Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

Well spotted that man, you are clearly another who is not prepared to accept the old previously accepted theories.although with this one it is a contemporary theory which many ripperologists have been happy to go along with because it fits with the killer removing the organs from the victim at the crime scene, and of course we now know that didnt happen

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Charles Daniels]

As has been pointed out (by Wickerman), there were a number of instances when Long said he did not know, could not say, was not sure etcetera of different matters. So he very clearly was willing to admit when he was unable to establish things.
The very fact that he never wavered for a second about the rag suggests to me that this was not such a matter; here, he was certain. And there is nothing at all to suggest that he could not have been.

That's very valuable to know in weighing the testimony.
Having a witness who candidly admits to the limitations of their knowledge is very helpful indeed and more trustworthy than the one who has an answer for everything.

So seems the mystery here is -- we need a safe place for the killer to be hanging around for at least 35 minutes, with a piece of incriminating evidence on his person, and better yet for having some feeling of safety in going to Goulston Street and ditching the evidence where he did.

If the killer was using the apron to help him transport some trophy or other, then he might drop it off somewhere nearby and then leave this drop off point in order to ditch the apron. I guess it's possible he thinks better of having the apron and maybe transfers anything it may have contained elsewhere on his person.

But the apron itself only had spots of blood...so that's not terribly consistent with it being a parcel for organs or anything.

So yeah, lots of questions, I'll keep pondering.
Cheers mate!

[Fisherman]

Yes, there has to be some room for the fact that he is highly unlikely to say under oath "Sorry, I missed my 2.20am pass of that area because I was engaging in community outreach by accepting the offer of a quick half made by the landlord of The Ten Bells."

If he was asked why he didn't spot it at 2.20am, either it wasn't there or he wasn't or it was a pretty non-descript old apron and the geezer didn't notice.
Or is it possible he walked down the street the other way, and therefore saw the scene from a different angle?

Is it possible that someone else encountered the apron, maybe a local vagrant, and examined it before discarding it at Goulston Street?

I am happy to take PC Long's testimony into consideration as testimony from a source who was at the scene, but does his testimony answer questions or raise them?

Either he's incorrect -- innocently or not -- and introducing inconsistencies and mudding the waters. OR he's giving us a vital clue about the killer remaining in the area for some reason.

Both of these should be sort of, kept in mind and played with I think.
Keep our ideas flexible and see where other pieces of evidence lead us.

As has been pointed out (by Wickerman), there were a number of instances when Long said he did not know, could not say, was not sure etcetera of different matters. So he very clearly was willing to admit when he was unable to establish things.
The very fact that he never wavered for a second about the rag suggests to me that this was not such a matter; here, he was certain. And there is nothing at all to suggest that he could not have been.

[Charles Daniels]

It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.

Yes, there has to be some room for the fact that he is highly unlikely to say under oath "Sorry, I missed my 2.20am pass of that area because I was engaging in community outreach by accepting the offer of a quick half made by the landlord of The Ten Bells."

If he was asked why he didn't spot it at 2.20am, either it wasn't there or he wasn't or it was a pretty non-descript old apron and the geezer didn't notice.
Or is it possible he walked down the street the other way, and therefore saw the scene from a different angle?

Is it possible that someone else encountered the apron, maybe a local vagrant, and examined it before discarding it at Goulston Street?

I am happy to take PC Long's testimony into consideration as testimony from a source who was at the scene, but does his testimony answer questions or raise them?

Either he's incorrect -- innocently or not -- and introducing inconsistencies and mudding the waters. OR he's giving us a vital clue about the killer remaining in the area for some reason.

Both of these should be sort of, kept in mind and played with I think.
Keep our ideas flexible and see where other pieces of evidence lead us.

[PaulB]

Matthews did not say anything about any policeman taking a piece of the apron. That is just an historical fact.

Hi Pierre
I'm not sure I understand the point you are making. I know Matthews didn't say anything about a policeman taking the apron piece. However, Phil speculated that Matthews was implying that and said I had agreed with him. I didn't agree, that that's what Matthews was implying, I only acknowledged that I couldn't altogether rule it out, which I can't. There's nothing to support such a conjecture, however, and, as David has spelt it out, it's so improbable as to be unworthy of consideration. Phil's interpretation of the surce is wrong.

