The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[etenguy]

Isn't all that has been written about the graffito opinion based?Except that there is overwhelming evidence that it existed, what other evidence is there?
All I have said about Long,is that by his own testimony,he was in that building.If the words were written that night,he had opportunity.What evidence denies that.None. What I haven't said is that he wrote it.Do I have to keep repeating that.
You can twist and turn as much as you wish,but what I read in a book,and repeated in my posts,is fact.Word for word.It was written by noted authors.Give one good reason why I should not have believed it to be factual.
Etenguy,
A policeman in court,is just another witness.His evidence is considered no more valuable than any other witness.It requires the same provenence,
Now if you believe policemen cannot be wrong or do not lie,then check out your beliefs.Historically or otherwise there is plenty of evidence they can,and do.

Hi Harry

I do not believe policemen are infallible nor do I believe they are above occasional dishonesty. Nevertheless, they are more likely to be observant (training and experience) and they are more likely to make contemporaneous notes. All this adds to make them generally more reliable than someone unused to observing and relying on memory, all other things being equal.

You ask for evidence that PC Long did not write the graffiti. You rely on his testimony to place him in the doorway (provides opportunity, you suggest). If you are to rely on PC Long's testimony, then you should not omit the rest of his testimony in which he claims to have found the writing:

He was walking his beat in Goulston Street at 2.55am, 30th September 1888, whereupon he found a portion of woman's apron (produced at the inquest) lying in the entrance of the staircase to 108-19 Wentworth Dwellings. There were bloodstains on it and one portion was wet. Above it on the wall of the passage was a message written in chalk. At the inquest, PC Long gave the wording as "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing". The apron piece had not been there when he had passed the spot earlier at 2.20am, though he could not say if the writing had been there also.

You may think he is lying and wrote the message himself, in which case we might ask what leads you to set aside his evidence and reach that conclusion.

[Sam Flynn]

You may think he is lying and wrote the message himself, in which case we might ask what leads you to set aside his evidence and reach that conclusion.

Indeed, and one has to ask oneself about what possible -
and FEASIBLE - reason Long would have had for writing it. As far as I can see, there is none.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, and one has to ask oneself about what possible -
and FEASIBLE - reason Long would have had for writing it. As far as I can see, there is none.

And what possible - and FEASIBLE - reason is there for Long having claimed that the rag was not in place in the Goulston Street doorway at the earlier occasion if this was not so? What evidence is there to point to him being wrong on the score?
Of course, there is the chance that he may have missed it - but going by the standards you apply to the writing and whether Long produced it or not, is not the more likely thing that Long was correct on the matter of the rag?
We cannot use double standards here. Until any evidence is produced - or any reasoning based on the evidence there is - that tells us that Long got this wrong, surely the better option is that he was telling the truth about the rag not being there, just as you accept that he was telling the truth about being the finder and not the writer of the GSG.

I know that we have been down this avenue before, but this, I find, is a very good occasion for reviving the discussion. Just like Harry, you are inventing an unsubstantiated scenario, suggesting a possibility for which there is no evidence at all. And just like Harrys scenario, I find that yours must stand back to the information given at the inquest by Long until any reason other than pure invention can be supplied that offers a provably superior alternative to Longs story.

If Long had never been asked the question about the rag or offered his information with no question, your take would be the first hand alternative. It would be the logical thing, though certainly not the only viable alternative. The moment Long gives his evidence and says that the rag was not there, his alternative takes precedence over yours.

That´s how evidence works.

I am not going any further into this, since I have neither the time or the inclination at present. But it had to be said, Gareth.

[Trevor Marriott]

The thing is, though, that we don't generally question things we're told unless we have a reason for doing so.

But Historical facts are there to be questioned, and not readily accepted as being correct. They are there to be proved or disproved as best they can be given the passage of time. If they cannot be proved conclusively either way, but a doubt can be created surrounding one some or all of the facts and that is all that is needed, a doubt, then we have to say that the historical facts relied upon are unsafe and should not be readily accepted as being correct.

This is where in the Ripper case, the historians have their heads buried in the sand. Time and time again we see the Historical facts and evidence being brought into question, and time and time again we see replies from Historians, asking for evidence, facts etc. If there was real and proper irrefutable evidence then it would change the historical facts but there is not, so we are left to assess and evaluate those historical facts that have been left to us, and what modern day investigative work can bring to the table.

When a real and proper doubt is created about a specific issue and if it is a genuine supported doubt, then it should now stand along side the original theory for those who are interested in this mystery to assess and evaluate what is presented to them, and for those Historians to grow a pair and come out and accept the historical facts are unsafe.

The trouble is that as I see it many cant accept, and will not accept the fact that much of the what The Ripper mystery is built on is unsafe to totally rely on.

