Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Wickerman]

Where do you get an hour from Jon ? Lets suppose the apron piece was not in situ at 2:20 as long maintained, theoretically it could have been dropped as soon as Long cleared the street a couple of minutes at most, thus 2:22. The body was found at 1:45. A difference of 37 minutes by my reckoning. Of course we don't know the exact time the apron hit the pavement. My guess, and nothing will persuade me otherwise, is that Long missed it at 2:20, and it was dropped at approximately 1: 57, roughly the time it takes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, via Duke Street Houndsditch, Stoney Lane, New Goulston Street.

I can not for the life of me believe that the killer, after arriving back wherever he was staying, took the chance of detection in the form of going back out onto the streets to deposit the apron in Goulston Street

Observer

When I wrote "approximately an hour", I was referring to the time difference from when the body was found at 01:45, to when the apron was found at 02:55, so 70 minutes to be exact.

I understand the view that Long must have missed the apron at 02:20, but where the apron was found is approx. 1500ft from Mitre Square, so it wouldn't take 10 minutes to cover that distance, yet Long appears to have missed it at 01:55 too. I admit that is cutting it fine, but it isn't 10 minutes walk from the murder spot.

So, if the killer took more than the required time to get there, where was he?
And, if he could go or be somewhere else, or wander around at his leisure to arrive at Goulston St. in 15-20 minutes, or 30-45 minutes, then why not 50 minutes?

I guess the point is, if he ran, or walked briskly to Goulston St. he should have been there by 01:55 am, but PC Long did not see the apron at 01:55.

So, did he miss it twice, or did the killer go elsewhere first?

[harry]

Phil and Observer,
You have got it correct.

Long passed by the dwelling at 2.20.No suggestion he entered the premises,or gave it a detailed inspection.

We have a description of the apron being black.Whatever it's original colour and condition,it appeared black to someone who was in a position to know.

It's not supposition that Long states.The cloth was in the passage.The passage was inside the building.The writing was on the face of the wall.It was not on the doorway.Long would know the difference between the two,and the wall would have had to be the interior wall not the outside one backing on to Goulston street.

We will never know the truth.My belief is that the killer passed through Goulston Street before or about 2.20,threw the cloth into the building,and walked on.There is no connection,except except the location,between the cloth and the writing.

You want to argue my belief,fine,but come up with better argument that has so far been presented.

[Phil Carter]

Where do you get an hour from Jon ? Lets suppose the apron piece was not in situ at 2:20 as long maintained, theoretically it could have been dropped as soon as Long cleared the street a couple of minutes at most, thus 2:22. The body was found at 1:45. A difference of 37 minutes by my reckoning. Of course we don't know the exact time the apron hit the pavement. My guess, and nothing will persuade me otherwise, is that Long missed it at 2:20, and it was dropped at approximately 1: 57, roughly the time it takes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, via Duke Street Houndsditch, Stoney Lane, New Goulston Street.

I can not for the life of me believe that the killer, after arriving back wherever he was staying, took the chance of detection in the form of going back out onto the streets to deposit the apron in Goulston Street

Observer

Hello Observer,

Let us add in another factor to the time equation.

Halse..when trotting off from Mitre Square around 02.00am bumped into two men in Wentworth Street.
He states he talked with them, and upon hearing their particulars let them on their way. Halse gives no time of this occurrence. Neither do we know said particulars. Neither do we know how long he spoke to the men. Neither do we know if the men were together or walking individually along. None of the details of this supposed meeting..or meetings are privy to us..for Halse, in his opening description of his whereabouts that night, fails to mention them.
However..we can be fairly sure as to when he left them..or the 2nd of the men. He stated that he was in Goulston Street..literally just round the corner from Wentworth Street, at around 2.20am. To me there cannot be more than a three minute gap since he left Wentworth St..i.e. 02.17am.

Now. These two fellows are the ONLY known people any of the policemen saw after Halse himself gave instructions for all to split up from Mitre Square and go searching.

Logically therefore. Either one..or both of these men may have entered Goulston Street from the other end..had they come from Mitre Square. Logically, either, or both, could have dropped the apron piece between 01.50 and 02.20.

However. P.C.Long's route would take him 30mins. According to him he ALSO was in Goulston St at 2.20am.. meaning that he would have been there at 01.50am as well.
Ignoring the unlikely scenario that he didn't see or hear Halse at 2.20am.., (nor Halse seeing or hearing him)..Long had a lamp. I would assume he used it on his beat. Goulston Street was dark.
This means that either both or one of the men talked of above must .had they come from Mitre Square, had seen Long in Goulston St at 01.50. If walking behind him they would see his light. It would therefore be logical to wait until he left Goulston Street at the opposite end before walking down it. The apron piece could very well have been dumped before 2.20am. And leaving Goulston St at the Wentworth St end at..say 02.05 or 02.10 would leave well enough time to meet Halse in Wentworth Street and be questioned by Halse.

