The Apron's Significance

[Wickerman]

. . .

If and that's a colossal if, that was the case I would wonder why he wrapped the organ from the corner of the apron, and if - another mammoth if, it's some indication of habit or profession.

I'm not at all suggesting the killer was a butcher, but plenty of people back then knew the correct way to wrap an object, especially one that is wet.
You place it in one corner, roll the parcel forward, then fold the wrapper left over right, then right over left, then roll forward until it is completely wrapped.
Butchers still do this today when wrapping meat, and when the parcel is opened the wettest part of the wrapper was that corner.

The apron appeared to have been cut from the body, the bib section remained around the neck and a patch had been sliced through indicating it had to be cut as opposed to a tear.
Alternately, part of the apron could have dropped in the mutilation as he was cutting it loose, that also may have been the cause of the blood on the corner.

[Wickerman]

Would a policeman continue to check all doors and windows on every round of his beat after doing so first time around? Doing so seems a pointless and time consuming exercise. If not, this could explain the apron not being discovered immediately, if that was the case. Just asking.

Do you think that was the intent of the rule?

[Enigma]

Do you think that was the intent of the rule?

I have no idea if the police were expected to check every door and window on every round of their beat or not. I asked because knowing human behaviour even if the policeman was required to check on every round I believe he would be inclined to slacken off. After all checking thoroughly every 15 to 20 minutes seems pointless.

What I was getting at, is, if he had already checked the premises he may have not been as vigilant on subsequent rounds which may account for the apron not being seen earlier. Assuming it was there unseen already.

Similarly, if they were not required to continuously keep checking doors etc, then the apron could just as easily have been overlooked.

[Wickerman]

I have no idea if the police were expected to check every door and window on every round of their beat or not. I asked because knowing human behaviour even if the policeman was required to check on every round I believe he would be inclined to slacken off. After all checking thoroughly every 15 to 20 minutes seems pointless.

What I was getting at, is, if he had already checked the premises he may have not been as vigilant on subsequent rounds which may account for the apron not being seen earlier. Assuming it was there unseen already.

Similarly, if they were not required to continuously keep checking doors etc, then the apron could just as easily have been overlooked.

Yes, but where is the logic in arguing "I checked it once, so it must be ok the rest of the night"?

Thieves and Burglars tend to break in when the beat constable is not around, one minute the door is secure, the next minute it is open, so naturally something happened in between time, hence the reason for regular checks.
How can he discover this if he doesn't check the door every 30 mins?

You seem to be suggesting the possibility of a lazy constable, or in this case a lazy PC and a lazy DC, in passing through the same street.

[Enigma]

I asked a question of what the police were required to do and was speculating on what may or may not have happened as a result.