Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[DRoy]

Hi Fish,

But yes, basically, we should rely on witnesses, especially when there is nothing gainsaying them and when they do not produce testimony that is very odd.

The irony

Nobody - but todays theorists - are gainsaying Long.

Perhaps for good reason?
Nobody - but you and one other - believe Cross is The Ripper

And Mizen was ALSO a witness. And if we are to accept all testimonies, then we will be in trouble, since Lechmere said A and Mizen said B.

Sounds like Long & Halse to me

We can therefore conclude that one - or both - MUST have been wrong.

Again sounds like Long & Halse to me

I could go on pointing to differences in the comparison you are suggesting, making it a less than useful comparison. But I donīt think I need to, eh?

Don't stop now Fish, you were doing so well!

When you start comparing the differences between Long and Halse's testimony you'd have an uncanny comparison to Cross and Mizen's.

I have a huge urge to start a thread called 'The Long Scam'. But perhaps you are right...I don't think I need to, eh?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

How unexpected, Monty!

But yes, basically, we should rely on witnesses, especially when there is nothing gainsaying them and when they do not produce testimony that is very odd.

Lechmere and Long are different material, thus.

Nobody - but todays theorists - are gainsaying Long.

But Mizen was gainsaying Lechmere.

And Mizen was ALSO a witness. And if we are to accept all testimonies, then we will be in trouble, since Lechmere said A and Mizen said B.

We can therefore conclude that one - or both - MUST have been wrong.

I could go on pointing to differences in the comparison you are suggesting, making it a less than useful comparison.

But I donīt think I need to, eh?

All the very best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Also, 'sadly' once we start watering down every witness statement by saying, "...while he may have said this, he really meant that", then we also start to mold the case to fit our perspectives.
As painful as it may be, we must take witness statements as they were given, regardless how active our imaginations are 120+ years later.

... and there is absolutely nothing that I would add to that post that would make things clearer. Bravo, Jon, as spot on as it gets!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Sadly, Jon, the records do not record emphasis.

Also, 'sadly' once we start watering down every witness statement by saying, "...while he may have said this, he really meant that", then we also start to mold the case to fit our perspectives.
As painful as it may be, we must take witness statements as they were given, regardless how active our imaginations are 120+ years later.

[Sam Flynn]

Long couldn't have been more emphatic if he tried.

Sadly, Jon, the records do not record emphasis.

[Wickerman]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

Absolutely Christer.
Long couldn't have been more emphatic if he tried. It's all well and good to suggest that 'maybe' he was mistaken, that 'maybe' he didn't like to admit he missed it. Or that 'maybe' he wasn't even passing that spot when he should have been (ie; skiving somewhere else).
The fact remains that whenever he was unsure about something, he said so.
In this case he was 'sure' it was not there.
And, unless we choose to rewrite history then we must deal with what we know, not what we might prefer to believe.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

Yes, but it's an awkward interpretation, I mean a sane person wouldn't do that, would he?......oh, wait a minute, this is a serial killer we're talking about.....

[Sam Flynn]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one

It just is, though! We all make mistakes and we all overlook things on a daily basis. We all tell white lies, sometimes off-white ones, to save face. Any of these, singly or in combination, are just as likely to have happened as for Long to have been 100% correct.

[pinkmoon]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fisherman,could pc long have felt embarrassed or just plan stupid considering the magnitude of this crime so he stated the piece of apron was not there when he first walked past door way.It would sound a lot better then saying I'm not sure or I didn't look.

[Fisherman]

One of two things must have happend regarding the discovery of the piece of apron the most obvious and simplest was that the police missed it first time.Second thing that might have happend is that our killer went away with his plunder deposited it some where safe came to goulston street dropped the piece of apron and went on his way.

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

One of two things must have happend regarding the discovery of the piece of apron the most obvious and simplest was that the police missed it first time.Second thing that might have happend is that our killer went away with his plunder deposited it some where safe came to goulston street dropped the piece of apron and went on his way.

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Definitely Ron...half-ape Ron...per Bill Maher he must be one of Donald Trump's progenitors!

All the best

Dave

Ron it is, then!

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

Definitely Ron...half-ape Ron...per Bill Maher he must be one of Donald Trump's progenitors!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer



Shame though...it would've been fun!

All the best

Dave

It would! But what should we call it? An ap(e) or a Ron?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and **** gets on your hand(s), if you smear excrement over something.

Hand(s), yes! Partially, at least. Other parts may stay clean.

Once again, there are unknown elements a plenty around!

... but it nevertheless sounded lika a parallel hit to "Smoke gets in your eyes" ; "**** gets on your hands".

Bryan Ferry, anybody ...?

The best,
Fisherman