The Apron Again

[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...

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Lechmere]

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

[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).

[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]

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. :-)

[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?

[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.

[Steve S]

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

[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.

[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.

[Steve S]

Straightforward and logical...Thank You,Stewart!