Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

GUT: G'day Fisherman

G´day to you, my Aussie friend!

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.

Mmm - it is at the very least SOME way away from being sure. But I would argue that the more certain the witness is, the smaller the distance.

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.

I do that too. My wife sometimes produces the things I think are not there, like bunnies from a hat.

... but overall, when I say something is not there, it is normally not. It´s not 50/50. The occasions when I am wrong are exceptions (I like the sound of that...! )

The best,
Fisherman

[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 it´s not all black and white and totally comparable, DRoy.

But I take it you know this?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

Yes I know Fish but there isn't evidence that Lech killed anyone so I'm not sure what you are getting at? The 'evidence' we have is from Lech and he didn't admit to killing anyone so to compare him to a killer isn't fair is it? I know you don't have evidence to convict him so isn't what he testified to the evidence we should be relying on?

No need to answer, we're steering this away from the point of the thread. Until some new evidence comes forth, I think we're both at this point stuck to our opinions.

Cheers
DRoy

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

You missed the pun in the "long".

Why does everyone think I'm an Aussie?

In my house the child bride tells the kids to have a mother look.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Yes I know Fish but there isn't evidence that Lech killed anyone so I'm not sure what you are getting at? The 'evidence' we have is from Lech and he didn't admit to killing anyone so to compare him to a killer isn't fair is it? I know you don't have evidence to convict him so isn't what he testified to the evidence we should be relying on?

No need to answer, we're steering this away from the point of the thread. Until some new evidence comes forth, I think we're both at this point stuck to our opinions.

Cheers
DRoy

Cutting what could be a loooong debate short - yes, we have both declared our views, and we will seemingly stick to them.

I know I will.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Why does everyone think I'm an Aussie?

If you can´t figure that one out, you should not be trying to solve enigmas on public forums!

All the best, GUT!
Fisherman

[GUT]

Thanks Fisherman.

It must be bronzed Aussie appearance.

[GUT]

Or maybe my rock hard body. [or should that be rock hard head?]

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I reiterate: I'm not saying that PC Long was sloppy or lying. Just human.

[Sam Flynn]

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

There is absolutely no prejudice inherent in acknowledging that Long's cognitive apparatus would have worked the same way as yours, mine, or Halse's.

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

(Thinks: I might make that my signature.)

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

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

Actually that's high praise indeed from you...thanks

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Cris

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

I agree that's entirely possible

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Hunter

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.

The point is that the Ripper did cut Annie's (large) intestine - although, unlike with Eddowes, he didn't remove it from the body. Also, the way in which he excavated Annie's abdomen in three flaps (four, if you count the missing bit with navel attached) was incredibly clumsy. That Phillips came to make such extraordinary pronouncements about the Ripper's "skill", when his own notes indicated the opposite, has proven rather unhelpful to the case ever since.

Anyhoo.... apologies for going off-topic

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

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 I´m 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 I´ll leave them to themselves" only to return thirtyfive minutes later, thinking "Hey, there´s a row of recessed doors, let´s 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.

You're quite right he wasn't new to the force, but he was totally new to the beat, and was only just beginning to impress his personality onto it...do you honestly reckon his first, second, third or even fourth circuit would've finally crystalised his understanding of the area he'd been allocated?

No, of course not...his familiarity with the area and it's customs would've developed alongside his own experiences...

[GUT]

G'day Sam

The point is that the Ripper did cut Annie's (large) intestine - although, unlike with Eddowes, he didn't remove it from the body. Also, the way in which he excavated Annie's abdomen in three flaps (four, if you count the missing bit with navel attached) was incredibly clumsy. That Phillips came to make such extraordinary pronouncements about the Ripper's "skill", when his own notes indicated the opposite, has proven rather unhelpful to the case ever since.

I just can not reconcile the two views that Phillips seems to present.

[Sam Flynn]

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.

My suggestion is that it was only needed for minutes... and that those minutes were essential if he wanted to wipe the incriminating residues of blood and excrement from his hands.

Whilst he was in the open the cloth, loosely folded, would have been easily concealed in his trousers, or in his pocketses. (Sorry, I appear to be channelling Gollum for some reason.) Alternatively, it could have been wrapped around a cut and/or befouled hand thrust, Napoleon-like, inside his jacket.

Once he found a quiet enough alcove to duck into, the unfolded cloth could be put to whatever hand/knife-cleaning purpose he needed it for.