But. If the carrier/s of the apron piece did not drop it until AFTER Long's NEXT trip into Goulston Street (02.20) it means a very risky 30 minutes being caught red handed with the rag.

Likely therefore the rag was dropped before 02.20. Either by one of..or both of Halse's supposed men or someone else.

It must be said here. Halse's statement about meeting either man. .cannot be corroberated. There is, in fact, not a jot of proof this very important meeting/s actually happened.
Like that or not. .it is true. Given the alarming fact that Halse said he took the details of the message on the wall with difficulty...in the dark..did not see or hear Long with his lamp in the same dark street at around 02.20. . One can wonder exactly how reliable the man is.

Long has got a poor reputation on these forums of late.
I suggest Halse's behaviour that night was worse.


Phil

[Observer]

There's a potential radius suggested by the time difference, approximately an hour. We might need to define what "near" means, but given 15-30 mins to clean up and do something with the organs, the time left to travel on foot from Mitre Sq. to his 'den' and then to Goulston St. is approx. 30 minutes - so 15 minutes each trip?
Arguably, of course.

Where do you get an hour from Jon ? Lets suppose the apron piece was not in situ at 2:20 as long maintained, theoretically it could have been dropped as soon as Long cleared the street a couple of minutes at most, thus 2:22. The body was found at 1:45. A difference of 37 minutes by my reckoning. Of course we don't know the exact time the apron hit the pavement. My guess, and nothing will persuade me otherwise, is that Long missed it at 2:20, and it was dropped at approximately 1: 57, roughly the time it takes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, via Duke Street Houndsditch, Stoney Lane, New Goulston Street.

I can not for the life of me believe that the killer, after arriving back wherever he was staying, took the chance of detection in the form of going back out onto the streets to deposit the apron in Goulston Street

Observer

[Trevor Marriott]

Some newspapers sent their own reporter. The press agencies, Press Association and Central News also had their representatives. Those newspapers which had their own representatives present also subscribed to the agencies. A newspaper's sub-editors will have taken their own reporter's copy and that of the agencies and produced an article combining all the sources together. Other newspapers will have carried both the agency stories (which is great because it lets us compare them). Some just published their reporter's story or just an agency report.

Some newspapers gave a considerable amount of space to covering the story, others gave very little space to it. Those who gave less space would rewrite the reports from the press agency, compressing and summarising, whilst other newspapers would give a verbatim account of verbal exchanges, as at an inquest.

One of the problems in the past was that the most commonly available newspaper was The Times and it was the only indexed one. It was the main source and widely used. Digitisation means that today we have lots of newspapers to check and compare, enabling researchers to not only construct a full and accurate exchange, but also see the actual words used and the sequence in which statements were made.

I am aware of all of that but I was highlighting the fact that there were conflicting reports published, and if an agency reporter and the Times reporter were sitting side by side then they should have both taken down the same, and the newspapers published the same. Clearly this did not happen so we cannot totally rely on the accuracy of what the papers said. Do you not concur with me on that point?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

So we have two types of reporters. those present, and the agency reporter

The agency reporter takes down notes from the inquest and then sends it out to other newspapers and they print it. So how do you explain the conflicting newspaper articles that we see? They were all there together, so all the reports should read the same, but that is not the case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Some newspapers sent their own reporter. The press agencies, Press Association and Central News also had their representatives. Those newspapers which had their own representatives present also subscribed to the agencies. A newspaper's sub-editors will have taken their own reporter's copy and that of the agencies and produced an article combining all the sources together. Other newspapers will have carried both the agency stories (which is great because it lets us compare them). Some just published their reporter's story or just an agency report.

Some newspapers gave a considerable amount of space to covering the story, others gave very little space to it. Those who gave less space would rewrite the reports from the press agency, compressing and summarising, whilst other newspapers would give a verbatim account of verbal exchanges, as at an inquest.

One of the problems in the past was that the most commonly available newspaper was The Times and it was the only indexed one. It was the main source and widely used. Digitisation means that today we have lots of newspapers to check and compare, enabling researchers to not only construct a full and accurate exchange, but also see the actual words used and the sequence in which statements were made.

[Pierre]

So we have two types of reporters. those present, and the agency reporter

The agency reporter takes down notes from the inquest and then sends it out to other newspapers and they print it. So how do you explain the conflicting newspaper articles that we see? They were all there together, so all the reports should read the same, but that is not the case.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is explained by the phenomenon of interpretation, bias and other internal and external factors.

And many sources can be used as both primary and secondary sources, it depends on what questions you ask the sources.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

You do not seem to understand the evidence you are consulting.

When talking about PC Long, this is not a newspaper story - it is inquest coverage. It may have gone completely over your head but press coverage of inquests is among the most reliable criminal coverage.
In no way can you or anyone who understands the difference compare press speculations, or even paraphrasing, about Kelly's heart with inquest coverage.

Articles composed by the press, even witness statements to the press, are far from being as reliable as the press coverage of inquest testimony.

