Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

No, I'm aware of that, and I didn't say he was, but, at the same time, he must believe that Trevor is wrong. Strange he doesn't say so.

Basically, I agree - but out here, "strange" seems to have another definition than otherwise...

[David Orsam]

Perhaps Simon can confirm that, when he says, "Trevor is far from alone on the matter of Eddowes' mythical apron", he, himself, is not someone who agrees with him.

[PaulB]

Maybe because the handful of old regulars on here dont, or wont accept changes to the old accepted theories, come what may. Something we have seen on more than one occasion on here.

It is a fact that there is evidence, and you being an old regular I can see why you would say there is not. Time and time again you have proved that you do not know the meaning of evidence, and I refer yet again to newspaper articles, an issue which is clear to see for everyone,that is those who want to see.

Specsavers are doing a 2 for one this week !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah, the usual sad, sad, and very tiresome refrain from Mr Marriott, namely that those who reject his nonsense are trying to preserve the status quo. He'll prattle on about evil cartels next. That's his usual stock in trade. Anything to avoid answering the questions put to him. All that matters, though, is that people appreciate that Mr Marriott's thinking on this case is eccentric; his ducking and diving regarding the apron is evident on the thread to which I earlier gave a link.

[John G]

I believe he was back at his bolt hole to get cleaned up, drop of the knife and trophies, and grab a piece of chalk to get back at those pesky jews who kept bothering him all night.

They probably didn't notice the cut apron at the scene because she was a cut up bloody mess. and there was a lot to note and take in and shock to deal with.

The bolt hole argument makes sense. What does seem odd is that he would be wandering aimlessly around the local neighbourhood for over 35 minutes, and possibly over an hour, after committing a murder, especially as there must have been a significant police presence in the area following the discovery of the body. I would also note that the police also had stop and search powers, which were introduced in the early part of the nineteenth century.

[John Wheat]

Ah, the usual sad, sad, and very tiresome refrain from Mr Marriott, namely that those who reject his nonsense are trying to preserve the status quo. He'll prattle on about evil cartels next. That's his usual stock in trade. Anything to avoid answering the questions put to him. All that matters, though, is that people appreciate that Mr Marriott's thinking on this case is eccentric; his ducking and diving regarding the apron is evident on the thread to which I earlier gave a link.

There will always be crackpots on this site unfortunately.

[harry]

Fisherman,
What a nonsensical statement you make, in that my suggestion of one man's possible lie,means I count all statements as lies.Wow!

On the essential question of what the killer of Eddowes achieved on leaving the body,we agree.He cleared the immediate area unnoticed.He went unchallenged.There w as no need to hide up.No evidence that he did so.He could have been in Goulston Street inside of 10 minutes.

We only differ on which direction he might have taken.

What Trevor is doing,seems sensible to me.He is stating alternatives,and until(unlikely) the truth is known,alternatives exist.

I believe Long may have seen the killer.I will not argue the point,I know the reaction it will provoke,but it's a possibility,and would account for a need to lie.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
What a nonsensical statement you make, in that my suggestion of one man's possible lie,means I count all statements as lies.Wow!

It´s just that I never made such a statement, did I? You had to make that up.
I am instead saying that for your assumptions about the rag to work, it would take that we regard it as just as probable that people will lie as tell the truth.

I don´t think that this is so for a split second. I think that people will tell the truth in almost every case, and that lies are rare exceptions to this rule. Consequently, I think it would be a rare exception if Long lied, and it therefore applies that he in all probability told the truth.

Can you follow me this time, Harry? And more importantly, do you agree? Am I correct in saying that people telling the truth is the norm, the general outcome?

On the essential question of what the killer of Eddowes achieved on leaving the body,we agree.He cleared the immediate area unnoticed.He went unchallenged.There w as no need to hide up.No evidence that he did so.He could have been in Goulston Street inside of 10 minutes.

"Could have"? Yes, he could. "Would", however, is another matter, based on his choices. And do we know them, Harry?
You say that there is no evidence that he hid. Is there evidence that he did not? What are the implications of the rag not being in place in Goulston Street at 2.20? That he went there in less than ten minutes or that he did NOT go there directly?
You even say that there was no need to hide. Does that mean that you have read the mind of the killer retrospectively? That would be impressive!
You are aware that he took away a uterus and a kidney from Eddowes, I take it. Do you think he carried these innards on his person ever after, or do you think he kept them somewhere safe - if he took them as trophies? If so, would that place have been his home? Are you sure that he had a home that allowed him to stow away innards? Could it be that he had a bolthole, where he kept them, and could he have headed for that bolthole after the strike? Using your clever reasoning: There is no evidence that he did not, is there?

