Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

Not an insult David. A sad realisation.
You simply cannot stop ramming a point home.
I find it sad.

It's a point worth ramming though I think Phil.

You seem happy to write post after post disagreeing with what I say but when it comes to Simon Wood, not a word.

He posted the Warren/Fraser letter and you said "the silence is deafening". According to you, "the Home Secretary, is asking of the possibility of a policeman taking the apron piece and doing the deed."

But of course he wasn't. Even Simon Wood doesn't think so. So you were way off beam.

Later this became the Home Secretary might have been saying this or he might not. But he wasn't. It's an utterly ridiculous interpretation.

Yet you refuse to accept this. But, at the same time, you refuse to engage with Simon Wood on the point.

Oh, it was a point worth ramming home Phil.

[Abby Normal]

I prefer the words standers on and by-lookers.

oops. forgot the erroneous quotes.

"standers on" and "by-lookers".


there we go-much better now.

[Joshua Rogan]

It's obvious that one of the "lookers on" he had in mind must have been Amos Simpson...

[harry]

Most if not all persons today would not describe Dutfield Yard as a passage.Someone of that time did.In my official life I was many times an onlooker,that is how I describe myself,and maybe to others I appeared the same.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body.

To be more exact, what is established through corroboration is that he was found by Nicholsī body.

It may seem a small detail, but the implications differ rather a lot.

Of course, I would have a lot more reason to correct Pierre, but I prefer to speak to people where I get some sort of sound resonance.

[Fisherman]

This is more for Phil Carter's benefit but newspaper reports suggested that members of the public were drawn to Mitre Square immediately upon hearing Watkins blow his whistle.

Thus:

"The sound of a policeman's whistle attracted attention to the square, and the first spectators who arrived were despatched for medical and other aid." (Lloyds Weekly News, 30 September 1888)

and

"He at once blew his whistle, and several persons being attracted to the spot, he despatched messengers for medical and police aid." (Morning Advertiser - and Daily News - 1 October 1888)

Simon might have some other examples in mind.

It doesn't matter whether these reports were true or not, only that they would have created (for the Home Secretary if he read those reports) the impression of people being in the square who could conceivably have picked up the apron from the crime scene and taken it to Goulston Street.

Not that it has much to do with the topic discussed, but this is interesting to digest when looking at the Nichols murder, since it shows that it was seemingly customary for PC:s to employ the help of passers-by - like, for example, carmen en route to work.

[Pierre]

To be more exact, what is established through corroboration is that he was found by Nicholsī body.

It may seem a small detail, but the implications differ rather a lot.

Of course, I would have a lot more reason to correct Pierre, but I prefer to speak to people where I get some sort of sound resonance.

Hi Fisherman,

That is your particular perspective, yes. Fine.

I found an interesting statement in a thread here on the forum, where someone wrote:

"The murders started almost immediately after he moved away from the area where his mother lived - when he escaped her apron strings".

Do you happen to have any explanation for that particular perspective, perhaps in relation to the GSG and the ideas of "Jews"?

Regards, Pierre

[David Orsam]

To be more exact, what is established through corroboration is that he was found by Nicholsī body.

That is not being "more exact" Fisherman. It is being less exact because it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Lechmere was "found by" Nichols' body. He was seen to be standing in the middle of the road when Paul entered Bucks Row.

We have argued this before and I have no idea why you've introduced such a controversial concept into this thread. My own statement was entirely neutral so I'm very surprised you felt the need to comment on it. Let's not turn this into another Lechmere thread eh?

[Fisherman]

That is not being "more exact" Fisherman. It is being less exact because it is inaccurate and misleading to say that Lechmere was "found by" Nichols' body. He was seen to be standing in the middle of the road when Paul entered Bucks Row.

We have argued this before and I have no idea why you've introduced such a controversial concept into this thread. My own statement was entirely neutral so I'm very surprised you felt the need to comment on it. Let's not turn this into another Lechmere thread eh?

I strive to be as accurate as possible when it comes to the carman, much because he has over the years been accepted as presenting the factual truth. This must be called into question when it comes to the period of time before Paul arrived at the scene, offering corroboration.
Accordingly, it IS much more correct to say that he was found by the body of Polly Nichols (Paul: "He was standing where the body was").
This wording allows for two possibilities:
He had either quite simply found the body, or he had killed her and only pretended to quite simply have found her.
Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario, and it is therefore not the better one. It shuts off an all-important, completely viable alternative.

