Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;396792]

You can only think it is "one of the most stupid things" you have read on this forum if you don't understand it Pierre.

The apron is CLEARLY connected to the writing on the wall by virtue of it being found beneath that writing at 2.55am in the morning of 30 September 1888, neither the apron nor the writing have been seen by any human being in that location prior to that time (with the apron having previously been connected to the body of Catherine Eddowes within the past hour or so).

It is not enough to postulate coincidence. Two things can be present at the same time without having a common past.

Therefore, your statement is not right.

And if the two items were not seen by anyone, that does not mean they have a common past.

So the common past is what I am researching and it is what I am asking you about.

Are there any sources that constitutes the base for an hypothesis about a common past for the apron and the writing? Do you know of any such sources?

That doesn't mean the same person who wrote the GSG is the same person who dropped the apron, but there is a connection.

OK, so you are aware of the problematic statement you make and you now want to protect yourself.

Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. This does not mean that he was the Whitechapel murderer so your logic has gone rather badly astray.

That is absolutely correct. And the reason why I mentioned Lechmere is that it sets a good example for a spurious relation.

No you didn't Pierre. I quoted your exact question and I'll repeat it:

"is there any source at all indicating that the piece of apron had anything to do with "Jews"?"

Stop acting like a child speaking to itīs parent. Try to understand what I am saying instead. I guess you may be capable of understanding what I say. If you cut out a sentence or some words by your own choice and tell me "You said!" and at the same time ignore my explanation, it only proves that you want to make the wrong interpretation, or worse, that you do not understand.

I gave you a source - an historical source - and that's that. Everything else you have written is irrelevant waffle.

So you do not know any source that will do for an hypothesis about an historical connection. You only know from the sources you see, that there is "a connection". And that "connection" is made up by centimeters or a commissionerīs idea.

If you meant to ask a different question then so be it but I cannot read your mind so I answered the one you asked.

So if you go back and read my words again in the last posts you may be able to answer the question. But I am afraid the answer will be "no". And then you will not be able to help me get another reference point, i.e. another very good explanation for the coincidence of the two items.

You see, I think I understand this coincidence. But I want to be wrong. So if you give me a better hypothesis, I might be able to refute what I know right know. After all, knowledge is temporary.

[PaulB]

Hi All,

Warren used the term "lookers on."

"Looker on" and "onlooker" are synonyms for bystander.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Regards,

Simon

It is true that bystander and looker-on mean the same thing, but some people might want to argue that a bystander is someone standing by, which could refer to policemen awaiting instructions. Looker-on isn't capable of any such interpretation. I don't think anyone would argue that we shouldn't strive to quote the sources correctly.

[David Orsam]

It is not enough to postulate coincidence. Two things can be present at the same time without having a common past.

Therefore, your statement is not right.

I didn't "postulate coincidence". I was answering your specific question which was:

"Is there any historical reason to hypothesize that a writing about "Jews" was connected to the piece of apron?"

You were asking for a historical reason to hypothesize a connection between the writing and the apron. I gave you one. So my "statement" was a correct answer to your question.

And if the two items were not seen by anyone, that does not mean they have a common past.

You didn't ask anything about "a common past". You simply did not use that expression.

So the common past is what I am researching and it is what I am asking you about.

I have no idea what you are researching. I only know what you asked about. And your question, to repeat, was this:

"Is there any historical reason to hypothesize that a writing about "Jews" was connected to the piece of apron?"

You see the absence of the words "common past" in there?

Are there any sources that constitutes the base for an hypothesis about a common past for the apron and the writing? Do you know of any such sources?

That is a completely different question from the one you asked and which I answered!

OK, so you are aware of the problematic statement you make and you now want to protect yourself.

What does this even mean?

That is absolutely correct. And the reason why I mentioned Lechmere is that it sets a good example for a spurious relation.

The connection between Lechmere and Nichols is not spurious. You are confusing the connection with the conclusion to be drawn from the connection.

Stop acting like a child speaking to itīs parent. Try to understand what I am saying instead. I guess you may be capable of understanding what I say. If you cut out a sentence or some words by your own choice and tell me "You said!" and at the same time ignore my explanation, it only proves that you want to make the wrong interpretation, or worse, that you do not understand.

If "try to understand what I am saying" means "can you answer a different question to the one I am asking?" then I'm afraid I cannot do that Pierre. I can only address my mind to the questions that you ask, not the questions that you might have intended to ask.

So you do not know any source that will do for an hypothesis about an historical connection.

I have already given you a source indicating that the piece of apron had something to do with "Jews". That's what you asked for. You can try and close your eyes to it but I've posted it.

So if you go back and read my words again in the last posts you may be able to answer the question. But I am afraid the answer will be "no". And then you will not be able to help me get another reference point, i.e. another very good explanation for the coincidence of the two items.

You see, I think I understand this coincidence. But I want to be wrong. So if you give me a better hypothesis, I might be able to refute what I know right know. After all, knowledge is temporary.

I don't know what you are talking about. You have suddenly introduced the word "coincidence" and you think you understand this "coincidence" but a moment ago you were denying that there was a "connection".

As far as I am concerned, you are disrupting your thread with more nonsense. If you have something to say go ahead and say it but stop asking silly questions to which you can't accept the answers.

[Kattrup]

So the common past is what I am researching and it is what I am asking you about.

