Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

I see. So Long accidently "left out" part of his important movements when under oath at the inquest. I see.
And of course..not hearing that evidence, the Coroner saw no need to enquire further. Nor the jury. I see.

It's amazing how you don't understand how an inquest works. As a witness, Long would have done no more than answer questions put to him. Unless he was asked where he went after departing from Goulston Street, he didn't "leave out" anything.

I have no idea why you think that what Long did after departing from Goulston Street would have been regarded by the Coroner or the jury as part of Long's "important movements". Whether the Coroner knew that Long ever went to Leman Street station is debatable (Long's report of 6 November was written after the inquest) but the jury certainly didn't, so of course they didn't ask him about evidence which they didn't hear!

Have you proof that Halse put together this concocted theory you claim he put together? For I have never seen such an explanation. Do quote where he says it..and when. Thank you.

It's astonishing that I should be asked, in such strident terms, to reproduce, such easily available and well known evidence for you. But if I must. From the Times of 12 October 1888, reporting on Halse's evidence at the inquest:

"He assumed the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time."

As to the theory itself..we wander off to Swanson stating the writing was blurred. .same report.. Nov 6th.

It's important not to confuse "blurred" with "rubbed out" or "smudged". As I've already said a number of times on this forum, Swanson must have meant no more than that the characters written in chalk on a rough surface (i.e. not a blackboard) were diffuse because that is what happens when you write with chalk on a rough surface. That basically takes care of the rest of your post.

[Trevor Marriott]

LOL!
appears the It Aint Rocket Science Club has to meet behind the scenes in committee to see how to deal with responding to their adversaries.
HAHAHA. what a joke.

As it would seem I am also a member of the said club. I would call you something different to an adversary

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I think you will find that just on here alone there are as many people who do not agree with you and the deluded Abby and Fisherman as there are those who concur with the three of you.

Apparently there are 785 million illiterate people in the world. Who cares about numbers? It's the quality of argument that is important.

At the same time I suspect you are deluding yourself about the numbers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Apparently there are 785 million illiterate people in the world. Who cares about numbers? It's the quality of argument that is important.

At the same time I suspect you are deluding yourself about the numbers.

I hate to tell you but its the numbers that do decide.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

I hate to tell you but its the numbers that do decide.

Decide what? The truth?

I hate to tell you but it ain't so.

[Phil Carter]

It's amazing how you don't understand how an inquest works. As a witness, Long would have done no more than answer questions put to him. Unless he was asked where he went after departing from Goulston Street, he didn't "leave out" anything.

I have no idea why you think that what Long did after departing from Goulston Street would have been regarded by the Coroner or the jury as part of Long's "important movements". Whether the Coroner knew that Long ever went to Leman Street station is debatable (Long's report of 6 November was written after the inquest) but the jury certainly didn't, so of course they didn't ask him about evidence which they didn't hear!



It's astonishing that I should be asked, in such strident terms, to reproduce, such easily available and well known evidence for you. But if I must. From the Times of 12 October 1888, reporting on Halse's evidence at the inquest:

"He assumed the writing was recent, because from the number of persons living in the tenement he believed it would have been rubbed out had it been there for any time."



It's important not to confuse "blurred" with "rubbed out" or "smudged". As I've already said a number of times on this forum, Swanson must have meant no more than that the characters written in chalk on a rough surface (i.e. not a blackboard) were diffuse because that is what happens when you write with chalk on a rough surface. That basically takes care of the rest of your post.

David,

It is YOU theorising Swansons words. He stated blurred. Your interpretation is worthless theory.



The WRITTEN statements from the inquest, held at the Corporation of London Records Office.
Ref. Coroner's inquest (L), 1888, No.135. Catherine Eddowes inquest. 1888 (Corporation of London Record Office )
DO NOT include:-

Long going to Leman Street
Halse theorising
Warren's testimony.
Swanson's comments.

You are picking and choosing later comments to protect a very clear lack of uniformed detail AT THE TIME, by those present.


Your conclusions re Swanson are your own. Put together in an attempt to cover the gaping holes in the testimony of the policemen.

And for your information. Witness testimony with and without a lamp to assist is important.
It makes testimony far more credible when aided by light in darkness.

Ask any jury.


Phil

[David Orsam]

It is YOU theorising Swansons words. He stated blurred. Your interpretation is worthless theory.