It is all very uncontroversial, or at least it should be. As for the wording "by Nichols body", I am just as happy with "within a few yards from Nicholsī body". To me, they are interchangable in this errand.

The important thing is not to lock onto the innocent wordings as if a guilty one was out of question.

I am happy to leave it there, and I aim to avoid further discussion of it. Back to Long!

[David Orsam]

I strive to be as accurate as possible when it comes to the carman, much because he has over the years been accepted as presenting the factual truth. This must be called into question when it comes to the period of time before Paul arrived at the scene, offering corroboration.
Accordingly, it IS much more correct to say that he was found by the body of Polly Nichols (Paul: "He was standing where the body was")

I'm sorry Fisherman but if you truly strive to be as "accurate as possible" then you would surely be citing Paul's sworn testimony at the inquest rather than a newspaper article which is garbled in other respects. The record we have of Paul's testimony is that he saw "a man standing in the middle of the road".

But even if, in your striving to be as accurate as possible, you, for some reason, prefer the newspaper article over the inquest report then surely, to be as accurate as possible, you should have said that the connection between Lechmere and Nichols is that, when seen by Paul, Lechmere was standing where the body was. THAT is the most accurate statement possible, based on the article, because Paul did NOT say that he found Lechmere by the body.

I really don't see anything controversial in what I have written above so perhaps we can now indeed return to the topic of this thread.

[Fisherman]

I'm sorry Fisherman but if you truly strive to be as "accurate as possible" then you would surely be citing Paul's sworn testimony at the inquest rather than a newspaper article which is garbled in other respects. The record we have of Paul's testimony is that he saw "a man standing in the middle of the road".

But even if, in your striving to be as accurate as possible, you, for some reason, prefer the newspaper article over the inquest report then surely, to be as accurate as possible, you should have said that the connection between Lechmere and Nichols is that, when seen by Paul, Lechmere was standing where the body was. THAT is the most accurate statement possible, based on the article, because Paul did NOT say that he found Lechmere by the body.

I really don't see anything controversial in what I have written above so perhaps we can now indeed return to the topic of this thread.

Try - if you can - to look away from the issue of the relative proximity to the body on Lechmereīs behalf. It will only result in strange claims that you are able to decide what "by" means in terms of inches and feet, and I am not available for such a discussion.

It then remains that, and I quote:
My ..."wording allows for two possibilities:
He had either quite simply found the body, or he had killed her and only pretended to quite simply have found her.
Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario, and it is therefore not the better one. It shuts off an all-important, completely viable alternative."

Right, back to the topic of the thread that you want to catch up on...

[David Orsam]

Try - if you can - to look away from the issue of the relative proximity to the body on Lechmereīs behalf. It will only result in strange claims that you are able to decide what "by" means in terms of inches and feet, and I am not available for such a discussion.

It then remains that, and I quote:
My ..."wording allows for two possibilities:
He had either quite simply found the body, or he had killed her and only pretended to quite simply have found her.
Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario, and it is therefore not the better one. It shuts off an all-important, completely viable alternative."

I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.

[Fisherman]

David Orsam: I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

Am I SURPRISED...!!?

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

So I have an agenda? Did you notice that I wanted to have BOTH possibilities open? That Lechmere EITHER simply found Nichols OR killed her and feigned to simply have found her?
That is leaving both opportunitites open.

In YOUR suggestion, which you (SUPRISE) find better, you exclude the possibility that Lechmere leid about having found her.

So I leave both possibilties open, you leave just the one possibility open - and I am the one with the agenda...?

This, David, is what happens when we want to be clever and fail miserably.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

No, David, saying that Lechmere found the body is explicitely ruling out that he killed her. If he did, he did NOT find a body, he searched out a living woman and turned her into a dead body.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

As I have shown, it is not a completely neutral statement. I accept that you used it in good faith, but it nevertheless is a statement that cements Lechmereīs claims as being true.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.

Now? No, I donīt wish to continue the discussion now, thatīs very true. But I predispose that you will never accept the possibility that you got it wrong, albeit I am equally sure that you will say that you are ever so open to that possibility but it does not apply here.
Sorry, but it does.

So itīs either we agree to disagree (which I can see happening) or you admit that you got it wrong (which is as likely to happen as if Lechmere was not the killer).

You are sometimes brilliant. Itīs a shame when you throw it away in favour of egocentric crap.

Now the discussion is over for this time. Any more input from your side will not be part of any discussion, it will be a monologue.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam: I can't let this nonsense pass I'm afraid.

