The word JUWES

[David Orsam]

Is there any reason to think that they didn't see each other, just because they didn't mention doing so? After all, Long heard of the murder in the City somehow, why not from a City policeman fresh from the scene of the crime?

Well it's the fact they didn't mention each other which is the reason to think they didn't see each other.

Long said that he had heard of a murder in Mitre Square "Before proceeding to the station". Before proceeding to the station he had spoken to at least one other constable (number 190 who he asked to guard the dwelling houses). So there is a simple explanation for him hearing about the Mitre Square murder if one is needed.

But it is true that Halse could easily have seen Long. He probably wouldn't have mentioned seeing a constable on his beat when walking along the street. Why would he? He might not even have remembered doing so. I assume Halse was plain clothes so Long might not have realised who he was.

It's all a complete non-point of course and matters not one jot.

[Joshua Rogan]

There's no reason to think they saw each other if they didn't say they did in their evidence. They only had to miss each other by a few seconds and that in itself would explain it.

Is there any reason to think that they didn't see each other, just because they didn't mention doing so? After all, Long heard of the murder in the City somehow, why not from a City policeman fresh from the scene of the crime?

[David Orsam]

And IF they were not 6 mins apart..you are wrong.

I don't know why you say that Phil. There's no magic in 6 minutes. It could have been 5 minutes, 4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes. Or more than 6 minutes. That's the problem with approximate (estimated) timings. There's no reason to think they saw each other if they didn't say they did in their evidence. They only had to miss each other by a few seconds and that in itself would explain it.

[Phil Carter]

Don't be silly Phil. How does either of them know the EXACT time in order to be so precise?

Neither of them were wearing digital watches I believe.



They did both say "about", Phil, I'm afraid. Both of them have been quoted as saying it in this thread! Long by Simon, Halse by me.

If they were six minutes apart, as they could easily have been, everything you have said above is wrong.

And IF they were not 6 mins apart..you are wrong.

As I said the Long beat entrance to the street is significant.
As I said..it takes far longer than one minute to walk the street if one needs to inspect each entrance.

But you are ignoring you these facts a child would know.


Phil

[Kattrup]

No but it shows that Halse thought it did.

Pierre

But Halse was present before the writing was rubbed out.

He protested against it being rubbed out.


Do you believe that Halse lied during the inquest, or merely that he was lied to by his superiors?

[Pierre]

Your post seemed to suggest that the GSG was erased by mistake and then a cover story about fearing a riot against the Jews was concocted. Whereas the evidence given by Halse (who was in the City police and thus not subject to the authority of the Met officials) shows that the discussion about Jews occurred before the writing was wiped away.

No but it shows that Halse thought it did.

Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

Quite possibly, cd. But he would still have needed some light to make sure the writing was still there and hadn't been rubbed out by passing residents, as Halse thought likely if it had been there for very long.

[c.d.]

Hello Joshua,

I think Michael was implying that the killer had seen it earlier that day and that it had stuck in his mind for some reason.

c.d.

[Joshua Rogan]

It doesn't make it unrelated. Of course it was probably written in daylight. Doesn't mean the killer wrote it. I never thought he did. He may have agreed with it though. If so, it makes it related.

Interesting point, but I'm not sure it quite works... If it must have been written in daylight by someone other than the killer because it was too dark to see at night without a light, how did the killer spot it when dropping the apron piece? Unless he did have a light, in which case he could have written it himself after all.

[The Good Michael]

Yes Phil, which is one excellent point in favor of it being written in daylight, therefore, unrelated to the crime.

It doesn't make it unrelated. Of course it was probably written in daylight. Doesn't mean the killer wrote it. I never thought he did. He may have agreed with it though. If so, it makes it related.

Mike

[David Orsam]

Of course David. You are always right.

NOT

I am obviously right on this occasion Phil.

Both Halse and Long said they were in Goulston Street at about 2.20.

By definition that means that they were not both necessarily in Goulston Street at exactly 2.20.

Consequently it's perfectly simple to understand why neither of them saw each other. A child could work it out.

[David Orsam]

David..

Your argument is falling apart. If it was 4 minutes then it would be "about 2.25". Halse being precise about which 5 minute margin he meant (as opposed to about 2.15).

Don't be silly Phil. How does either of them know the EXACT time in order to be so precise?

Neither of them were wearing digital watches I believe.

Err..the evidence of Long's beat IS important. So important he was grilled at the inquest. Therefore..from which direction he entered the street is of significance if he says he was there at 2.20.. when Halse was at the spot where the writing was.
Either he was following the same direction as Long..and would..see the lamp and hear the boots..or he would be walking towards Long.
Either way.. it is highly unlikely that he would not have seen Long. And vice versa.
The lamp gives it away.

They did not both say "about". I am not wrong.
Shame..eh?

They did both say "about", Phil, I'm afraid. Both of them have been quoted as saying it in this thread! Long by Simon, Halse by me.

If they were six minutes apart, as they could easily have been, everything you have said above is wrong.

[Phil Carter]

Complete logic fail.

Presumably caused by wishful thinking.

Of course David. You are always right.

NOT




Phil

[Phil Carter]

No, you are not correct. They both said "about".



It was an example Phil. As I also said, it could have been more, e.g. 4 minutes.



Who cares about evidence of Long's beat? It's perfectly easy to understand how they could have missed each other.

David..

Your argument is falling apart. If it was 4 minutes then it would be "about 2.25". Halse being precise about which 5 minute margin he meant (as opposed to about 2.15).

Err..the evidence of Long's beat IS important. So important he was grilled at the inquest. Therefore..from which direction he entered the street is of significance if he says he was there at 2.20.. when Halse was at the spot where the writing was.
Either he was following the same direction as Long..and would..see the lamp and hear the boots..or he would be walking towards Long.
Either way.. it is highly unlikely that he would not have seen Long. And vice versa.
The lamp gives it away.

They did not both say "about". I am not wrong.
Shame..eh?



Phil

[David Orsam]

Which means he entered the street before 2 20.
And David's approximation is the wrong way.
Ipso facto. They must have been in the same street at thr same time.

Complete logic fail.

Presumably caused by wishful thinking.