possibly the western side) as opposide to his observance.

Halse was in pursuit of a killer, not looking for flotsum and jetsum.

Monty

[Monty]

Long claimed not to know of the murder when he actually found the apron and graffiti. Not just when he went around earlier.

Absolutely Lechmere,

I think its naïve and impractical to assume Long would check every doorway on his beat. Especially as he was unaware of a murder.

Its mentioned in the regulation, private property can only be search if a PC felt a crime had, or was about to take place. That's not to say he couldn't or shouldn't have searched the stairwell at 2.20am, just that the expectation that he should do on every sweep is unrealistic.

That said, as FM stated, he claims he did look in at 2.20am.

Monty

[Monty]

"And nn (Sic) person belongs to an "elite" group. Quote SPE "THERE IS NO ELITE IN RIPPEROLOGY" no matter how pompous."

Cued on time.

Obviously there are issues of inferiority there.

I have never made the suggestion of elitism (that's others assumption), I am making the suggestion that the standard of theorising has declined and has drawn a confusing cloud over the case.

Some protesters make plaques then sing and shout about the worlds injustices, others sit in the background and conduct the real daming work.

I see plenty of the former with the conspiracists, however nothing of the latter.

If you are going to accused, present your evidence....not theory.

Monty

[lynn cates]

custom of the country

Hello Don.

"Do you really think Eddowes rending her apron for use as a temporary sanitary napkin, given all we know about the case, Eddowes and feminine hygiene, is really plausible?"

Now THAT is an excellent question. If I recall the custom amongst British ladies from a bygone era, one employed old towels, clothes, etc. for such use. Typically, such cloth would be threadbare. Do we have any information about the integrity of the apron--beyond its being dirty?

I think, however, that the custom involved taking the towel or garment out of commission before making "napkins" of it.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

beat copper

Hello Neil. Indeed. And it is likely that his pursuit coloured his estimate about finding the apron.

My point is that a typical beat copper would be more attuned to looking for "irregularities" here and there. A detective looking for a criminal, less likely--he is seeking his prey.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Monty;198945]"And nn (Sic) person belongs to an "elite" group. Quote SPE "THERE IS NO ELITE IN RIPPEROLOGY" no matter how pompous."

Cued on time.

Obviously there are issues of inferiority there.

I have never made the suggestion of elitism (that's others assumption), I am making the suggestion that the standard of theorising has declined and has drawn a confusing cloud over the case.

Some protesters make plaques then sing and shout about the worlds injustices, others sit in the background and conduct the real daming work.

I see plenty of the former with the conspiracists, however nothing of the latter.

If you are going to accused, present your evidence....n
ot theory.

Monty,

I decide what I write and when- and because WE do not choose to follow the bleat of a sheep does not make US wrong. has it occured to you that fewer people are convinced by the same bleat that leads us nowhere in perpetuity?
Evidence is being presented by many. You just blackball ALL of it. Doesnt matter what.
Cued? Yup. Because of your self styled need to always want to dig at people, you respond as expected- with more pretentious bleating
By the way, I am not aware that anyone feels in any way inferior to anyone. The "issues" you talk of are in your mind.

Don,

it is quite plausible given the time frame that Eddowes may have dumped that apron piece herself, unless of course you can prove she could NOT have been there? I look forward to seeing such evidence. Re elite, believe it or not- you are not qualified to assume that title. It is earned on the judgement of your peers. It is sheer pomposity to assume such a title.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

hello Lxnn,


a thin piece of apron would suffice to wipe oneself after urinating would it not? Hence the residue of faecal matter. If she happened to be at the very start or end of her menstrual cycle then the blood spots are feasably explained- no?

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hello Neil. Indeed. And it is likely that his pursuit coloured his estimate about finding the apron.

My point is that a typical beat copper would be more attuned to looking for "irregularities" here and there. A detective looking for a criminal, less likely--he is seeking his prey.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn

Well yes and no.

Yes because a beat PC should know his beat.

No because the nature of Police work is to look for the unusual, as that is often a sign there's something wrong.

Monty