The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[PaulB]

It is clear,portable or not,that it was the blood that was of significance to Long..Would the excrement alone have raised suspicions of a victim of crime?So we can draw a comparison with the blood on the bridge.Even if Long did start with a suspicion,it is clear from his evidence,he finished with the knowledge there was no evidence of a victim.

Has anybody suggested that the marks of what appeared to be faeces were what attracted PC Long's attention? I don't think so. So his concern was likely the blood on the apron. At that point, what relevance does the inaction of the police on discovering blood on a bridge in Gloucestershire 40+ years later have to anything?

He checked the stairs and landings, but could do no more on his own, so, as he told the inquest, decided to take the apron to the police station so that his superiors could decide what action, if any, to take. He left PC Bettles to watch the building, from which it may be safe to conclude that he wasn't satisfied that everything was hunkey-dorey, and, it seems, from Bettles learned about the murder in Mitre Square. So, yes, he searched and didn't find a victim. But we knew that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Lets not lambaste the Coroner for sticking to the issues at hand.
Where, when or from whom PC Long heard the rumour of the Berner St. murder is not relevant to him finding the apron & graffiti.
He didn't need to justify taking the rag to his superior, but it is pure logic for him to first check his immediate surroundings to see if this blood stained cloth is connected to a crime. Then, his curiosity satisfied, he takes it to the station.
He did the right thing, the rag may be connected to either of the two local murders. There is no indication Long was reprimanded for his actions, so why cast suspicion on what he did?

But again you miss the point if he did not know at the time he saw the apron piece that there had been any murders why did he react the way he did because at that time it would have just been an old piece of discarded material, and nothing more than that. Its all about what made him look at that piece of discarded material on his beat at that particular time.

This was a common women's apron of the day. Half of that is quite large.



The pieces were blood stained, some smears, some spots, and a wet corner.

This statement is a combination of the different descriptions

When do we get to hear the 'plausible' explanations?

And once again you load the dice to support your own theory.

The picture attached also shows a Victorian apron commonly worn by worn in 1888.

Now look at your apron pic and imagine how the killer went about his work and why it was not possible to do all that he is said to have done had she been wearing that type of apron, and for sure when the body was stripped and the lists made up, that type of apron would be clearly visible..

As to taking it away cut that size apron in half and you would not even be able to secrete it as it would be to big and bulky. So that type of apron is a definite no no.

[PaulB]

Your picture is of a maid's apron, not the sort of apron Eddowes would have worn or was wearing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Has anybody suggested that the marks of what appeared to be faeces were what attracted PC Long's attention? I don't think so. So his concern was likely the blood on the apron. At that point, what relevance does the inaction of the police on discovering blood on a bridge in Gloucestershire 40+ years later have to anything?

He checked the stairs and landings, but could do no more on his own, so, as he told the inquest, decided to take the apron to the police station so that his superiors could decide what action, if any, to take. He left PC Bettles to watch the building, from which it may be safe to conclude that he wasn't satisfied that everything was hunkey-dorey, and, it seems, from Bettles learned about the murder in Mitre Square. So, yes, he searched and didn't find a victim. But we knew that.

But you are still missing the point as I asked Wickerman in a post if you lived in a block of flats and found the same piece of screwed up material at the bottom of the stairs with traces of blood and faecal matter on it, would you contact the police about it at that time, and furthermore would they bother about it. No you wouldn't, and no they wouldn't.

But if you and they later found that a murder had been committed it would then be of interest. The point in that when Pc Long found the material he was not aware of any murder, so why did he decide to inspect an old piece of discarded material. If you want a hypothetical theory to consider. Dc Halse placed the apron piece there, and in fact did meet up with Pc Long in GS and told him to check doorways knowing that he would find it. That hypothesis support the suggestion that Eddowes was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron.

Because we know that the GS piece was connected to the victim, and it got to GS somehow by some means.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Your picture is of a maid's apron, not the sort of apron Eddowes would have worn or was wearing.

