Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Michael W Richards]

His choice of words only supports the latter half of your assertion, Mike - namely, that Long didn't see it. There's nothing in his statement, or in the press, that suggests that he actually looked into the building at that time.

I differ with the above Sam because implicit in the finality of his phrasing is the answer to the question as to whether he looked there specifically. "I didnt see it" or "I didnt notice anything" or "it may have been there, I dont recall seeing it" are all vague... allowing for either interpretation to have been correct. Many, many witnesses as you know tailor their responses to cover such possibilities. "It was not" is a firm statement. There is no ambiguity, so...either he boldly stated something he was actually unsure of, or he recalled looking at the spot where it was eventually found but at 2:20, and it was not to be seen at that time.

Since he could have given a remark that left both possibilities open but didnt, I would suggest it was due to his conviction that he had indeed looked at that spot.

Cheers Sam

[Sam Flynn]

See what I mean?

I presume that was directed at Mike, Fish, but I'll answer it by reiterating what I said earlier. There is nothing - zilch, nada, nix, rien - in Long's statement that indicates that he actually looked inside the building as he passed the doorway the first time round.

[Michael W Richards]

I will add Sam that the cloth may well have been carrying something and he couldnt discard it until he could transfer the contents. Its not about clinging on to murder evidence, its about completing the task...killing, acquiring, storing.

If those actions took more time then the cloth wouldnt have been there at 2:20...and if those actions took more time than 30 minutes, we have virtually every direction from Mitre as a possible safe spot for him,..not just the East End. As a drop on the way "home" would have indicated.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, and nobody's saying that Long was a liar, or that he was mistaken... at least, I'm not

That´s just because you do not acknowledge that Long was certain in his statement, Gareth - and that´s where you are demonstrably wrong, I´m afraid.

All Long said in his statement was "It wasn't there then" (or words to that effect). Can we realistically expect him to have said "I didn't see it then", or "I didn't notice it", or "I don't think so"?

Besides, if this discarded piece of rag inside the doorway simply didn't register consciously with him, then he could quite legitimately say that "It wasn't there", even if it was.

[Sam Flynn]

I will add Sam that the cloth may well have been carrying something and he couldnt discard it until he could transfer the contents.

Quite possibly, Mike, but as I've said, the organs were comparatively small and certainly squishy. They could have been secreted quite easily in a trouser or jacket pocket - if anything, wrapping a cloth around them would have made them bulkier and harder to conceal.

[RivkahChaya]

Is it possible that JTR had some kind of a not-thought-through-entirely plan to end something to Lusk, or the police, or the papers-- something tangible, rather than a letter-- and took the apron with the intent of sending it. When he thought it over, and decided that sending the kidney had more shock value, he discarded the apron.

That assumes the Lusk kidney is authentic, and I'll admit I go back and forth on that one, but what I'm getting at is that it would answer the question of why he would wait so long to discard the apron.

It's my personal opinion that it landed coincidentally near the graffito, but they were both things a person might tend to miss, that, once they came together, sort of propped one another up. In other words, the graffito was there, and Long missed it. The apron wasn't, but once it was, it called attention to the graffito-- and likewise, the apron was more eye-catching juxtaposed with writing that wasn't obvious by itself. That may sound like question begging, but it's not a logic problem-- it's literal piling on of physical things until they are noticeable.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Harry

Thanks for your kind comments Dave. Perhaps some may think I take a too simplistic view of events. My opininion is that the apron piece was nothing more than a wiping rag,discarded at Wentworth building,soon after the killimg in Mitre square took place,and it is the only piece of evidence that ties that building to the crime.

You may well be right...it's certainly the way my thoughts lead me...

All the best

Dave

[harry]

It is not just the observance and truthfulness of Long that has to be considered,there is no way of determing the truth of that,a bigger and more,to my mind,important question is why he had to linger anywhere,or return to Wentworth building if having reached safety.Both the writing and disposal of the apron piece could have been acheieved,in any number of ways,in any number of places,and with or without both being a pointer to,or explanation of,Eddowes murder.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Harry

Yes the return journey into peril and the somewhat indefinite meaning of the chalked message jar with me too...

All the best

Dave

[Hunter]

Hello Cris. Thanks.

Yes, that is Baxter in a nutshell.

Regarding Kate, I think the bottom line involves the cuts. Wish we could have seen them, then we could judge cutting skills for ourselves.

I agree - at least as far as Dr. Phillips was concerned. Something about the way Chapman was cut open reminded him a little about the dissecting room - straight purposeful cuts.

Not so with Eddowes - much more ragged. At least that's what I think Phillips would have noted anyway. But what Baxter said actually doesn't make any sense.

I do believe that when Phillips saw the similarity in the way Kelly and Chapman were dissected - in spite of the carnage at Miller's Court - he may have re-evaluated some things a little. This, of course, is based upon what Percy Clark had to say in 1910. Phillips said almost nothing publicly after his Sept. 26, 1888 press interview.

[GUT]

Silly thought but...

Could he have been looking for yet another victim.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi GUT

that's not necessarily such a silly thought...we surely don't know just what exactly fired up this killer...we don't even necessarily know he killed both women this night, (though I hasten to add that in my honest opinion he more probably did than not), so surely yes it's possible he was off on the hunt again...

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Dave

If what has historically been accepted is true he had just done "the impossible" and pulled off the "Double Event". Was he thinking [if at all] about a "Triple Header?"

[RivkahChaya]

Well, then maybe the reason he didn't mutilate Stride was that he was less interested in doing so, as in pulling off the "double event" from the get-go.

However, that seems to strengthen the argument for a BTK-Zodiac type killer who is all about public perception and persona.

I really can't decide whether he was a self-absorbed, not terribly aware, sexual killer, or a terrorist (maybe "terrorizer" is a better word, since he had no political aim), but I don't suppose it's possible to be wholly both, as they seem to be polar opposites.

[GUT]

G'day Rivkah

I really can't decide whether he was a self-absorbed, not terribly aware, sexual killer, or a terrorist (maybe "terrorizer" is a better word, since he had no political aim), but I don't suppose it's possible to be wholly both, as they seem to be polar opposites.

Personally I think he enjoyed the game. But that depends on a number of factors that I'm still on the fence about.