Can you see now why the argument "there is no evidence that he did or did not" should be used VERY sparsingly?

We only differ on which direction he might have taken.

We differ on a lot more, I´m afraid.

What Trevor is doing,seems sensible to me.He is stating alternatives,and until(unlikely) the truth is known,alternatives exist.

It is wise to state alternatives. It is foolish to state that they should prevail if the evidence is against it.
In short, we should not forget that Long COULD have been wrong. That is wise. But we should never state that Long was PROBABLY wrong. That would be foolish.

I believe Long may have seen the killer.I will not argue the point,I know the reaction it will provoke,but it's a possibility,and would account for a need to lie.

You are perfectly free to think so, and as we may both conclude: There is no evidence that it was not so...

However, since Longs scheduled stops in Goulston Street would have been about 1.45 - 2.20 - 2.55 (if we accept a regularity in timings), I take it you must work from the assumption that the killer passed near in time to 1.45, and that Long saw him then.

If that is true - and you should tell me if it is not - then it seems strange that Long waited until 2.55 before raising the alarm. He must in such a scenario have passed at 2.20, doing nothing, working up the courage to do his job 35 minutes later..?

Conversely, since the killer would actually not have been able to pass Goulston Street until sometime after 1.50, at which time Long should have passed already, we may need to pinpoint the killer as dropping his rag in the doorway at 2.20 - but if this was so, then we know that it took him 35 minutes to get there from Goulston Street. Which is the very thing you have argued against from the beginning.

Or are you saying that Long may have spotted the killer some place else?

[Kattrup]

However, since Longs scheduled stops in Goulston Street would have been about 1.45 - 2.20 - 2.55 (if we accept a regularity in timings), I take it you must work from the assumption that the killer passed near in time to 1.45, and that Long saw him then.

If that is true - and you should tell me if it is not - then it seems strange that Long waited until 2.55 before raising the alarm. He must in such a scenario have passed at 2.20, doing nothing, working up the courage to do his job 35 minutes later..?

Conversely, since the killer would actually not have been able to pass Goulston Street until sometime after 1.50, at which time Long should have passed already, we may need to pinpoint the killer as dropping his rag in the doorway at 2.20 - but if this was so, then we know that it took him 35 minutes to get there from Goulston Street. Which is the very thing you have argued against from the beginning.

Or are you saying that Long may have spotted the killer some place else?

Is it known when Long started his beat?

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Long only mentions passing once before.

Just wondering if his schedule is known from some other source?

[harry]

Fisherman,
I do not make things up.Read your postings carefully.

People do tell lies.That long told lies on a regular basis,is not a statement of mine.That he might have lied on occasions is.Don't we all.That answer your question?

You appear to believe the killer made a choice to proceed to a bolt hole.Can you read his mind.That would be impressive too.Talking of bolt holes, why,if the killer had one,didn't he take Eddowes there to kill and mutilate.The convenience of a more safe location,where he could do what he wanted,at little risk,against the more risky site of Mitre Square, a public place.More opportunity too,to dispose of the apron and other objects,if need be.

Was there a need to hide, in, or after leaving Mitre Square? I havn't read anything to suggest there was.

I haven't said Long was probably wrong.My opinion is that he could have been.There still hasn't been any information forthcoming that he did anything but glance at Wentworth Dwellings as he passed by.

I said I would not argue the possible sighting of the killer by long. Can't you read and understand?

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,

People do tell lies.That long told lies on a regular basis,is not a statement of mine.That he might have lied on occasions is.Don't we all.That answer your question?

No, it does not. The question I asked was not whether history has recorded that people sometimes lie. The question was: Do you agree that people telling the truth is the norm, the general outcome?

You appear to believe the killer made a choice to proceed to a bolt hole.Can you read his mind.That would be impressive too.

I don´t pretend to be able to read his mind. I am suggesting that hiding out in a bolthole may explain the absense of the rag.

You, however, claim that the killer "had no need to hide". THAT is an attempt at retrospective mindreading, since there is absolutely no way that you can tell what call the killer made and on what ground he made it. So don´t compare apples to pears, if you please.

Talking of bolt holes, why,if the killer had one,didn't he take Eddowes there to kill and mutilate.

Oh, get real! Why did he not take ALL the victims there? Why do not all killers take all their victims to boltholes and kill them there?
In this case, it would involve the victim willingly following him, and it would involve the risk of being seen, as you may realize.
You are straying further and further afield from sane thinking, Harry - it´s all wudda/cudda/shudda´s now, and it´s time you had a reality check.

