Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[The Good Michael]

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.

I suspect it's less than 50/50 for something being absolute truth. And that's because we all have different truths. An example would be when a political pundit says something that's technically true, but leaves out details that would make it false. Many people are incorrect nearly all the time. If that weren't the case, there would be no debates on casebook.

Mike

[Bridewell]

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.

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

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Both sides of this particular argument speculate though, do they not?
Either Long was, for whatever reason, as certain as he claimed or he was less than certain but, for whatever reason, pretended otherwise.

If Long made the 2.20am check diligently as he claimed, then he had no reason to lie; however, if he did not do so he had every reason. If he had not checked the stairwell at 2.20am he would either have to admit to the omission or conceal it. He would either have to insist that the apron piece had not been there on his earlier visit, or to give an explanation as to how he missed it. There are two possibilities on which we speculate: either Long was a diligent officer or he was not. Either he checked the stairwell at 2.20am or he didn't. The speculation, then, boils down to the issue of whether Long was, or was not, a diligent police officer. We know that he was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July 1889. Does that prove that he was less than diligent in the autumn of 1888? No it doesn't - but which direction does it point in?

[caz]

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

The 50/50 prospect is slightly misleading though, Mike, unless you are suggesting that PC Long did notice the apron at 2.20 and flat out lied.

If we at least accept that he didn't see it then, for whatever reason, it's still only 50/50 if it was there or not. Nobody saw it until he saw it and dealt with it efficiently and professionally.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

I suspect it's less than 50/50 for something being absolute truth. And that's because we all have different truths. An example would be when a political pundit says something that's technically true, but leaves out details that would make it false. Many people are incorrect nearly all the time. If that weren't the case, there would be no debates on casebook.

Mike

wow, then we really do live in a fantasy world. and according to your reasoning then what you just said has more chance of being incorrect, meaning that the opposite of what you just said has more chance of being correct, which means...

see what I mean? fantasy world.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Both sides of this particular argument speculate though, do they not?
Either Long was, for whatever reason, as certain as he claimed or he was less than certain but, for whatever reason, pretended otherwise.

If Long made the 2.20am check diligently as he claimed, then he had no reason to lie; however, if he did not do so he had every reason. If he had not checked the stairwell at 2.20am he would either have to admit to the omission or conceal it. He would either have to insist that the apron piece had not been there on his earlier visit, or to give an explanation as to how he missed it.

Hi Bridewell,

I think you mean: how he might have missed it if it was actually there. Remember, he didn't see it; nobody did. So nobody can say he did miss it, and blame him for missing it.

There are two possibilities on which we speculate: either Long was a diligent officer or he was not. Either he checked the stairwell at 2.20am or he didn't. The speculation, then, boils down to the issue of whether Long was, or was not, a diligent police officer. We know that he was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July 1889. Does that prove that he was less than diligent in the autumn of 1888? No it doesn't - but which direction does it point in?

But as I keep saying, it's not either/or. He could have been the most useless officer on the force, and been shagging some prossy in Middlesex St and missed his earlier Goulston St beat entirely, but that still wouldn't put the apron there at 2.20. It would only give it a 50/50 chance of being there by then.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hi Bridewell,

I think you mean: how he might have missed it if it was actually there. Remember, he didn't see it; nobody did. So nobody can say he did miss it, and blame him for missing it.



But as I keep saying, it's not either/or. He could have been the most useless officer on the force, and been shagging some prossy in Middlesex St and missed his earlier Goulston St beat entirely, but that still wouldn't put the apron there at 2.20. It would only give it a 50/50 chance of being there by then.

Love,

Caz
X

exactly caz.
I think its too subtle a point for some.

[Fisherman]

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.

Exactly so. And we must add that we speak not of somebody who made an ambivalent statement - he was certain. And he was a serving police officer, to boot.
So the question is whether we live in a world where serving police officers who are sure that they have not seen an objet are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right.

Iīm with you, Abby - letīs admit the possibility, but thatīs about it. The much likelier thing is that they will be correct.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

wow, then we really do live in a fantasy world. and according to your reasoning then what you just said has more chance of being incorrect, meaning that the opposite of what you just said has more chance of being correct, which means...

see what I mean? fantasy world.

