The Apron Again

[mariab]

Phil,
are you quite sure about addressing your entire post to me instead of Monty, SPE, Tom, & Co.? (Oops sorry, you just – partly– corrected this.)
I'd have to look up the Swanson report again pertaining to Mitre Square, which I can't right now, awfully busy with my boss, organising the logistics of future trips, and ordering the AFs from N.Y., which includes some complex negotiating.

[Phil Carter]

Swanson's 6th November report

Hello Maria, Tom

re, Long

Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's report dated 6th December 1888 entitled

Facts known to Met. Police, respecting the Murder in Mitre Square & writing on wall
A49301C/8c states as follows:-

"2.20am P.C.254A Long ...stated that at the hour mentioned he visited GOULSTON STREET BUILDINGS, and there was nothing there at that time, but at,
2.55 am he found..." etc.

My emphasis.

1) 6th November WAS a popular day for winding things up in the Met wasnt it?

2) Swanson is crystal clear that Long was at the same building as at 2.55 when talking of his 2.20 visit.

3) he was writing of a Met policeman- A division a temp draft into H division

4) it is stamped HOME OFFICE REC'D 6 NOV

5) He signs the report with the words-

"the foregoing are the FACTS so far as known to Met Police, relating to the murder in Mitre Square.
My emphasis.

So on 6th Nov it was a fact that Long did indeed visit the very same buildings and saw nothing but in the same place 35mins later DID find something.

Are we supposed to assume Swanson, with all the reports in front of him, misunderstood and misread Long's statement? I hardly thìnk so.

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Buncha replies

Hello Tom. Thanks for that.

I believe that there was a view that the killer was in a door way, wiping his hands, between his killing Kate and depositing the apron piece.

Hi Lynn. You’re thinking of an unsourced witness telling a press man they saw a man sitting on steps wiping his hands following the Stride murder. They likely saw this, but there’s absolutely no reason to suppose it was the killer (who would not have been bloodied) and was probably a man eating his dinner.

Hello (again) Tom. Ah, so Long was supposed to have missed the piece first time round?

Got it.

That’s the cartel view.

Maria -and your objection to washing ?

If Maria had a euro for every time…

Straightforward and logical...Thank You,Stewart!

It seems that way, but it still boils down to accusing PC Long of dereliction of duty and then lying, so if that’s ‘straightforward and logical’ let’s toss out all the police evidence and just stick to the police reports.

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"*

Dismissing evidence without call is certainly ‘thinking outside the box’, in my opinion. I don’t doubt that Stewart saw such behavior during his time on the force, and he may in fact be right about Long, but since there’s not one iota of suspicion here, I don’t see how this logic has been accepted and unchallenged wisdom.

What's funny is that, apart from the “traditional view“ part, SPE and Tom essentially agree about Long's viewing of the apron piece.

You mean we agree that at some point PC Long did in fact see an apron piece in Goulston Street? Yes, we agree on that.

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

Whoa now. So those of us who aren’t/weren’t cops should just shut up? That would leave just you and Trevor. You sure you want that?

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...

All the more to make a white (or whitish) apron stand out. One wasn’t there at 2:20, then it was there at 2:55.

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.

I’m sorry, but I missed the part where he said WHEN he heard about the murder and the ‘rumour’ of the other murder. Might have been 2:15am as well as 2:50am. Knowing what you do about the police of the time, do you think it would have taken an hour for word of the murder to have made it to Goulston Street? I think not. So, your observation rather works in reverse as he may have been more vigilant prior to 2:20am. Frankly, I’m more curious about who was telling him these rumors on his beat.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

having heard of a murder, he was more vigilant at 2.50am. He saw no reason at 2.20am.

Absolutely.

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

Yeah, makes sense that a prostitute would need wipes to wipe off blood in her trade. Must have been engaged in pretty extreme stuff. :-)

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.

None of the Canonic 5 were "street women" per se. They all, including Eddowes, lived usually in a lodging house and those all had laving facilities.

Like Don said, plus even in From Hell (the Hollywood version) there's a scene where the 4 prossies (all together, as in posse!) wash up in a public sink after having spent a night sleeping outside “on the ropes“. And we all know WHO was a consultant for such (historically accurate) scenes in the movie.

[Supe]

Trevor,

None of the Canonic 5 were "street women" per se. They all, including Eddowes, lived usually in a lodging house and those all had laving facilities.

Don.

[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.

[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

[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

[Steve S]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Lechmere]

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

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

[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.......