From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Fiver]

Yet not one medical officer at the Inquest agrees with you.

All of them agree with him that Eddowes was murdered at the site her body was found.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. I was called shortly after two o'clock on Sunday morning, and reached the place of the murder about twenty minutes past two. My attention was directed to the body of the deceased.

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, of No. 34, Jewry-street, Aldgate, deposed: On the morning of Sept. 30 I was called to Mitre-square, and I arrived at five minutes to two o'clock, being the first medical man on the scene of the murder. I saw the position of the body, and I entirely agree with the evidence of Dr. Gordon Brown in that respect.
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

[Tom_Wescott]

Yet not one medical officer at the Inquest agrees with you.

DJA, I'm genuinely interested in hearing this idea of yours out.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.
OK, thanks for that explanation.
I'm in the awkward position of believing in your conclusion (that he went somewhere else before returning to the streets to drop the apron), it's just that I wouldn't have picked that sentence to support that conclusion.

Hi Wickerman,

I actually neither believe nor disbelieve he went somewhere else, though I lean towards he dropped it while leaving the scene. I came across the bit in the Times while looking for the information about the stake out, and while reading that issue I noted how this section struck me as describing two scenerios. It's not official information, as no source is given, but it struck me that maybe the "left and came back" idea was being floated at the time.

- Jeff

[Elamarna]

The difference is I am prepared to consider all the options, to acknowledge the issues with each.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The problem is that you cannot accept that a subjective phrase is open to a great deal of interpretation.
For you there is only one possible interpretation, the one you prefer.

But the one you prefer enables you to keep Anderson's and Swanson's Polish Jew in the dock.

[Elamarna]

It is unfortunate that you cannot see that to interpret a very short time to mean as long as seven months - of round the clock surveillance - in order to explain why someone who was put away after a very short time was not actually put away until nearly seven months later would generally be viewed as fitting the evidence to the suspect.

The problem is that you cannot accept that a subjective phrase is open to a great deal of interpretation.
For you there is only one possible interpretation, the one you prefer.

[Wickerman]

...It was a poor analogy and what you've added hasn't improved your idea. Most likely no one is going to be bothered about racial graffiti on a bus or toilets as there is no sense of community about those places. A wall in a stairwell going into a residential building is different. Perhaps things are different 'downtown' (whatever that means).

[/QUOTE] Why is it different because it is in a stairwell?
If it bothers you - it bothers you, regardless where you see it.

Coincidentally, I saw an interview of two migrants yesterday, the second one Khalid came from Syria, his experience demonstrates what I was saying, that these people have experienced far worse so a little bit of racist scribble isn't going to bother him.

https://youtu.be/dGiNpkZKudM

Around 7.18 in this video the second migrant is asked about racist comments, he tells us that when he left Syria he went to Lebanon to a migrant camp, the locals objected and set the camp on fire, they wanted migrants gone, or dead.
Here in the UK when he faces racism he smiles, it's nothing more than like 'sticks & tones'. What was meant was that old rhyme "Sticks & stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me".
Which is precisely what I was saying, these foreigners (G.S. Jews) have put up with far worse than some infantile scribble, that doesn't really say anything abusive anyway. So, just ignore it, which is what I believe they did.
'Sheltered' white folk might think it should upset any Jews, but in the real world it means nothing. Warren & Arnold were the same, they overreacted in my view.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That's just your interpretation of it.
Some will probably have a similar view to you, some will not.

That you cannot see that one cannot place distinct time frames on subjective phrases is unfortunate, but not surprising given the approach you use.

It is unfortunate that you cannot see that to interpret a very short time to mean as long as seven months - of round the clock surveillance - in order to explain why someone who was put away after a very short time was not actually put away until nearly seven months later would generally be viewed as fitting the evidence to the suspect.

[Elamarna]

It's quite obvious, I suggest, from your response, that you do not dispute what I suggested - because you cannot, just as no-one else would be able to dispute it without his tongue in one cheek.

If a very short time can mean a period as long as seven months, then a short time would have to mean about a year or longer.

And you know it!

That's just your interpretation of it.
Some will probably have a similar view to you, some will not.

That you cannot see that one cannot place distinct time frames on subjective phrases is unfortunate, but not surprising given the approach you use.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

No worries. I've put the statement below to make it easier for me to refer to so I can try and explain how it reads to me (your own reading may differ, of course).

It appears after perpetrating his foul work in Mitre-square the miscreant retraced his steps towards the scene of the crime which he had committed an hour or so earlier.

The bits I've left in bold, one underlined and one in italics, make me think this is referring to JtR having gone distant (perhaps to a bolt hole, though they don't actually say that of course) and then returned. The first bit describes JtR "retracing his steps" and going "towards the scene of the crime". If he was leaving, he would be heading away, and there would be no "retracing of steps". As such, that part of the sentence seems to suggest JtR must have gone passed Goulston Street first, and has now returned to drop the apron.

Also, the 2nd bit, in bolded italics, suggests the time of the apron drop is an hour or so after the crime, which again doesn't fit with the idea that he's dropped it on his initial departure.

Anyway, that's how it reads to me, and perhaps I'm overlooking another interpretation. Happens all the time.

Later in the article, though, the description is much more in line with dropping it as he initially leaves the scene.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.
OK, thanks for that explanation.
I'm in the awkward position of believing in your conclusion (that he went somewhere else before returning to the streets to drop the apron), it's just that I wouldn't have picked that sentence to support that conclusion.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It's quite obvious, I suggest, from your response, that you do not dispute what I suggested - because you cannot, just as no-one else would be able to dispute it without his tongue in one cheek.

If a very short time can mean a period as long as seven months, then a short time would have to mean about a year or longer.

And you know it!

You’re quite wrong. As usual.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's a subjective phrase, used by one individual on that occassion.
What he meant, is beyond any of us knowing, although we can interpret such anyway we like.
That's the problem with a subjective phrase.

It's quite obvious, I suggest, from your response, that you do not dispute what I suggested - because you cannot, just as no-one else would be able to dispute it without his tongue in one cheek.

If a very short time can mean a period as long as seven months, then a short time would have to mean about a year or longer.

And you know it!

[Elamarna]

But if a very short time can mean seven months, then a short time has to mean a year or more.

Do you dispute that?

It's a subjective phrase, used by one individual on that occassion.
What he meant, is beyond any of us knowing, although we can interpret such anyway we like.
That's the problem with a subjective phrase.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That you don't get the phrase is highly subjective. Without pricise meaning, and will be interpreted differently by different people is surprising.

To believe we can second guess what he meant is simply unrealistic.

But if a very short time can mean seven months, then a short time has to mean a year or more.

Do you dispute that?

[Elamarna]

You mean the meaning of the phrase a very short time may have changed radically since 1888?

On what ground?

As you are suggesting that Swanson may have meant a period of about seven months when he wrote a very short time, then do you accept that he would have meant a period of a year or more had he used the phrase a short time?

That you don't get the phrase is highly subjective. Without pricise meaning, and will be interpreted differently by different people is surprising.

To believe we can second guess what he meant is simply unrealistic.