Are there any sources that constitutes the base for an hypothesis about a common past for the apron and the writing? Do you know of any such sources?

I personally think you are waiting for someone to mention Jewish clothing, namely the ephod worn by high priests.

It's somewhat similar to an apron - but covers front and back (my wife has such an apron). EDIT: I guess after some searching that it is not necessary for an ephod to cover the back as well.

Throwing a blood and feces-stained apron, as a symbol of the ephod, beneath an anti-semitic graffito might enhance the searing indictment of the graffito in the discarder's mind. Help express his contempt of Judaism/Jews.

Mind you, no-one at the time (1888) thought so (or should I say: we have no sources available to us indicating that anyone in 1888 considered the piece of apron symbolic of an ephod).

[David Orsam]

It is true that bystander and looker-on mean the same thing, but some people might want to argue that a bystander is someone standing by, which could refer to policemen awaiting instructions. Looker-on isn't capable of any such interpretation. I don't think anyone would argue that we shouldn't strive to quote the sources correctly.

Here's how the problem started.

Phil Carter in #1254 said:

"Matthews did not imply it was the killer or he would have stated as such, likewise an accomplice. His description was "bystander"."

That then misled everyone else who assumed he was quoting correctly.

It makes me wonder if Phil Carter understands how to use quotation marks. He did exactly the same thing to me earlier in this thread, accusing me of using the expression "crowded streets" (which he attributed to me inside quotation marks) when I had not done so.

Phil - quotation marks for quotations only, not what you think someone has said!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Paul,

You'll get no argument from me.

I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene.

However, from various news reports there seem to have been quite a few "lookers on" in Mitre Square, many of them newspaper reporters.

And by that, I am not suggesting anything.

Regards,

Simon

[Pierre]

I personally think you are waiting for someone to mention Jewish clothing, namely the ephod worn by high priests.

It's somewhat similar to an apron - but covers front and back (my wife has such an apron). EDIT: I guess after some searching that it is not necessary for an ephod to cover the back as well.

Throwing a blood and feces-stained apron, as a symbol of the ephod, beneath an anti-semitic graffito might enhance the searing indictment of the graffito in the discarder's mind. Help express his contempt of Judaism/Jews.

Mind you, no-one at the time (1888) thought so (or should I say: we have no sources available to us indicating that anyone in 1888 considered the piece of apron symbolic of an ephod).

Hi Kattrup,

I have never heard of the ephod. Would that be a good hypothesis?

[Kattrup]

Hi Kattrup,

I have never heard of the ephod. Would that be a good hypothesis?

No.

There are no sources with which to prove or disprove it. There are no sources indicating that anyone considered the possibility.

[David Orsam]

I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene.

I wonder if Phil Carter will respond to this or whether there will be a deafening silence.

[Pierre]

No.

There are no sources with which to prove or disprove it. There are no sources indicating that anyone considered the possibility.

Good.

[Phil Carter]

I wonder if Phil Carter will respond to this or whether there will be a deafening silence.

Unlike you David. .I am not out to win personal argument points in discussion..so my reaction is this.

Why, if true, is there no mention in police statements about this..only in newspspers?

And if so....they got there very very quickly.
BEFORE the first of the medical men.


Phil

[David Orsam]

Unlike you David. .I am not out to win personal argument points in discussion..so my reaction is this.

Why, if true, is there no mention in police statements about this..only in newspspers?

And if so....they got there very very quickly.
BEFORE the first of the medical men.

I don't know what you are talking about Phil.

Simon's statement that I was referring to was this:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene".

Are you going to respond to it or will there only be deafening silence from you about it?

[PaulB]

Here's how the problem started.

Phil Carter in #1254 said:

"Matthews did not imply it was the killer or he would have stated as such, likewise an accomplice. His description was "bystander"."

That then misled everyone else who assumed he was quoting correctly.

It makes me wonder if Phil Carter understands how to use quotation marks. He did exactly the same thing to me earlier in this thread, accusing me of using the expression "crowded streets" (which he attributed to me inside quotation marks) when I had not done so.

Phil - quotation marks for quotations only, not what you think someone has said!

Hi David,
Thanks. I am just kicking myself for not double checking what Warren actually wrote. I'm afraid that it is noticeable that Phil often misquotes what people say and gets hold of what seems to be the wrong end of the stick. I intend no criticism of him, but it serves to obfuscate and divert, which, despite appearances, hopefully isn't the intention.

[Phil Carter]

You may think it Phil but where is the evidence to back it up?

There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the Home Secretary insisted on being kept "fully" up to date with all the details of the murder in the immediate aftermath, especially as he was out of London at the time. It wasn't his job to solve the crime! He was obviously briefed by Warren on 3 October but there is no evidence that he knew anything more than he had read in the newspapers before that date.

If he was made aware of it via a newspaper..he will...as with any information, want confirmation from an official.

As to the rest of this post...

The Home Secretary has a supposed double murder in the Capital that the world and his wife is screaming about and you propose that he is reticent?


Phil

[Phil Carter]

I don't know what you are talking about Phil.

Simon's statement that I was referring to was this:

"I cannot believe that anyone would use "lookers on" or bystanders to describe police officers perhaps at the periphery of a crime scene".

Are you going to respond to it or will there only be deafening silence from you about it?

That was the response.