Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fisherman but if you truly strive to be as "accurate as possible" then you would surely be citing Paul's sworn testimony at the inquest rather than a newspaper article which is garbled in other respects. The record we have of Paul's testimony is that he saw "a man standing in the middle of the road".

But even if, in your striving to be as accurate as possible, you, for some reason, prefer the newspaper article over the inquest report then surely, to be as accurate as possible, you should have said that the connection between Lechmere and Nichols is that, when seen by Paul, Lechmere was standing where the body was. THAT is the most accurate statement possible, based on the article, because Paul did NOT say that he found Lechmere by the body.

I really don't see anything controversial in what I have written above so perhaps we can now indeed return to the topic of this thread.

Try - if you can - to look away from the issue of the relative proximity to the body on Lechmere´s 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."

Right, back to the topic of the thread that you want to catch up on...

[David Orsam]

I strive to be as accurate as possible when it comes to the carman, much because he has over the years been accepted as presenting the factual truth. This must be called into question when it comes to the period of time before Paul arrived at the scene, offering corroboration.
Accordingly, it IS much more correct to say that he was found by the body of Polly Nichols (Paul: "He was standing where the body was")

I'm sorry Fisherman but if you truly strive to be as "accurate as possible" then you would surely be citing Paul's sworn testimony at the inquest rather than a newspaper article which is garbled in other respects. The record we have of Paul's testimony is that he saw "a man standing in the middle of the road".

But even if, in your striving to be as accurate as possible, you, for some reason, prefer the newspaper article over the inquest report then surely, to be as accurate as possible, you should have said that the connection between Lechmere and Nichols is that, when seen by Paul, Lechmere was standing where the body was. THAT is the most accurate statement possible, based on the article, because Paul did NOT say that he found Lechmere by the body.

I really don't see anything controversial in what I have written above so perhaps we can now indeed return to the topic of this thread.

[Fisherman]

That is not being "more exact" Fisherman. It is being less exact because it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Lechmere was "found by" Nichols' body. He was seen to be standing in the middle of the road when Paul entered Bucks Row.

We have argued this before and I have no idea why you've introduced such a controversial concept into this thread. My own statement was entirely neutral so I'm very surprised you felt the need to comment on it. Let's not turn this into another Lechmere thread eh?

I strive to be as accurate as possible when it comes to the carman, much because he has over the years been accepted as presenting the factual truth. This must be called into question when it comes to the period of time before Paul arrived at the scene, offering corroboration.
Accordingly, it IS much more correct to say that he was found by the body of Polly Nichols (Paul: "He was standing where the body was").
This 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.

It is all very uncontroversial, or at least it should be. As for the wording "by Nichols body", I am just as happy with "within a few yards from Nichols´ body". To me, they are interchangable in this errand.

The important thing is not to lock onto the innocent wordings as if a guilty one was out of question.

I am happy to leave it there, and I aim to avoid further discussion of it. Back to Long!

[David Orsam]

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

That is not being "more exact" Fisherman. It is being less exact because it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Lechmere was "found by" Nichols' body. He was seen to be standing in the middle of the road when Paul entered Bucks Row.

We have argued this before and I have no idea why you've introduced such a controversial concept into this thread. My own statement was entirely neutral so I'm very surprised you felt the need to comment on it. Let's not turn this into another Lechmere thread eh?

[Pierre]

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

Hi Fisherman,

That is your particular perspective, yes. Fine.

I found an interesting statement in a thread here on the forum, where someone wrote:

"The murders started almost immediately after he moved away from the area where his mother lived - when he escaped her apron strings".

Do you happen to have any explanation for that particular perspective, perhaps in relation to the GSG and the ideas of "Jews"?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

This is more for Phil Carter's benefit but newspaper reports suggested that members of the public were drawn to Mitre Square immediately upon hearing Watkins blow his whistle.

Thus:

"The sound of a policeman's whistle attracted attention to the square, and the first spectators who arrived were despatched for medical and other aid." (Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September 1888)

and

"He at once blew his whistle, and several persons being attracted to the spot, he despatched messengers for medical and police aid." (Morning Advertiser - and Daily News - 1 October 1888)

Simon might have some other examples in mind.

It doesn't matter whether these reports were true or not, only that they would have created (for the Home Secretary if he read those reports) the impression of people being in the square who could conceivably have picked up the apron from the crime scene and taken it to Goulston Street.

Not that it has much to do with the topic discussed, but this is interesting to digest when looking at the Nichols murder, since it shows that it was seemingly customary for PC:s to employ the help of passers-by - like, for example, carmen en route to work.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body.

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

[harry]

Most if not all persons today would not describe Dutfield Yard as a passage.Someone of that time did.In my official life I was many times an onlooker,that is how I describe myself,and maybe to others I appeared the same.

[Joshua Rogan]

It's obvious that one of the "lookers on" he had in mind must have been Amos Simpson...

[Abby Normal]

I prefer the words standers on and by-lookers.

oops. forgot the erroneous quotes.

"standers on" and "by-lookers".


there we go-much better now.

[David Orsam]

Not an insult David. A sad realisation.
You simply cannot stop ramming a point home.
I find it sad.

It's a point worth ramming though I think Phil.

You seem happy to write post after post disagreeing with what I say but when it comes to Simon Wood, not a word.

He posted the Warren/Fraser letter and you said "the silence is deafening". According to you, "the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But of course he wasn't. Even Simon Wood doesn't think so. So you were way off beam.

Later this became the Home Secretary might have been saying this or he might not. But he wasn't. It's an utterly ridiculous interpretation.

Yet you refuse to accept this. But, at the same time, you refuse to engage with Simon Wood on the point.

Oh, it was a point worth ramming home Phil.

[Phil Carter]

Rolling out the insults now are we Phil?

Well I suppose it serves to mask the deafening silence.

Tell me, is there a law against you disagreeing with Simon Wood?

Not an insult David. A sad realisation.
You simply cannot stop ramming a point home.
I find it sad.

[David Orsam]

Bordering on obsessive compulsion.
Sad.

Rolling out the insults now are we Phil?

Well I suppose it serves to mask the deafening silence.

Tell me, is there a law against you disagreeing with Simon Wood?

[Phil Carter]

Phil, there is no conceivable possibility that one Chief Commissioner is using the term "lookers on" to another Chief Commissioner to mean one of the officers of his force who was on duty investigating that murder. There is equally no possibility that he was asking him if one of his officers illegally took an item from a murder scene to plant in another location.

Perhaps on another planet in another dimension but here in earth in the English language in the world in which we live, it is just is not possible. So I do know.

Perhaps you missed it but even Simon Wood cannot agree with what you are saying. He said:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene."

Do you ever propose to respond to what Simon said or will we just hear the deafening silence?

Bordering on obsessive compulsion. 4 times now. Sad.

[David Orsam]

David,
The point stands.

Matthews may have been entertaining the idea of police involvement. You don't know. I don't know.

The possibility remains.

Phil, there is no conceivable possibility that one Chief Commissioner is using the term "lookers on" to another Chief Commissioner to mean one of the officers of his force who was on duty investigating that murder. There is equally no possibility that he was asking him if one of his officers illegally took an item from a murder scene to plant in another location.

Perhaps on another planet in another dimension but here in earth in the English language in the world in which we live, it is just is not possible. So I do know.

Perhaps you missed it but even Simon Wood cannot agree with what you are saying. He said:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene."

Do you ever propose to respond to what Simon said or will we just hear the deafening silence?