Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Double posting

[Sam Flynn]

So the fact that the papers were on the left side of your table had nothing at all to do with your inability to see them?

No. It was an enormous, colourful spreadsheet. And I still missed it. That's the point.

Hereīs some little refreshment on the topic:

"... I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff."

OK - I'll play that game. There wasn't usually anything on my left, so you'd think that something unusual would stand out like a sore thumb. Now a large bundle of A3 paper, containing a spreadsheet with colour-coded cells, should be very noticeable on the left side of my desk. But I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I swore that it wasn't there, when I was asked about it later.

Now, substitute "large bundle of A3 paper... with colour-coded cells" for "whopping great blood-stained apron"; substitute "on the left of my desk" with "in the passageway of WMD". Finally, substitute "But I still didn't notice it" with "But he still didn't notice it", and "I swore" with "he swore".

Except it wasn't a whopping great blood-stained apron, at first glance, was it. It was just an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway.

On which point, I sit next to the window and it was a beautiful sunny morning, but it clearly didn't help me see what was should have been a "unusual" and conspicuous object, when it was barely two feet away from the tip of my nose! What hope poor PC Long?

[Sam Flynn]

Yes - itīs the copy where Halse tells us that the apron was easily overlooked.

Now, come on - that's a low blow. We cleared that up a while back, and it was only a matter of wording. Halse's testimony did show that the apron's detectability would not axiomatically follow to a hominid perambulating the Queen's Highway, owing to its geo-spatial coordinates placing the apron in the covered brick interstice between the thoroughfare and the escalatory apparatus that led upwards to the residential space within 118-119 Wentworth Dwellings of the Model variety.

Not Halse's wording, either, but the same objective meaning as his sworn testimony. The apron was not easy to spot, because it was in the building.

[Fisherman]

No - the item (an inch thick bundle of A3 paper, with a multi-coloured spreadsheet printed on it) was in front of my very eyes (centimetres away from my laptop) but I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I later swore that it was not on my desk at all.

That's the point.

So the fact that the papers were on the left side of your table had nothing at all to do with your inability to see them? That was not the reason or part of the reason that you overlooked them?

Hereīs some little refreshment on the topic:

"... I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff."

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It doesn't, but it could easily locate said item in a Goulston Street passageway earlier than said PC thought it was.

I have no idea what route the killer took after Mitre Square, Gareth. None whatsoever. The idea that he went straight from Mitre Square eastwards, passing Goulston Street a few minutes afterwards is not in line with the evidence, as you know. Up til Long spoke up, the better suggestion was that he did so, but afterwards, it was reduced to the second best suggestion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

And your example shows more than you admit to - it shows that when things are placed on a spot where they are normally not, it is easier to overlook them than otherwise.

No - the item (an inch thick bundle of A3 paper, with a multi-coloured spreadsheet printed on it) was in front of my very eyes (centimetres away from my laptop) but I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I later swore that it was not on my desk at all.

That's the point.

[Sam Flynn]

Then explain it to me - how does a killerīs wish to dispose of an item quickly affect a PC:s ability to find that item?

It doesn't, but it could easily locate said item in a Goulston Street passageway earlier than said PC thought it was.

[Fisherman]

It has rather a lot to do with the issue at hand, Fish, if only you'd think about it, instead of knee-jerking yet another of your "Long must be proved right at all costs" responses.

Then explain it to me - how does a killerīs wish to dispose of an item quickly affect a PC:s ability to find that item?

Incidentally, I am not saying that Long must be proved right at all costs. I am saying that the evidence we have at hand - which is very little - is in favour of him being correct, especially since there is no evidence at all contradicting him.

Churchill said that the allies won the second world war. But Churchill was a drinking man. So who won ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

My example simply shows that people can - and do - overlook things that are there all the time. Furthermore, people can - and do - genuinely believe that an object wasn't there, when it was all along.

Do you find anybody contesting that out here? Anyone? One single soul?? And your example shows more than you admit to - it shows that when things are placed on a spot where they are normally not, it is easier to overlook them than otherwise.

But this little detail you are none to happy to discuss.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And the source for that statement is...? Neither Halse nor Long, for sure. Is there a "Made-Up A to Z" that I haven't heard of?

Yes - itīs the copy where Halse tells us that the apron was easily overlooked.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Some posters have a habit of responding to a one-line post with an entire essay.

About papers on a desk?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

Because that's when it registered, and - for whatever reason - he was minded to take a closer look. I say "for whatever reason"... he might have nipped into the doorway for a pee, for all we know.

He could have done a lot of things. But at 2.55, he set an example. He provided the only sample we have of how he searhed the doorway. And that only sample tells us ... Right!