You dont know that, and if you are going to side with Wickermans suggestion then it make even more of a mockery to suggest that she was wearing an apron, because as stated an apron that size would surely have been visible to those at the mortuary when the body was being stripped even with a piece missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

The relevance is,that even blood,without some connection,does not in itself necessarily point to a crime.Long should at that point, with his experience,been aware there could be other reasons,and finding no victim,acted on those findings.
The correct action,If Long then still had suspicions,would be to leave the scene as he found it,send PC Bettles to advise a senior officer of his findings and suspicions,stay at the site,and await orders of a senior officer.That would have been the proper procedure,even if Long did know of other killings.
Long was a trained police officer with experience and training.Being from another area,being on his first beat of Goulston Street was no excuse for not knowing or following procedure.

I haven't at any time indicated Long should not have investigated.In the heightened tensions of the times,as posters put it,if he (Long) did really have suspicions,it was his duty to investigate.It was his duty also to secure and leave the scene as found,untill more senior officers arrived.

[PaulB]

You dont know that, and if you are going to side with Wickermans suggestion then it make even more of a mockery to suggest that she was wearing an apron, because as stated an apron that size would surely have been visible to those at the mortuary when the body was being stripped even with a piece missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I do know it's a maid's apron and that it was not the sort of apron Eddowes would have worn. So does everybody.

Who says the apron wasn't visible to everyone at the mortuary? DC Halse says he saw she was wearing an apron and that he saw a piece was missing from it. Wickerman has theorised that the apron wasn't immediately recognised as such and that Halse was retrospectively identifying it as such, but that's a theory. Nobody at the time, not a single person, seems to have doubted that Eddowes was wearing an apron, nobody had a problem with it. Only you, 130 years later.

[Elamarna]

We have been here before, near identical debates have happened over the last few years.
And it becomes increasingly tedious for serious students and researchers to waste their time in responding and rebutting these ideas over and over again.
Despite constant requests to provide evidence for these ideas, none is ever given,
Instead we have statements such as academic research is unneeded and indeed actually wrong, and an incredible one which suggests that the view of a man writing ina 2017 is more likely to be right than the views of witnesses in 1888. Such statements are the height of arrogance.
We also have photos posted with highly misleading comments attached such as the mortuary photo of Eddowes last year which claimed a tear on the photo was a stab wound, when such was clearly not on the body and another which was presented as a crime scene photo when it was not.
Such work demonstrates a lack of research and flawed interpretation at best.

Above all it suggests a closed mind and a overwhelming need to promote ideas regardless of their validity and reliability.


Steve

[PaulB]

The relevance is,that even blood,without some connection,does not in itself necessarily point to a crime.Long should at that point, with his experience,been aware there could be other reasons,and finding no victim,acted on those findings.
The correct action,If Long then still had suspicions,would be to leave the scene as he found it,send PC Bettles to advise a senior officer of his findings and suspicions,stay at the site,and await orders of a senior officer.That would have been the proper procedure,even if Long did know of other killings.
Long was a trained police officer with experience and training.Being from another area,being on his first beat of Goulston Street was no excuse for not knowing or following procedure.

I haven't at any time indicated Long should not have investigated.In the heightened tensions of the times,as posters put it,if he (Long) did really have suspicions,it was his duty to investigate.It was his duty also to secure and leave the scene as found,untill more senior officers arrived.

So, assuming you have accurately stated what the correct procedure should have been, the only thing PC Long did that is at variance with it is to have taken the piece of apron to the police station himself when he should have stayed at the scene and sent PC Bettles with it instead?

[PaulB]

We have been here before, near identical debates have happened over the last few years.
And it becomes increasingly tedious for serious students and researchers to waste their time in responding and rebutting these ideas over and over again.
Despite constant requests to provide evidence for these ideas, none is ever given,
Instead we have statements such as academic research is unneeded and indeed actually wrong, and an incredible one which suggests that the view of a man writing ina 2017 is more likely to be right than the views of witnesses in 1888. Such statements are the height of arrogance.
We also have photos posted with highly misleading comments attached such as the mortuary photo of Eddowes last year which claimed a tear on the photo was a stab wound, when such was clearly not on the body and another which was presented as a crime scene photo when it was not.
Such work demonstrates a lack of research and flawed interpretation at best.

Above all it suggests a closed mind and a overwhelming need to promote ideas regardless of their validity and reliability.


Steve

Coming to the above conclusions is why one starts to look at the possible reasons why the arguments are made over and over, with little change, and without any of the many objections being taken on board.

