Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

to say nothing of the likelihood of a killer wanting to dispose of incriminating evidence as soon as possible...

He didn´t - and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?

It has rather a lot to do with the issue at hand, Fish, if only you'd think about it, instead of knee-jerking yet another of your "Long must be proved right at all costs" responses.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

Because that's when it registered, and - for whatever reason - he was minded to take a closer look. I say "for whatever reason"... he might have nipped into the doorway for a pee, for all we know.

He could have done a lot of things. But at 2.55, he set an example. He provided the only sample we have of how he searhed the doorway. And that only sample tells us ... Right!

What "preconceived supposition"?

The preconceived, subconciuos supposition that the papers would not be on the left side.

I overlooked something that was there all the time - nothing unusual in that, and no "preconception" involved.

You said earlier yourself that you missed the papers since you had placed them on the left side.

It's not as if I "don't expect" papers to be on one side of the desk only; but, if I did, one would think that their presence "in the wrong place" would make them stand out even more!

Not if you don´t look carefully on the side they are at, subconsciously predisposing that they won´t be on the left side.

Yet, I missed them, despite their having been in my line of vision for a long time.

And why? Because you were subconsciously certain that the papers would not be on the left side.
If they had normally been on that side, do you think you would have overlooked them? Of course not.

You make it sound as if the piece of apron was large, which it wasn't, and that it was laid out like a desert-island SOS message improvised from a parachute. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I don´t pretend to know the truth. But I think we are speaking of a rag that would be around 40 centimeters x 20 centimeters, roughly speaking. Is that small in your eyes? Or am I wrong on the size? Do you know the size too? And of course, rags of that size, appearing covered in blood, are a SOS message. That´s how Long perceived it, anyhow - he thought somebody had been killed in the building.
Maybe he was a very easily startled man too? As well as drunk and temporarily blind?

There was no "big hunk of rag with blood on it" when Long saw it from the street. He saw "something", off-white, almost certainly crumpled or folded, chucked up against a wall inside the passage, in the semi-darkness of Goulston Street. It was only when he inspected it at close range, and with better light, that any blood would have been apparent.

Once again, I don´t pretend to know the truth. But if he could see it at 2.55, he could see it at 2.55 too. And that was the exact case he argued.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Some posters have a habit of responding to a one-line post with an entire essay.

About papers on a desk?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And the source for that statement is...? Neither Halse nor Long, for sure. Is there a "Made-Up A to Z" that I haven't heard of?

Yes - it´s the copy where Halse tells us that the apron was easily overlooked.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

My example simply shows that people can - and do - overlook things that are there all the time. Furthermore, people can - and do - genuinely believe that an object wasn't there, when it was all along.

Do you find anybody contesting that out here? Anyone? One single soul?? And your example shows more than you admit to - it shows that when things are placed on a spot where they are normally not, it is easier to overlook them than otherwise.

But this little detail you are none to happy to discuss.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It has rather a lot to do with the issue at hand, Fish, if only you'd think about it, instead of knee-jerking yet another of your "Long must be proved right at all costs" responses.

Then explain it to me - how does a killer´s wish to dispose of an item quickly affect a PC:s ability to find that item?

Incidentally, I am not saying that Long must be proved right at all costs. I am saying that the evidence we have at hand - which is very little - is in favour of him being correct, especially since there is no evidence at all contradicting him.

Churchill said that the allies won the second world war. But Churchill was a drinking man. So who won ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Then explain it to me - how does a killer´s wish to dispose of an item quickly affect a PC:s ability to find that item?

It doesn't, but it could easily locate said item in a Goulston Street passageway earlier than said PC thought it was.

[Sam Flynn]

And your example shows more than you admit to - it shows that when things are placed on a spot where they are normally not, it is easier to overlook them than otherwise.

No - the item (an inch thick bundle of A3 paper, with a multi-coloured spreadsheet printed on it) was in front of my very eyes (centimetres away from my laptop) but I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I later swore that it was not on my desk at all.

That's the point.

[Fisherman]

It doesn't, but it could easily locate said item in a Goulston Street passageway earlier than said PC thought it was.

I have no idea what route the killer took after Mitre Square, Gareth. None whatsoever. The idea that he went straight from Mitre Square eastwards, passing Goulston Street a few minutes afterwards is not in line with the evidence, as you know. Up til Long spoke up, the better suggestion was that he did so, but afterwards, it was reduced to the second best suggestion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No - the item (an inch thick bundle of A3 paper, with a multi-coloured spreadsheet printed on it) was in front of my very eyes (centimetres away from my laptop) but I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I later swore that it was not on my desk at all.

That's the point.

So the fact that the papers were on the left side of your table had nothing at all to do with your inability to see them? That was not the reason or part of the reason that you overlooked them?

Here´s some little refreshment on the topic:

"... I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff."

