Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,



The irony



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



Sounds like Long & Halse to me



Again sounds like Long & Halse to me



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

I think the only word that hit the nails head here was "uncanny". And sadly, for other reasons than the one you meant it to.

Long and Halse corroborated each other on the issue at hand.

Mizen and Lechmere contradicted each other on many a point, all of them of another magnitude.

And I could not care less how many people do not/can not believe that Lechmere was the killer.
You see, I know the reason why.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Caz
X

You party pooper, you!

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

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

True. However how many other discrepancies are there between the two?

See above - and my previous post.

Sorry Caz I think it is relevant. There would still be a time-gap just not as long (pun intended) as the one proposed.

Cheers
DRoy

[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 don´t think I need to, eh?

All the very best, Monty!
Fisherman

Tosh Christer.

You cannot pick and chose what suits, however you try.

Paul gainsays?

Monty

[Monty]

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

Taking that mentality....the thread is redundant.

Monty

[DRoy]

Fish,

I think the only word that hit the nails head here was "uncanny". And sadly, for other reasons than the one you meant it to.

I like you...you're funny

Long and Halse corroborated each other on the issue at hand.

You don't find it 'uncanny' there is very little they corroborate each other on? Regarding the issue at hand, they don't corroborate each other, Halse said he didn't see it, Long said it wasn't there.

Mizen and Lechmere contradicted each other on many a point, all of them of another magnitude.

Magnitude? The GSG spelling, order of the GSG words, and whether there was a dispute whether to wipe the GSG. You're right, the GSG does not have much magnitude at all in comparison.

And I could not care less how many people do not/can not believe that Lechmere was the killer.
You see, I know the reason why.

I was just teasing Fish. My point was that the length of time of someone's testimony being scrutinized is not a measuring stick worth commenting on, especially coming from someone (who has only within a couple years) doing that exact thing.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Caz made a great point earlier, the thread is about the time gap...not who Jack was or whether there was any Jack at all. The gap is indisputable within the know evidence, it exists....the murder at approx. 1:40-43, and the writings discovery at almost 3am. Why it does exist does not directly relate to Halse or Long or the killer, because the apron section isn't yet directly related to the grafitto.

Its a dead end question...we know that writing was discovered when the cloth was found but we don't know that the killer dropped the cloth nor do we know when the writing was done. It could have been there since nightfall for all we know, and the cloth doesn't necessarily have to have been dropped by the killer in Mitre Square.

All we might deduce from this episode is that based on Long and Halse, the cloth could have been dropped more than an hour after the murder, and the writing could also have been done by the same person who left the cloth.

This lucid moment brought to you by coffee laced with cognac.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Tosh Christer.

You cannot pick and chose what suits, however you try.

Paul gainsays?

Monty

Tosh? No. It is the simple truth: when two witnesses give different versions of the same event, only one can be correct. The other one must be wrong.

Like now, for instance.

Actually I CAN pick and choose, should I want to. And to some extent, we all do; when we have a choice, picking and choosing is what we do. You included.
However, pointing out that it is impossible to reconcile Mizen and Lechmere is not picking and choosing. It is the plain truth.

As for Long, we either accept his evidence - and I think you have voiced that it´s the better idea, if I am not misremembering? - or we pick and choose the option to disagree. But at the time of the inquest, nobody voiced any disagreement about him finding the apron was not in place at 2.20. All the efforts that have gone into that department are courtesy of late time Ripperologists who think they have the answer to what the killer did after Mitre Square.

They don´t.

Gesundheit!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Fish,

I like you...you're funny

Then we don´t share the same sense of humour.

You don't find it 'uncanny' there is very little they corroborate each other on? Regarding the issue at hand, they don't corroborate each other, Halse said he didn't see it, Long said it wasn't there.

Yeah, that IS very contradictory, come to think of it ...

Magnitude? The GSG spelling, order of the GSG words, and whether there was a dispute whether to wipe the GSG. You're right, the GSG does not have much magnitude at all in comparison.

No, it does not. The built in magnitude in the discussion between Mizen and Lechmere is much more significant. So yes, I AM right.

I was just teasing Fish. My point was that the length of time of someone's testimony being scrutinized is not a measuring stick worth commenting on, especially coming from someone (who has only within a couple years) doing that exact thing.

Teasing? I wasn´t. I do know exactly why some people find the Lechmere pill hard to swallow. And in itself, that has a lot to say about just how worth some stances are commenting on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Regarding the issue at hand, they don't corroborate each other, Halse said he didn't see it, Long said it wasn't there.

Halse also said - crucially, to my mind - that it could be easily missed, as it was inside the building. This might not be corroboration, strictly speaking, but it would excuse Long if he didn't see it the first time round. And, if Long didn't see it, it may as well "not" have been there from his perspective.

[Fisherman]

Halse also said - crucially, to my mind - that it could be easily missed, as it was inside the building. This might not be corroboration, strictly speaking, but it would excuse Long if he didn't see it the first time round. And, if Long didn't see it, it may as well "not" have been there from his perspective.

More "interpretation". Long stated that the apron was not there at the time.

Not that he did not see it.

No matter how we turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we will end up with the same: The apron was not there at the time.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

More "interpretation". Long stated that the apron was not there at the time.

Not that he did not see it.

No matter how we turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we will end up with the same: The apron was not there at the time.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggg gggggggghhh... rrivederci

[The Good Michael]

More "interpretation". Long stated that the apron was not there at the time.

Not that he did not see it.

No matter how we turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we will end up with the same: The apron was not there at the time.

No,

We end up with: We don't know, and no matter how you try and twist things, you don't know and you can't intelligently declare the apron wasn't there. You can declare it, but again, not intelligently. One guess is as good as another. If you choose to disregard human factors, which you do in this case, you can fool yourself and look the fool for it. For my part, I wouldn't want to be the fool here.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Then we should acccept every witness statement John,

Including Cross.

Monty

Accepting that we both know witness testimony can be most unreliable, in the situation that we are faced with, unable to cross-examine the witness, I think we have no choice but to accept what they said.
So long as there is no contentious testimony from another witness to permit us to dispute the fact, then we have no cause to question their words.

A fine example is Cox's claim that at 1:00am Kelly was singing and a light was in her room, and Cox walked down the passage shortly after 1:00.
While Prater says that between 1:00-1:20 there was no light, no singing, and no-one walked passed her.

Clear cause exists here for calling one or the other witness 'mistaken'. But, when you have a statement for which there is no conflicting testimony (or conflicting evidence), then what justification do we have to question their words?

[DRoy]

Fish,

No, it does not. The built in magnitude in the discussion between Mizen and Lechmere is much more significant. So yes, I AM right.

More "interpretation" and saying you're right it capital letters doesn't make it so. No matter how you turn, twist, dissect, interpret, translate, wiggle or speculate, we end up with the same: There is more value in the disputes between Long & Halse's testimony than there is between Mizen & Lechmere's.

The credibility of Long must be considered when talking about the time-gap. It would be ignorant to just accept what he says when other evidence conflicts with his testimony 'evidence'.

Cheers
DRoy