Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael: That's what you say, but it doesn't make it true.

That depends on what you mean by "it"; it does not make it true that the apron was not there, but it makes it true that the better suggestion is that it was not. Itīs the only evidence-substantiated option available to us.

This particular incident can have no greater or lesser likelihood in either direction unless there's independant corroboration.

Not agreed. If somebody comes out of the menīs room and tell you that there is no soap in it, do you ask for independent corroboration?
Once you are told that there is no soap, the better guess is that there is no soap.
After that, there is always the chance that the person that told you about the lacking soap was wrong or lying, but the scales must tip over in the direction of there being no soap.
Itīs the exact same thing with the apron - Long tips the scales.

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).

Dear me - I have said a thousand times by now that all of these things MAY apply. But it is only a "may", and itīs a may that is impossible to weigh. All we can say is that the suggestion that Long was wrong can only be awarded the next best place.

You list things that may have prompted Long to lie or be reluctant to admit that he could have been mistaken. But you carefully avoid listing the things that speak for him being correct - a sense of duty, a striving for fairness, the pride to know that he had done a good job, a wish to be commended on what he had achieved etcetera, etcetera.

We need to take on board the pure and simle fact that we know nothing, zilch, nada, niente, rien about what incentives lay behind Longs certainty. They could have been good and they could have been bad. Are YOU the one to make the call, Mike? Do YOU have that insight? I know I donīt. I have no idea what was going on inside Longīs head that day.

And when we realize that none of us can make this weighing, we must also realize that we should not look upon Longs statement as being tainted in any fashion - not good, not bad. And we must regard it as a neutral statement as long as this applies. And just as we should expect to find no soap in that menīs room, we should therefore also expect to find no rag in Goulston Street at 2.20.

Now, if you are the right man do the weighing and get it exactly correct, then do so. If you can tell us what governed Longs testimony, then share it with us. If you can say that you know that the chances that he lied or was evasive are greater than the chances that he was truthful, then you must produce the evidence to go with it. And then we can all go home.

But you canīt, can you, Mike?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

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

Fisherman

Then one should read my posts more, especially from 2 years ago.

Monty

[Fisherman]

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.

Does that mean that when Halse says he spoke to two men in Wentworth Street, he either lied or told the truth? Is it equal proportions there too? It was uncorroborated. He could have lied to give the impression of being diligent.

When Smith tells us that he saw Stride with a man in a deerstalker prior to her demise, does that mean that we should regard it as a 50/50 chance that he actually DID see such a man? It was uncorroborated. He could have lied to try and impress his superiors.

When Barrett speaks of that soldier, was that something he just made up, in order to try and shine a little extra? It was uncorroborated.

Is this how we should look upon what the PC:s of the case say? It is either right or wrong, and itīs equal proportions as long as there is no corroboration? It would be a whole new approach.

Of course it is not "equal proportions" - how on earth could it be? We have a PC doing his job and reporting about it, and we had better accept what he tells as being the more probable thing. So much for equal proportions!

We do not have to accept that he would not or could not have lied.

I would strongly reccommend that we do not accept that he COULD not have lied. It goes without saying that he may have done so.

However, accepting that he WOULD not have lied - thatīs another thing. Before we can accept such a thing, we must have evidence that tells us that he would not have done so. Maybe incentives were there to lie. How can we tell? Either way? Like I wrote to Mike - we cannot take it upon us to taint the man in any direction. He must be looked upon as being neutral in his statement.

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.

There can be no certainty. All we can do is to measure the routes inbetween the few given points and suggest scenarios from that.
As for why he chose Goulston Street, I donīt think he actively decided that the rag must be dropped there. I think that when he had no further need for the rag, he dropped it, and it happened to be in Goulston Street. I also think that his throwing it into the darkness of the doorway was perhaps something he did to buy himself time - the longer it took to find it, the longer away he would be when it happened.

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?

The left one - probably. I think the killer was righthanded, and so his right hand would have been holding onto the knife handle.
Thanks for your recognition of the point about cutting himself, by the way!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Then one should read my posts more, especially from 2 years ago.

