Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

Was he in the habit of suppressing to look on the right hand side of doorway floors?

Not "suppressing to look" - it just wasn't his job to look for discarded pieces of junk. How many times must this be pointed out before it sinks in?

Was there an overwhelming statistical overweight of bloodied rags being positioned to the left hand side of doorways?

What's that got to do with it? It was a dreary night, the apron had been chucked inside a darkened passageway, the bloodstains were only apparent in close-up with a lamp on, and it was not Long's responsibility to notice every bit of litter on his beat. It simply wasn't.

And Iīm afraid that renders your example useless, more or less, since it builds a case from a preconception of where the material was to be found.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. My example demonstrates that people can miss seeing things that are in their field of vision, and that they can be quite convinced that an object wasn't there, when it was present all the time.

[Sam Flynn]

Let me see now - you had placed your papers on the left side of the desk, where you normally donīt put them. And since you donīt normally put them there, you were not expecting to find them there either, yeah?

Let's not drag this out, Fish. It's perfectly simple: I was sure that the papers were not on my desk - and actually told people that - but they were there all along.

[Fisherman]

Wrong. I wasn't expecting them to be there, because I don't normally put my paperwork there. So I didn't notice them... but I still swore blind to my colleagues that they weren't there! And, because I was so adamant, my colleagues too must have assumed that I'd "taken a look" - indeed, I thought I must have looked there, but I clearly hadn't.

So, yes - the EXACT same with Long, I'd suggest.

Let me see now - you had placed your papers on the left side of the desk, where you normally donīt put them. And since you donīt normally put them there, you were not expecting to find them there either, yeah?

Then, assuming to find the papers to the right hand side, you did not pay any true attention to the left hand side. You thought afterwards that you had scanned both sides of the desk, but your focus was always on the right hand side, and you subconciously supressed your ability to check the left hand side out with the same efficiency.

Now, Gareth, how does that apply to our boy Long?

Was he in the habit of suppressing to look on the right hand side of doorway floors?

Was there an overwhelming statistical overweight of bloodied rags being positioned to the left hand side of doorways?

I donīt think so.

And Iīm afraid that renders your example useless, more or less, since it builds a case from a preconception of where the material was to be found. No such preconception could have played a role in our case.

... and I still want a reaction to why you think you were thoroughly amazed. Was it perhaps because you would have expected to find the papers yourself? If so, which deductions may we draw from that?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

It is the EXACT same thing with Long. He stated that the apron was not there at 2.20. The reasonable thing to expect is that he had taken a look, otherwise he would not be able to say, right?

Wrong. I wasn't expecting them to be there, because I don't normally put my paperwork there. So I didn't notice them... but I still swore blind to my colleagues that they weren't there! And, because I was so adamant, my colleagues too must have assumed that I'd "taken a look" - indeed, I thought I must have looked there, but I clearly hadn't.

So, yes - the EXACT same with Long, I'd suggest.

[Sam Flynn]

... to conclude that he could have been wrong or to conclude that he probably was?

To conclude that he was wrong. Taking all factors into account that's probably the safest conclusion, irrespective of what Long may have genuinely believed to have been the truth.

[Fisherman]

He was human too. That's all we need to know.

... to conclude that he could have been wrong or to conclude that he probably was?

You need to read the whole post, Gareth.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

This is a VERY useful example, Gareth! A first class choice, if I may say so.

And why?

Because I'm human.

I somehow wonder why you make the case though? Surely not as a comparison with the Long case, where both you and I know that we DON`T have the whole chain of events?

He was human too. That's all we need to know.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: I really couldn't care less what happened to Long later in his career, or earlier in his career, for that matter. I only care about what happened on the night he walked down Goulston Street.

Fine. Then we can rule out any discussion on his shortcomings, since we do not know anything at all about that ON THE PARTICULAR NIGHT IN WHICH YOU ARE INTERESTED:

No, no, no! That has never been my contention. My point is, simply, that - being human - he could easily have overlooked the apron the first time round. Just that. And I'm sticking to it, because it's perfectly reasonable. In fact...

I mislaid some paperwork at the office only this Thursday, and I looked everywhere for them, in all the obvious places, with no success. I was almost literally tearing my hair out with annoyance that I couldn't remember where they were.

So, imagine my surprise when the colleague who sits on the adjoining desk to my left, came into work on Friday morning and said he'd picked them up from my desk after I left for a half-day workshop, and locked them away for safe keeping. In other words, they'd been in front of my eyes for three or four hours, but I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff. It's a small desk, by the way.

Sample of (genuine) conversation:

"Did you leave them on your desk when you left for the workshop?"

"No, they definitely weren't, because I'd have seen them".

But they were on my desk. All along.


This is a VERY useful example, Gareth! A first class choice, if I may say so.

And why?

Because we have the whole chain of events. We know what you said, how you reasoned, and we know where your papers were all the time. We therefore have all the evidence we need to make a clear case. Bazinga!

I somehow wonder why you make the case though? Surely not as a comparison with the Long case, where both you and I know that we DON`T have the whole chain of events?
Or, to be more prudent, if we choose not to rely on Long, we donīt have it.
If we DO rely on him, then we also DO have the full chain.

And if you donīt use the example as a comparison with Long, then what is it for? To prove that people overlook things at times?
You do not need to make such a lengthy example to prove that - I already knew it.

But let me help you to see what I am arguing here!

You were amazed to find out that the papers had been on your desk all the time and that you had missed them nevertheless, right?

Why? Why were you amazed?

Because, Gareth, it is not a 50/50 chance that you fail to find your papers in this manner. It is a very unusual thing.
You marvelled at what had happened, you were flabbergasted by it - since in 99 per cent of the cases when you have searched a spot thoroughly, looking for something, you have also found that thing - IF IT WAS THERE.