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Yes - it´s the copy where Halse tells us that the apron was easily overlooked.

Now, come on - that's a low blow. We cleared that up a while back, and it was only a matter of wording. Halse's testimony did show that the apron's detectability would not axiomatically follow to a hominid perambulating the Queen's Highway, owing to its geo-spatial coordinates placing the apron in the covered brick interstice between the thoroughfare and the escalatory apparatus that led upwards to the residential space within 118-119 Wentworth Dwellings of the Model variety.

Not Halse's wording, either, but the same objective meaning as his sworn testimony. The apron was not easy to spot, because it was in the building.

[Sam Flynn]

So the fact that the papers were on the left side of your table had nothing at all to do with your inability to see them?

No. It was an enormous, colourful spreadsheet. And I still missed it. That's the point.

Here´s some little refreshment on the topic:

"... I overlooked them because they were on the left side of my desk, instead of on the right, where I usually put my stuff."

OK - I'll play that game. There wasn't usually anything on my left, so you'd think that something unusual would stand out like a sore thumb. Now a large bundle of A3 paper, containing a spreadsheet with colour-coded cells, should be very noticeable on the left side of my desk. But I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I swore that it wasn't there, when I was asked about it later.

Now, substitute "large bundle of A3 paper... with colour-coded cells" for "whopping great blood-stained apron"; substitute "on the left of my desk" with "in the passageway of WMD". Finally, substitute "But I still didn't notice it" with "But he still didn't notice it", and "I swore" with "he swore".

Except it wasn't a whopping great blood-stained apron, at first glance, was it. It was just an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway.

On which point, I sit next to the window and it was a beautiful sunny morning, but it clearly didn't help me see what was should have been a "unusual" and conspicuous object, when it was barely two feet away from the tip of my nose! What hope poor PC Long?

[Fisherman]

Double posting

[Fisherman]

It´s not a low blow at all, Gareth. Let me explain why.

What Halse DID say was that he should not necessarily have seen the apron since it was in the building.

Now, follow me:

Halse was on the prowl for people in the streets, and he was moving swiftly since he wanted to find these people before they got out of range.

I have said this before, so you will recognize it. Roughly speaking, I think we may agree on it - Halse´s primary aim was to look for people, and not to search doorways since that would slow him down and disenable him to perform his true task.

Now, the rag was in the building of the Wentworth Model buildings, in a doorway. And Halses focus was aimed at people in the streets, meaning that if there were no people in a street, he would rush on to the next street.

If the rag had lain out in the open street, he would presumably have seen it. But it was in a doorway, and he did not look into doorways. Therefore, he should not necessarily have seen the rag EVEN IF IT WAS READILY VERY VISIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO DID LOOK INTO THAT DOORWAY. (Note that I am speaking of a possibility and not a proven fact).

This is how I reason, and right or wrong, it IS a viable suggestion - Halse could have (and would have, if you ask me) have meant that he should not have seen things that were not in the line of his priority.

Please observe that "I should not necessarily have seen it" is NOT a means to say that he could/would not have done so. It is actually more or less a statement that he could/would have seen it if he DID look purposefully into the doorway.

Taking all of this into account, I hope that you will realize that "it was easily overlooked" is a description that actually lays down that the rag was hard to see even if you looked for it purposefully. It´s definitive.

So no low blow, Gareth - but instead a very, very crucial distinction.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

OK - I'll play that game. There wasn't usually anything on my left, so you'd think that something unusual would stand out like a sore thumb. Now a large bundle of A3 paper, containing a spreadsheet with colour-coded cells, should be very noticeable on the left side of my desk. But I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I swore that it wasn't there, when I was asked about it later.

Yes. And the REASON you did not see it was because you normally placed your stuff on the right hand side.

Now, substitute "large bundle of A3 paper... with colour-coded cells" for "whopping great blood-stained apron"; substitute "on the left of my desk" with "in the passageway of WMD". Finally, substitute "But I still didn't notice it" with "But he still didn't notice it", and "I swore" with "he swore".

Why would I substitute "the passageway of the WMD" with "on the left of your desk"? My whole point is that the passageway had no "left side" that would leave Long less likely to see the apron.
That´s why I am saying that the example with the papers is just useless.

Long could have overlooked the apron for many a reason - but a supposition that aprons don´t lie on the left hand side of a floor is not among them.

Except it wasn't a whopping great blood-stained apron, at first glance, was it. It was just an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway.

"I found a portion of an apron covered in blood" (Alfred Long) It´s hard to say how it looked when Long spotted it. We don´t know how close he was, we don´t know the ambient light etcetera. It could have reflected light the way wet things do, for example. And Hutchinson made out the colour red in gloom as did Lawende.
Let´s not be too sure about things we are not sure about.

The best,
Fisherman

off for now