Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

The only evidence you rely on to suggest it was not there is what he said and that cannot be corroborated as you have been told. The evidence and inferences, which can be drawn from his evidence far outweigh the credibilty of his evidence and lead to the suggestions that

He didnt see it at 2.20am because he didn't look inside the recess

When he "passed by" at 2.20am he could not have seen it from the street.

He used the term passed by, as does Halse, that indicates they didnt physically look inside and shone torches around, which Long would have had to have done at 2.55am in order to be able to see and examine the rag.

In relation to Halse why was he not doing what you say the police were supposed to do checking property and be able to say it was not here, he hedges his bets and says he didn't specifically look

Long knew what Halse was going to say so he tailored his evidence to fit with what Halse was saying, both could hardly say they passed by and neither of them saw anything, hardly diligent police officers.

Long was not even where he should have been. Both he and Halse were on the quiet street at almost the same time yet neither admits to seeing or hearing the other. One or both may be less than truthful.

The other question that you cannot answer with any certainty is why would a killer still be wandering the streets an hour or so after committing the murder still carrying incriminating evidence?, and why would he discard this piece in a location off the street where it was never likely to be found, or if it was would anyone link it to a murder by reason of its description. In any event anyone finding it would hardly take any notice of a discarded piece of rag.

But lo and behold it is found by a policeman, thats either uncanny or diligent and excellent police work, who then decides to examine more closely this discarded rag and not knowing it would be important takes it to the police station. I wonder if he had been examining other discarded rags on his beat that night or on any other night?

I also wonder at what point did the rag become a piece of apron ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thatīs about the worst post I have ever seen out here. Itīs so filled with faults and outrageous suppositions that I donīt know where to start commenting. Consequentially, I will not do so, but instead collectively brandish it total and uninformed crap.

The one exception I will make is to point out where you curiously write about the killer, asking why he would "discard this piece in a location off the street where it was never likely to be found".
Since you are so very hot on how killers normally act, even wanting to let your thoughts on the issue guide how we should look on the rag errand (regardless of how you are in conflict with the evidence) you may want to ask yourself how many killers make an effort to produce evidence from their cases as clearly as possible...

So in this case, instead of going with the perceived ideas about what killers will do, you go right against it. And why? Because you have an idea of your own about what happened, and that idea involves how the killer actually WISHED to have the rag found, something that you cannot have any factually grounded idea for at all. It is ALL supposition, grounded on Himalayan air.

You think that the killer would have run for home, because "that is what killers do".

But you think that "what killers do" - conceal their deeds and hide the evidence - does NOT apply in this case. Here, you think that the killer WANTED the rag found.

So howīs it gonna be, Trevor? Which is it? Did this killer follow suit regarding "what killers do", or did he not?

You have just gone both ways on that question, and it becomes confusing. And who would have thought that about you, clear, concise and eminently informed as you normally are...?

Maybe itīs just me, but I get a feeling that whenever you enter a debate, then a veritable Pandoras box of disinformation, lacking knowledge, unjustified scorn and pityful arguing is opened up.

[Michael W Richards]

And what, I might also ask, is the significance of Long reaching Commercial Street station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing? I'm failing to understand the science which you tell us is not rocket science.

Simply that Long was not yet tasked with looking for it at the time he says "it was not there".

Which by implication gives reason for the speculation as to whether he did in fact look "there" at around 2:20am.

For me the absolute phrasing implies he was sure of what he was stating.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thatīs about the worst post I have ever seen out here. Itīs so filled with faults and outrageous suppositions that I donīt know where to start commenting. Consequentially, I will not do so, but instead collectively brandish it total and uninformed crap.

The one exception I will make is to point out where you curiously write about the killer, asking why he would "discard this piece in a location off the street where it was never likely to be found".
Since you are so very hot on how killers normally act, even wanting to let your thoughts on the issue guide how we should look on the rag errand (regardless of how you are in conflict with the evidence) you may want to ask yourself how many killers make an effort to produce evidence from their cases as clearly as possible...

So in this case, instead of going with the perceived ideas about what killers will do, you go right against it. And why? Because you have an idea of your own about what happened, and that idea involves how the killer actually WISHED to have the rag found, something that you cannot have any factually grounded idea for at all. It is ALL supposition, grounded on Himalayan air.

You think that the killer would have run for home, because "that is what killers do".

But you think that "what killers do" - conceal their deeds and hide the evidence - does NOT apply in this case. Here, you think that the killer WANTED the rag found.

So howīs it gonna be, Trevor? Which is it? Did this killer follow suit regarding "what killers do", or did he not?

You have just gone both ways on that question, and it becomes confusing. And who would have thought that about you, clear, concise and eminently informed as you normally are...?

Maybe itīs just me, but I get a feeling that whenever you enter a debate, then a veritable Pandoras box of disinformation, lacking knowledge, unjustified scorn and pityful arguing is opened up.