The convenience of a more safe location,where he could do what he wanted,at little risk,against the more risky site of Mitre Square, a public place.More opportunity too,to dispose of the apron and other objects,if need be.

"Please, miss, could you just follow me to a place of mine, where we can get away from it all? What? The Ripper? Now, now, don´t worry about him, just come along with me and I promise you will be fine!"

Was there a need to hide, in, or after leaving Mitre Square? I havn't read anything to suggest there was.

And you are in the mindreading business, remember! Of course there was no need to hide! The policemen swarming on the streets, for example, why would he want to hide from them?
If the killer began by killing Stride in Berner Street, and then went on to kill Eddowes in Mitre Square, the the rag suggests that he went back east afterwards.
Do you think it would be fair to reason that he would have had blood on his hands and person after killing Eddowes? If so, then there is an absolutely excellent reason for the killer to seek out a bolthole before heading east - to wash up and to stash his trophies.
How is THAT for a suggestion that he needed to hide before going home?

I haven't said Long was probably wrong.My opinion is that he could have been.

Then answer my questions! Do you agree that people telling the truth is the norm? Do you agree that people saying admantly that they are able to tell whether an object was in a spot at a certain time, are normally correct about it? You have avoided answering these questions for a hundred posts now, and if you avoid then another hundred posts I will make sure that they do not go away.


There still hasn't been any information forthcoming that he did anything but glance at Wentworth Dwellings as he passed by.

There is not even any information that it took more than a glance. But there IS information that Long was able to make the call, and he did so with no hesitation at all. That buries any suggestion of yours that he was lax or lying, until YOU can prove the opposite. The onus of proof is on you, not me.

I said I would not argue the possible sighting of the killer by long. Can't you read and understand?

You already argued it. You already stated that you think Long saw the killer. If you do not want it discussed, then I suggest you did exactly the thing you should have avoided: you flaunted it. These are public discussion boards, and what is said out here WILL come under discussion.
Can you understand that, Harry? You need to defend what you say out here. If you think you can just throw it out and demand that it is never contested, you will soon enough realize that it does not work that way.

[Fisherman]

Is it known when Long started his beat?

Long only mentions passing once before.

Just wondering if his schedule is known from some other source?

Now that you mention it, I think you may be correct - I seem to remember that there is a mentioning about him having passed only once before. I will try to locate it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you think it would be fair to reason that he would have had blood on his hands and person after killing Eddowes? If so, then there is an absolutely excellent reason for the killer to seek out a bolthole before heading east - to wash up and to stash his trophies.
How is THAT for a suggestion that he needed to hide before going home? [/B] [/B]

But are there not alreday two suggestions, one that he cut or tore the apron piece for wiping his bloody hands on, and the second for wiping a blood stained knife. If he had done one or both them and deposited the rag he would have no need to do as you and the other deluded poster on here suggest find a bolt hole and then come out after cleaning up.

You are showing signs of desperation in your posts, time to chill out, take a break.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

But are there not alreday two suggestions, one that he cut or tore the apron piece for wiping his bloody hands on, and the second for wiping a blood stained knife. If he had done one or both them and deposited the rag he would have no need to do as you and the other deluded poster on here suggest find a bolt hole and then come out after cleaning up.

You are showing signs of desperation in your posts, time to chill out, take a break.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dip your hands in blood and feces and then try to wipe it all of with a rag, Trevor. After that, you will know just how deluded I am.

And maybe you missed the point about him depositing the innards/trophies at the bolthole?

The only breaking I do is that of the donkey´s back. Oh wait - what´s that creaking sound...?

[Fisherman]

Is it known when Long started his beat?

Long only mentions passing once before.

Just wondering if his schedule is known from some other source?

Did a quick search without finding anything. Maybe I am just remembering the discussion having been up before, I don´t know.

Harvey began his beat at 9.45pm on the 29th of September, but he was a City police, and I have no idea if the forces matched up in this context.

If somebody has the answer, I´d be grateful if it was posted!

[Trevor Marriott]

Dip your hands in blood and feces and then try to wipe it all of with a rag, Trevor. After that, you will know just how deluded I am.

And maybe you missed the point about him depositing the innards/trophies at the bolthole?

The only breaking I do is that of the donkey´s back. Oh wait - what´s that creaking sound...?

But according to some with the description of the rag thats just what someone did wipe there hands and knife on it. But of course experiments have shown that to be questionable in any event.

And how do you know the killer had blood and faeces on his hands when he left the crime scene. Some suggest he may have been wearing gloves.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk