From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

That you believe you can define what that phrase means is indeed amusing, it is also rather sad.

Can you give any examples of a very short time being used when referring to suspects being kept under police surveillance for a period as long as seven months?

[Elamarna]

Can you give any examples of a very short time being used when referring to suspects being kept under police surveillance for a period as long as seven months?

Do you not accept that it's a subjective phrase?
That such as no clear meaning?

Yes or no will do.

Yet, you wish me to spend my time researching , who knows how many hundreds of thousands of police reports,( if they are actually available) to find examples to fit that very specific criteria?

I have better and more constructive research to do.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Do you not accept that it's a subjective phrase?
That such as no clear meaning?

Yes or no will do.

Yet, you wish me to spend my time researching , who knows how many hundreds of thousands of police reports,( if they are actually available) to find examples to fit that very specific criteria?

I have better and more constructive research to do.

Why don't we ask our resident ex-detective to adjudicate?

After all, the question relates to police surveillance of a suspect.

[Elamarna]

Why don't we ask our resident ex-detective to adjudicate?

After all, the question relates to police surveillance of a suspect.

No one can adjudicate over the meaning of a subjective phrase written 100 years ago. To suggest one can is unrealistic and I suggest a touch disingenuous .

I also suggest you check the actual record of said individual.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

No one can adjudicate over the meaning of a subjective phrase written 100 years ago. To suggest one can is unrealistic and I suggest a touch disingenuous .

I also suggest you check the actual record of said individual.

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?

[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.

[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]

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]

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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.