Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Which was "policeman", as opposed to "floor inspector" and "litter warden".

Mmmm - and a PC walking a beat was supposed to check what?

A/ The blood pressure of severely tested Swedish posters on Casebook.
B/ The number of passing cranes.
C/ The doors on the beat.

Take your pick.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Gareth, you really need to know when to give up.

[Fisherman]

Of course, Fish, as long as that picture reflects the evidence, which is quite clear and was repeated on many occasions at the time. Consistently, it was stated that the apron was found in the passage. Not "just inside", not "near the threshold", but actually "in" the passage.

Aha - so "just inside" the passage is not in the passage ...?

Iīm beginning to understand now.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Doorways where people might just be hiding? Halse - knowing that there'd been a murder nearby, and on a mission to find people - had arguably more reason to gawk into doorways than Long ever did, on that night or any other.

Long ALWAYS had reason to do that as a patrolling PC, Halse would have wanted to do that, but he would not have had sufficient time. He was running along, looking for people (itīs odd, but I have an eerie feeling that Iīve been through this before ...?)

Fisherman

[Monty]

Mmmm - and a PC walking a beat was supposed to check what?

A/ The blood pressure of severely tested Swedish posters on Casebook.
B/ The number of passing cranes.
C/ The doors on the beat.

Take your pick.

The best,
Fisherman

Again, in relation to the Wentworth dwellings....what doors?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Again, in relation to the Wentworth dwellings....what doors?

Monty

He checked the doorway with the apron at 2.55. Obviously.

He also checked that doorway at 2.20. Equally obviously. He would not be able to tell that the apron was not there otherwise.

Exactly HOW he did this, is something we will probably never know. If he walked different sides of the street on every other round, then one must suppose that the apron could be seen from both sides.

Then again, maybe he did not walk different sides. Then again, he may have checked these doorways even if he DID walk different sides. As long as we donīt know, anything is possible. What we DO know, is that Long took it upon him to nail that the rag was not in place in 2.20, and he found it at 2.55. After that, it is all about filling in the blanks as best as we can - and we will differ when trying to do this.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Exactly HOW he did this, is something we will probably never know. If he walked different sides of the street on every other round, then one must suppose that the apron could be seen from both sides.

Yes, this is another issue that applies to both Long and Halse.

With Halse, for instance, we do not know which side of Goulston St. he walked up, or even if he ran up the middle of the road.

Likewise with PC Long, who incidentally had more reason to check doors, windows & entrances than Halse, who was just passing through.
PC Long was actually working the street, and if I recall correctly there was some regulation concerning where on the footpath a beat constable would walk.
It was something like, during daytime the constable walks the kerb-side of the path, however at night he walks the inside clinging to the buildings.
This scenario makes perfect sense when patrolling Whitechapel High St., where the footpaths are extremely wide, however when patrolling the back streets where the pathways are narrower, perhaps not so much.

If Long was following the regulation then he would pass the entryway within inches of where the apron was eventually seen.
Halse had no such inclination, he was looking for men on the street not rubbish cast in doorways.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, you really need to know when to give up.

That could be said of soooooo many others here, Jon

[Sam Flynn]

He checked the doorway with the apron at 2.55. Obviously.

No. He noticed something at 2:55.

He also checked that doorway at 2.20. Equally obviously.

Not obviously at all.

He was a human policeman, not Robocop... and certainly not a "floor inspector" or "litter warden".

[Sam Flynn]

Aha - so "just inside" the passage is not in the passage ...?

No it isn't. Compare "the bullet missed the target" and "the bullet just missed the target". They convey completely different meanings. The apron was inside the passageway leading to the stairs, not "just inside the doorway".

Something like this doesn't seem too wide of the mark:



I've used "Hollywood Night Blue" to give an idea of what Long was up against in terms of lighting conditions. Mind you, this simulation assumes that Long would have stood in the middle of Goulston Street and stared directly into the doorway

[Monty]

He checked the doorway with the apron at 2.55. Obviously.

He also checked that doorway at 2.20. Equally obviously. He would not be able to tell that the apron was not there otherwise.

Exactly HOW he did this, is something we will probably never know. If he walked different sides of the street on every other round, then one must suppose that the apron could be seen from both sides.

Then again, maybe he did not walk different sides. Then again, he may have checked these doorways even if he DID walk different sides. As long as we donīt know, anything is possible. What we DO know, is that Long took it upon him to nail that the rag was not in place in 2.20, and he found it at 2.55. After that, it is all about filling in the blanks as best as we can - and we will differ when trying to do this.

Fisherman

Right, in relation to the Wentworth Dwellings, you mean doorways, not doors.

We have a clue how Long walked his beat, well, I say we....


Monty

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

No. He noticed something at 2:55.

To begin with, you donīt have any idea what applies, Gareth. To carry on, are you telling me that he did NOT check the doorway at 2.55? I seem to remember that we have inquest testimony about how he shone his light in there.

Does that not amount to checking? It does in my book.

Not obviously at all.

Then how could he know that the rag was not there? Somebody told him?

If he knew - and he claimed that he did - then he MUST have checked. How thorough, we donīt know. How long, we donīt know. Why, we donīt know.
But checked he would have.

He was a human policeman, not Robocop... and certainly not a "floor inspector" or "litter warden".

This is getting tiresome. I have never suggested that he was a floor inspector or a litter warden. I have suggested that he was a PC with the task to check doors, among other things. If he saw things on the floors, he could take an interest in them, not least if they had blood on them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No it isn't. Compare "the bullet missed the target" and "the bullet just missed the target". They convey completely different meanings. The apron was inside the passageway leading to the stairs, not "just inside the doorway".

Something like this doesn't seem too wide of the mark:

[ATTACH]15898[/ATTACH]

I've used "Hollywood Night Blue" to give an idea of what Long was up against in terms of lighting conditions. Mind you, this simulation assumes that Long would have stood in the middle of Goulston Street and stared directly into the doorway

Did you not just tell me that I could not know where the rag was...? And now YOU know what is far off the mark and what is not ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Right, in relation to the Wentworth Dwellings, you mean doorways, not doors.

We have a clue how Long walked his beat, well, I say we....


Monty

Iīm afraid you are a bit premature in your guesswork, Monty.

But Iīm sure that you know a vast amount about the regulations and the routines of the PC:s.

You normally do.

Sometimes you even glean a little something about it.

But not today.

But I am equally sure that you have also noticed that Long claimed to know whether the rag was in place at 2.20 and 2.55, respectively. Whether that is at odds with what you know or think you know about the reglements, it still applies that it wonīt change Longs testimony.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

That could be said of soooooo many others here, Jon

Touché.

... in the Morning Advertiser report, a paper for whom I have a lot of respect....

Here's an invitation.
The next time the "ill informed sect" on this forum try to disparage the Morning Advertiser, consider yourself invited to the party.