Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Abby Normal]

This is a very good point, at least as applied to Donald Trump, for instance! Anyway, I think difficulties occur when posters take entrenched positions, at which point objectivity goes out of the window. And, yes, I've been guilty of that myself on occasion, but in the end I feel I've always been prepared to alter my opinion in the long term if confronted with a persuasive argument!

Maybe some posters, particularly those who write books, feel they simply have too much to lose.

Perhaps. And your dead on about trump. The man is pathologically incapable of admitting he was wrong or to apologize. And to some extant Hillary also. But her MO is to lie, lie ,lie, tell a lesser lie, obfuscate, tell a lesser lie, then when called out finally to admit to something else, parse words and then when finally cornered to the point where she can no longer screw around will admit a mistake. But only when all other avenues have been exhausted and or she's finally put under oath by congress or law enforcement and by then many months/years gone by.
Her lies , not admitting shes wrong are because she knows the truth would put her away or very close to it.

[harry]

Here are three questions.

How could Long be precise about a time of 2.20.

why need he be precise about a time of 2.20.

What evidence places him at the building at precisely 2.20.

AS John G says'Persuasive argument'.

All we have so far is Long states.Not very persuasive.

If as is being claimed today,we shouldn't accept the words of two people,one of whom may soon be the most powerful person on earth why should we blindly accept that of a police constable of 1888.

[Fisherman]

Here are three questions.

How could Long be precise about a time of 2.20.

why need he be precise about a time of 2.20.

What evidence places him at the building at precisely 2.20.

AS John G says'Persuasive argument'.

All we have so far is Long states.Not very persuasive.

If as is being claimed today,we shouldn't accept the words of two people,one of whom may soon be the most powerful person on earth why should we blindly accept that of a police constable of 1888.

Because we have no reason to doubt it. Because there is no evidence to the contrary. Because people normally tell the truth when testifying under oath. And I am no saying that we should "blindly accept it", I am saying that we should accept it as most probably being true. Blindness, Harry, is when you cannot see or refuse to see something - like the evidence...

Comparing a PC to a politician is a very funny thing to do, Harry. A politician makes a living from exercising the fine art of bending the truth (maybe you haven´t noticed that, but take it from me - that´s how it goes), so I can see what you are trying to do here.
Doesn´t work, though. People like me are far too keen to call your cards to let such a whopper pass.

Your three questions about the time 2.20 are - at best - uninteresting. If he was there at 2.17 or 2.23 changes absolutely nothing.
A bit like yourself therefore - nothing changes...

[Harry D]

Jon Smythe (Wickerman) agrees with me. The only difference between you and me is that I am not dumb enough to promote that as any pointer of me being correct. All Jon does is to recognize the weight of evidence there is, nothing else.

Dumb? Oh dear. You continually show your distinct lack of class with comments such as this. While the great Fisherman might not deign to quote his fellow Ripper enthusiasts, I see no shame in referencing Stewart Evans' opinion on this particular subject to support my own argument.

[Fisherman]

Dumb? Oh dear. You continually show your distinct lack of class with comments such as this. While the great Fisherman might not deign to quote his fellow Ripper enthusiasts, I see no shame in referencing Stewart Evans' opinion on this particular subject to support my own argument.

Well, if I have to choose between a lack of class in my behaviour and one in my logic, I will choose the former one. Sadly, it seems I will have to wave farewell to all that greatness of mine as a consequence, but since I was not aware of it in the first place, that should not be too hard.

For the record, trying to defend a faulty logic by pointing to how others have used the same faulty logic IS dumb. Unless you disagree, and think that some persons should be relied upon regardless if they are right or wrong. Of course, that would be even dum... No, wait, I am not supposed to say that. I may shrink away altogether if I do.

Saying that you personally believe that A applies instead of B - which would be what Stewart Evans did - is another matter. Some believe in voodoo, and that´s their prerogative to do so. Doesn´t make it true, though.

Tha mediumsized/smallish Fisherman

PS. Something struck me, Harry: Eppur si muove. That´s Galilei, as you may be aware, who was given a hard time by the church when he stated that the Earth was not the middle of universe. It makes me think: He was correct. He was factbased. The authorities of his time disagreed with him, so the Stewart Evanses available to him would not support his view.
Stewart Evans, however, is NOT factbased when guessing that the rag was there. He guesses, and goes with his gut feeling. And he will in all probability acknowledge that this is so.
Authorities are frail things at the best of times. In the worst of times, they can be plain misleading. So maybe I should be happy to have been relieved of my greatness...

[Fisherman]

One thing I would like to add on this subject is how - regardless if the killer started out from the Broad Street Pickfords depot or from Mitre square when he set sails for Goulston Street - the doorway where the rag was found works very well with Lechmere being the culprit. He could well have reached Goulston Street on his way home no matter which starting point he had.

That sort of renders any argument that I "have to" have it one way or the other completely moot. So I am not fighting a battle I can loose, either way. And I am not fighting it to keep Lechmere in the picture - he remains no matter which starting point we choose.

