From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Some people may find it amusing that you would suggest that anyone would use the phrase a very short time to mean a period as long as seven months.

Can you give any examples of a very short time being used in that way when referring to suspects being kept under police surveillance?

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

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

A subjective phrase, which means different things to different people.
That you believe you can define what was intended is not only concerning, but highly amusing

Some people may find it amusing that you would suggest that anyone would use the phrase a very short time to mean a period as long as seven months.

Can you give any examples of a very short time being used in that way when referring to suspects being kept under police surveillance?

[Elamarna]

very shortly after

in the Times report quoted by Jeff Hamm in # 336 means about one and a quarter hours - not about seven months.

A subjective phrase, which means different things to different people.
That you believe you can define what was intended is not only concerning, but highly amusing