This time that mechanism failed you, and you were amazed.

It is the EXACT same thing with Long. He stated that the apron was not there at 2.20. The reasonable thing to expect is that he had taken a look, otherwise he would not be able to say, right?

We can probably rule out him expecting all bloody rags to be placed to the left in doorways, thus missing out? Yes?

Anyway, you are suggesting that he could amazingly have overlooked the rag, just as you amazingly overlooked your papers.

And he could have!

... but just as in your case, it also applies that Long too would have been able to make his check and get it right in almost all cases (arguably, it is also more difficult to overlook bloody rags in doorways than papers on a normally paperfilled desk).

No, Gareth, it is quite alright to state that people sometimes overlook things.
But it is totally, totally wrong to elevate this knowledge to a probability in Longīs case! The more probable thing is that he was correct - as you normally are when you do this exercise.

Itīs in the rare cases when you are wrong that amazement comes along. That tells the story. Any suggestion that Long may have been mistaken must play a lesser role than the suggestion that Long was right.

And you just showed us why. If you had NOT been amazed by the paper business, you would have had a case for Long being mistaken. If you had actually expected overlook the papers even if you knew that they were there, you would have had a case for it being the better suggestion if Long missed out.

But it would reflect a crackpot world. We ARE amazed when these things happen.

the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I'll address your other points for completeness, Fish.

And not only that, you apparently also extrapolate that it is more credible that he was under the influence that night than not.

No, I do not extrapolate anything from his previous, or future character.

He was the man who found the rag and the GSG at 2.55, proving himself worthy of this sort of task.

That task being... spotting the apron at 2:55. Doesn't mean it wasn't there earlier. In fact, it must have been there earlier - whether it was there as early as 2:00-2:20 is perfectly possible, if he overlooked it. And, as Halse said, it was easy to overlook.

He was equally certain that the rag was not in place at 2.20 (and I suggest that he uttered his words with emphasis and an air of total confidence - disprove that if you can!

See my "missing paperwork" experience.

The rest is mumbo-jumbo in relation to the isolated event - you have no idea at all in what shape Long was on the night in question. You are going to have to admit that he was up to scratch half an hour after the events where you accuse Long of having been careless, sloppy, drunken or whatever it is you accuse him of.

I'm "accusing" him of being human. Unless he was an android or one of the Illuminati, I think I'm on safe ground there.

And I state that it therefore applies that he probably did the same at 2.20, and that he in all probability was not significantly affected by alcohol on either occasion

I don't think he was at all affected by alcohol either. Although, interestingly, I can't prove that he wasn't.

[Fisherman]

I'm not talking about 'many a serial killer'. I'm talking about the vast majority of killers who want to get away as quickly as possible. I used this as a point in an argument. If you want to argue that most killers like to hang out and see what happens, that's fine, but silly. Of course this means that the ripper was more likely to have wanted to get away quickly than not as he fits into this concept. Why you want to bring Lechmere into everything doesn't help matters.

Mike

If, yes. But what if I donīt - and what if I argue that you would know that?

Youīre a bright fellow. You know what I mean.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

... but I trust you see what Iīm getting at with the example anyway?

Check out my "missing paperwork" example, Fish.

ATB

[Fisherman]

That was not anger, but pain born out of sheer frustration.

I should have known - you somehow do not come across as an angry man

... but I trust you see what Iīm getting at with the example anyway?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Many a serial killer has witnessed about how they get less and less worried about getting caught as they proceed with their killings, ending up with a feeling that they can do whatever they want and stay uncaught just the same.
I know that this complicates the simplistic picture you paint, but it must be realized nevertheless.

What is simplistic is taking one man's one-line statement as definitive proof that the apron wasn't there at 2:20, whilst ignoring the statement of another that the apron's location in the building meant it could be easily overlooked. It is also simplistic to overlook the frailties of human perception, the logistical choices confronting a man on the run (serial killer or otherwise; I personally don't make a distinction), and simple geography.

[Sam Flynn]

I realize that Long was sacked, and I know that this was due to drinking problems. It is not guesswork that this was so. The man obviously developed a drinking problem, and he was warned and ultimately dismissed from the Met.

I really couldn't care less what happened to Long later in his career, or earlier in his career, for that matter. I only care about what happened on the night he walked down Goulston Street.

That is the kind of argument you have against Long: he had at some time been found to drink. From this you extrapolate that he would consequentially be prone to miss aprons in doorways.

No, no, no! That has never been my contention. My point is, simply, that - being human - he could easily have overlooked the apron the first time round. Just that. And I'm sticking to it, because it's perfectly reasonable. In fact...

I mislaid some paperwork at the office only this Thursday, and I looked everywhere for them, in all the obvious places, with no success. I was almost literally tearing my hair out with annoyance that I couldn't remember where they were.

So, imagine my surprise when the colleague who sits on the adjoining desk to my left, came into work on Friday morning and said he'd picked them up from my desk after I left for a half-day workshop, and locked them away for safe keeping. In other words, they'd been in front of my eyes for three or four hours, but I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff. It's a small desk, by the way.

Sample of (genuine) conversation:

"Did you leave them on your desk when you left for the workshop?"

"No, they definitely weren't, because I'd have seen them".

But they were on my desk. All along.

[The Good Michael]

I'm not talking about 'many a serial killer'. I'm talking about the vast majority of killers who want to get away as quickly as possible. I used this as a point in an argument. If you want to argue that most killers like to hang out and see what happens, that's fine, but silly. Of course this means that the ripper was more likely to have wanted to get away quickly than not as he fits into this concept. Why you want to bring Lechmere into everything doesn't help matters.

Mike