Swanson almost certainly did not see the writing on the wall though Phil. So it's Swanson who is reporting on what someone else has told him. Given that everyone else could read the writing, no-one reported any problems of legibility and Halse believed the chalk to have been freshly written, so that it could not have been smudged, my explanation of what Swanson said seems to be the only one that makes any sense.

The WRITTEN statements from the inquest, held at the Corporation of London Records Office.
Ref. Coroner's inquest (L), 1888, No.135. Catherine Eddowes inquest. 1888 (Corporation of London Record Office )
DO NOT include:-

Long going to Leman Street
Halse theorising
Warren's testimony.
Swanson's comments.

You have included four police officers of which two did not give evidence at the inquest and Swanson was not even a witness to anything. So why you think there would be any written statements from them at the inquest is beyond comprehension.

As for the other two officers, I've already said that Long was not asked about going to Leman Street in his evidence so it wouldn't be in his deposition. Those depositions do not include everything said by witnesses, as you should know, and Halse was answering a question asked by a juryman, which answers do not all get included in the depositions.

There are no other written statements from any officers in the papers.

You are picking and choosing later comments to protect a very clear lack of uniformed detail AT THE TIME, by those present.

What on earth do you mean by "AT THE TIME"? All comments that we have are "later" comments than the time they occurred.

And for your information. Witness testimony with and without a lamp to assist is important.
It makes testimony far more credible when aided by light in darkness.

Ask any jury.

I really don't know what you are telling me this for. I've not said anything to you about the credibility of witness testimony with or without a lamp. I've said that the evidence of Halse about whether the writing was recent, compared with Long, had nothing to do with who had better visibility or who was using a lamp and who was not.

[Abby Normal]

As it would seem I am also a member of the said club. I would call you something different to an adversary

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm glad you realize your in said club Trevor and please feel free to call me anything you like. I can take it.

Go on give it your best shot.

[PaulB]

David,

It is YOU theorising Swansons words. He stated blurred. Your interpretation is worthless theory.



The WRITTEN statements from the inquest, held at the Corporation of London Records Office.
Ref. Coroner's inquest (L), 1888, No.135. Catherine Eddowes inquest. 1888 (Corporation of London Record Office )
DO NOT include:-

Long going to Leman Street
Halse theorising
Warren's testimony.
Swanson's comments.

You are picking and choosing later comments to protect a very clear lack of uniformed detail AT THE TIME, by those present.


Your conclusions re Swanson are your own. Put together in an attempt to cover the gaping holes in the testimony of the policemen.

And for your information. Witness testimony with and without a lamp to assist is important.
It makes testimony far more credible when aided by light in darkness.

Ask any jury.


Phil

I'm afraid I ceased to understand your arguments some time back. My fault, I expect, but in fairness to David I feel that I should say that his theory isn't in the least bit worthless. We are presented with two witnesses, neither apparently lying, but nevertheless giving diametrically opposed conclusions. Swanson said the writing was blurred, but as he never saw the writing this information was received from someone else. Detective Halse observed no blurring and concluded therefrom that the writing was new. Is there any sensible way of resolving these opposite opinions? There aren't two many options available, but David's, that the writing looked blurred because it was written on the rough surface of a brick, is not improbable, and far from being worthless, is a valuable and reasonably likely explanation. If you would like to venture an alternative or two, I'm sure everyone would like to hear them.

[Joshua Rogan]

I'm not sure how rough the bricks would be after they were painted.

[David Orsam]

I'm not sure how rough the bricks would be after they were painted.

I think you'll find you won't get clear, sharp, chalk characters on painted brick.

[Elamarna]

I'm not sure how rough the bricks would be after they were painted.

Joshua

I think for the purpose of this disnssion the bricks can to a limited degree be equated to the rough wall surfaces in the valley of the kings.

To achieve the high level of decoration in the tombs the rough walls had to plastered first to give a smooth finished to allow the delicate art work to be completed.

The same is true here. A mere layer of painT, unless applied extremely thickly would not fill any imperfections on the surface of the bricks.

Hope that helps.

Best wishes


Steve

[Observer]

I'm not sure how rough the bricks would be after they were painted.

The bricks were not painted they were black engineering bricks. I've inspected identical bricks on the other side of the road.

[Joshua Rogan]

I think it would depend very much on the bricks and paint in question. Sadly that's another detail that was somehow left out of all the inquest testimonies.

[Joshua Rogan]

The bricks were not painted they were black engineering bricks. I've inspected identical bricks on the other side of the road.

Cool....how rough or smooth would you say they were?