Am I SURPRISED...!!?

You said you were striving to be "as accurate as possible" and wanted the "most exact" wording. Now you want to impose what you describe as "my wording" because you want to allow for the possibility that Lechmere killed her. So far from striving for the most exact wording, to be as accurate as possible, you have an agenda whereby you want wording which incorporates a meaning you want it to incorporate.

So I have an agenda? Did you notice that I wanted to have BOTH possibilities open? That Lechmere EITHER simply found Nichols OR killed her and feigned to simply have found her?
That is leaving both opportunitites open.

In YOUR suggestion, which you (SUPRISE) find better, you exclude the possibility that Lechmere leid about having found her.

So I leave both possibilties open, you leave just the one possibility open - and I am the one with the agenda...?

This, David, is what happens when we want to be clever and fail miserably.

And I don't know what you mean when you say "Your wording does not allow for the more sinister scenario". The only wording I have put forward is that Lechmere is connected to Nichols "in the sense that he found her body". This is not only true but allows for any possibility you want, including that he murdered her. Often the person who finds a body is considered a suspect by the police.

No, David, saying that Lechmere found the body is explicitely ruling out that he killed her. If he did, he did NOT find a body, he searched out a living woman and turned her into a dead body.

So all you have done is created a flurry of pointless off-topic posts in respect of a completely neutral and uncontroversial statement that I posted simply because you want to press your agenda in a thread about PC Long and the discovery of the apron.

As I have shown, it is not a completely neutral statement. I accept that you used it in good faith, but it nevertheless is a statement that cements Lechmereīs claims as being true.

Surely you cannot wish to continue this discussion now.

Now? No, I donīt wish to continue the discussion now, thatīs very true. But I predispose that you will never accept the possibility that you got it wrong, albeit I am equally sure that you will say that you are ever so open to that possibility but it does not apply here.
Sorry, but it does.

So itīs either we agree to disagree (which I can see happening) or you admit that you got it wrong (which is as likely to happen as if Lechmere was not the killer).

You are sometimes brilliant. Itīs a shame when you throw it away in favour of egocentric crap.

Now the discussion is over for this time. Any more input from your side will not be part of any discussion, it will be a monologue.

Amazing Fisherman. Now I have apparently to admit that I got something wrong! All I said was that Lechmere was connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. What on earth is wrong about that?

And yes you do have an agenda if you wanted to keep "both possibilities open". When Paul said that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the road he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was reporting to the inquest when he saw. When he (supposedly) told a newspaper reporter that Lechmere was standing where the body was he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was (supposedly) telling the reporter what he saw.

If you were striving to be as accurate as possible, then keeping possibilities open should have been no part of your thinking. You should have been reporting what was said and seen. No-one said that Lechmere was found by the body. That is your own interpretation of what you think Paul told a reporter, even though he said no such thing under oath at the inquest.

So, far from being as accurate as possible, you were twisting the evidence to fit in with your agenda of keeping open the possibility that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. In doing so, I was excluding no possibilities and promoting no agenda.

I got nothing wrong. So perhaps you can back down with good grace and we can move back to discussing the rather more on-topic subject of PC Long and the apron.

[Pierre]

Amazing Fisherman. Now I have apparently to admit that I got something wrong! All I said was that Lechmere was connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. What on earth is wrong about that?

And yes you do have an agenda if you wanted to keep "both possibilities open". When Paul said that he saw Lechmere standing in the middle of the road he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was reporting to the inquest when he saw. When he (supposedly) told a newspaper reporter that Lechmere was standing where the body was he wasn't keeping any possibilities open. He was (supposedly) telling the reporter what he saw.

If you were striving to be as accurate as possible, then keeping possibilities open should have been no part of your thinking. You should have been reporting what was said and seen. No-one said that Lechmere was found by the body. That is your own interpretation of what you think Paul told a reporter, even though he said no such thing under oath at the inquest.

So, far from being as accurate as possible, you were twisting the evidence to fit in with your agenda of keeping open the possibility that Lechmere murdered Nichols.

It's all utterly ridiculous and a complete overreaction to what was a non-controversial statement I made to Pierre that Lechmere is connected to Nichols in the sense that he found her body. In doing so, I was excluding no possibilities and promoting no agenda.

I got nothing wrong. So perhaps you can back down with good grace and we can move back to discussing the rather more on-topic subject of PC Long and the apron.

Lechmere was found by Paul.

Did Paul tell anyone that he thought the person he found was the killer?