Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

As to why the carrier would walk that way..quickest way..into Goulston St..well..it takes a thief to catch a thief David..if YOU were the carrier. .would you be walk along the main road with the bloody rag or tey to dice down a dark back street?

Logic .less chance of if being seen

Are you serious?

Do you walk along a main road where there are lots of people with whom you can blend in or do you walk along a dark back street where you might encounter a police officer who will wonder why you are walking along a dark back street?

I'm not saying that the killer must have walked along a main road, only that your so called "logic" is not logic at all, just a random assumption.

For all we know the killer did try to walk the fastest route but saw a constable patrolling the street he wanted to walk down so headed off in a different direction requiring him to come back later. Or perhaps he hid somewhere to avoid being stopped by the police near the crime scene.

So many options that I just can't see the point of what you are attempting to do.

[Phil Carter]

How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.

Work it out yourself David. It isnt hard.
Im not here to help you. You don't seem to need it.


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

Pierre,

This is a point that shows dead theorising. Not just you. But many over the years.
We look at what we are told and believe it to be true. Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement. So...the police comments on the simplest of evidence is faulty.
Ergo..think outside the box. What if Long is just coceting his backside? Policemen do that. Often.

Long may not be telling the whole story.

And while you and others will croak about "sensationalism" etc... I take each comment on their merits. Given the debacle of evidence presented... I dobt HAVE to beliece the police were all that capable of doing their jobs. Warren..Swanson included.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St

How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.

[David Orsam]

We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.

I understand that we don't know for certain that it was deposited before 2.20 but shouldn't your post have made clear that your premise is that PC Long's evidence was wrong and that it must have been deposited prior to 2.20? In fact, shouldn't you have made clear that your premise is that it was deposited as soon as possible following the murder?

Otherwise your claim about where the carrier of the apron "logically" would have been in relation to Long doesn't make sense does it?

[Roy Corduroy]

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

Hi, again, Trevor. Again, the only thing which has anything to do with body parts is number 1. I know one person who wrote 1., Wickerman.

I know of no source for 2, 3, and 4. Do you? I know that none of these theories 1. to 4. are contained in Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow, a book which I know you haven't read, because you told me so on How Brown's site.

I'm not arguing any reason. I've never given a reason for why the killer cut a piece of her apron and took it. I don't have to. Simply the fact everyone from 1888 to today agrees it happened, because it is very clear from the physical evidence at the time. It doesn't need a reason. You are the only one arguing reasons.

You are the only one arguing that if there was no good reason, it didn't happen. Which is the opposite of evidence. The opposite of police work. What you said you did. The evidence is he cut the piece of apron and deposited it in Goulston Street.

You seem to be arguing against yourself Trevor. And believe, me, I'm Okay with that.

Roy

[Phil Carter]

As to why the carrier would walk that way..quickest way..into Goulston St..well..it takes a thief to catch a thief David..if YOU were the carrier. .would you be walk along the main road with the bloody rag or tey to dice down a dark back street?

Logic .less chance of if being seen



Phil

[PaulB]

I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...

[Phil Carter]

Also David,

Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St


Phil

[Phil Carter]

The maths doesn't seem quite right.

If he was there at 2.55 then before that at 2.20, would he not have been there before this - assuming the exact same speed of patrolling his beat - at 1.45?



Sorry Phil I don't see the logic here. Why do you think the carrier of the apron would have chosen the "shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street"? I mean, if the murder of Eddowes occurred at about 1.40 and the apron was not deposited until after 2.20, it doesn't appear that the carrier of the apron chose the shortest and quickest route does it?

We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;396298



Hi Trevor,

I would like to make a few comments here if you donīt mind.

I have no problem with your theory even though I do not think that it is correct.

Anyway, you say here that there are four reasons given by researches for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece and you say that they donīt stand up to close scrutiny.

I do not know what these four reasons are. But I am sure that the reason I have found is not one of them and, more important, that reason does stand up to scrutiny very well indeed.

I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.



I really appreciate everything you write here, Trevor, and I think it is very important. Everything you say has an explanation, whatever statement you make. Good critical thinking.

Best wishes, Pierre

The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

If P.C.Long's beat took 30mins to complete..then he would have been in Goulston Street at around 01.50.

The maths doesn't seem quite right.

If he was there at 2.55 then before that at 2.20, would he not have been there before this - assuming the exact same speed of patrolling his beat - at 1.45?

The shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston street is entering it from the opposite end to Wentworth Street. Logically therefore, at that time the carrier of the apron would have either been behind Long and his lamp or walking towards Long and his lamp. .depending on which direction Long walked his beat.

Sorry Phil I don't see the logic here. Why do you think the carrier of the apron would have chosen the "shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street"? I mean, if the murder of Eddowes occurred at about 1.40 and the apron was not deposited until after 2.20, it doesn't appear that the carrier of the apron chose the shortest and quickest route does it?

[Phil Carter]

That the killer went elsewhere was a possibility that the police apparently investigated at the time, checking to see if the murderer could have gone into one of the common lodging houses in the area, cleaned up, and left without drawing attention to himself, and they appear to have concluded that he could have done. The conclusion seems to be that the murderer could have gone to a lodging house, cleaned up, then left, dropping the apron in Goulston Street before going home or to work or wherever. I'm not saying he did, but it was something the police thought.

Hello Paul,

Which brings me back to a point I made previously.

If P.C.Long's beat took 30mins to complete..then he would have been in Goulston Street at around 01.50.

The shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston street is entering it from the opposite end to Wentworth Street. Logically therefore, at that time the carrier of the apron would have either been behind Long and his lamp or walking towards Long and his lamp. .depending on which direction Long walked his beat.

I suggest that the possibility of the former being correct would leave a greater safety zone for the carrier to stop..watch..and wait for Long to complete his walk through Goulston St..and thereby walk up towards Wenrworth St in relative safety of not being seen.

Phil

[David Orsam]

No. You are wrong.

But I can't possibly be wrong, Pierre, in attributing these words to you:

"I think that there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. I think it is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote".

That's perfectly true isn't it?

Whereas for you to say:

"There was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. Is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote."

That must be wrongly expressed because you don't have any proof as to the killer's identity so your opinion as to the killer's motive can only be an opinion. You don't know it for sure. Like you once said "I think I have found him" which, as you admitted to me, means that you might not have found him. Thus, you might not know his motive.

Anyway, it sounds like it will be a very good idea for you to take a long break.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396330]I'm sorry you are tired Pierre (perhaps you ought to stop spending time on hunting for something you will never find?)

No, that will not happen right now. Even if I take a short break from this. At least for a few days.

and I'm very sorry that your wife is not well. But I was asking what it was about my correction to your post you disagreed with.

Everything and the principle.

By referring to the "small scrap of evidence" that you need to prove you case, it seems that you are saying that I was right and my correction makes your statements more accurate.

No. You are wrong.

So rather than "fixating" on the single words that I added, and accusing me of "corrupting" your post, why not just accept

Because you did corrupt it.

And now I will not respond to you anymore today.