Paul

[Pierre]

Sorry, Phil, I am not been at my computer for a few days. Actually I said, "I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street..." You then said it couldn't be ruled out, which I obviously agreed with, since we cannot get inside Henry Matthews' head and know with certainty what he thought. But I'd already said I doubted it very much. I must say, however, that I was far less concerned with some imagining of Henry Matthews' thought processes than I was without pointing out that his question raised the question of whether Eddowes was wearing an apron and whether or not it was observed that a piece was missing from it. I assume - and I would suggest that the sources confirm - that efforts were made to establish the answers to those questions, and that the answers were to the positive. I'd also suggest that the sources confirm that the apron piece was not taken to Goulston Street by an onlooker. I'm not sure that you made any reply to that. What I did not do, was agree that Matthews may have entertained the idea that a policeman took the apron piece.

Matthews did not say anything about any policeman taking a piece of the apron. That is just an historical fact.

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Like you..I am not perfect.

However, the point stands. Matthews may have entertained the possibility..as you yourself agreed with.


Phil

Sorry, Phil, I am not been at my computer for a few days. Actually I said, "I very much doubt that one can be sure that Henry Matthews thought that a policeman took the apron piece to Goulston Street..." You then said it couldn't be ruled out, which I obviously agreed with, since we cannot get inside Henry Matthews' head and know with certainty what he thought. But I'd already said I doubted it very much. I must say, however, that I was far less concerned with some imagining of Henry Matthews' thought processes than I was without pointing out that his question raised the question of whether Eddowes was wearing an apron and whether or not it was observed that a piece was missing from it. I assume - and I would suggest that the sources confirm - that efforts were made to establish the answers to those questions, and that the answers were to the positive. I'd also suggest that the sources confirm that the apron piece was not taken to Goulston Street by an onlooker. I'm not sure that you made any reply to that. What I did not do, was agree that Matthews may have entertained the idea that a policeman took the apron piece.

[Pierre]

Great insight as usual Pierre.

But I don't think Fisherman needs to trouble himself to respond to your posts.

Thank you, David.

No, Fisherman must protect the centimeters. And the minutes.

I myself, on the other hand, have nothing to protect.

The problem is that I do not have the historical right to ignore what the sources are indicating.

[David Orsam]

Great insight as usual Pierre.

But I don't think Fisherman needs to trouble himself to respond to your posts.

[Pierre]

To be more exact, what is established through corroboration is that he was found by Nicholsī body.

It may seem a small detail, but the implications differ rather a lot.

Of course, I would have a lot more reason to correct Pierre, but I prefer to speak to people where I get some sort of sound resonance.

What are the upper and lower limit in centimeters for standing "by Nicholsī body"?

Have you calculated this?

And would 1 centimeter closer to Nichols body increase the suspicion that Lechmere was a killer with 1 point?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396936]

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body.

Yes, David, but you see, for Fisherman the only hope lies in centimeters.

Centimeters = found by the body.

That is the tendency of all the sources produced by Fisherman. It is explained by the motive of Fisherman.

[Pierre]

Amazing Fisherman. Now I have apparently to admit that I got something wrong! All I said was that Lechmere was connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. What on earth is wrong about that?

And yes you do have an agenda if you wanted to keep "both possibilities open". When Paul said that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the road he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was reporting to the inquest when he saw. When he (supposedly) told a newspaper reporter that Lechmere was standing where the body was he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was (supposedly) telling the reporter what he saw.

If you were striving to be as accurate as possible, then keeping possibilities open should have been no part of your thinking. You should have been reporting what was said and seen. No-one said that Lechmere was found by the body. That is your own interpretation of what you think Paul told a reporter, even though he said no such thing under oath at the inquest.

So, far from being as accurate as possible, you were twisting the evidence to fit in with your agenda of keeping open the possibility that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. In doing so, I was excluding no possibilities and promoting no agenda.

I got nothing wrong. So perhaps you can back down with good grace and we can move back to discussing the rather more on-topic subject of PC Long and the apron.

Lechmere was found by Paul.

Did Paul tell anyone that he thought the person he found was the killer?