What "preconceived supposition"?

The preconceived, subconciuos supposition that the papers would not be on the left side.

I overlooked something that was there all the time - nothing unusual in that, and no "preconception" involved.

You said earlier yourself that you missed the papers since you had placed them on the left side.

It's not as if I "don't expect" papers to be on one side of the desk only; but, if I did, one would think that their presence "in the wrong place" would make them stand out even more!

Not if you donīt look carefully on the side they are at, subconsciously predisposing that they wonīt be on the left side.

Yet, I missed them, despite their having been in my line of vision for a long time.

And why? Because you were subconsciously certain that the papers would not be on the left side.
If they had normally been on that side, do you think you would have overlooked them? Of course not.

You make it sound as if the piece of apron was large, which it wasn't, and that it was laid out like a desert-island SOS message improvised from a parachute. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I donīt pretend to know the truth. But I think we are speaking of a rag that would be around 40 centimeters x 20 centimeters, roughly speaking. Is that small in your eyes? Or am I wrong on the size? Do you know the size too? And of course, rags of that size, appearing covered in blood, are a SOS message. Thatīs how Long perceived it, anyhow - he thought somebody had been killed in the building.
Maybe he was a very easily startled man too? As well as drunk and temporarily blind?

There was no "big hunk of rag with blood on it" when Long saw it from the street. He saw "something", off-white, almost certainly crumpled or folded, chucked up against a wall inside the passage, in the semi-darkness of Goulston Street. It was only when he inspected it at close range, and with better light, that any blood would have been apparent.

Once again, I donīt pretend to know the truth. But if he could see it at 2.55, he could see it at 2.55 too. And that was the exact case he argued.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

to say nothing of the likelihood of a killer wanting to dispose of incriminating evidence as soon as possible...

He didnīt - and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?

It has rather a lot to do with the issue at hand, Fish, if only you'd think about it, instead of knee-jerking yet another of your "Long must be proved right at all costs" responses.

[Sam Flynn]

More of the same illusionism.

Charming!

The two examples are incomparable.

My example simply shows that people can - and do - overlook things that are there all the time. Furthermore, people can - and do - genuinely believe that an object wasn't there, when it was all along. The two examples are therefore precisely comparable, and Long was just as susceptible to these phenomena as you or I. To pretend otherwise, I suggest, only serves to demonstrate how important it is to you that Long's testimony should be beyond question. Well, bad luck, it's not.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

What "large rag thing"?

Any large rag thing that compares to Eddowes apron - which was a large rag thing.

What "whopper of a rag"?

Any whopper of a rag that compares to Eddowes apron - which was a whopper of a rag.

What "middle of the floor"?

Any middle of any floor that compares to the very small, very easily overlooked floor of the Goulston Street doorway.

What's particularly "magical" about overlooking something?

In my example, it was missing out to see a large whopper of a rag in the middle of a smal floor one second, only to suddenly seeing it a second later. Like finding a street empty, closing your eyes fort a second, and then finding the street full of parked cars the next moment.

Magical.

Especially when, according to another reliable witness, it was easy to overlook because of its location in the building.

So, he said it was "easy to overlook"? Did we not discard that suggestion many posts ago? Is it suddenly on again?

You and me are discussing whether Long could have missed the rag if he looked into the doorway. You say he could have, and I also say that ghe could have. But I add - much to your dismay, apparently - that he WOULD NORMALLY NOT HAVE done so. People who look on small floors with large things on them normally see the large things.
Not always.
Normally.

Furthermore, people who are not sure if they saw something normally say so.

And to boot, people who express themselves in very certain terms are normally very certain.
Not always.
Normally.

You can do nothing at all to change that. Not a bit.

... to say nothing about the darkness that prevailed at the time...

Donīt speak to me about darkness, Gareth ...!!!

to say nothing of the fact that it was not a police officer's job to look for litter...

Was it a police officers duty to look for incrimintaing pieces of evidence, possibly knit to a murder case, then? If so, how in the whole world would Long tell in which doorway heīd find one or the other thing...? The rag was "covered in blood", Long stated (but he was probably having drunken hallucinations, of course, of course).

to say nothing of the likelihood of a killer wanting to dispose of incriminating evidence as soon as possible...

He didnīt - and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?

to say nothing of the fact that where the rag was discarded was on a perfectly logical trajectory for someone heading from Mitre Square into the heart of Spitalfields.

Or from Pickfords. But that does not suit YOUR thinking, so letīs not take that into account. The killer does not dance to my flute - he dances to yours. As does Long.

But not the evidence.

The best,
Fisherman