Monty

I was referring to the ongoing, current discussion, Monty. And I was mostly meaning that the suggestion that Long could have missed the apron was an uncontroversial one.

You know I read all your posts.
Carefully.

Feel free to reiterate!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

The Good Michael: That's what you say, but it doesn't make it true.


Not agreed. If somebody comes out of the menīs room and tell you that there is no soap in it, do you ask for independent corroboration?
Once you are told that there is no soap, the better guess is that there is no soap.
After that, there is always the chance that the person that told you about the lacking soap was wrong or lying, but the scales must tip over in the direction of there being no soap.
Itīs the exact same thing with the apron - Long tips the scales.

This is nuts. Purely nuts. If someone goes into the bathroom and then comes out and tells me there's no soap, if he's lying, or didn't try the soap what reason would he have to do so? Your argument is devoid of thought on this. There is no way you can make the statement that Long's statement hold more weight. Correction: you can and did make the statement, but you are arguing this for what purpose? I ask this, because you are absolutely wrong. No doubt in my mind on this. Now, if you have a point to prove or a suspect to bolster, I might put you in the clergy camp I discussed earlier. I'm done with this argument. Go ahead and talk to a wall or a lemming. They will listen and just because the wall doesn't answer back, doesn't mean it didn't take your side because we'd have only your word on that and no independent corroboration, but in your mind, that should tip the balance in your favor. I'll remember this the next time someone tells me they saw ghosts, leprechauns, UFOs or Jesus in the toast.

Mike

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael: This is nuts. Purely nuts. If someone goes into the bathroom and then comes out and tells me there's no soap, if he's lying, or didn't try the soap what reason would he have to do so? Your argument is devoid of thought on this.

The thing is, Mike, so it should be to a very large extent. Well, perhaps not devoid of thought as such, but devoid of prejudice. You see, that is the ingredient you add to the stew in order to enhance the chances of Long having been wrong.
You speak of how he would have been sloppy or lying, and then how he wanted to cling on to his job etcetera. You paint a totally negative picture, thus. And THAT is what we need to be devoid of.
Since we do not know what lay behind Longs assertion, good quality work and knowledge or a fear to loose his job, we cannot possibly tilt the table to one side only.
Itīs all good and well to point to the possibility, but itīs not good and well not too acknowledge both sides of the coin.

There is no way you can make the statement that Long's statement hold more weight.

No?

Correction: you can and did make the statement ...

See?

...but you are arguing this for what purpose?

For the purpose of not skewing the issue. We have one piece of evidence spaking about whther the apron was in Goulston Street at 2.20 or not, and that evidence tells us with gusto that it was not. And then we have speculation on behalf of the posters out here, some of whom find that their conviction that the killer would not make any stop on his route to Goulston Street takes precedence over the recorded evidence. They have an idea of what happened, the late deposition does not fit into that idea, so they want to skip over the Long evidence. In order to allow for this, they paint Long in a very unflattering light.
I say that we cannot decide today whether he was good or bad, we cannot weigh in whatever dislike or contempt we may muster for Long into how we judge this, and so we must accept that he was much more probably right than wrong.

The reason I chose the soap analogy was this exact thing - I wanted to have a scenario where no prejudices were weighed in.

I ask this, because you are absolutely wrong. No doubt in my mind on this.

Not in YOUR mind, no - no allowance for such a thing. But did you not just argue that there must always be doubt? Are we not supposed to doubt Long - who expressed no doubt whatsoever at that inquest?

Now, if you have a point to prove or a suspect to bolster, I might put you in the clergy camp I discussed earlier. I'm done with this argument.

He said - and carried on:

Go ahead and talk to a wall or a lemming. They will listen and just because the wall doesn't answer back, doesn't mean it didn't take your side because we'd have only your word on that and no independent corroboration, but in your mind, that should tip the balance in your favor.

MY favour? Why would it be in my favour? The scales are tipped for or against Long, not me.
And you are welcome to ask the soap man for independent corroboration whenever he turns up in your life, Mike!

I'll remember this the next time someone tells me they saw ghosts, leprechauns, UFOs or Jesus in the toast.

