Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

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.

First and foremost - it works for me, although I find it slightly less credible that he would continue cutting with a damaged hand.

In response to a point you make:
The feces could well have been transferred from his hands to the apron. The colon was cut, and he may easily have soiled himself as a result of that, afterwards realizing he needed to wipe his hands.
However, if he was not pressed for time at the point of this realization, then why would he bring a rag along instead of just doing the business there and then? He could have wiped his hands on the apron without taking it along with him.
This, however, does not apply if he cut himself - then he would need to bandage his hand, and that bandage needed to leave the square with him. It also needed to stay on until he had stopped bleeding.

My conviction is that he finished by cutting himself that apron piece, and I think that would show that he was not pressed for time. But let´s, for arguments sake, say that he instead realized before he set about cutting that he would need a rag afterwards, and thus cut the rag early on. Then he is startled by the sound of approaching steps, jumps to his feet, grabs the rag and sets off out through St James passage.
Would he spend a full five minutes wiping his hands after this? Or would he give the hands a quick rubbing, and then throw away the rag as he approached Houndsditch? That´s what I think he would have done.

Unless, that is, he had cut himself!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Chapman's abdomen was opened by cutting away three asymmetric flaps of flesh, which doesn't sound all that purposeful to me. (Mary Kelly's abdomen was seemingly "excavated" in a similar way.)

Also, Chapman's navel and a little of the surrounding flesh went AWOL, which is interesting when one considers the "tongue" of flesh that zig-zagged around Eddowes' belly-button.

[Sam Flynn]

We cant be sure that the apron was there.

Quite so, Fish.

But we can be sure that the implications speak clearly for it.

Not so, Fish.

The old clever-dick saying applies: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

[Sam Flynn]

If the rag was NOT clearly visible from the street, then Long will have entered the doorway.

But only after noticing it the second time round. It doesn't mean that he entered every doorway habitually, still less that he scrutinised every doorway as he passed.

[Fisherman]

Quite so, Fish.Not so, Fish.

The old clever-dick saying applies: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

You seemingly forget, Gareth, that there IS no absence of evidence. Longs testimony is evidence, and it says unambiguously and in no uncertain terms that the apron was not there at 2.20. So we HAVE evidence of absence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But only after noticing it the second time round. It doesn't mean that he entered every doorway habitually, still less that he scrutinised every doorway as he passed.

You can chew on this forever - and it won´t change the fact that our best guess is that what Long did at 2.55, he also did at 2.20.

Actually, I find your overall stance a bit strained. When we speak of Halse, you are anxious to have the rag a looong way into the darkness, so that you can say that if Halse could easily have overlooked it, then so could Long.
But when we speak of Long, you want that rag a good deal closer to the entrance and visible - for otherwise, it is clear that Long must have entered the doorway to be able to see it.

It´s all rather awkward, thus.

... but in the end, it´s all a very easy affair. Long says that it was not there, so it most probably wasn´t. That´s how we must read the man.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

How do we get to conclude it was there, except from mere gut feelings about an unidentified killer's mindset and what he would or wouldn't have done? How are those gut feelings more likely to be right and Long more likely to have been wrong?

It's not so much gut feeling, Caz, as a weighing-up of probabilities and practicalities. The longer the killer held onto that grotty sheet of cloth, the greater the risk of his being caught with it. The pressure to get rid of it must have been all the greater if he perceived (with good reason) that the police would be on scramble almost immediately he fled Mitre Square.

[Sam Flynn]

Actually, I find your overall stance a bit strained. When we speak of Halse, you are anxious to have the rag a looong way into the darkness

Not at all, Fish. Just occluded, not in-yer-face obvious.

"It was easily overlooked. It was in the building."

so that you can say that if Halse could easily have overlooked it, then so could Long.

Yes, of course. Long was made of the same stuff as Halse, and there's no reason to suppose that his eye/brain combo would have worked all that differently.

But when we speak of Long, you want that rag a good deal closer to the entrance and visible

No. In the same place, only it registered consciously the second time round.

for otherwise, it is clear that Long must have entered the doorway to be able to see it.

It's not clear that he "must have" entered the doorway at all. He had to notice it first, then enter the doorway. By no means can we take that to indicate that Long habitually entered that doorway, or any other, as he trudged his beat - nor, indeed, that he'd have noticed everything in every doorway, every time.

but in the end, it´s all a very easy affair. Long says that it was not there, so it most probably wasn´t. That´s how we must read the man.

How we read humans in general. If things don't register consciously, people can swear that something wasn't there, when in fact it was there all along.

We've all experienced this phenomenon, surely.

[Sam Flynn]

You seemingly forget, Gareth, that there IS no absence of evidence. Longs testimony is evidence, and it says unambiguously and in no uncertain terms that the apron was not there at 2.20. So we HAVE evidence of absence.

Only if he had a thorough look inside every doorway every time he passed can we say that his evidence represents concrete proof.

"It was easily overlooked. It was in the building".

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not at all, Fish. Just occluded, not in-yer-face obvious.
"It was easily overlooked. It was in the building."

This is the second time over that you quote Halse as saying that the rag was easily overlooked. From where does that quote come? I don´t readily recognize it, so I would like to see the source!

Yes, of course. Long was made of the same stuff as Halse, and there's no reason to suppose that his eye/brain combo would have worked all that differently.

And they both performed the same tasks, yeah? Nope, they did not. And will that have had an effect on what they did and saw? Yes, a massive one.

No. In the same place, only it registered consciously the second time round.

But that´s just wishful thinking, Gareth! Conjecture, guesswork, musings - and it flies in the face of the evidence. If that does not bother you, it really should.