You said previous that we cant look on this as a murder investigation. I disagree. We have the witness statements we can look at them and see the flaws in them, we are now able to question the medical evidence, we have modern day evidence to question what has been written by some of the senior police officials, we can show flaws in may of the main issues in the mystery, and despite what you and others say, all of what is now put forward to question the old accepted theories cant all be wrong, and it is totally wrong to believe that all that was said and done in 1888 and the years that followed is 100% accurate.

How Historians on here can look at 10 differing newspaper reports of the same occurrence, and pick the bones out of each, to make up what they believe to be an accurate account is really incomprehensible.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

And what possible - and FEASIBLE - reason is there for Long having claimed that the rag was not in place in the Goulston Street doorway at the earlier occasion if this was not so? What evidence is there to point to him being wrong on the score?

It is entirely feasible that he missed it the first time around. It's a simple matter of physics, biology and psychology.

Of course, there is the chance that he may have missed it - but going by the standards you apply to the writing and whether Long produced it or not, is not the more likely thing that Long was correct on the matter of the rag?

The standards I'm applying to the GSG relate to Long's motivation for deliberately writing it, for which I find no feasible reasons. I'm in no way suggesting that he was "motivated" to deliberately miss the apron the first time around, so these are totally different concerns.

We cannot use double standards here.

Not applicable.

I am not going any further into this, since I have neither the time or the inclination at present. But it had to be said, Gareth.

No it didn't. It's an entirely different matter, as only a little thought on your part should have made obvious. Your accusation of my applying double-standards is baseless and, frankly, insulting.

[harry]

Fisherman
I have not invented any scenario.It is Long's evidence that puts him(Long) in that particular building.There is no evidence that the writing was written before that night,and I have never claimed there is evidence Long wrote it.Just that there was opportunity.Just as some people believe the murderer had the opportunity,though he,unlike Long,cannot be placed in the building
As far as you can see Sam,and can you see all the way?

Etenguy,
Can you give an example of an actual case where a policemn's evidence was preferred,just because he was a policeman,in a court of law.
In the case of Long, I was not comparing his testimony with that of another person,so what's your point.There was no other testimony presented that conflicted with Long's.
All evidence can be challenged.It happens in courts on a daily basis,and I am sure had there been a trial,his e vidence would have been.

[Sam Flynn]

How Historians on here can look at 10 differing newspaper reports of the same occurrence, and pick the bones out of each, to make up what they believe to be an accurate account is really incomprehensible

That's how the historical method works, Trevor, and whether you like it or not, this is as much a matter for historical research as it is for criminal investigation - if, indeed, there is much of a distinction between the two; I rather hope that criminal investigators apply the same rigour to examining their sources as an historian would. If not, we're all in trouble.

You speak of modern investigative techniques but some of the "new ideas" seem to be based on as much rigour as the speculative fancies of Leonard Matters and Donald McCormick. Give me the tried and trusted tools of the historical method, science and logic any day.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: It is entirely feasible that he missed it the first time around. It's a simple matter of physics, biology and psychology.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, and I am not challenging that at all. Of course it is feasible/possible that he missed it the first time around. The problem is, though, that he very clearly stated that he was able to say that the apron was not there. Of course, he may have been saying that without knowing, but the crux is that there is absolutely nothing to substantiate such a thing.
It is not, and it never was about whether he COULD have missed it - it is, and was always, about how he stated that yes, he was able to say that it was not there. That means that the only evidene we have tells us that the rag was not in place at the first occasion, and if that was true, it would be discarding very important evidence not to accept Longs words.

Can we please NOT have a discussion about whether people CAN miss things, and instead have one where we acknowledge that once the only existing evidence points against any such miss on Longs behalf, we need to take that on board?

The standards I'm applying to the GSG relate to Long's motivation for deliberately writing it, for which I find no feasible reasons.

Harry´s suggestion was seemingly only meant to point to possibilities - he does not believe that Long wrote it, as far as I understand. But strictly speaking, he was in that doorway and COULD therefore be the writer. But just as you say, there is no reason at all to think he did, and one must consider that it would be in direct conflict with his professional role as a policeman.
So you are applying the correct standards, I find: Since there is no evidence telling us he was the writer, and no discernable reason for him to have lied about it, the best guess must be that he did not write it.
What I am wondering is why you do not apply the same standards to the rag? Long had a duty as a professional not to lie, and there is no evidence pointing to him doing so, plus he had no reason to say that he knew if he did not. Not a living soul can take in every item in his environment, and the coroner opened up for Long to say that he did not know, by asking him if he was able to tell.
So going by your standards, let´s acknowledge that on balance, the better bid is that the rag was not there on the early occasion.

