Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Fish,

"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in"

Instead of worrying about the word supposition so much why not make this easy for everyone and seperate for us all the actual evidence you rely on and all the 'filler' you provide that make your posts so colorful? This way we might make sense of it all.

If your posts are purposely fiction then perhaps have a disclaimer so we don't think you are relying on the evidence you preach about. We get confused when you tell other posters to comment on evidence yet fill your own posts with suppos..oops scrap that...'fantasy filler'.

The only filler I suggested as a possible time-gap between Eddowes' murder and when the graffito was found was Long missing it at 2:20. You have come up with an opposite scenario where there is no actual evidence (please don't again say Long's testimony is evidence) and the entire time-gap becomes 'fantasy filler'.

I will do my best to not use the word supposition again so that your future posts don't have to refer to that instead of attempting to offer a retort with value.

Cheers
DRoy

You need to chill somewhat, DRoy. Blood pressure and all that. You - and I - are welcome to suggest anything about the case. And we do, of course.

No theory can be "filled in" with anything but conjecture. The suggestion that Long was lax is conjecture. The suggestion that Lechmere was the killer is also conjecture.

By the way, you are not the only one yelling "Supposition" whenever such conjecture is presented. Many do - although some have a better grasp about what suppositions are, whereas others struggle with the term.
So my post was not aimed specifically at you - it was much more aimed at the inability of many people to realize that conjecture must be used to build a case. Any case, in fact, when it comes to the Ripper realm.

By the way: Longs testimony IS evidence. As I said, what he did when he testified is coined "giving evidence before a jury", and that does not mean that he gave the jury knives, aprons and footprints.

Sorry if I offended you, DRoy. I did not aim to. You are as welcome to your wiews as anybody.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

I'm not offended at all, totally chilled out, and blood pressure as far as I can tell all good!

I've moved on from 'that word' so I hope that means we can be friends again!

By the way: Longs testimony IS evidence. As I said, what he did when he testified is coined "giving evidence before a jury", and that does not mean that he gave the jury knives, aprons and footprints.

I understand the words Fish but what people testify to is not actual evidence. When you read any inquest you are going to have situations that don't add up (people testifying to being at the same place at the same time, sister's believing their sister to be dead when they aren't, people being seen alive when they were pronounced dead hours earlier, etc). So you can't say it is evidence. Witnesses are testifying what they believe happened, believe they saw, or even lying about what they saw or what happened, etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

I'm not offended at all, totally chilled out, and blood pressure as far as I can tell all good!

I've moved on from 'that word' so I hope that means we can be friends again!

Good on you - and me! Taken!

I understand the words Fish but what people testify to is not actual evidence.

Wikipedia:

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding, as well as the quality and quantity of evidence that are necessary to fulfil the legal burden of proof. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence.

... which means I disagree.

When you read any inquest you are going to have situations that don't add up (people testifying to being at the same place at the same time, sister's believing their sister to be dead when they aren't, people being seen alive when they were pronounced dead hours earlier, etc). So you can't say it is evidence. Witnesses are testifying what they believe happened, believe they saw, or even lying about what they saw or what happened, etc.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. But evidence does not need to represent the truth! It is - as stated in the Wikipedia entry - anything given in support of an assertion, right or wrong.
The fact that people will contradict each other during legal processes does not detract from this. What Mary Malcolm said about her sister belongs to the evidence of the Stride case, faulty though it is.

I sometimes wonder whether there are natinal discrepancies inbetween how people look upon this issue, but as far as I can tell, Wikipedia represents the exact perception of evidence that I have.

All the best, DRoy! Thanks for your friendly post!

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

I understand the words Fish but what people testify to is not actual evidence.

Cheers
DRoy

Sorry to intervene on this but Fisherman is right. Witness testimony is evidence. When a witness testifies in the witness box the process is known as 'giving evidence'. The value of such evidence has to be weighed in the balance, but there is no basis for any argument that it is not evidence at all. Solicitors in court, when summing up a case will say things like:

"You have heard evidence from witness ........who tells you....." etc.

What people testify is evidence.

[DRoy]

What people testify is evidence.

Colin,

Totally agree with you and Fish, that is what it is called. But let's be realistic here. It must be on the lowest scale of evidence accepted. Witness testimony is brutal and i'm sure you all know that and have seen or read studies on it.

The piece of apron is evidence because it can 100% be proven to belong to the apron that Eddowes was wearing. Long's 'evidence' can't be tested the same way.

If by the English language the two mean the same thing then so be it. To me it is a play on a word and I give clout to one of them and am sceptical about the other...especially when provided with what I would consider overwhelming circumstantial evidence making one logical and the other not so much. My opinion.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Colin,

Totally agree with you and Fish, that is what it is called. But let's be realistic here. It must be on the lowest scale of evidence accepted. Witness testimony is brutal and i'm sure you all know that and have seen or read studies on it.

