Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[DRoy]

I managed to trot along up til the moment the apple turned blue.

Since then, I´m lost, however.

All the best, DRoy!
Fisherman

Fish,

Interesting fact: fish are not colorblind! Which makes your 'I'm lost' comment bring in to question what color of apple you are seeing? I'm just teasing Fish!

In your opinion Long stating the apron wasn't there is similar to him saying the apple is red and we shouldn't question it because rationally and logically an apple should be red.

In my opinion Long stating the apron wasn't there is similar to him saying the apple is blue and we should question it because rationally and logically an apple shouldn't be blue.

Cheers
DRoy

[GUT]

G'day Michael

I found this list of stuff that Long saw that night. It doesn't mention a piece of apron:

Cigarette butts, 372
Loiterers, 17
Pieces of garbage, 6,427
Rats, 2 (a slow night for them)
Drunks, 14
Cracks in pavement, 21,987
Pieces of torn clothing, 35
Scraps of food, 49
Other police, 4
Men carrying black bags, 31 (many house calls?)
Broken pieces of metal, 11
Instances of grafitti, 92
Broken gas lamps, 2 1/2 (one sputtered a bit)
Prostitutes 18 and 3 possibles
Insects, 327,865

Yeah, no apron in that list. Too bad they didn't ask him about insects. He could have given them an earful.

The apron mght have been in the 35 pieces of torn clothing.

[GUT]

Just noticed Rivkah had already said it.

[harry]

Fisherman,
The easy supposition might be to accept that he valued his freedom more than leaving a place of safety once he had reached there.We do not know that Pickfords was a reception or storing area for anything or any suspect connected to the Ripper murders,but even if so,it doesn't explain the why of returning to Wentworth building,when so many areas adjacent to Pickford's would have been suitable.All he needed was a wall to write on,if writing was his intention,and it becomes all the more incredible if he returned just to drop the apron piece.
As for searching for a third victim.There is nothing to indicate he was searching for a second.It may well be that Eddowes was a chance meeting after fleeing from Berner Street,and the Ripper took advantage of this, while his murderous mood remained.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Interesting fact: fish are not colorblind! Which makes your 'I'm lost' comment bring in to question what color of apple you are seeing? I'm just teasing Fish!

In your opinion Long stating the apron wasn't there is similar to him saying the apple is red and we shouldn't question it because rationally and logically an apple should be red.

In my opinion Long stating the apron wasn't there is similar to him saying the apple is blue and we should question it because rationally and logically an apple shouldn't be blue.

Cheers
DRoy

That´s not what I am saying, actually. What I am saying is that we don´t know whether the rag was in place at 2.20 or not. That means that we, you and I, cannot say for sure what colour the apple is.

If Long did check for the rag, then he CAN say what colour the apple was.

And Long does say that he DID check - that is the implication of his being able to say with certainty that "it was not" (there).

We must therefore accept that the apple was of the colour Long tells us it was, up until the moment we can prove that Long never saw the apple himself.

We most certainly can NOT conclude that the apple is blue, due to Long having lied or misinformed.

In conclusion:

-Nothing tells us that the apple was blue.

-Experience tells us that the apple MAY have been green.

-The evidence and testimony tells us that the apple was most probably red.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

Fisherman,
The easy supposition might be to accept that he valued his freedom more than leaving a place of safety once he had reached there.

Easy suppositions are fine, and normally good suggestions. It is only when the evidence speaks against easy suppositiones that we should ponder the more complex ones. And unfortunately, this is the exact thing we have here. Longs certainty does not allow us to go with what we would have thought was the easy supposition - the apron was not there at 2.20.

We do not know that Pickfords was a reception or storing area for anything or any suspect connected to the Ripper murders,but even if so,it doesn't explain the why of returning to Wentworth building,when so many areas adjacent to Pickford's would have been suitable.

Yes, this is true, and I have commented on it earlier on the thread. That is why I say that it seems that he carried the rag with him out of necessity - he was not willing to throw it away since it had a purpose to fill. And I have suggested that this purpose was to work as a makeshift bandage. I think he may have cut himself in the hand in Mitre Square, and that he procured the rag to prevent the cut to shed blood onto the ground, forming a trail.
I also think that if this was what happened, then he will have grabbed onto a corner of the rag with his damaged hand, and then he will have wrapped the rag around the hand.
This will have left one corner of the rag in contact with the open wound. And when Long found the rag, one corner of it was "wet with blood". Long found the rag some seventy minutes after Edowes was killed - would her blood still have been wet at that stage?
I am suggesting that he used the rag as longs as he was bleeding, and then threw it away. That happened to be in Goulston Street.