So we have two types of reporters. those present, and the agency reporter

The agency reporter takes down notes from the inquest and then sends it out to other newspapers and they print it. So how do you explain the conflicting newspaper articles that we see? They were all there together, so all the reports should read the same, but that is not the case.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

There's a potential radius suggested by the time difference, approximately an hour. We might need to define what "near" means, but given 15-30 mins to clean up and do something with the organs, the time left to travel on foot from Mitre Sq. to his 'den' and then to Goulston St. is approx. 30 minutes - so 15 minutes each trip?
Arguably, of course

You beat me to it. Sadly, at a brisk walking pace (4mph) that means a radius of about one mile, and so covers pretty much all of Whitechapel and Spitalfields, as well as most of the City (in the other direction). You might even get south of the river and back.

[Fisherman]

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Has nothing to do with the point I made - I am reacting to how you proposed that hop picking would take the white colour out of cloth. It does not, going by the pics. THAT was the point I made. I did not comment in any shape or form on how the apron was divided up in pieces.

[Wickerman]

And sometimes it's necessary to cut through the crap that's cutting through the crap Jon. Why does the evidence suggest that the killer had a "bolt hole" near to Goulston street ?

There's a potential radius suggested by the time difference, approximately an hour. We might need to define what "near" means, but given 15-30 mins to clean up and do something with the organs, the time left to travel on foot from Mitre Sq. to his 'den' and then to Goulston St. is approx. 30 minutes - so 15 minutes each trip?
Arguably, of course.

I presume you base this assumption on Long being correct in his claim that the apron section was not sitting in the doorway in Goulston Street at 2 :20 a.m. ?

Like I said, it's the evidence that has come down to us. Not contradicted by anything else.

[Observer]

Sometimes it is necessary to cut through the crap, thankyou.

The evidence that has come down to us taken at face value, because we have nothing with which to contradict it, tends to suggest the killer lived or had a hiding place close to Goulston St.

And sometimes it's necessary to cut through the crap that's cutting through the crap Jon. Why does the evidence suggest that the killer had a "bolt hole" near to Goulston street ? I presume you base this assumption on Long being correct in his claim that the apron section was not sitting in the doorway in Goulston Street at 2 :20 a.m. ?

[Wickerman]

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You do not seem to understand the evidence you are consulting.

When talking about PC Long, this is not a newspaper story - it is inquest coverage. It may have gone completely over your head but press coverage of inquests is among the most reliable criminal coverage.
In no way can you or anyone who understands the difference compare press speculations, or even paraphrasing, about Kelly's heart with inquest coverage.

Articles composed by the press, even witness statements to the press, are far from being as reliable as the press coverage of inquest testimony.

[Elamarna]

Its is how you understand, and use those sources, not readily accept them as being correct.

You can use them for corroboration for example Kellys missing heart. Many newspapers state the heart was not missing. So secondary sources. Then we have Insp Reids NOW interview stating the heart was not missing. So we can use the newspaper articles as corroboration to what he says as his statement is primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

This is really interesting to put it mildly.

In your post #833 in this thread, when you replied to my post #832 you raised no objections and indeed implied you accepted the view posted:


"It is Paul Begg you should be addressing not me I know the difference."


It is however really very clear from your post #1085 that the above statement is incorrect

You continue to claim newspaper reports of inquest testimony are secondary sources, this is despite what has been explained, that this would be the case if such reports were syndicated, not if recorded and written by a journalist attending an inquest (post#832).

The acceptance of Reid's interview carried out some 8 years later as a Primary source, when taken in conjunction with the above is truly remarkable.


Such statements as contained in post#1085 are clear and undeniable evidence that you do really not understand the differences between Primary and Secondary sources; either that or you ignore said differences when it suites.



Steve

[Wickerman]

How white was the apron?
Was the black brick covered in smooth or shiny paint? Was the paint matte or eggshell?
Dildos and Dodos?!? (nice work there Simon!)

What a bunch of nonsense.

Yes let's continue to debate black rectangles, glazed bricks and longs drinking habits and other such sad and desperate crap to obfuscate the obvious. Like the evidence that the apron was not there at 2:20 from a police officer under oath.

Such a waste when a much more interesting debate could be going on based off the known evidence, like what are the implications of the apron NOT being there at 2:20?

Like the obvious question, why the killer took so long to get from mitre square to Goulston street? What was he doing? Was he hiding out? Was he trapped somewhere by the increased police presence? Was his bolt hole near, far? Did he live in the went worth buildings?

How about this question- how long would it take someone, to travel on foot away from mitre square, and allowing for approx. 5 minutes for bolt hole cleaning up and dropping off, and then to travel back to Goulston street by 2:20?

What would be the maximum distance radius one could reach?

I would posit that the killers bolt hole and or home must be within that radius.

Sometimes it is necessary to cut through the crap, thankyou.

The evidence that has come down to us taken at face value, because we have nothing with which to contradict it, tends to suggest the killer lived or had a hiding place close to Goulston St.