The piece of apron is evidence because it can 100% be proven to belong to the apron that Eddowes was wearing. Long's 'evidence' can't be tested the same way.

If by the English language the two mean the same thing then so be it. To me it is a play on a word and I give clout to one of them and am sceptical about the other...especially when provided with what I would consider overwhelming circumstantial evidence making one logical and the other not so much. My opinion.

Cheers
DRoy

I think the problem involved in your stance is that we will always have testimonial material where we cannot decide whether it is truthful or not. And we can´t wait until we know before we dub such material evidence, can we? In the Ripper case, we still cannot be sure whether for example Schwartz was on the money or not. And we can´t go around calling it potential evidence, can we?

As for testimonial evidence being the on the lowest scale of evidence accepted, I don´t think that we can say such a thing. We all know - more today than ever before - that witness evidence should be looked upon with sound scepticism. Witness psychology has told us that people who are certain they are right may well be wrong just the same.
But there is also such a thing as corroboration. When two independent witnesses confirm each other, then we are no longer dealing with evidence that belongs to the lower end of a scale, are we?
Depending on the circumstances, witness testimony will range from very reliable to very weak evidence. But it is extremely important and very often crucial to solving cases, so we should be careful about generalizing in a derogatory manner about it, I feel.

I have no problems seeing your point, and I agree with a lot of what you say. But testimony belongs to the evidence nevertheless!

All the best,

Fisherman

PS. Thanks, Colin, for chiming in. Your background makes it very valuable!

[DRoy]

Fish,

Can't say I disagree with the theory of what you've written but it doesn't quite match this particular topic. There isn't secondary witnesses to support Long, the questions asked were vague and the answers just as vague.

I haven't discounted Long because I think he was stupid, blind, lazy, lying, etc. Maybe I don't have the right to question his validity when I have nothing to counter with - other than what I would call sound logic - but the circumstances as they are leave me with doubt the apron was dumped after 2:20 and not before.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Can't say I disagree with the theory of what you've written but it doesn't quite match this particular topic. There isn't secondary witnesses to support Long, the questions asked were vague and the answers just as vague.

I haven't discounted Long because I think he was stupid, blind, lazy, lying, etc. Maybe I don't have the right to question his validity when I have nothing to counter with - other than what I would call sound logic - but the circumstances as they are leave me with doubt the apron was dumped after 2:20 and not before.

Cheers
DRoy

We´ve covered this ground before, so I will try to be short:

Even if Long had had nobody to corroborate him, what he said was still evidence.

He did actually to some degree have corroboration in Halse, saying: "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then."
He of course added "I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron", but he nevertheless offers some little corroboration for what Long said.

I don´t think that either questions or answers were vague. Most certainly, Long was anything but vague: "It was not".

Finally, with respect, I´d be careful to discount Longs certainty because of the circumstances involved - not least since we do not know them other than to a very small degree. When it comes to the killers actions post Eddowes we know nothing at all, apart from the apparent fact that he dropped the apron in Goulston Street. When and why, however, is something we don´t know.

I do not begrudge you the right to feel that Long was wrong. What I am after is the important fact that the only evidence we have speaks for the apron being dropped in the Goulston Street doorway after 2.20. Since the evidence is what it is, the notion that the apron was not in place at 2.20 must take precedence if we treat the matter strictly factually.
Most people do not, which has me worried.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Since the evidence is what it is, the notion that the apron was not in place at 2.20 must take precedence if we treat the matter strictly factually. Most people do not, which has me worried.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Hope all is well with you. The above in italics is the only position someone who approaches these cases like an academic can assume. Well put amigo. I would add to it only that a secondary official source on that street and someone who went past that entranceway during the critical period,... between 1:45am and 2:50am lets say, did not contradict what Long stated with finality. Its the insistence on questioning what seems to be sound testimony based on a belief what the killer did immediately after leaving Mitre that causes this problem.

The facts are as stated above. Which means that its probable that the killer did not drop it on the way to his home directly from Mitre Square, it also means that the killer could have lived about a 15 minute walk West, North or South of Mitre Square, it also would suggest that if the cloth was deliberately placed by the killer that the message, found in very close proximity, would probably be linked with that same person. The implication would clearly be, in that is the case, that someone intended to cast aspersions or "blame" upon the local Jews in the Model Homes, or Jews generally within the neighborhood. Which would explain why senior officials believed the message might cause riot upon the Jews, they believed the message was intended to be derogatory or defamatory.

The apron section was likely intended as a signature. Something like "You'll know who wrote this when you discover the origins of the cloth".

Which would make it possible at least that Kate Eddowes killer was an anti-semetic Gentile living in more respectable quarters than the squalor of the East End.

