Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Thank you wicker
This is exactly the type of response I was hoping for, I suck at math and geometry.

And yes you could cover a lot of distance in 20 minutes but lets look at that a little closer. I doubt the killer was running the whole time. It would look way too suspicious and also I doubt someone could or would run constantly for twenty minutes, especially carrying a knife and internal organs. I think in all probably the killer exited mitre square at a brisk walk.

How many miles can someone travel in twenty minutes at a brisk walk?

Googled it, Abby:

"The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines brisk walking as being at a pace of three miles per hour or more (but not racewalking) or roughly 20 minutes per mile.

That equates to about five kilometers per hour or 12 minutes per kilometer."

1,66 kilometers would therefore be covered in twenty minutes.

PS. Just noticed that John G offered a little something on the same theme!

[Abby Normal]

It would obviously depend on the age and fitness of the individual, Abby. However, research has shown that even older men are capable of brisk walking at an average speed of 5.72 km/h, around 3.6 mph: see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962157

Therefore, on that basis, at least 1.2 miles.

Awesome!

Thanks johnG! I would posit that therefor the killers bolt hole/home is somewhere within a circle whose center is approx miter square with radius of approx. 1.2 miles.

[John G]

Awesome!

Thanks johnG! I would posit that therefor the killers bolt hole/home is somewhere within a circle whose center is approx miter square with radius of approx. 1.2 miles.

Yes, I would agree, Abby.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good morning Trevor, a thought occured to me and I am going to share it to help you.

The killer cutting a piece of Catherine Eddowes apron and taking it to Goulston Street has no bearing whatsoever on your theory that her killer did not remove her body parts, and instead those body parts were removed by 'someone' at the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane.

I don't agree with your theory the killer did not take her body parts, I think he did. But it has nothing to do with the apron.

Again, this is why I asked Phil, or I could ask you, where in the world did you get the idea that we think the sole reason the killer cut the piece of apron and took it was to carry the body parts in. You, Trevor seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that WE ALL, that is everyone is who had studied the case, thinks the killer cut and took the apron piece for one reason and one reason only, to carry the body parts.

When in fact, the police didn't think that at the time, that the apron piece was used to carry the body parts, or if they did think that, the idea didn't show up in any of the surviving police reports, nor in any of their memoirs. And none of the books written about Jack the Ripper propose the idea the killer took the apron piece to carry the body parts. Not Cullen, Farson, Rumbelow, Sugden, Begg, Evans, Tully, and the list goes on. None of the TV documentaries I've seen proposes the idea.

The only place I know the idea the killer used the apron to carry body parts was proposed was in one article written by Wickerman. A very nise article by the way. But just that one article.

So all this time, Trevor, you have been arguing against something that doesn't exist, what you think is the widespread universal belief, repeated over and over in Ripper books you've never read, that the killer cut the piece of apron because of the absolute necessity of his using it to carry the body parts. No such universal belief persists except in your imagination.

This has all been an incredible waste of everyone's time.

Instead, let's take a hypothetical. Your theory, Trevor. The killer did NOT take the body parts when murdering Catherine Eddowes. Okay. But he did cut the piece of apron and take it to Goulston Street, something which everyone except you agrees on.

See how that works? It's simple. I hope this is helpful,

Roy

Roy
Perhaps you might want to read this and then take the blinkers off?

I have said before that the apron in my opinion is of very little evidential value in the grand scheme of things. BUt when you look at the four reasons that have been given by researches over the years for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece they simply dont stand up to close scrutiny.

Eliminate those and you are left with the fact that the apron piece was connected to the victim and Goulston Street. So you have to delve deeper into the apron piece, and where did it come from and how it got to Goulston Street.

If the killer didnt cut it, or tear it for any of those four reasons then why would he bother to cut or tear it at all? There is no logical explanation for this.

Having regards to the question of whether or not she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder comes into play based on Collards lists. If she wasnt wearing an apron then she at some time before her murder was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron which at some time had been part of a full apron.

The short time the killer had with the victim the position of her clothes when found dont add weight to the killer being able to cut or tear it and take it away.

If that had been the case then following her release from custody it is not known where she went. We know she lived a stones throw from Goulston Street, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she decided to make her way home.

If that be the case there are several explanations for her depositing the piece of apron herself.

The first has already been discussed many time but I will go over it again. This is that she could have been using one of the pieces as a sanitary device and discarded it herself when perhaps going under the archway to go to the toilet. You have to remember that the piece was described as smeared or spotted with blood, on one side and also had traces of faecal matter on it, part of it was wet. i know the wetness was described by a witness as being blood but we have to keep an open mind. All of those traces found on the cloth are consistent with the possibility that it had been between her legs as a sanitary device.

The other explanation is that she could have met a punter on her way home and went under the archway to indulge in some sexual activity and then used one of the pieces of apron to wipe herself down and then discard it.

I hope now the blinkers have come off things are much clearer to you, because the mystery of the apron piece is not as clear cut as you and others perceive ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;396298

Roy

Perhaps you might want to read this and then take the blinkers off?

I have said before that the apron in my opinion is of very little evidential value in the grand scheme of things. BUt when you look at the four reasons that have been given by researches over the years for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece they simply dont stand up to close scrutiny.

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.