No, whenever I enter a debate that you are involved in you always want to win. If you can then you slag off all those who go against you thinking. It is you that is always right, and everyone else is wrong. Well in this case there are no winners only those who apply common sense to all matters appertaining to this issue. Do you even know what common sense is I ask? in case you dont.

"Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge" I think you are sadly lacking these attributes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Simply that Long was not yet tasked with looking for it at the time he says "it was not there".

Which by implication gives reason for the speculation as to whether he did in fact look "there" at around 2:20am.

For me the absolute phrasing implies he was sure of what he was stating.

So if he hadnt been tasked with looking there was no reason for him to look in the recess was there. So if he didn't look at 2.20am he was not able to say if it were there or not.

As Simon Wood says "Its not rocket science"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

So if he hadnt been tasked with looking there was no reason for him to look in the recess was there. So if he didn't look at 2.20am he was not able to say if it were there or not.

As Simon Wood says "Its not rocket science"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

what you think his superiors would have tasked him into specifically looking into the entrance of the wentworth building? how about he simply noticed it?
Lol. what a farce.

[Paddy]

Maybe the wrong victim, but wasn't there a story about a policeman stating he had just missed a man who had washed his bloody hands in a trough?
I thought this was near the Model buildings? (might be wrong though)
Pat.....

[Trevor Marriott]

what you think his superiors would have tasked him into specifically looking into the entrance of the wentworth building? how about he simply noticed it?
Lol. what a farce.

I never raised the issue of tasking it was Mr Richards. You should take more time to read the posts, and perhaps revisit all the facts surrounding this then you might get a better understanding instead of bumbling along.

Could it be seen from simply walking past without going inside? and between 2.20 am and 2,55am how many other recesses would he have looked into and perhaps seen other items of discarded rubbish. Yet out of all them he specifically remembers that particular location and was able to swear that nothing was there 35 mins before. Priceless

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No, whenever I enter a debate that you are involved in you always want to win. If you can then you slag off all those who go against you thinking. It is you that is always right, and everyone else is wrong. Well in this case there are no winners only those who apply common sense to all matters appertaining to this issue. Do you even know what common sense is I ask? in case you dont.

"Common sense is a basic ability to perceive, understand, and judge" I think you are sadly lacking these attributes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, I am not always right, and everyone else is not always wrong. When it comes to you, however, itīs another matter - you are wrong on a regular basis, and stating that I "want to win" debates with you is therefore a fair bit off the mark. I donīt have to want anything; you put your head in the noose all by yourself repeatedly, and so itīs not like I could loose. In reality, it is a no-contest.
The one thing I can understand is that it makes you bitter - I would have felt exactly the same if I was glued to the wrong end of the stick.

[Abby Normal]

I never raised the issue of tasking it was Mr Richards. You should take more time to read the posts, and perhaps revisit all the facts surrounding this then you might get a better understanding instead of bumbling along.

Could it be seen from simply walking past without going inside? and between 2.20 am and 2,55am how many other recesses would he have looked into and perhaps seen other items of discarded rubbish. Yet out of all them he specifically remembers that particular location and was able to swear that nothing was there 35 mins before. Priceless

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I never raised the issue of tasking

you sure did

So if he hadnt been tasked with looking there was no reason for him to look in the recess was there

what a joke

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, I am not always right, and everyone else is not always wrong. When it comes to you, however, intīs another matter - you are wrong on a regular basis, and statig that I "want to win" debates with you is therefore a fair bit off the mark. I donīt have to want anything; you put your head in the noose all by yourself repeatedly, and so itīs not like I could loose. In reality, it is a non-contest.
The one thing I can understand is that it makes you bitter - I would have felt exactly the same if I was glued to the wrong end of the stick.

Doesnt make me bitter on the contrary it makes me sad to think you, and some of your followers cant get a firm grasp of many of the facts that surround this mystery. You have your own theories, which you are fully entitled to have, but you are so blinkered that you cannot see anything beyond what you want to believe.

That being said I will vacate this post, there is nothing more to be said. I have better things to do with my time that to keep trying to make you see and apply sensible reasoning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

you sure did



what a joke

Yes you are !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I will vacate this post, there is nothing more to be said. I have better things to do with my time that to keep trying to make you see and apply sensible reasoning.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think that is by far the best thing you can do for yourself, Trevor. It will - to the best of my knowledge - be the one sound choice youīve made on this thread.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that is by far the best thing you can do for yourself, Trevor. It will - to the best of my knowledge - be the one sound choice youīve made on this thread.

Well at least it is a choice made with sensible reasoning attached to it which is more than be said or your posts

[Abby Normal]

Yes you are !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

goodbye-nice chatting with you.

[Fisherman]

Well at least it is a choice made with sensible reasoning attached to it which is more than be said or your posts

I fully agree with the initial statement - any reasoning on your behalf that gets you as far away from the boards as possible must by definition be sensible reasoning.