Another thing - I believe our best guess is that the rag was the last thing he cut in Mitre Square. If so, it would seem that he did not feel pressed for time - it would be strange if he heard approaching footsteps and set about cutting himself half an apron when doing so.
Question: If he was not pressed for time, why did he decide to abort instead of cutting away to his heart´s delight?
Because, perhaps, he had cut himself, and therefore was unable to proceed?

This is how I reason, but even if there was no cut, it can still be argued that the possibility is there that he had seen the message on the wall in Goulston Street and decided that he would couple it with proof of his work.

So there can be reasons for his hanging on to the rag for a long enough time to have stopped by at Pickfords!

As for searching for a third victim.There is nothing to indicate he was searching for a second.It may well be that Eddowes was a chance meeting after fleeing from Berner Street,and the Ripper took advantage of this, while his murderous mood remained.

But if he fled from Berner Street, and dropped the apron in Goulston Street after having killed Eddowes, then it becomes a tantalizing suggestion that he lived EAST of Goulston Street, Harry. In itself, that indicates that he was moving away from his home as he struck up with Eddowes. And that, by extension is an implication that he WAS looking for a second victim.
If the rag had been found west of Mitre Square, then Eddowes could have been something he did on a whim en route home, but not as it stands.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sunbury]

That´s not what I am saying, actually. What I am saying is that we don´t know whether the rag was in place at 2.20 or not.

Best answer there is, no one knows and millions of words and some some very tortured fruit analogies are spun to say nothing more

[DRoy]

Fish,

I don't understand how you can lecture us all on evidence and supposition in your first paragraph and then fill the rest of your post with nothing but those two things.

The entire time gap is supposition with no evidence and you'll accept that but not accept Long missed the apron at 2:20? Long couldn't have missed it because he said with certainty it wasn't there so that's evidence yet you write this post past the first paragraph? I give up, you win.

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

To be fair, DRoy, it's pure unadulterated supposition that the apron would have been there by 2.20, and therefore PC Long was wrong and there is no time gap to explain.

It's not pure unadulterated supposition that PC Long was able to say, for whatever reason, that the apron was not there at 2.20. It forms part of the case evidence. I grant you that any efforts to take it further than that, to fill in an extended time gap, will be made up of the purest speculation, but that's what we all do here when the evidence is either missing, unreliable or unpalatable.

So let's not get sniffy about those who take what little evidence we do have to form the basis of their speculation, while others forcibly send evidence packing when it clashes with nothing more than personal gut feelings.

Now what about that chimps' tea party that neither Long nor Halse saw when they both claimed to have passed the doorway at 2.20? If you can be so sure that a piece of rag taken by a deranged mutilator was there at that time, even though nobody saw it and a police officer denied it, how can you be sure the chimps were not there having a quick cuppa and an iced bun?

In short, the PC Long doubters are the ones who will be blamed for nothing but speculation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Fish,

I don't understand how you can lecture us all on evidence and supposition in your first paragraph and then fill the rest of your post with nothing but those two things.

It´s dead easy. You see, much as you would like to think we are on equal footing, we are no such thing at all.

The entire time gap is supposition with no evidence and you'll accept that but not accept Long missed the apron at 2:20? Long couldn't have missed it because he said with certainty it wasn't there so that's evidence yet you write this post past the first paragraph?

Nope. The entire time gap is NOT supposition only. The evidence, as given by Long at the inquest, tells us that the rag was not in place at 2.20. It´s either that, or Long is lying. And the more probable thing is that he did no such thing.
That is not to say - as you imply - that I am of the meaning that Long COULD NOT have missed the rag. He could have done so, and I have said so numerous times. But the more credible thing is that he did not miss it, supported by his certainty at the inquest.

I give up, you win.

I do, yes. But it´s not a 100 per cent to nothing win, and I am the first to admit that. It´s a majority win that is impossible to rate in numbers, but equally impossible to deny.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Best answer there is, no one knows and millions of words and some some very tortured fruit analogies are spun to say nothing more

Sorry, Sunny, but more IS said.

-We cant be sure that the apron was there.

-But we can be sure that the implications speak clearly for it. That´s the addition.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...let's not get sniffy about those who take what little evidence we do have to form the basis of their speculation, while others forcibly send evidence packing when it clashes with nothing more than personal gut feelings.

Love,

Caz
X

Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

I'm not saying the entire time gap is supposition. But you filled your post with the following...

