Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

Definitely Ron...half-ape Ron...per Bill Maher he must be one of Donald Trump's progenitors!

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer

Definitely Ron...half-ape Ron...per Bill Maher he must be one of Donald Trump's progenitors!

All the best

Dave

Ron it is, then!

Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

One of two things must have happend regarding the discovery of the piece of apron the most obvious and simplest was that the police missed it first time.Second thing that might have happend is that our killer went away with his plunder deposited it some where safe came to goulston street dropped the piece of apron and went on his way.

[Fisherman]

One of two things must have happend regarding the discovery of the piece of apron the most obvious and simplest was that the police missed it first time.Second thing that might have happend is that our killer went away with his plunder deposited it some where safe came to goulston street dropped the piece of apron and went on his way.

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

[pinkmoon]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fisherman,could pc long have felt embarrassed or just plan stupid considering the magnitude of this crime so he stated the piece of apron was not there when he first walked past door way.It would sound a lot better then saying I'm not sure or I didn't look.

[Sam Flynn]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one

It just is, though! We all make mistakes and we all overlook things on a daily basis. We all tell white lies, sometimes off-white ones, to save face. Any of these, singly or in combination, are just as likely to have happened as for Long to have been 100% correct.

[Wickerman]

Iīm afraid that the first scenario you propose is anything but the most obvious one - Long testified with great certainty, claiming that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20.
If anything is obvious, it is that people are following an unsubstantiated suggestion which is contrary to the evidence.

Absolutely Christer.
Long couldn't have been more emphatic if he tried. It's all well and good to suggest that 'maybe' he was mistaken, that 'maybe' he didn't like to admit he missed it. Or that 'maybe' he wasn't even passing that spot when he should have been (ie; skiving somewhere else).
The fact remains that whenever he was unsure about something, he said so.
In this case he was 'sure' it was not there.
And, unless we choose to rewrite history then we must deal with what we know, not what we might prefer to believe.

The second suggestion of yours is the only one that fits with the evidence. Itīs the one I stick to for that very reason.

Yes, but it's an awkward interpretation, I mean a sane person wouldn't do that, would he?......oh, wait a minute, this is a serial killer we're talking about.....

[Sam Flynn]

Long couldn't have been more emphatic if he tried.

Sadly, Jon, the records do not record emphasis.

[Wickerman]

Sadly, Jon, the records do not record emphasis.

Also, 'sadly' once we start watering down every witness statement by saying, "...while he may have said this, he really meant that", then we also start to mold the case to fit our perspectives.
As painful as it may be, we must take witness statements as they were given, regardless how active our imaginations are 120+ years later.

[Fisherman]

Also, 'sadly' once we start watering down every witness statement by saying, "...while he may have said this, he really meant that", then we also start to mold the case to fit our perspectives.
As painful as it may be, we must take witness statements as they were given, regardless how active our imaginations are 120+ years later.

... and there is absolutely nothing that I would add to that post that would make things clearer. Bravo, Jon, as spot on as it gets!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

How unexpected, Monty!

But yes, basically, we should rely on witnesses, especially when there is nothing gainsaying them and when they do not produce testimony that is very odd.

Lechmere and Long are different material, thus.

Nobody - but todays theorists - are gainsaying Long.

But Mizen was gainsaying Lechmere.

And Mizen was ALSO a witness. And if we are to accept all testimonies, then we will be in trouble, since Lechmere said A and Mizen said B.

We can therefore conclude that one - or both - MUST have been wrong.

I could go on pointing to differences in the comparison you are suggesting, making it a less than useful comparison.

But I donīt think I need to, eh?

All the very best, Monty!
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Hi Fish,

But yes, basically, we should rely on witnesses, especially when there is nothing gainsaying them and when they do not produce testimony that is very odd.

The irony

Nobody - but todays theorists - are gainsaying Long.

Perhaps for good reason?
Nobody - but you and one other - believe Cross is The Ripper

And Mizen was ALSO a witness. And if we are to accept all testimonies, then we will be in trouble, since Lechmere said A and Mizen said B.

Sounds like Long & Halse to me

We can therefore conclude that one - or both - MUST have been wrong.

Again sounds like Long & Halse to me

I could go on pointing to differences in the comparison you are suggesting, making it a less than useful comparison. But I donīt think I need to, eh?

Don't stop now Fish, you were doing so well!

When you start comparing the differences between Long and Halse's testimony you'd have an uncanny comparison to Cross and Mizen's.

I have a huge urge to start a thread called 'The Long Scam'. But perhaps you are right...I don't think I need to, eh?

Cheers
DRoy

[caz]

Greetings everyone!

I wanted to talk about a subject that has been bugging me lately. I want to go over the chronology of the morning of the 30th September 1888, and then pose a rather interesting question. OK, here we go:

1:45am: PC Watkins discovers the mutilated body of Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square, and reports he saw nothing there only 15 minutes before.

2:20am: PC Alfred Long, walking on his beat, goes down Goulston St., reports not seeing anything unusual.

2:50am: Long again goes down Goulston St. and discovers the bloody apron and the message.

So, if we take Long at his word and agree that, at the very least, the apron was NOT there at 2:20am, then that means JTR didn't go down Goulston St. until sometime between 2:20am-2:50am. So, let's compromise and say the apron was left at around 2:35am approximately. That's still a 50 minute gap between when JTR left Mitre Square and the time he went down Goulston St.

My question to everyone is: what do YOU think JTR was doing for that approx. 50 minute duration? Did he go somewhere to clean up? Did he deposit his body parts somewhere where he could pick them up later? Did he remain in the City, or did head back to Whitechapel right away.

It definitely wouldn't have taken 50 minutes to go from one location to the other because Goulston St., is right near the City of London boundary!

Ahem, all you lovely people.

It's all very well to keep arguing that the apron was probably there sooner and therefore PC Long was probably mistaken/skiving/lying or whatever, because he was only human/known to get drunk on duty/generally unreliable or whatever.

But that has bugger all to do with the purpose of this thread.

Just saying - for all those whose knickers get in a twist when anyone actually sticks to the topic and presumes PC Long was able to say the apron wasn't there at 2.20.

Have a great weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Sounds like Long & Halse to me

Not regarding the apron though. Neither of them saw it at 2.20, and both said as much.

When you start comparing the differences between Long and Halse's testimony you'd have an uncanny comparison to Cross and Mizen's.

See above - and my previous post.

Love,

Caz
X