If the killer didnt cut it, or tear it for any of those four reasons then why would he bother to cut or tear it at all? There is no logical explanation for this.

Having regards to the question of whether or not she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder comes into play based on Collards lists. If she wasnt wearing an apron then she at some time before her murder was simply in possession of two pieces of old white apron which at some time had been part of a full apron.

The short time the killer had with the victim the position of her clothes when found dont add weight to the killer being able to cut or tear it and take it away.

If that had been the case then following her release from custody it is not known where she went. We know she lived a stones throw from Goulston Street, so it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she decided to make her way home.

If that be the case there are several explanations for her depositing the piece of apron herself.

The first has already been discussed many time but I will go over it again. This is that she could have been using one of the pieces as a sanitary device and discarded it herself when perhaps going under the archway to go to the toilet. You have to remember that the piece was described as smeared or spotted with blood, on one side and also had traces of faecal matter on it, part of it was wet. i know the wetness was described by a witness as being blood but we have to keep an open mind. All of those traces found on the cloth are consistent with the possibility that it had been between her legs as a sanitary device.

The other explanation is that she could have met a punter on her way home and went under the archway to indulge in some sexual activity and then used one of the pieces of apron to wipe herself down and then discard it.

I hope now the blinkers have come off things are much clearer to you, because the mystery of the apron piece is not as clear cut as you and others perceive ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[David Orsam]

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.

Just to clarify what Pierre meant to say:

I am not able to discuss it yet, or probably ever, but just to let you know: 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.

Hope you don't mind me correcting you, Pierre, but you left out the crucial words "I think" and you were speaking as if you had proof of the killer's motive which you've admitted you don't (not knowing who the killer was) so it can't be anything other than your opinion.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396316]

Just to clarify what Pierre meant to say:

Just to clarify that David has no right to tell you what I mean to say. I say what I mean and mean what I say and therefore say what I mean to say.

But David, you can not read a post from me without trying to destroy it. It has become compulsive for you. You are fixated on me, as noticed by others here too. Good observation.

Hope you don't mind me correcting you, Pierre,

I do mind you destroying my text.

It is not "correction". It is corruption.

but you left out the crucial words "I think" and you were speaking as if you had proof of the killer's motive which you've admitted you don't (not knowing who the killer was) so it can't be anything other than your opinion.

Everything you write above is motivated by your own frustration.

I have very good evidence for the motive. There are many reliable and well established sources for it.

[David Orsam]

Just to clarify that David has no right to tell you what I mean to say. I say what I mean and mean what I say and therefore say what I mean to say.

But David, you can not read a post from me without trying to destroy it. It has become compulsive for you. You are fixated on me, as noticed by others here too. Good observation.

I do mind you destroying my text.

It is not "correction". It is corruption.

Everything you write above is motivated by your own frustration.

I have very good evidence for the motive. There are many reliable and well established sources for it.

But, Pierre, you've admitted many times that you haven't found the evidence which proves that the person you think is the killer actually committed the murders (or any murders). All you said to us when you joined the forum was "I think I have found him". You confirmed to me that this might mean that you haven't found him. So why are you removing the words "I think" from your sentences now, when you've admitted that there has been no major breakthrough in the case since you joined last year?

What is it about the correction I made to your post that you disagree with?

[Pierre]

But, Pierre, you've admitted many times that you haven't found the evidence which proves that the person you think is the killer actually committed the murders (or any murders). All you said to us when you joined the forum was "I think I have found him". You confirmed to me that this might mean that you haven't found him. So why are you removing the words "I think" from your sentences now, when you've admitted that there has been no major breakthrough in the case since you joined last year?

What is it about the correction I made to your post that you disagree with?

David, did you see my comparison to Fisherman? I wrote that I have found everything he has been searching for and more. Anyway, I also wrote that is is not enough. I want a small scrap of evidence good enough for you all, so you do not need to go on like this.

So that is my intention.

What is the use of knowledge if it isnīt what you would call "secure"?

And donīt fixate yourself on single words. Listen to what I say instead. I am not doing this for myself. I am tired and my wife is not well. She is now spending her days in a wheelchair and I can not be of much help to her.

Still, I try to do my best right now both with my personal problems here and with the case, and my aim is to make the case clear for everyone. I truly hope you understand this.

Pierre

[Phil Carter]

DO inform the rest of us when you two have finished taking lumps out of each other.. then we can we get back to the topics of the thread. Please? Thank you.


Phil

[David Orsam]

David, did you see my comparison to Fisherman? I wrote that I have found everything he has been searching for and more. Anyway, I also wrote that is is not enough. I want a small scrap of evidence good enough for you all, so you do not need to go on like this.

So that is my intention.

What is the use of knowledge if it isnīt what you would call "secure"?

And donīt fixate yourself on single words. Listen to what I say instead. I am not doing this for myself. I am tired and my wife is not well. She is now spending her days in a wheelchair and I can not be of much help to her.

Still, I try to do my best right now both with my personal problems here and with the case, and my aim is to make the case clear for everyone. I truly hope you understand this.

I'm sorry you are tired Pierre (perhaps you ought to stop spending time on hunting for something you will never find?) 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. 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. So rather than "fixating" on the single words that I added, and accusing me of "corrupting" your post, why not just accept it?

[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.

[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.

[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]

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?