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

Am I SURPRISED...!!?

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

So I have an agenda? Did you notice that I wanted to have BOTH possibilities open? That Lechmere EITHER simply found Nichols OR killed her and feigned to simply have found her?
That is leaving both opportunitites open.

In YOUR suggestion, which you (SUPRISE) find better, you exclude the possibility that Lechmere leid about having found her.

So I leave both possibilties open, you leave just the one possibility open - and I am the one with the agenda...?

This, David, is what happens when we want to be clever and fail miserably.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

No, David, saying that Lechmere found the body is explicitely ruling out that he killed her. If he did, he did NOT find a body, he searched out a living woman and turned her into a dead body.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

As I have shown, it is not a completely neutral statement. I accept that you used it in good faith, but it nevertheless is a statement that cements Lechmereīs claims as being true.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.

Now? No, I donīt wish to continue the discussion now, thatīs very true. But I predispose that you will never accept the possibility that you got it wrong, albeit I am equally sure that you will say that you are ever so open to that possibility but it does not apply here.
Sorry, but it does.

So itīs either we agree to disagree (which I can see happening) or you admit that you got it wrong (which is as likely to happen as if Lechmere was not the killer).

You are sometimes brilliant. Itīs a shame when you throw it away in favour of egocentric crap.

Now the discussion is over for this time. Any more input from your side will not be part of any discussion, it will be a monologue.

Amazing Fisherman. Now I have apparently to admit that I got something wrong! All I said was that Lechmere was connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. What on earth is wrong about that?

And yes you do have an agenda if you wanted to keep "both possibilities open". When Paul said that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the road he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was reporting to the inquest when he saw. When he (supposedly) told a newspaper reporter that Lechmere was standing where the body was he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was (supposedly) telling the reporter what he saw.

If you were striving to be as accurate as possible, then keeping possibilities open should have been no part of your thinking. You should have been reporting what was said and seen. No-one said that Lechmere was found by the body. That is your own interpretation of what you think Paul told a reporter, even though he said no such thing under oath at the inquest.

So, far from being as accurate as possible, you were twisting the evidence to fit in with your agenda of keeping open the possibility that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. In doing so, I was excluding no possibilities and promoting no agenda.

I got nothing wrong. So perhaps you can back down with good grace and we can move back to discussing the rather more on-topic subject of PC Long and the apron.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

Am I SURPRISED...!!?

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

So I have an agenda? Did you notice that I wanted to have BOTH possibilities open? That Lechmere EITHER simply found Nichols OR killed her and feigned to simply have found her?
That is leaving both opportunitites open.

In YOUR suggestion, which you (SUPRISE) find better, you exclude the possibility that Lechmere leid about having found her.

So I leave both possibilties open, you leave just the one possibility open - and I am the one with the agenda...?

This, David, is what happens when we want to be clever and fail miserably.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

No, David, saying that Lechmere found the body is explicitely ruling out that he killed her. If he did, he did NOT find a body, he searched out a living woman and turned her into a dead body.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

As I have shown, it is not a completely neutral statement. I accept that you used it in good faith, but it nevertheless is a statement that cements Lechmereīs claims as being true.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.

Now? No, I donīt wish to continue the discussion now, thatīs very true. But I predispose that you will never accept the possibility that you got it wrong, albeit I am equally sure that you will say that you are ever so open to that possibility but it does not apply here.
Sorry, but it does.

So itīs either we agree to disagree (which I can see happening) or you admit that you got it wrong (which is as likely to happen as if Lechmere was not the killer).

You are sometimes brilliant. Itīs a shame when you throw it away in favour of egocentric crap.

Now the discussion is over for this time. Any more input from your side will not be part of any discussion, it will be a monologue.

[David Orsam]

Try - if you can - to look away from the issue of the relative proximity to the body on Lechmereīs behalf. It will only result in strange claims that you are able to decide what "by" means in terms of inches and feet, and I am not available for such a discussion.

It then remains that, and I quote:
My ..."wording allows for two possibilities:
He had either quite simply found the body, or he had killed her and only pretended to quite simply have found her.
Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario, and it is therefore not the better one. It shuts off an all-important, completely viable alternative."

I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.