I'm in no way suggesting that he was "motivated" to deliberately miss the apron the first time around, so these are totally different concerns.

The matters lend themselves quite well to a comparison, I find - it is all about how we need to ask for evidence before we suggest something that is in conflict with the material at hand as an actually better option. That is just bonkers, I´m afraid. The suggestion that he could have missed out MUST be made, that´s not the problem. The problem lies in the elevation of that suggestion to a position as the better option.

Not applicable.

I beg to differ. And we need not use comparisons at all, of course - making the assumption that Long was wrong is and remains baseless with or without comparisons. Not impossible at all, of course - just baseless.

No it didn't.

Yes, it did. Sorry but there you are.

It's an entirely different matter, as only a little thought on your part should have made obvious. Your accusation of my applying double-standards is baseless and, frankly, insulting.

I am sorry if you feel offended by how I see things, Gareth. But it could also be suggested that the insult around here is your hint that I did not do "a little thought". The fact is I did a lot of thinking. It is actually in line with your suggestion that people may miss out on things that you may have done so on that score. If you offer that matter some little thought you may realize that . Alternatively, you may not. Or you may do so, but fail to acknowledge it.
Whichever way, Longs evidence cannot be challenged on factual grounds, and it therefore applies that his assertion that the rag was not in place at the early occasion is more viable than any reasoning that Long "probably" missed it. That is unquestionable, I´m afraid.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman
I have not invented any scenario.

Yes, you have invented the scenario that Long wrote the GSG. I know that you are not stating it as something you believe in, but you have neverthless invented the scenario as such.
It is in no way a crime to do so, Harry, and I am in no way criticising you for doing it.

[Trevor Marriott]

All evidence can be challenged.It happens in courts on a daily basis,and I am sure had there been a trial,his evidence would have been.

.

Hi Harry
And this is what some cant get their heads round.

Yes, we accept that there are ambiguities in the evidence, and the facts that were, and have been presented from 1888. We also accept that these were never tested back then. But to a degree we can test them today, and come to an answer as to whether they can be totally relied on.

The term beyond a reasonable doubt is often neglected on here. Weighing up the old facts against the new, can those who support the old facts be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that all from 1888 is safe and reliable?

If they say yes, then they are not only lying, but fooling themselves.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Etenguy,
Can you give an example of an actual case where a policemn's evidence was preferred,just because he was a policeman,in a court of law.

Christie had worked as a policeman. His evidence was favoured over Evans´and Evans was hung. And all the while the judge and jury knew that Christie had a rap sheet involving sexual assault, I believe. And fraud. I may misremember the details, but that was the gist of things.

The legal system is not supposed to favour any witnesses over others. But the legal system is championed by people, and people will typically believe in certain types of witnesses whereas others will be disbelieved. Compare how black americans are sentenced to death wheras white americans get off with ten years for the same type of crimes, for example.

It SHOULD be fair. It is not. That´s the simple truth. Much is about appearances, sadly.

[harry]

Well and truly stated Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's how the historical method works, Trevor, and whether you like it or not, this is as much a matter for historical research as it is for criminal investigation - if, indeed, there is much of a distinction between the two; I rather hope that criminal investigators apply the same rigour to examining their sources as an historian would. If not, we're all in trouble.

You speak of modern investigative techniques but some of the "new ideas" seem to be based on as much rigour as the speculative fancies of Leonard Matters and Donald McCormick. Give me the tried and trusted tools of the historical method, science and logic any day.

But can you not see the flaws in many of the old accepted theories when they are now tested. But time and time again we see feeble explanations. or made up explanations, put forward in attempts to negate a doubt.

Tried and trusted tools of the historical method, science and logic are never on their own going to solve a murder case. In fact the method adopted of picking the bones out of 10 newspaper reports and coming up with what is then believed to be a definitive answer is ridiculous, especially if you cannot prove that all the reports were compiled at the time by reporters who were actually present.

Especially as The Newspaper lists on here show at least 60 different newspapers who printed details of inquests and other relevant reports. They are from the length and breadth of the country?Not to mention hundreds of other newspaper articles from around the world who also reported on the murders. of which we see articles quoted from on here regularly.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Fisherman,
Christie was in the Specials.Not nearly the same thing,but apart from that, his evidence was accepted as superior to Evans..However it is also accepted that Christie lied,so if you wish to draw comparison with Long,perhaps you will accept that Long also could have lied.

[Sam Flynn]

Fisherman,
Christie was in the Specials.Not nearly the same thing,but apart from that, his evidence was accepted as superior to Evans..However it is also accepted that Christie lied,so if you wish to draw comparison with Long,perhaps you will accept that Long also could have lied.

Why, though? What possible benefit could he have gained from writing the message?