Or you will forget it, blur it, misremember it or lie about it. Like Long did. By the way, the UFO:s seem to belong to your ballpark - abductors of rags that they are ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

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.

Hi Gareth,

I was only relating what I believe to be Mr. Phillips' opinion at the time:

The removal of the abdominal wall indicated certain anatomical knowledge, as did the cutting in three portions of the abdominal wall, and the non cutting of the intestine. Also the way in which the womb was removed showed this in a more marked degree.

As I stated in the same post, I also believe Phillips may have reconsidered that opinion in the wake of the Kelly murder. The abdomens of Chapman and Eddowes were opened differently (although - as you noted -the umbilicus was circumvented both times.) Kelly's abdomen was apparently opened similar to Chapman's.

[Hunter]

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.

Long would not have had time to establish a consistent routine yet, let alone be completely familiar with his new beat.

[Fisherman]

Long would not have had time to establish a consistent routine yet, let alone be completely familiar with his new beat.

The second time around that he walked his beat, he could establish a routine - by doing things the same way as he did on the first round. That is what a routine is.

Long was new on the beat, but he was not a new copper. He would have walked many a beat, and he would have established routines on them all. What Iīm after here is that I would find it rather inconsistent if he arrived at 2.20 in Goulston Street and thought "Look at them funny doorways - I think Iīll leave them to themselves" only to return thirtyfive minutes later, thinking "Hey, thereīs a row of recessed doors, letīs take a look inside them".

My thinking on this issue is very basic. If Long said that the apron was not there at 2.20, then the best bet is that he had reason to state this. And if he found the apron at 2.55, then he would arguably also have found it at 2.20 if it was there, since our best guess is that he used the same method for checking the premises.

Itīs all very uncomplicated, basic and straightforward. I stay away from guessing, I refrain from awarding Long any good or bad traits and I use the evidence we have. After that, I acknowledge that Long MAY have been wrong, but press the point that our best guess is that he was not.

And for some reason, that freaks people out. Some even argue that supposing that Long will have been wrong is the best way to go about things!

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

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.

Fish, so Lech isn't the JTR because he testified and gave evidence at the inquest? Okay, one suspect down.

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

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.

Hi Sam,

If our killer's top priority - sensibly - was not to be caught with his victim's smelly piece of kit, he surely didn't need to take it away with him in the first place, never mind carry it all the way to Goulston St. I don't think one can have it both ways. If it was only taken to wipe his hands and/or knife, because at that point he regarded this as an even higher priority, he was at great risk for every additional second he spent walking or wiping with this large piece of material. Yet he took that risk.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Fish, so Lech isn't the JTR because he testified and gave evidence at the inquest? Okay, one suspect down.

Cheers
DRoy

He did not deny being the killer, DRoy - he was never asked about it. I do suspect, however, that he would have lied about it IF he was the killer and IF he was asked.

We will never know, however.

My own conviction is that a killer will be less likely to tell an inquest the truth than a serving PC. If that counts? No?

Fisherman

[caz]

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.

Hi Sam,

It still isn't evidence that the smelly bloody thing was there though, is it?

PC Long would not have registered it consciously if it wasn't there either, and that's a 100% certainty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Do we live in a world where there is a 50/50 chance that what someone says is incorrect or a lie? That's really what it boils down to.

[caz]

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 realise I'm nitpicking here, but we already know Long missed seeing the apron piece at 2.20, honestly or otherwise. How could he 'admit' to having missed it earlier, if he didn't see it and therefore couldn't say when it got there? When he did notice it at 2.55 and examined it, he guessed rightly its connection to a violent crime, but thought it had been committed in or around that location.

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.

It's the question that I find more relevant: "Are you able to say...?" And PC Long did feel able to say, when it would not have been held against him to reply along the same lines as Halse, or to say "to the best of my knowledge...". After all, he was already one up on Halse for having spotted it when he did!

Long may not have been looking in the right place at 2.20, but that possibility still doesn't entitle us to magic up the apron and place it there ourselves. At 2.20 it could have been in any one of a hundred other places where Long wasn't looking. It wasn't a permanent fixture.

Love,

Caz
X