- "That is why I say that it seems that he carried the rag with him out of necessity - he was not willing to throw it away since it had a purpose to fill"
- "And I have suggested that this purpose was to work as a makeshift bandage. I think he may have cut himself in the hand in Mitre Square, and that he procured the rag to prevent the cut to shed blood onto the ground, forming a trail."
- "I also think that if this was what happened, then he will have grabbed onto a corner of the rag with his damaged hand, and then he will have wrapped the rag around the hand."
- "I am suggesting that he used the rag as longs as he was bleeding, and then threw it away."
- "I believe our best guess is that the rag was the last thing he cut in Mitre Square. If so, it would seem that he did not feel pressed for time - it would be strange if he heard approaching footsteps and set about cutting himself half an apron when doing so."
- "...the possibility is there that he had seen the message on the wall in Goulston Street and decided that he would couple it with proof of his work"
- "So there can be reasons for his hanging on to the rag for a long enough time to have stopped by at Pickfords!"
- "then it becomes a tantalizing suggestion that he lived EAST of Goulston Street"
- " In itself, that indicates that he was moving away from his home as he struck up with Eddowes. And that, by extension is an implication that he WAS looking for a second victim. If the rag had been found west of Mitre Square, then Eddowes could have been something he did on a whim en route home, but not as it stands."

My point was you started off with this...

"Easy suppositions are fine, and normally good suggestions. It is only when the evidence speaks against easy suppositiones that we should ponder the more complex ones. And unfortunately, this is the exact thing we have here. Longs certainty does not allow us to go with what we would have thought was the easy supposition - the apron was not there at 2.20."

I can't fathom what evidence you speak of unless you are talking about all the "it seems, I have suggested, I think, I believe, the possibility" etc that you posted. I'm obviously wrong though. Thanks for the debate Fish.

Cheers
DRoy

[Abby Normal]

hey fish
been thinking about your bandage idea.

what if he cut himself before he really got into the abdominal mutilations, knew he wasn't done but now has a bleeding hand. he cuts the apron to wrap around his hand and continues with the mutilations, then getting fecal matter on it. finishes up and heads out with his hand wrapped and later (whenever and for whatever reason) drops it where it was found.

The more I think about it the more I like it. and it does not preclude any other possibilities, but explains why the apron was cut, taken away and how it got fecal matter on it-which always bothered me.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I'm not saying the entire time gap is supposition. But you filled your post with the following...

- "That is why I say that it seems that he carried the rag with him out of necessity - he was not willing to throw it away since it had a purpose to fill"
- "And I have suggested that this purpose was to work as a makeshift bandage. I think he may have cut himself in the hand in Mitre Square, and that he procured the rag to prevent the cut to shed blood onto the ground, forming a trail."
- "I also think that if this was what happened, then he will have grabbed onto a corner of the rag with his damaged hand, and then he will have wrapped the rag around the hand."
- "I am suggesting that he used the rag as longs as he was bleeding, and then threw it away."
- "I believe our best guess is that the rag was the last thing he cut in Mitre Square. If so, it would seem that he did not feel pressed for time - it would be strange if he heard approaching footsteps and set about cutting himself half an apron when doing so."
- "...the possibility is there that he had seen the message on the wall in Goulston Street and decided that he would couple it with proof of his work"
- "So there can be reasons for his hanging on to the rag for a long enough time to have stopped by at Pickfords!"
- "then it becomes a tantalizing suggestion that he lived EAST of Goulston Street"
- " In itself, that indicates that he was moving away from his home as he struck up with Eddowes. And that, by extension is an implication that he WAS looking for a second victim. If the rag had been found west of Mitre Square, then Eddowes could have been something he did on a whim en route home, but not as it stands."

My point was you started off with this...

"Easy suppositions are fine, and normally good suggestions. It is only when the evidence speaks against easy suppositiones that we should ponder the more complex ones. And unfortunately, this is the exact thing we have here. Longs certainty does not allow us to go with what we would have thought was the easy supposition - the apron was not there at 2.20."

I can't fathom what evidence you speak of unless you are talking about all the "it seems, I have suggested, I think, I believe, the possibility" etc that you posted. I'm obviously wrong though. Thanks for the debate Fish.

Cheers
DRoy

The evidence I speak of is and remains the exact same: Longs certainty as he said "It was not" in response to the coroners question about whether the rag was in place at 2.20.

As for my suggestions of possible scenarios attaching to the Eddowes murder, they are just that: suggested scenarios. That, I´m afraid, does not mean that they have no ground evidencewise.
Take, for example, the suggestion of a cut hand. The recorded evidence of the apron corner being wet with blood at 2.55 tallies well with this suggestion.

I would also point out that when I make a suggestion, I clearly point this out by saying so. I fail to see that such a thing should be very controversial?

The suggestion that Long missed the apron at 2.20 is very interesting in this context; while most people acknowledge that this can only be a suggestion, it is nevertheless stated at times that it is the most probable suggestion. But contrary to how you reccommend that evidence must be used to bolster suggestions, no such evidence has hitherto been produced.

All in all, there is no need to be perplexed, upset or anything along those lines by what I say. I can assure you that it is completely logical, totally uncontroversial and the only road open to us when we opt for the more probable solution to the question about whether the apron was in Goulston Street at 2.20 or not. In spite of all the kerfuffle on this thread, it is a question that answers itself.

The best,
Fisherman