Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[GUT]

G'day DRoy

Are some of us making things difficult by believing Long?

Or are some of us not believng Long to make things easy/easier?

[DRoy]

Or are some of us not believng Long to make things easy/easier?

Hi GUT,

Easier? Yes I guess you're right, however I could use... more likely, more plausible, more probable, more feasible, straightforward, uncomplicated...I could go on but I think you get my point.

One policeman being mistaken or endless theories where none of the words above could realistically be used?

Cheers
DRoy

[GUT]

G'day DRoy

As a purely personal guess, 125 years later, and worth less than nothing.

I personally think P C Long simply missed it first time round, but I have to go where the evidence leads me and at this distance I just cannot decide, so any hypothesis you come up with has to take both possibilities into account or it must fail.

[Fisherman]

I think we start playing a dangerous game when we start discounting witnesses statements just because their statement seem to complicate things and we have no other solid reason to discount their Story- because where does it end?

A very sound reflection, Abby!

I look at the matter this way:

Long did discover the rag at the later stage.

It therefore applies that at this stage, he did a thorough enough search to accomplish this.

So here we have evidence that as Alfred Long did his tour of Goulston Street at around 2.55, he did it in a fashion that ensured his finding the rag in the doorway.

This means that if he missed the rag at 2.20, he reasonably did things differently at that stage. Why would we think he did?

The reasonable thing to predispose is of course that he did things in the same way at 2.20 as he did at 2.55. The better guess is therefore that the rag was not there at the earlier stage.

The litmus paper, if you like, is how Long expressed things at the inquest. If he had wawered and been uncertain, then we should doubt that he did the search in the same manner at 2.20 as at 2.55.

But he did not wawer. He was very certain: It was not there at 2.20.

The outcome is obvious: even if it sounds a simpler solution to accept that Long missed the apron at 2.20, we need to accept that the evidence is very much against it. And - just like Abby says - we also need to accept that we are dealing with a killer who seemingly did not adjust to the norms laid down by society. Why would we expect him to choose the simple solution when given a choice?
More pertinently, how do we know that the solution he chose did not appear as the simplest and best solution to him, even if it involved depositing the rag in the doorway at a later stage?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sunbury]

Long and his notebook

I am new here still. I see great weight placed on Long not having his notebook with him at the Inquest. A heinous crime it seems but to me its completely irrelevant. He went and got his Notebook, didn't he? And his Notebook confirmed what he said? So how does not having his Notebook change anything about what was written in it? Isn't that the core of the matter?

[Fisherman]

I am new here still. I see great weight placed on Long not having his notebook with him at the Inquest. A heinous crime it seems but to me its completely irrelevant. He went and got his Notebook, didn't he? And his Notebook confirmed what he said? So how does not having his Notebook change anything about what was written in it? Isn't that the core of the matter?

I think the reasoning goes along the lines of Long being sloppy since he did not bring his notebook, and if Long was sloppy, then he probably did not check the doorway in Goulston Street properly, and therefore we may conclude that he simply missed the rag at 2.20.
I don´t buy this reasoning at all. We have conclusive evidence that Long was not sloppy at 2.55, and by reasoning, he would perform his duties in the same manner every time he passed the street.

So much as some posters would like to use the "forgotten" note book as evidence that Long would have missed the rag at 2.20, the two issues are of course not related. A policeman may be extremely diligent when checking doorways, and still not bring his notebook to an inquest. Simple as.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I am new here still. I see great weight placed on Long not having his notebook with him at the Inquest. A heinous crime it seems but to me its completely irrelevant. He went and got his Notebook, didn't he? And his Notebook confirmed what he said? So how does not having his Notebook change anything about what was written in it? Isn't that the core of the matter?

Sometimes it takes a breath of fresh air to remind others of what is relevant

Welcome Sunbury.
What you may see quite often here is if a witness can't be shown to be mistaken the next step is to go for character assassination.

[Abby Normal]

A very sound reflection, Abby!

I look at the matter this way:

Long did discover the rag at the later stage.

It therefore applies that at this stage, he did a thorough enough search to accomplish this.

So here we have evidence that as Alfred Long did his tour of Goulston Street at around 2.55, he did it in a fashion that ensured his finding the rag in the doorway.

This means that if he missed the rag at 2.20, he reasonably did things differently at that stage. Why would we think he did?

The reasonable thing to predispose is of course that he did things in the same way at 2.20 as he did at 2.55. The better guess is therefore that the rag was not there at the earlier stage.

The litmus paper, if you like, is how Long expressed things at the inquest. If he had wawered and been uncertain, then we should doubt that he did the search in the same manner at 2.20 as at 2.55.

But he did not wawer. He was very certain: It was not there at 2.20.

The outcome is obvious: even if it sounds a simpler solution to accept that Long missed the apron at 2.20, we need to accept that the evidence is very much against it. And - just like Abby says - we also need to accept that we are dealing with a killer who seemingly did not adjust to the norms laid down by society. Why would we expect him to choose the simple solution when given a choice?
More pertinently, how do we know that the solution he chose did not appear as the simplest and best solution to him, even if it involved depositing the rag in the doorway at a later stage?

All the best,
Fisherman

Bingo fish.

And I might add this was a large piece of white apron. Pretty hard to miss I would think.

[Hunter]

In my mind PC Long's character doesn't have to be an issue in making a reasonable hypothesis as to when the apron was placed where he eventually found it. There's enough evidence and known circumstances to reason that it is quite possible - maybe even probable - that the apron had been there as much as an hour before it was found.

[Fisherman]

In my mind PC Long's character doesn't have to be an issue in making a reasonable hypothesis as to when the apron was placed where he eventually found it. There's enough evidence and known circumstances to reason that it is quite possible - maybe even probable - that the apron had been there as much as an hour before it was found.

Reason? Anybody can reason about anything.

... but I´m afraid the truth of the matter is that there is no evidence at all telling us that the apron was in that doorway an hour before it was found. Speculation only can place it there at 2.20 - and it´s speculation that goes against the only REAL evidence we have on the matter: Longs assertion that it was not there at 2.20.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

If PC Long is suggested to have missed the apron once, he is really deemed to have missed it twice.

As Long passed the spot at 2:55, then his timing also suggests he passed there at 1:55, give or take...

Did he miss it twice, or perhaps it just wasn't there at either passing?

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Or was deposited between 1.55 and 2.55 and he missed it once.

We also have no idea how dirty it was, ie how well it blended in.

[Hunter]

Reason? Anybody can reason about anything.

Well, anybody can believe they can I suppose.

[Wickerman]

G'day Jon

Or was deposited between 1.55 and 2.55 and he missed it once.

Indeed, and that interpretation requires us to accept the killer took his time, because it is not an 11+ minute walk/jog from Mitre Sq. to Goulston St.
(According to Watkins the killer was gone by 1:44am)

Or, he took the longer route via Aldgate High St. and then north on Goulston St. which does nothing for the theory he was headed home in an easterly direction from Mitre Sq. But then he should have run by PC Harvey.

Just more complications..

[GUT]

G'day Jon

But whatever time it was left there, if the killer left it it's a complication.

Because, as I see it either:

It was left prior to 1:55 and missed a couple of times. OR

It was left later than we would reasonably expect, if the killer went straight there. OR

He wandered around with the blood and fecal smeared apron for a period of time. OR

He went somewhere and then came back out again to dispose of the apron. OR

Someone else left it there.

Anyway I look at it, it is an enigma, wrapped in a puzzle.