Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

I know that you are sometimes angry ("aaaaaarrrrrggghhhh", was it?).

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

[Fisherman]

I never said the killer was the kind to speed away quickly, though he did in Chapman's, Nichol's and Stride's murders.

Mike

Whoa there, amigo! Iīm sorry, but all we know is that the police did not catch the killer in these cases.

Chapman may have been killed hours before she was found, so we have no idea whether the killer sped away in that case.

Nichols may have been killed by Lechmere, in which case the killer actually stayed put instead of speeding away.

Strideīs killer may have struck at an early stage, and the measured steps Mortimer heard could have been those of the killer, so he may not have sped away in this case either.

Presumptions are all good and well, but they remain presumptions nevertheless. Presuming that Long lied or missed out is just as bad as the presumption that the killer sped away after the three murders you mention.

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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It's not "guesswork" at all, Fish. It's a good, reasoned argument, based on the multiplicity of factors enumerated by Mike in his post immediately above. When good, reasoned arguments are dismissed simply on the basis that one man said otherwise, or man's word is given greater weight than our own experience of the human condition, we may as well go back to the Dark Ages.

I thought we were already there, courtesy of those who will castigate Long unreservedly...?
Look, Gareth, to begin with, I am not dismissing any argument; 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.

It IS, however, guesswork that it had any influence at all on the night we are looking at. I put it to you that it may or may not have played a role, and I think you will have to admit that it is the only thing we can say. If anybody is willing to say that it MUST have played a role, then weīre back to the Dark Ages discussion all over again.

So, basically, the argument about Longs shortcomings has as much value as your suggestion that he may have spoken with hesitation at the inquest, voicewise: no value at all, that is. Not a scrap.

You may have woken up angry this morning and you may have woken up happy. If you woke up angry, you would statistically be more prone to commit a crime. I know that you are sometimes angry ("aaaaaarrrrrggghhhh", was it?).
So, given this knowledge, Iīd say that you are a bid for any crime committed where you live on this day.

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

Long was commanded by the inquest jury, together with the rest of the force, for the way he had acted. He was the man who found the rag and the GSG at 2.55, proving himself worthy of this sort of task. 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! )

The evidence is evidence. 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.

Me, I state that it is beyond questioning that Long performed the way he should at 2.55. 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, since this would reasonably have been remarked upon.
I also state that this is all we can tell - we cannot have any idea about anything else relating to Longs performance when finding the apron, and when not finding it. None at all.
And what we donīt know, we donīt use to bolster any argument. That would take us back beyond the darkest of ages.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

I was saying that in general, killers move quickly away from the kill area in order to not be captured.

Indeed they do, the human impulse to remove themselves from the scene.
But once removed, some have returned.
Sutcliffe actually returned to one body to expose it because it had not been found.
Returning to the streets to cast away the bloodstained apron to leave a false trail is not so unlikely as some would have it.

[The Good Michael]

How funny. Thanks, Mike.

However, in the case under discussion, the murderer had gotten away -- for quite some time. This thread is discussing what he did in the time gap between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Once he had some distance away from the body, I don't think any of us know what he did . . .

I was using a generalization to prove a point to Fisherman. I never said the killer was the kind to speed away quickly, though he did in Chapman's, Nichol's and Stride's murders. I was saying that in general, killers move quickly away from the kill area in order to not be captured.

Mike

[curious]

Not an individual assumption. The majority of criminals want to get away after committing a crime. That's a simple assumption that requires minimal thought.

Mike

How funny. Thanks, Mike.

However, in the case under discussion, the murderer had gotten away -- for quite some time. This thread is discussing what he did in the time gap between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Once he had some distance away from the body, I don't think any of us know what he did . . .

curious

[The Good Michael]

Hi, Mike,
I don't think we have this -- or if we do, it's an individual assumption.

Not an individual assumption. The majority of criminals want to get away after committing a crime. That's a simple assumption that requires minimal thought.

Mike

[curious]

We also have the amount of time that it would take for someone to get from Mitre Square to the Wentworth Buildings with the presumption that a murderer would move as quickly as manageable towards his next destination.
Mike

Hi, Mike,
I don't think we have this -- or if we do, it's an individual assumption.

Once a murderer is clear of the area, perhaps he might like to wander in from a different direction and join in the mob around the body . . . . be there as a bystander.

or mosey along, ruminating on a job well done, watching people scurry about, feeling powerful within himself and what he could do to those around him.

Never having murdered, I'm not sure how a murderer would behave, but knowing how differently people react to things, I think that one murderer might move along purposefully to his next destination, but another might not.

curious

[Wickerman]

So witness testimony must be believed unless there is a discrepancy, like we have with Long.

Monty

Clearly 'we' don't have to believe it, but 120 yrs later 'we' have no ability to question it either.
The Coroner could have questioned what Long said at the time certainly, with possibly a more productive result (a more detailed explanation?). If, he thought it was necessary, apparently he didn't.

So why are 'we' choosing to question what Long said with no possibility of a productive result?

It's quite one thing to build a theory from what we know, but another thing entirely to change what we know to fit a theory.
That's what I see here.

[Sam Flynn]

What side(s) of him that came into play on the murder night is not for us to guess away about unless we can support our guesswork with evidence.