Obviously, I am therefore fighting the battle for the sake of logic only, and for the sake of recognizing how evidence trumphs supposition.

I can have it both ways - Hooray!

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing I would like to add on this subject is how - regardless if the killer started out from the Broad Street Pickfords depot or from Mitre square when he set sails for Goulston Street - the doorway where the rag was found works very well with Lechmere being the culprit. He could well have reached Goulston Street on his way home no matter which starting point he had.

That sort of renders any argument that I "have to" have it one way or the other completely moot. So I am not fighting a battle I can loose, either way. And I am not fighting it to keep Lechmere in the picture - he remains no matter which starting point we choose.

Obviously, I am therefore fighting the battle for the sake of logic only, and for the sake of recognizing how evidence trumphs supposition.

I can have it both ways - Hooray!

But you cant explain why is was discarded at a location where it was not likely to be found.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But you cant explain why is was discarded at a location where it was not likely to be found.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yea weak of heart! ´Course I can!!

Now, let´s begin by establishing where you think the rag was "not likely" to be found - In Goulston Street or in the particular doorway?

Once you sorted that out, we will move on.

[David Orsam]

Here are three questions.

How could Long be precise about a time of 2.20.

why need he be precise about a time of 2.20.

What evidence places him at the building at precisely 2.20.

Are you still banging on about the timings, Harry? Please tell me this is not a continuation of your argument that Long had no time to find the apron.

The "precise" times are, of course, irrelevant. Long's evidence was essentially that he had passed the same spot he found the apron at 2:55 some 35 minutes earlier and it wasn't there then.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If the piece of apron was not there at 2.20 am, but there at 2.55 am [PC Long's testimony], it must have been dropped between 2.21 and 2.54 am — 37 to 70 minutes after the discovery of Eddowes' body at 1.44 am.

Why did it take the murderer at least 37 minutes to reach Goulston Street, which was only 500 yards from Mitre Square [Times, 2nd October 1888]?

Also, if the piece of apron was noted as missing when the body reached the mortuary, it must have been missing when the body was found in Mitre Square, for the murderer had no opportunity to cut it off after 1.43 am [I am here assuming one minute for the murderer's getaway].

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

If the piece of apron was not there at 2.20 am, but there at 2.55 am [PC Long's testimony], it must have been dropped between 2.21 and 2.54 am — 37 to 70 minutes after the discovery of Eddowes' body at 1.44 am.

Why did it take the murderer at least 37 minutes to reach Goulston Street, which was only 500 yards from Mitre Square [Times, 2nd October 1888]?

Was he hiding somewhere from the police in that time, Simon? Do tell. I can't wait to find out the answer.

And is there a prize for the first person to get it right?

[David Orsam]

Also, if the piece of apron was noted as missing when the body reached the mortuary, it must have been missing when the body was found in Mitre Square, for the murderer had no opportunity to cut it off after 1.43 am [I am here assuming one minute for the murderer's getaway].

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

No-one noticed a piece of the apron had been cut off. Yes, good observation Simon. Do you think the people in Mitre Square might have been a little bit distracted by the horrific mutilations?

[Fisherman]

Hi All,

If the piece of apron was not there at 2.20 am, but there at 2.55 am [PC Long's testimony], it must have been dropped between 2.21 and 2.54 am — 37 to 70 minutes after the discovery of Eddowes' body at 1.44 am.

Why did it take the murderer at least 37 minutes to reach Goulston Street, which was only 500 yards from Mitre Square [Times, 2nd October 1888]?

Also, if the piece of apron was noted as missing when the body reached the mortuary, it must have been missing when the body was found in Mitre Square, for the murderer had no opportunity to cut it off after 1.43 am [I am here assuming one minute for the murderer's getaway].

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

Regards,

Simon

Simon! There can be three reasons why it took the killer 37 minutes or more to reach Goulston Street:
1. He walked VERY slowly.
2. He did not take the closest route there.
3. He stopped somewhere before he went there, either along the route or somewhere else.

It was never as if the killer MUST have sped off from the murder spot to Goulston Street. Many a possibility were open to him.

As for the failure to notice the cut apron in Mitre Square, it must be noted that the scene was not one of great order. The clothes she wore were cut and disarranged, and there was a great big hole in the middle of her, where the garments had been shoved to the side. Blood and gore was present, further disenabling an account of the state of the clothing in situ.

There is nothing strange involved in the points you raise, for all I can see.

[David Orsam]

Is Fisherman allowed to give three answers, Simon? If he wins the prize I'll be most upset.

[Kattrup]

Why did it take the murderer at least 37 minutes to reach Goulston Street, which was only 500 yards from Mitre Square [Times, 2nd October 1888]?

I think if we knew the answer to that, we would know who Jack was, or at least be much closer to it than we are.

Unfortunately, we don't.

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

There are lots of things that weren't noticed until later. You seem to be implying that there's something odd about it? I don't see why. Murder, body, blood, mutilations and confusion in the dead of night. Obviously not everything is going to noticed at first glance.