Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

But does the stairwell have any bearing on the issue?

Warren told us where the chalk writing was found..

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street..."

And PC Long had already said the writing was above the piece of apron..

"I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced........ Above it on the wall was written in chalk"

Putting both statements together we can determine the piece of apron was in a visible location, not hidden in the shadows.

If you transfer this argument to the Stride murder, we might assume the killer would go to ground after killing Stride, not stay on the streets when police are actively looking for a savage murderer.
Yet, some are quite willing to accept the killer not only stayed on the streets, but went looking for a second victim.

Therefore, is it reasonable to believe this killer was not afraid of being seen on the streets?

Iīve argued the exact same simple logic on this thread, Jon: The inference is that the rag WAS visible, that Halse missed it on account on having another focus that Long and that the Stride killing tells us that the man who did it was not all that anxious about getting off the streets after having struck.

It was like pouring water over a goose, however.

... so itīs all the nicer to see that at least some of us can put two and two together without adding a little on the side.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

Prejudice doesn't come into it and it's not 'neutral' to accept without question the evidence of a witness, just because that witness happens to be wearing a police uniform.

Iīm sorry, Colin, but prejudice DOES come into it the moment we extrapolate any of Longīs traits, be they good or bad, to have influenced his testimony at the inquest.
If we say "He got kicked later, so he was a bad cop", then we are working from prejudiced thinking.
If we say "He was a man who had signed up to fight crime, so he was a good cop", then we are ALSO working from prejudiced thinking.

This is exactly what prejudice is. It comes from latin, "pre" meaning in advance, and "judice" meaning judging: Judging in advance.

Long's evidence is that the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell at 2.20am, yet was there when he made his next pass half an hour later.

Yes.

If this is accepted without question it means that the killer was still (or again) on the street, within a quarter of a mile of the murder scene in possession of incriminating evidence more than half an hour after the discovery of the body.

Yes.

That's not impossible, but it begs the question of whether the item might have been in situ earlier than Long's evidence would indicate.

Yes - but it does not beg the assumption that this was so!

It's not prejudice to question the likelihood that this was the case; it's prudent.

The prejudice lies in extrapolating chosen/imagined character traits in Long. Not in suggesting that the rag could have been in place at 2.20.

It's also prudent, when subjecting the evidence of a witness to scrutiny, to check on what else we know of that witness's character.

Yes, it is. But to extrapolate from it is - at best - risky. And letīs realize that Long was probably not any Moriarty - he was a copper that made a mistake and payed for it. He may have been top of the line otherwise.

Monty has posted that Long was suspended from duty in November 1888 - at most 2 months after the Eddowes murder. We also know that he was dismissed in the following year.

So suspended in November 1888, dismissed in July 1889. I contend that this officer is quite likely to have been less than conscientious in late September of 1888.

... and when you do so, you enter the swamp of prejudice.

That's not a certainty but it's far from being an unreasonable contention, surely?

I canīt fault you on that point - you are right on both scores.

The 'time-gap' scenario depends in its entirety on the assumption that the apron piece wasn't there at 2,20am just because Long says it wasn't.

Not entirely so - Halseīs testimony must enter the issue too. Although he says that he should not necessarily have seen the rag, he DOES say that he passed over the spot but noticed nothing.
To me, this is not any statement involving that he could not have seen the rag. To me, it sounds a lot like he is saying that he COULD have spotted the rag - if it was there. However, since he was rushing along, looking for people, he readily acknowledges that he may have missed it if it WAS there.
So thereīs a bit more to it than "just" Long. But of course, the suggestion that it was missing at 2.20 rests to almost a hundred per cent on Longīs testimony.

Given what we know of his subsequent conduct it's far too flimsy a basis on which to draw a firm conclusion that Eddowes' killer was (as he would have to be) on Goulston Street at 2.25am (or later) in possession of a large section of her bloodstained apron when the area had a large police presence, on the alert for a savage murderer.

Yes, that is true - I agree entirely. And that is because you say that we cannot dra a "firm" conclusion that the rag was not in place at 2.20. Of course no firm such conclusion can be drawn.
What we need to skip, however, is to add the "Long failed later" bit to the equation, because that is and remains a prejudiced manner of going about things!
All I have to do to weigh it up is to say what I already have said - Long had earlier shown an interest to sign up to serve his community and thus shown a will to fight crime, and then we add THAT bit to the picture, and lo and behold - suddenly the scales are even again! And you know, Colin, we could go on for ever filling things in the scales, and we would be none the wiser.
Thatīs exactly why we should not do so. We should take his statement on his own, no prejudice added, and accept that he probably was right, not least since he was very adamant about it.

