Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

Halse was there at the scene, and it doesn't by any means stretch credulity to suggest that the question "So where exactly was it then?" was asked of Long at some point. Long might equally have volunteered this information to Halse himself.

Hi Sam.
I have to thank Mr Lucky for admirably addressing the problem.

However, what was on my mind as far as the piece of apron being visible from Halse's position is, we do not know if this apron was screwed up in a ball, against the side of the archway, not easily apparent, or open and basically flat so more obvious to someone passing even from down the middle of the street.

I don't doubt Halse had been shown where it was found, but he was not saying (as astutely pointed out by Mr Lucky), that Long could have missed it, but that he himself could have missed it.

Given that we do not know how far from the entry Halse was when he walked passed the archway, on the footway like PC Long, or down the middle of the street?, we cannot use his uncertainty to cast uncertainty on PC Long.

[Mr Lucky]

There is such a thing, though: Halse's statement that the apron could have been missed, as it was inside the passage.

Halse's statement refers to him missing the apron not Long missing it! he isn't qualified to give evidence from Long's perspective.

You 'believe' the apron was already there - then cite Halse's statement as proof it could be missed, therefore as proof that Long is wrong.

However, if we approach the evidence properly - and don't start with any assumptions - Long is quite clear the apron wasn't there at 2.20, and Halse not knowing one way or the other doesn't prove Long wrong in any way.

What they are actually asking Halse, is 'did you see the apron ? ';-

"By Mr. Crawford: 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."

He didn't see it. He then qualifies his statement, to make it clear that he didn't perform any sort of action that would ensure that he would see the apron

"- I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron. "

That, and the simple fact that human perception/attention is not 100% infallible

You can not use this as grounds to specifically question Long's testimony, as this would apply to all testimony ever given, not just Longs. You can't pick and choose which witnesses you like and want to believe and accept their statements and which witnesses you don't like and attempt to discredit them by making blanket statements about "human perception" and such like.

You need to find something that suggests that Long is mistaken

[Sam Flynn]

Halse never saw the apron in situ, therefore, he cannot judge how obvious it was to the passing public.

Halse was there at the scene, and it doesn't by any means stretch credulity to suggest that the question "So where exactly was it then?" was asked of Long at some point. Long might equally have volunteered this information to Halse himself.

His comment that it could have been missed is guesswork, not a statement of fact.

Hmm... so it follows that, whilst Long didn't make things up on oath, Halse did? Hardly seems fair somehow.

[Michael W Richards]

At what point though do we draw the line, what else could Long have possibly said to convey he was sure.
There were at least four other instances within his statement where he admitted to not being sure of the answer to the question being posed.
In this case he was certain, "it was not" (there).

Yeah....like he said.... up above. Too late for a stack of bibles, so this is all we got.

Cheers Jon

[Wickerman]

At what point though do we draw the line, what else could Long have possibly said to convey he was sure.
There were at least four other instances within his statement where he admitted to not being sure of the answer to the question being posed.
In this case he was certain, "it was not" (there).

Long has demonstrated that in this question he was sure.
Just because Halse was not sure is not sufficient cause to doubt someone who was.

Halse never saw the apron in situ, therefore, he cannot judge how obvious it was to the passing public.
His comment that it could have been missed is guesswork, not a statement of fact.

[Sam Flynn]

but you need something to cast doubt on what Long was claiming.

There is such a thing, though: Halse's statement that the apron could have been missed, as it was inside the passage. That, and the simple fact that human perception/attention is not 100% infallible - especially not in the dark - represent more than sufficient grounds to doubt the "long time-gap" hypothesis. Or perhaps we should call it the "Long time-gap", in honour of its creator.

[DVV]

He has given his evidence under oath, which included the line "so help me, god" in recognition of what you suggest, so no, legally we can not question his testimony due to this he's only a "human being" aspect. (He has in the eyes of the law, had gods help to tell the truth)

Welcome to the boards, Max Cady !

[Mr Lucky]

The legal fact only demonstrates when Long found the apron. The possibility that Long simply missed the apron the first time round cannot be ruled out, still less undone by any subsequent oath, no matter how sincere.

No, Long had specifically ruled that out, and being the finder of the apron he is only person qualified to have an opinion on whether it was there or not.

You need to find some one who directly contradicts what he said*. other wise, what he said stands

* it doesn't necessarily need to be someone who had actually said 'the apron was there at such a time', but you need something to cast doubt on what Long was claiming, even a Mulshaw type character - who said that he hardly saw any beat policeman going down that particular street would be a start.- But there's nothing at all.

[Sam Flynn]

As far as every one in 1888 was concerned - the time lag existed - it was a legal fact

The legal fact only demonstrates when Long found the apron. The possibility that Long simply missed the apron the first time round cannot be ruled out, still less undone by any subsequent oath, no matter how sincere.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't think the British oath contains the "So help me, God" bit, but I take your point.

It was covered in the Oaths act 1887, I'll see if I can find it. Possibly it might be in jervis

However, swearing an oath doesn't make anyone's testimony infallible, nor - in fact - that his perception was 100% reliable on the night in question. If the apron was there, but it genuinely didn't register with him, then as far as he was concerned, it was "not there", and he broke no oath

Yes it does, that's the whole point, as far bringing charges against some one, that has to fit with what had been given as evidence at the inquest.

we can go off in our own 'ripperological worlds', where the apron was already there at 2.20 (and rationally - I can see why you think this) but it's now different from that inhabited by the people of Whitechapel, if you want to see thing from their perspective then you have to use their rules of evidence.

As far as every one in 1888 was concerned - the time lag existed - it was a legal fact

[Sam Flynn]

He has given his evidence under oath, which included the line "so help me, god"

I don't think the British oath contains the "So help me, God" bit, but I take your point. However, swearing an oath doesn't make anyone's testimony infallible, nor - in fact - that his perception was 100% reliable on the night in question. If the apron was there, but it genuinely didn't register with him, then as far as he was concerned, it was "not there", and he broke no oath.

[Mr Lucky]

I'm not throwing any toys. I simply noted the irony of your endorsing the "loop-back" theory, which is far more convoluted than simply accepting than that Jack went straight there - even if it took him 35 minutes to do so.

My hypothesis fits the evidence, that's the point. however, yes it's more convoluted - but it needs to be to fit the evidence.

The man who found it was a human being, and human beings are fallible. That alone gives sufficient reason to question his testimony

He has given his evidence under oath, which included the line "so help me, god" in recognition of what you suggest, so no, legally we can not question his testimony due to this he's only a "human being" aspect. (He has in the eyes of the law, had gods help to tell the truth)

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't matter how many people you throw your toys at

I'm not throwing any toys. I simply noted the irony of your endorsing the "loop-back" theory, which is far more convoluted than simply accepting than that Jack went straight there - even if it took him 35 minutes to do so.

the apron wasn't there at 2.20. the man who found it said it wasn't and there is absolutely no reason not to believe him.

The man who found it was a human being, and human beings are fallible. That alone gives sufficient reason to question his testimony.

[Mr Lucky]

...followed by "I think the killer headed out of the area - then headed back in to dump the apron. (he's very cunning like that)". Oh the irony!

It doesn't matter how many people you throw your toys at, the apron wasn't there at 2.20. the man who found it said it wasn't and there is absolutely no reason not to believe him.

[Sam Flynn]

Two wrongs, Gareth

Suitably chastised... I mean, chastened