Hardly the street-sleeping Immigrant Jew madman imagined by so, so many out there. And maybe more like the toff once thought to be a likely candidate, not what some would like to remember.

It just proves that virtually nothing about these particular cases has become transparent.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

Hope all is well with you. The above in italics is the only position someone who approaches these cases like an academic can assume. Well put amigo. I would add to it only that a secondary official source on that street and someone who went past that entranceway during the critical period,... between 1:45am and 2:50am lets say, did not contradict what Long stated with finality. Its the insistence on questioning what seems to be sound testimony based on a belief what the killer did immediately after leaving Mitre that causes this problem.

The facts are as stated above. Which means that its probable that the killer did not drop it on the way to his home directly from Mitre Square, it also means that the killer could have lived about a 15 minute walk West, North or South of Mitre Square, it also would suggest that if the cloth was deliberately placed by the killer that the message, found in very close proximity, would probably be linked with that same person. The implication would clearly be, in that is the case, that someone intended to cast aspersions or "blame" upon the local Jews in the Model Homes, or Jews generally within the neighborhood. Which would explain why senior officials believed the message might cause riot upon the Jews, they believed the message was intended to be derogatory or defamatory.

The apron section was likely intended as a signature. Something like "You'll know who wrote this when you discover the origins of the cloth".

Which would make it possible at least that Kate Eddowes killer was an anti-semetic Gentile living in more respectable quarters than the squalor of the East End.

Hardly the street-sleeping Immigrant Jew madman imagined by so, so many out there. And maybe more like the toff once thought to be a likely candidate, not what some would like to remember.

It just proves that virtually nothing about these particular cases has become transparent.

Cheers

Hi Michael!

I think that fashion is a parameter that enters the Ripper research world every now and then. Things are looked upon in ways that are not necessarily factbased, and become comme il faut anyway.

Long being a liar and the more probable thing being that the apron was in place at 2.20 is one such thing.
Phillips being overtaken by Long and Cadosch is another.
A third matter is Tabrams inclusion in the tally - when I started out, it was herecy to suggest such a thing, but nowadays most people seemingly include her.

The thing is, much as the sentiments change, the facts never do.

As for the GSG, I am anything but sure that the killer had anything to do with it. However, when it was discovered that people had to walk over a smallish bridge, spanning recesses, to get into the doorways, logic dictetes that the killer being the writer becomes a better idea than before. For me, it is still not enough. But I can easily see why some are convinced that the GSG was Jack´s work.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

No, it was that street urchin, Simon DeLafuente's work.

Best of all,
Scotty

[Fisherman]

No, it was that street urchin, Simon DeLafuente's work.

Best of all,
Scotty

... or a troll, perhaps?

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry to intervene on this but Fisherman is right. Witness testimony is evidence. When a witness testifies in the witness box the process is known as 'giving evidence'. The value of such evidence has to be weighed in the balance, but there is no basis for any argument that it is not evidence at all. Solicitors in court, when summing up a case will say things like:

"You have heard evidence from witness ........who tells you....." etc.

What people testify is evidence.

Indeed, Bridewell, but what we very often have in the Ripper case are press agency reports, many of them mere précis or conflated summaries of what was said. These are all-too often read as if they were definitive accounts of proceedings, but they are very far from being that. We should certainly not treat them as if they captured everything with verbatim accuracy.

[Fisherman]

Indeed, Bridewell, but what we very often have in the Ripper case are press agency reports, many of them mere précis or conflated summaries of what was said. These are all-too often read as if they were definitive accounts of proceedings, but they are very far from being that. We should certainly not treat them as if they captured everything with verbatim accuracy.

Myself, I often find that even if we can be sure that there have been several representants from the press present at for example inquests, and even if they all give very similar wordings when picturing what a witness has said, there will still always be those who question it. It is suggested that the press will have been at fault, in spite of the papers unanimously reporting things in similar manners.

The press should not be too much relied upon - but when the different papers corroborate each other in independent takes on things, then we should accept that they are representing things in a correct manner.
Anything else would be to let a useful source of information go to waste.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

The press should not be too much relied upon - but when the different papers corroborate each other in independent takes on things, then we should accept that they are representing things in a correct manner.

Three things, Fish:

1. Press reports often used the same source, via press agencies and the like, for part or all of their articles. That being the case, they're sometimes not quite the "independent" sources we'd like.

2. We're still talking about summaries (some of them in prose) and not verbatim, stenographed transcripts of what was actually said.

3. Space was limited, deadlines had to be met, papers had to sell. All these factors combine to render press reports at times incomplete, misleading and error-prone in varying degrees.

Anything else would be to let a useful source of information go to waste.

Indeed, but we must be very, very careful before drawing any conclusions from them.