What you do, basically, is to categorically state that Long was a bad man, and therefore we should accept that he lied about the rag. And then you add that prejudice does not enter your way of thinking ...?

Make, if you will, the assumption that Long was truthful about the rag business. Make the further assumption that you were his commanding officer, and that you had at one time found Long guilty of some sort of misconduct. Then assume that you disbelieved him about the rag because of that, told him so and fired him for having lied.

You know, Colin, I donīt think it would be rash to conclude that Long would hold that against you afterwards, and that he would accuse you of being prejudiced.

And he would be absolutely correct, to boot.

Can we learn anything from this? Yes, we can learn that we shall not extrapolate one mistake and let it taint everything in a persons life. And here I go again: We must treat every single issue on itīs own merits, and we must be neutral when doing so.

The exact same thing applies here: we must not add ANY prejudice, be it about good behaviour or bad behaviour, to the rag issue.

Hoping Iīve made myself clear,

Fisherman

[Monty]

No,

There is no prejudice at all. Colin has made a reasoned judgement based on evidence of PC Longs disciplinary record.

Should it form a full conclusion? No, however is gives us a good insight on Longs performance as a constable.

This is an important factor.

Monty

[Wickerman]

... The inference is that the rag WAS visible, that Halse missed it on account on having another focus....

Much is made of the fact that Halse passed over the spot at 2:20 am, but not enough is made of the fact that Halse readily admitted it could have been there and he didn't notice it.

"At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron."
(Det. Halse)

Such an admission renders Halse's presence in Goulstone St. as immaterial when used to contest PC Long.

[Fisherman]

No,

There is no prejudice at all. Colin has made a reasoned judgement based on evidence of PC Longs disciplinary record.

Should it form a full conclusion? No, however is gives us a good insight on Longs performance as a constable.

This is an important factor.

Monty

You are welcome to define what YOU think prejudice is, Monty. To me it was always extrapolating something old - true or not - to define a person or group, with no knowledge whether it applies or not in the new situation we are describing. Would you say that I am wrong on that score? Maybe prejudice is something totally different to you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I give up.

At 2.20, PC Long could have been having tea with Queen Victoria for all I care. The possibilities for him missing that apron first time round are seemingly endless, but all rely on it being there in the first place. And there isn't a single, solitary indication of that - anywhere, or from anyone.

The possibility (50/50 at best was it?) that PC Long didn't know either way merely allows for the other possibility - that it was actually there. To argue any more strongly for it being there requires more than one possibility held together by another.

Love,

Caz
X

It's not you. As I said earlier, it's apparently too subtle a point for some.

[Abby Normal]

How can longs record have any bearing on wether the apron was there or not or whether he missed it or not?
They are totally unrelated.

And for the millionth fricken time he FOUND THE RAG anyway.

Another point that is seemingly too subtle for most here.

[Monty]

You are welcome to define what YOU think prejudice is, Monty. To me it was always extrapolating something old - true or not - to define a person or group, with no knowledge whether it applies or not in the new situation we are describing. Would you say that I am wrong on that score? Maybe prejudice is something totally different to you?

The best,
Fisherman

No, we have the same definition, however you have not understood part of Colins post, which was about the processing of evidence and how reasoned conclusion can be drawn, prejudice doesn't come in to it.

Abbey,

It raises questions on Longs reliability, in all aspects of his duty.

Let me know if that too subtle for you.

Monty

[RivkahChaya]

Begging the question, and begging the assumption are the same thing. "Begging the question" means "assuming the thing you are trying to prove."

It's like insisting that Druitt was the Ripper based solely on the fact that the murders stopped when he died, and then turning around and saying we know for certain the murders had stopped because the Ripper was dead. When people do this in the wild, it usually isn't that obvious, though.

[Abby Normal]

No, we have the same definition, however you have not understood part of Colins post, which was about the processing of evidence and how reasoned conclusion can be drawn, prejudice doesn't come in to it.

Abbey,

It raises questions on Longs reliability, in all aspects of his duty.

Let me know if that too subtle for you.

Monty

Yeah so questionable he found the only clue in the whole case.

[Mr Lucky]

Sanity

How can longs record have any bearing on wether the apron was there or not or whether he missed it or not?
They are totally unrelated.