LOL!

Fisherman
sad - of course (thatīs why I wrote "LOL")

[Monty]

Hi Caz,

Both sides of this particular argument speculate though, do they not?
Either Long was, for whatever reason, as certain as he claimed or he was less than certain but, for whatever reason, pretended otherwise.

If Long made the 2.20am check diligently as he claimed, then he had no reason to lie; however, if he did not do so he had every reason. If he had not checked the stairwell at 2.20am he would either have to admit to the omission or conceal it. He would either have to insist that the apron piece had not been there on his earlier visit, or to give an explanation as to how he missed it. There are two possibilities on which we speculate: either Long was a diligent officer or he was not. Either he checked the stairwell at 2.20am or he didn't. The speculation, then, boils down to the issue of whether Long was, or was not, a diligent police officer. We know that he was dismissed for being drunk on duty in July 1889. Does that prove that he was less than diligent in the autumn of 1888? No it doesn't - but which direction does it point in?

Long was suspended in the November of 88.

Monty

[Fisherman]

We know that he was dismissed for being drunk on duty ... Does that prove that he was less than diligent in the autumn of 1888? No it doesn't - but which direction does it point in?

It should point us in no direction at all - as Iīve said before, we cannot ascribe good or bad things to him and use it to make our call about the apron. We do not know if that night was his best night on the force, his worst night on the force or an average one. There is absolutely no telling. And we cannot work from some assumption that either thing must have applied on this exact occasion.

We MUST treat that issue neutrally. It must be taken on itīs own, no prejudices added, good or bad.

Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

The 50/50 prospect is slightly misleading though, Mike, unless you are suggesting that PC Long did notice the apron at 2.20 and flat out lied.

If we at least accept that he didn't see it then, for whatever reason, it's still only 50/50 if it was there or not. Nobody saw it until he saw it and dealt with it efficiently and professionally.

Love,

Caz
X

Just because there are two options, doesn't mean there's a "50/50" chance. If I flip a fair coin, there's a 50/50 chance of heads or tails, but not everything in life is a fair coin. If I get strep throat, I have nearly 100% chance of getting better with antibiotics. The odds are still better than 50/50 without antibiotics, but they are much lower than 100%. Unless I am a child, in which case, unfortunately the odds drop below 50/50.

The cloth being there or not being there is not a "fair coin." At this point, I don't know all the factors that are operating, and I don't know what the odds are that Long would miss something, but he probably isn't a "fair coin" himself, and it's not a simple 50/50 proposition that he would or would not miss something.

[DRoy]

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?

Fish,

I'd like to point out there is no evidence in this case that is what happened. I would agree with you it is more likely...however, they both testified and therefore both gave 'evidence'. Until proven conclusively, the truth must lie in the evidence we have right Fish?

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I'd like to point out there is no evidence in this case that is what happened. I would agree with you it is more likely...however, they both testified and therefore both gave 'evidence'. Until proven conclusively, the truth must lie in the evidence we have right Fish?

Cheers
DRoy

That goes for every case - with no proof, the evidence is all we can lean against.
But it is also in evidence that killers in courtrooms have a propensity to say that they are innocent - until evidence is provided that prove them guilty. Some do not even yeld after such a thing. So itīs not all black and white and totally comparable, DRoy.

But I take it you know this?

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

So the question is whether we live in a world where serving police officers who are sure that they have not seen an objet are as likely to be wrong as they are to be right.

In my opinion that is where you are dead right, Long was sure that he had not seen it. That is a "long" way from being sure it wasn't there.

Again in my opinion that is as sure as anyone can be about such an issue. I am often sure that something isn't where I looked for ir, only for my secretary to walk in and pick it up. Especially when I am in a rush.

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

It should point us in no direction at all - as Iīve said before, we cannot ascribe good or bad things to him and use it to make our call about the apron. We do not know if that night was his best night on the force, his worst night on the force or an average one. There is absolutely no telling. And we cannot work from some assumption that either thing must have applied on this exact occasion.

We MUST treat that issue neutrally. It must be taken on itīs own, no prejudices added, good or bad.

Fisherman

My take exactly. We simply cannot know for certain either way.