[harry]

Almost everything is repetition.If a poster finds it unacceptable or of no value,that poster has an opportunity to neither read nor post.
I distinctly wrote,that the scene should have been left as Long found it,which indicates the cloth should not have been taken anywhere,untill a senior officer made a decision.

[Trevor Marriott]

I do know it's a maid's apron and that it was not the sort of apron Eddowes would have worn. So does everybody.

Who says the apron wasn't visible to everyone at the mortuary? DC Halse says he saw she was wearing an apron and that he saw a piece was missing from it. Wickerman has theorised that the apron wasn't immediately recognised as such and that Halse was retrospectively identifying it as such, but that's a theory. Nobody at the time, not a single person, seems to have doubted that Eddowes was wearing an apron, nobody had a problem with it. Only you, 130 years later.

Can you not see that an apron that size would clearly be visible when the body was stripped. It would have therefore been under the jacket she was wearing, and over the skirt, and written down on the list of clothing in that order.

Even Stevie Wonder could have not failed to see that size of apron even with a piece missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

But you are still missing the point as I asked Wickerman in a post if you lived in a block of flats and found the same piece of screwed up material at the bottom of the stairs with traces of blood and faecal matter on it, would you contact the police about it at that time, and furthermore would they bother about it. No you wouldn't, and no they wouldn't.

But if you and they later found that a murder had been committed it would then be of interest. The point in that when Pc Long found the material he was not aware of any murder, so why did he decide to inspect an old piece of discarded material. If you want a hypothetical theory to consider. Dc Halse placed the apron piece there, and in fact did meet up with Pc Long in GS and told him to check doorways knowing that he would find it. That hypothesis support the suggestion that Eddowes was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron.

Because we know that the GS piece was connected to the victim, and it got to GS somehow by some means.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not missing the point, Trevor. The point is that your opinion (based on goodness knows what) is that PC Long would not have taken any interest in the apron. However, in 1888 that's what PC Long says he did and everyone at the time seems to have accepted that he did it, and there is no reason to suppose he did otherwise, as far as the historical record is concerned that is what happened.

Even if PC Long's behaviour was odd, which I don't think it was, but even if it was odd, people do odd things. People don't always do what you would expect them to do or what is logical. If you think PC Long did other than what he claimed, you need to support that with source-based evidence. You're not doing that or even coming close.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Final Chapter ?

We have been here before, near identical debates have happened over the last few years.
And it becomes increasingly tedious for serious students and researchers to waste their time in responding and rebutting these ideas over and over again.
Despite constant requests to provide evidence for these ideas, none is ever given,

There doesn't have to be evidence to create a doubt. There has to be evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whatever the issue is, and besides the evidence that is available is unsafe in any event so you nor anyone else cannot say that you are totally right and others are totally wrong.

Instead we have statements such as academic research is unneeded and indeed actually wrong, and an incredible one which suggests that the view of a man writing ina 2017 is more likely to be right than the views of witnesses in 1888. Such statements are the height of arrogance.

Such statements are based on over 40 years of assessing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases, so I think that gives me a slight edge.

The only arrogance I see is from you as one who thinks he knows it all, and that your interpretation of the facts should be believed. against all others

Above all it suggests a closed mind and a overwhelming need to promote ideas regardless of their validity and reliability.

Ideas that are plausible !

Steve

[PaulB]

Can you not see that an apron that size would clearly be visible when the body was stripped. It would have therefore been under the jacket she was wearing, and over the skirt, and written down on the list of clothing in that order.

Even Stevie Wonder could have not failed to see that size of apron even with a piece missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. She was wearing one when she went out that morning, she was wearing one when found drunk, she was wearing one when in Bishopsgate Police Station, and she was wearing one with a piece missing when in the mortuary. Nobody, NOBODY, so much as questioned that. Eddowes was not wearing a pretty and decorative maid's apron, but the sort of coarse protective apron commonly worn at the time. It is even described in some sources as a bibbed apron. If it was clearly visible then people must have seen it and DC Halse says he did see it. Nobody says they didn't see it, nobody questioned that she was wearing an apron. The weight of evidence is overwhelming that she was wearing one. Except you, 130 years later, claiming that scholarship and what not is the incorrect way to look at the case, and trying to make out that Eddowes was wearing a decorative maid's apron like she was about to serve afternoon tea and thin cucumber sandwiches.