By no means can we take that to indicate that Long habitually entered that doorway, or any other, as he trudged his beat - nor, indeed, that he'd have noticed everything in every doorway, every time.

All we can do is to accept that what he did at 2.55, he would arguably have done at 2.20 too. Routines are routines, and much as people deviate, it can be only the next best suggestion that he did so.

How we read humans in general. If things don't register consciously, people can swear that something wasn't there, when in fact it was there all along.
We've all experienced this phenomenon, surely.

Yes. It CAN happen. But that is not normally followed by a very certain assertion to the contrary!
I will readily give you that Long could have been wrong. Or lying. But not before YOU give ME that the more reasonable to expect from his testimony was that he was on the money. Suggestions to the contrary are simply ridiculous - and I strongly suspect that you are very aware of that.

Goodnight for now, Gareth!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Only if he had a thorough look inside every doorway every time he passed can we say that his evidence represents concrete proof.

Concrete proof? I´ve never said it was concrete proof. How on earth could it be concrete proof - it was an unsubstantiated statement.

I am saying that it is evidence, and that evidence was given in no uncertain terms. It therefore takes precedence over all musings about a sloppy or lying PC.

The best,
Fisherman
sleeping as you read this

[Cogidubnus]

The apron piece was found under the GSG...yes?

Only Warren said the GSG was written on the doorjamb...yes?

Warren, having ordered the erasure of the GSG and been implicitly criticised for it, had at least a motive for over-emphasising the visibility of said message...yes?

Most other witness statements suggested the GSG was in the hallway...yes?

The hallway (unlike today) was separated from the street by a "bridge" (abutted by railings) over a basement lightwell...yes?

So by virtue of the above, the apron-piece was probably in a darkened recess quite separated from the street, and in all probability, unless he crossed the "bridge" and illuminated the hallway with his bullseye, Long could not have seen it at all...

I suggest there is at least a possibility Long honestly missed seeing the apron piece on his 0220 pass, caught it at 0255 after being put on a higher state of alert (by Halse, perhaps after just passing the doorway?), but simply couldn't admit to his earlier missing it.

I'm not at all sure his precise wording that it wasn't there, (as opposed to it might've/mightn't have been there) is that relevant to us 125 years later...(a) it's a bit nitpicking and (b) it could have been simple evasiveness.

I'm not saying this IS the case...the same as I'm not saying it isn't the case...just saying it has to remain a possibility to be weighed or borne in mind.

All the best

Dave

[The Good Michael]

Concrete proof? I´ve never said it was concrete proof. How on earth could it be concrete proof - it was an unsubstantiated statement.

I am saying that it is evidence, and that evidence was given in no uncertain terms. It therefore takes precedence over all musings about a sloppy or lying PC.

That's what you say, but it doesn't make it true. This particular incident can have no greater or lesser likelihood in either direction unless there's independant corroboration. What just may unbalance things is a fear of being wrong and possibly losing one's job for it, and especially at the lower echelons when you have no family name or other prospects for work. Now, I don't know enough about Long's life to make such assumptions, but I was in the military police and I know enough about people there and in the world in general in the 60+ countries I've been to, to know that there are a lot of people who lie when it benefits them to, and there are a lot of people who make mistakes and don't want to admit them, and there are a lot of people who are wrong, but believe what they are saying enough that in their minds, they are not wrong (casebook and clergy being two examples). Without corroboration, Long is at best a 50/50 prospect. You need to see this. It is as simple as anything. Any argument to the contrary at this point serves no purpose unless one fits into one of the above mentioned niches.

Mike

[harry]

There is nothing certain about several claims concerning the Eddowes murder.When the claim was made by Long that the Apron piece was not there at a certain time,he is either correct or incorrect,in equal proportion.We do not have to accept that he would not or could not have lied.
It doesn't matter the manner or route the killer took.What is important,in considering whether he returned to Wentworth building,is firstly why he would need to do so,and no reasonable explanation for him doing so,has yet been put forward.Secondly,because it is not known who the Ripper was,or where he resided,it is not possible to calculate the time he would need,to reach home,spend some time there,return and write the message,before Long returned to find the apron and message.It may not have been physically possible.
Now Fisherman has a good point when he says the killer may have cut himself.Question is ,was it the right hand or left hand?

[Fisherman]

The apron piece was found under the GSG...yes?

Only Warren said the GSG was written on the doorjamb...yes?

Warren, having ordered the erasure of the GSG and been implicitly criticised for it, had at least a motive for over-emphasising the visibility of said message...yes?

Most other witness statements suggested the GSG was in the hallway...yes?

The hallway (unlike today) was separated from the street by a "bridge" (abutted by railings) over a basement lightwell...yes?

So by virtue of the above, the apron-piece was probably in a darkened recess quite separated from the street, and in all probability, unless he crossed the "bridge" and illuminated the hallway with his bullseye, Long could not have seen it at all...

I suggest there is at least a possibility Long honestly missed seeing the apron piece on his 0220 pass, caught it at 0255 after being put on a higher state of alert (by Halse, perhaps after just passing the doorway?), but simply couldn't admit to his earlier missing it.

I'm not at all sure his precise wording that it wasn't there, (as opposed to it might've/mightn't have been there) is that relevant to us 125 years later...(a) it's a bit nitpicking and (b) it could have been simple evasiveness.

I'm not saying this IS the case...the same as I'm not saying it isn't the case...just saying it has to remain a possibility to be weighed or borne in mind.

All the best

Dave

That´s totally uncontroversial and as it should be. It remains a possibility. I am not sure that anybody has challenged that?

Fisherman