And for the millionth fricken time he FOUND THE RAG anyway.

Another point that is seemingly too subtle for most here.

Dear Abbey

Thank you ! the voice of reason.

The apron wasn't there at 2.20 and it doesn't matter how many ripperologists say otherwise, they can never change that fact, it's all just hot air and nonsense.

[Mr Lucky]

Prejudice doesn't come into it and it's not 'neutral' to accept without question the evidence of a witness, just because that witness happens to be wearing a police uniform. Long's evidence is that the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell at 2.20am, yet was there when he made his next pass half an hour later. If this is accepted without question it means that the killer was still (or again) on the street, within a quarter of a mile of the murder scene in possession of incriminating evidence more than half an hour after the discovery of the body. That's not impossible, but it begs the question of whether the item might have been in situ earlier than Long's evidence would indicate. It's not prejudice to question the likelihood that this was the case; it's prudent. It's also prudent, when subjecting the evidence of a witness to scrutiny, to check on what else we know of that witness's character. Monty has posted that Long was suspended from duty in November 1888 - at most 2 months after the Eddowes murder. We also know that he was dismissed in the following year.

So suspended in November 1888, dismissed in July 1889. I contend that this officer is quite likely to have been less than conscientious in late September of 1888. That's not a certainty but it's far from being an unreasonable contention, surely? The 'time-gap' scenario depends in its entirety on the assumption that the apron piece wasn't there at 2,20am just because Long says it wasn't. Given what we know of his subsequent conduct it's far too flimsy a basis on which to draw a firm conclusion that Eddowes' killer was (as he would have to be) on Goulston Street at 2.25am (or later) in possession of a large section of her bloodstained apron when the area had a large police presence, on the alert for a savage murderer.

Totally irrelevant and unnecessary character assassination.

Long had said he has found something , and that it wasn't there earlier.

This requires no special training and it has nothing to do with his 'duty' or ability to do his duty

Clearly the capacity to give this as evidence and its reliability was best decided at the time by the coroner and the jury he appointed, they accepted it. You really need to start to produce a valid and legitimate reason why we shouldn't, or give up with it.

[Fisherman]

No, we have the same definition, however you have not understood part of Colins post, which was about the processing of evidence and how reasoned conclusion can be drawn, prejudice doesn't come in to it.
Monty

Monty, Long said that the apron was not there at 2.20.

Some say it probably WAS, and that the reason for believing this is a conviction that Long cannot be trusted.

The argument goes that since Long was let go for having been drunk on his post in 1889, he would more probably than not have lied about the apron the year before...!

That IS prejudice no matter how we cut things. A schoolbook example, even.

And itīs not even the same offence we are speaking of! If we are to crucify Long, then letīs at least crucify him for something we know he made himself guilty of - drinking. We know of no record of lying on his behalf, do we?

If it had been the case that Long had not been sober on his nightly beat in Goulston Street, then those who criticize him would have had a point. But apparently he WAS sober!

If you have the same definition as I have, then surely you can see that something old - true or not - is being dug up and extrapolated to taint Long at an occasion that is not tied to the former one in any respect?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Begging the question, and begging the assumption are the same thing. "Begging the question" means "assuming the thing you are trying to prove."

It's like insisting that Druitt was the Ripper based solely on the fact that the murders stopped when he died, and then turning around and saying we know for certain the murders had stopped because the Ripper was dead. When people do this in the wild, it usually isn't that obvious, though.

British is not my native language. And if begging the question means assuming, then no, it does not beg the question. Simple as.

Thanks for pointing that out, Rivkah.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty, Long said that the apron was not there at 2.20.

Some say it probably WAS, and that the reason for believing this is a conviction that Long cannot be trusted.

The argument goes that since Long was let go for having been drunk on his post in 1889, he would more probably than not have lied about the apron the year before...!

That IS prejudice no matter how we cut things. A schoolbook example, even.

And itīs not even the same offence we are speaking of! If we are to crucify Long, then letīs at least crucify him for something we know he made himself guilty of - drinking. We know of no record of lying on his behalf, do we?

If it had been the case that Long had not been sober on his nightly beat in Goulston Street, then those who criticize him would have had a point. But apparently he WAS sober!

If you have the same definition as I have, then surely you can see that something old - true or not - is being dug up and extrapolated to taint Long at an occasion that is not tied to the former one in any respect?

The best,
Fisherman

Again, you need to read Colins post.

Monty