It's not "guesswork" at all, Fish. It's a good, reasoned argument, based on the multiplicity of factors enumerated by Mike in his post immediately above. When good, reasoned arguments are dismissed simply on the basis that one man said otherwise, or man's word is given greater weight than our own experience of the human condition, we may as well go back to the Dark Ages.

[Fisherman]

We don't need this. We have a history of negligence. We have the fact that Long was expendable enough to move him to a different division for a time. We have the fact that people are often in error. We have the possibility that he wasn't in error, but simply lied. We have, according the the coroner's report in the paper, no cross-examination of Long's answers. We have a single man's sentence. We also have the amount of time that it would take for someone to get from Mitre Square to the Wentworth Buildings with the presumption that a murderer would move as quickly as manageable towards his next destination. All of that, much like all of the circumstances connected to the Hutchinson signature, should be enough to make this at least in the realm of 50/50. But we have you trying to bolster a slipshod suspect chronology which takes Long into the realm of a robotic answering machine. Great detective work.

Mike

That is of course always convenient - if you cannot fault me factually, then claim that I am only trying to bolster my "slipshod suspect chronology".

Nice work, good going!

Did it occur to you that Jon (Wickerman) who does not subscribe to my slipshod suspect chronology says the exact same thing that I do? One wonders what suspect and unsavoury reasons he has for doing so...?

Of course you cannot dream up a number of excuses on Longs behalf for not having checked properly and then use them as some sort of evidence, Mike. Itīs much like Gareths proposal that Long could have spoken in a way that would have given away that he was unsure, but since that does not hit the protocol, we will miss out on this very vital detail.

Itīs not an argument that works on any level. What we donīt know, we donīt know. And whether Long was up to scratch or not at 2.20, we donīt know. We cannot accuse him - or command him - about anything at all in relation to this. We cannot say that he was probably drunk. We cannot say that he was probably Godīs gift to the Met. Neither applies.

All we can say is that Long emphatically stated - and that IS how his wording reads - that the apron was not there at the time. And then we can point to Long having effectively shown that he was able to find the apron at 2.55.

That is not guesswork. It is good, hard evidence. And it is all we have. There is nothing else, but the insight that Alfred Long would have been a man with good and bad sides, just as you and me are too. What side(s) of him that came into play on the murder night is not for us to guess away about unless we can support our guesswork with evidence.

So there is no 50/50 issue here.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Therefore, Mike, to be able to say that "one guess is as good as another", we need another contemporary, comparable source saying that the apron WAS there at the time.

We don't need this. We have a history of negligence. We have the fact that Long was expendable enough to move him to a different division for a time. We have the fact that people are often in error. We have the possibility that he wasn't in error, but simply lied. We have, according the the coroner's report in the paper, no cross-examination of Long's answers. We have a single man's sentence. We also have the amount of time that it would take for someone to get from Mitre Square to the Wentworth Buildings with the presumption that a murderer would move as quickly as manageable towards his next destination. All of that, much like all of the circumstances connected to the Hutchinson signature, should be enough to make this at least in the realm of 50/50. But we have you trying to bolster a slipshod suspect chronology which takes Long into the realm of a robotic answering machine. Great detective work.

Mike

[Fisherman]

I find this contradiction in how you assess witness testimony interesting.

Monty

I always try to be correct.

If I can be interesting at the same time, so much the better!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Fish,



More "interpretation" and saying you're right it capital letters doesn't make it so. No matter how you turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we end up with the same: There is more value in the disputes between Long & Halse's testimony than there is between Mizen & Lechmere's.

The credibility of Long must be considered when talking about the time-gap. It would be ignorant to just accept what he says when other evidence conflicts with his testimony 'evidence'.

Cheers
DRoy

The Long/Halse case you are trying to build rests on very shaky ground, Iīm afraid. The writing, for example, could have been of a quality that allowed for reading it in different ways, juews, juwes, jewes ... that enigma could be solved, perhaps, by the handwriting.
The issue with Long not hearing the argument about erasing the GSG could rest on him listening to something else when the discussion was going on. We do not know how long and how loud it was, and we do not know how close to it Long was and what he did at the time.

Etcetera, etcetera. Itīs a whole different story than the Mizen/Lechmere business.

BUT! But, but, but! You have gotten one thing spot on about Long:
"It would be ignorant to just accept what he says when other evidence conflicts with his testimony 'evidence'."

His words on the apron is NOT in conflict with other evidence. It is solely in conflict with what some people think today.

So thanks for that vital distinction!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No,

We end up with: We don't know, and no matter how you try and twist things, you don't know and you can't intelligently declare the apron wasn't there. You can declare it, but again, not intelligently. One guess is as good as another. If you choose to disregard human factors, which you do in this case, you can fool yourself and look the fool for it. For my part, I wouldn't want to be the fool here.

Mike

What do we have?

We have the question: Was the apron in place at 2.20?

What alternative answers do we have?

We have the alternative answers 1/ Yes and 2/ No.

Do we have any evidence that concerns itself with the issue, and offers a solution?

We have PC Long saying that "the apron was not there at the time".

Therefore, Mike, to be able to say that "one guess is as good as another", we need another contemporary, comparable source saying that the apron WAS there at the time.

But we do not have any such source. We only have todays theorists guessing away, contrary to the evidence, because they are not comfortable with what that evidence tells them.

One guess is a lot less viable than another. Thatīs how it goes.

The best,
Fisherman