Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

The possibility remains that Pc long could have missed the bloodied rag, but i feel that if we disregard completely the chance that what he says about it not being there at 2.20 is true we could be missing an important clue.

I will let this little gem stand for itself too, for everyone to see and ponder. Notice who it differs totally from what I quoted from Harrys post, in being refreshingly sound and condensing all the important matters into a few words.

The difference in quality of the arguments of the two sides in the debate really could not be shown more clearly.

[Pierre]

I will let this little gem stand for itself too, for everyone to see and ponder. Notice who it differs totally from what I quoted from Harrys post, in being refreshingly sound and condensing all the important matters into a few words.

The difference in quality of the arguments of the two sides in the debate really could not be shown more clearly.

Hi Fisherman,

Does this difference show that Lechmere was the one who wrote the GSG?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Does this difference show that Lechmere was the one who wrote the GSG?

Regards, Pierre

I would have loved to take you up on this intellectually based topic, but I´ve decided to go along with Abby Normals suggestion not to feed the troll.

Can you hear the silence?

[Pierre]

I would have loved to take you up on this intellectually based topic, but I´ve decided to go along with Abby Normals suggestion not to feed the troll.

Can you hear the silence?

I am not a troll, Fisherman. What you are doing is discrimination.

You place me within a group called "trolls" and do not treat me like an individual.

Shame on you.

[Elamarna]

I am not a troll, Fisherman. What you are doing is discrimination.

You place me within a group called "trolls" and do not treat me like an individual.

Shame on you.

Pierre

The reality is that you do not answer questions in a meaningful way. Either you go off discussing
"what do you mean by"

when the question and it's meaning are clear or you produce shame academic arguments to avoid answering.


The final alternative you use to evade answering is to answer a question you have not been asked or a variant on it is to change the question you are asked.

Like many others here I am fully bored by you. However while you continue to post in the fashion you do I shall continue to reply.
Even if that means as now answering with limited Internet from the carribean.

The shame is not on Fisherman; rather it is on those who refuse to answer and evade .


Steve

[harry]

Darryl,
We could say he had a bolt hole to retire to after every killing.Why especially should it be near Mitre Square.Why the bolt hole and not directly home? W e could also be missing an important clue if we discard !.20 time.
David,
I do not really get your point.It has been stated elsewhere that beats were about 30 minutes.Doing what? Walking at a steady pace I presume.Checking doors,windows and empty spaces each time? Well there would be an enormous amount of those to check. Would even 35 minutes be enough?
I think the accepted term was policing the beat,and policemen w ho post here have given an explanation of what that means.

[David Orsam]

David,
I do not really get your point.It has been stated elsewhere that beats were about 30 minutes.Doing what? Walking at a steady pace I presume.Checking doors,windows and empty spaces each time? Well there would be an enormous amount of those to check. Would even 35 minutes be enough?
I think the accepted term was policing the beat,and policemen w ho post here have given an explanation of what that means.

Harry,

I see that it has gone from "that's how long, Long states it took him" to "it has been stated elsewhere that beats were about 30 minutes". Can you first clarify for me what Long actually said about the time it took him to walk his beat?

And you really don't get my point?

Well can you tell me exactly how many dwelling entrances there were on Long's beat? (We don't need to bother about windows and doors do we?)

Then can you tell me how long it would have taken Long to check all those dwelling entrances?

If you can then tell me, with evidence, exactly how long it would have taken Long to walk his beat without checking dwelling entrances and then show me the calculation that checking the dwelling entrances would have taken this beat to significantly more than 35 minutes then you make your point. If not, your point doesn't succeed.

[harry]

Well Long states he passed at 1.20,then again at 1.55.A time difference of 35 minutes.Long's statements,not mine.

What is the point?

I do not know how many dwellings there were on Long''s beat.Does anyone?Does it matter?

Obviously if I do not know how many buildings there were,I would not know how long it would take to check.Does it matter? Did Long check them?
No one knows what Long did between 1.20 and 1.55,at what speed he walked,evidence is lacking.It is those who believe that Long was a diligent officer,who would have checked that should be asked those questions.

Look,for anyone that's interested,Long's beat was shown on a thread. some time ago.

