The word JUWES

[Phil Carter]

Hi David,

You'll have to do better than that

Halse, inquest evidence—

"I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two . . ," and "at twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found."

Regards,

Simon

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.


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You'll have to do better than that

Halse, inquest evidence—

"I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two . . ," and "at twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found."

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Let's tighten up the timing.

Inquest evidence—

Halse: "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found"

Long: "I passed [that spot] about twenty minutes past two o'clock."

So neither of them referred to "approximately the same moment" which is what I was criticising you for.

And you missed Halse being examined by Crawford:

"About 20 past 2 I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found".

Back to the drawing board Simon.

[David Orsam]

Hello David,

I think I am correct in saying that only ONE of the two police statements used the word "about" 2 .20 (Halse).
Long..I believe, said "at" 2.20.
Therefore only one time was an approximation, no?

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

And where does 3 minutes and not 1 or 2 minutes become the approximation?

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

How do we know which way Long walked his beat? You see, if he enters one end at 2.20..and Halse the other at about 2.20 +- 1 minute. They would meet.

It may take a minute to walk Goulston Street..but longer if one is inspecting each and every entrance. .or even every other one down one side of the street only.

Additionally..the police lamp would be seen. Additionally, the thud of boots would be heard. The street was poorly lit. It was deserted..i.e. silence.

We know which entrance Halse used. Can you provide evidence of Long's beat so we know which way he walked?

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

[Phil Carter]

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

Hello Jon,

Thank you. Its nice to know even I can do something right now and again...but..as we both know... you do realise that if it was indeed written during daylight and "unrelated" to the crime..it actually explodes one heck of a myth peddled since 1888...and a few authors and commentators have a large problem with their pushing this as "evidence ".

So what to do eh? Accept this "excellent point" and destroy years of belief..you know..the one where Ass Comm Anderson and others stated it was THE most important clue....or....take in the "excellent point" and keep the "evidence" ..meaning the writer did indeed carry a lamp with them in order to write 3/4" prose.

Ooooo.... thats very dangerous. Not many people carried lamps around with them..except...policemen.

What to do eh?

��


Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Let's tighten up the timing.

Inquest evidence—

Halse: "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found"

Long: "I passed [that spot] about twenty minutes past two o'clock."

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

If they both walked along a street at "approximately 2.20am" one could have walked along it at 2.17, the other at 2.23. That's easily a six minute gap and could have been more.

Nothing to see here. Just as there wasn't that night.

Hello David,

I think I am correct in saying that only ONE of the two police statements used the word "about" 2 .20 (Halse).
Long..I believe, said "at" 2.20.
Therefore only one time was an approximation, no?

And where does 3 minutes and not 1 or 2 minutes become the approximation?

How do we know which way Long walked his beat? You see, if he enters one end at 2.20..and Halse the other at about 2.20 +- 1 minute. They would meet.

It may take a minute to walk Goulston Street..but longer if one is inspecting each and every entrance. .or even every other one down one side of the street only.

Additionally..the police lamp would be seen. Additionally, the thud of boots would be heard. The street was poorly lit. It was deserted..i.e. silence.

We know which entrance Halse used. Can you provide evidence of Long's beat so we know which way he walked?

Thank you.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Hi Wickerman,

Intentionally deceptive?

I wrote "at approximately the same moment."

You chose to leave out the qualifier

John was quite right. Your expression "approximately the same moment" was both misleading and wrong. Neither of them spoke about a "moment". You should have said "approximately the same time". But that allows within its very construction for two people walking along a street the possibility of missing each other.

If they both walked along a street at "approximately 2.20am" one could have walked along it at 2.17, the other at 2.23. That's easily a six minute gap and could have been more.

Nothing to see here. Just as there wasn't that night.

[Joshua Rogan]

what is your point?

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.

[Wickerman]

Hello Simon,

Especially if one..at least.
Was carrying a lamp.

Oh..a thought has occurred to me.
If it takes the shining of a lamp to see the 3/4" high writing, then logically it would need a lamp yo write it too. That alcove..entrance..call it what you will..must have been dark.
So dark Long shone his lamp and saw the writing in doing so.

3/4" high writing..in darkness. That takes some doing.

Phil

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

[Pierre]

Hi Wickerman,

Intentionally deceptive?

I wrote "at approximately the same moment."

You chose to leave out the qualifier

Regards,

Simon

It is methodologically impossible to establish any reliable historical facts for minutes and seconds in the case.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Pierre,
There were members of two police forces present in Goulston Street. City officer Halse did not want the GSG erased, yet he still confirmed that the Met police discussed the idea of the message causing a riot against the Jews before it was rubbed out.

Hi Joshua,

what is your point?

Cheers, Pierre

[DJA]

If Jack can gut Eddowes in a dark corner of Mitre Square,the writing is nothing.

Not aware of Long mentioning he used a lamp.

Incidentally,Goulston Street might have been patrolled in three different sections.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Wickerman,

"Yet neither reported seeing each other" means exactly that.

I am surprised that two policemen in Goulston Street at "approximately 2.20 am," in the wake of a double murder, did not see each other.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

Especially if one..at least.
Was carrying a lamp.

Oh..a thought has occurred to me.
If it takes the shining of a lamp to see the 3/4" high writing, then logically it would need a lamp yo write it too. That alcove..entrance..call it what you will..must have been dark.
So dark Long shone his lamp and saw the writing in doing so.

3/4" high writing..in darkness. That takes some doing.



Phil

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

"Yet neither reported seeing each other" means exactly that.

I am surprised that two policemen in Goulston Street at "approximately 2.20 am," in the wake of a double murder, did not see each other.

Regards,

Simon