And no,it hasn't gone from one thing to another.The crucial q uestion has alw ays been,was the piece of apron in a building in Goulston street at 1.20,that morning.

[harry]

Correction.
It was 2.20 and 2.55

[Wickerman]

Is this really getting anywhere?

From what I recall the objection was, he didn't see the rag because it was inside the entryway. [Which in itself is an error according to Warren who stated the rag was in full view of anyone in the street.]

However, not withstanding the above, Long would not see the rag because (in theory) it was out of sight. Yet we also know there was a door just inside the entry, and we also know it was among his duties to check doors on his beat to see if they were secure - not unlocked (open), for anyone to access unlawfully.
We cannot know for sure that he did check the door.

It is the objection which is rendered void by the fact his duties required him to check doors. Whether he did or not is a different question, we will never know that.
The time it took him to conduct his beat is irrelevant.

[Fisherman]

Is this really getting anywhere?

Not in terms of reaching an agreement.

But it has been utterly instructive in showing how some groupings out here value evidence.

[David Orsam]

Well Long states he passed at 1.20,then again at 1.55.A time difference of 35 minutes.Long's statements,not mine.

What is the point?

I do not know how many dwellings there were on Long''s beat.Does anyone?Does it matter?

Are you reading my posts Harry? I said in #194

"Whereas we know from the timings he gave that it took him 35 minutes to complete the beat in question (i.e. from 2.20 to 2.55)."

That was in contrast to your more imprecise "about half an hour", which could have incorporated 28 minutes, and which, you claimed (in #194), gave Long no time to check doors, windows and empty spaces.

But it turns out that you have absolutely no idea whether Long could have checked doors, windows and empty spaces along his beat in 35 minutes, so your point is in tatters.

Even worse, we know that within the beat that took him 35 minutes, Long found the bloodstained apron so, if he found the apron in a dwelling passage, he must have been carrying out some checks of at least dwelling passages within that time.

[harry]

No one has absolutely any idea that Long did check doors and windows between 2.20 and 2.55.No one has any idea how long it would take if he checked a ll doors and windows,some doors and windows,or none at all.

From the internet.
Officers should be at a set point,usually half an hour,or forty five minutes apart.
Beat walking.
Night beats were shorter(than day beats),only about two miles long
So no,nothing is in tatters.
The statement in post 194,is not incorrect. I do support my statements.
Unless there is information that Long set the times by a time piece,I find nothing wrong in stating,about half an hour.
Wickerman has answered the question of whether a search was needed to find the apron piece.
And still the essential factor is, was the piece of apron there(in Wentworth building) at 2.20?

[David Orsam]

No one has absolutely any idea that Long did check doors and windows between 2.20 and 2.55.No one has any idea how long it would take if he checked a ll doors and windows,some doors and windows,or none at all.

From the internet.
Officers should be at a set point,usually half an hour,or forty five minutes apart.
Beat walking.
Night beats were shorter(than day beats),only about two miles long
So no,nothing is in tatters.
The statement in post 194,is not incorrect. I do support my statements.
Unless there is information that Long set the times by a time piece,I find nothing wrong in stating,about half an hour.
Wickerman has answered the question of whether a search was needed to find the apron piece.
And still the essential factor is, was the piece of apron there(in Wentworth building) at 2.20?

If you don't think your point is in tatters Harry then perhaps I need to remind you what your point was. You stated:

"It is said the beat took about half an hour at steady walking pace to complete.That's how long,Long states it took him(Long).No time then to check doors,windows,and empty spaces".

The problem is that it is NOT said anywhere by anyone that Long's beat took about half an hour at a steady walking pace to complete. That is a guess on your part.

Therefore, it's not possible to state that there was no time to check the "empty spaces".

We know that on the beat which took him 35 minutes he found the apron. If he walked the same beat at 2:20, and did the same things he did at 2:55, then there is no reason why he wouldn't have found the apron on the previous beat had it been there. If he did different things at 2:55 to 2:20 then he might not have found it but the point is that we can't say for certain.

I don't know, incidentally, why you keep mentioning doors and windows. He didn't need to be checking doors and windows to find the apron.

[Monty]

It'll help

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445655209/ref=pd_aw_sbs_14_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SZPDQHQWK316YT84978S

Monty
🙂