Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

G'day Jon

Or was deposited between 1.55 and 2.55 and he missed it once.

We also have no idea how dirty it was, ie how well it blended in.

Not enough to stop Long from finding it at 2.55, and being sure that if it was there at 2.20, he would have found it too.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Well, anybody can believe they can I suppose.

Youīve got a point there, Chris. I was making a theoretical point.

However, the whole trouble about the Long business is that people will not accept what he said, but instead choose to "reason".

Thatīs what happens when the different witnesses do not deliver what we want them to deliver.

The evidence is clear when it comes to the rag and the doorway. It was there at 2.55, but it was not there at 2.20. Otherwise, Long lied. And such a suggestion would be easier to accept if we did not know that Long made a thorough enough search to find the apron piece at 2.55. But we know that he did just that.

So all the reasoning we produce is totally moot. We have not any idea what route the killer chose, we do not know how HE reasoned, if he had a nearby bolthole, if he had killed twice and set out to find victim number three before heading for home, etcetera.
As long as we do not have any answers to questions like these, we had better listen to what Long said.

The best,
Fisherman

[Michael W Richards]

Youīve got a point there, Chris. I was making a theoretical point.

However, the whole trouble about the Long business is that people will not accept what he said, but instead choose to "reason".


The best,
Fisherman

Hear, Hear......precisely the point Fisherman when dealing with witnesses like Long, which is to say credible witnesses that make empirical statements like..."It was not...".

When you have witnesses for example like Morris Eagle however, you have an association with the murder scene, and a man who claims that he walked through the passageway at 12:40 and "couldnt recall" if he saw anyone in the process. Question that by all means, but not the NOT.

Cheers Fish

[GUT]

Just to be clear I have no reason to doubt that Long believed his evidence to be true.

What would like to see is some closer questioning, ie "Did you shine your lantern into the doorway on earlier passes?" Maybe this type of question was asked and we just don't have the records.

[Hunter]

It may have been a totally different story if this beat had been patrolled by someone who had been on it for some time. Of course, this was not the case and we'll never really know. And a police surgeon who had actually examined the apron piece gave his opinion as to what it looked like it was used for.

[GUT]

G'day Hunter

And a police surgeon who had actually examined the apron piece gave his opinion as to what it looked like it was used for.

No doubt in my mind what it was used for, that's why I wondered to what degree it melded into the background. It sounds like it was dirty with dried blood and fecal matter on it. Gives rise to the question did it stand out or blend in?

[Fisherman]

Just to be clear I have no reason to doubt that Long believed his evidence to be true.

What would like to see is some closer questioning, ie "Did you shine your lantern into the doorway on earlier passes?" Maybe this type of question was asked and we just don't have the records.

For sure, we do not have all the wordings from the inquests. Much of it are summaries, at least to a degree. However, in the Long case, it was obvious that no questions needed to be asked but for the one the coroner posed:

-Are you able to say whether the rag was there or not at that time?

-It was not.

After that, it is kind of moot to ask exactly how and why Long knew it, not least since we know that he found the rag on his next round. If he did his rounds in the same manner - and why would he not do so? - then he would have found that apron piece at 2.20, if it was there. Thatīs how he would have known and thatīs how he could be certain.

As an aside, we all wish from time to time that many more questions had been put to the witnesses at the inquests. But given the nature of Ripperology, I can assure you that no matter how inquisitive the coroner would have been, it still would not satisfy a number of posters out here ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

It may have been a totally different story if this beat had been patrolled by someone who had been on it for some time. Of course, this was not the case and we'll never really know. And a police surgeon who had actually examined the apron piece gave his opinion as to what it looked like it was used for.

It lies not with the number of times you have walked the beat, Cris, but with the thoroughness of the walker. Long was new on the beat and may as a consequence of this have been a lot more alert than a PC that trod the beat for the umpteenth time.

Our PC was adamant and sure about what he said, and thatīs that. The rest is all speculations, grounded in the unsubstantiated belief that we somehow know that the killer called it a night after Eddowes and set of for his bolthole.

On what Brown said: “On the piece of apron brought on (produced as evidence) there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it.”, Iīd say that wiping your hands on a piece of cloth produces totally different markings as opposed to wiping a knife. In my opinion, a knife is wiped by holding on to the handle and pressing the cloth against the blade while retracting the knife towards you. The result is nothing like what appears when wiping your hands.
I am therefore much inclined to think that Brownīs statement is an odd one, and anything but reliable.
By that, I do not mean that I donīt think the rag was used to wipe either hands and/or knife on it - it would be a perfectly logical thing to do.

The problem of the matter is how Brown expressed himself. If he had said that it seemed like bloodied hands and a knife had been wiped clean with the rag, Iīd have no problem. And of course, this may be exactly what he meant.
Alas, it is not what he said.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

No doubt in my mind what it was used for, that's why I wondered to what degree it melded into the background. It sounds like it was dirty with dried blood and fecal matter on it. Gives rise to the question did it stand out or blend in?

It would seem it stood out at 2.55 but blended in at 2.20 ...?

The apron, by the way, was said to be very dirty and gave a more grey than white appearance.

Didnīt stop Long from seeing it at 2.55, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Hi everyone,

I wonder if he was grilled about the apron the same way he was about the GSG wording, if he still would have been so matter-of-fact.

His order of believing the GSG wording goes like this...he states as a fact the wording, then states he doesn't think he got the wording wrong then accepts he may have got it wrong. With each question, his confidence seems to lessen.

I don't believe he passed the spot more than the two times he said he did 2:20 & 2:55. He was asked if he had passed that spot and he answered 2:20, no other times noted. If he had passed that spot more than the two times then why wouldn't he say so?

As Cris noted, this was his first shift at that location. So we all can speculate how well he looked around at 2:20, how well he paid attention to the numbering of the dwellings (how can we be sure when he said the apron wasn't there that he wasn't looking at a different stairway?), or whether there were people who disctracted him, etc.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

I wonder if he was grilled about the apron the same way he was about the GSG wording, if he still would have been so matter-of-fact.

That one will not have an answer. Ever.

His order of believing the GSG wording goes like this...he states as a fact the wording, then states he doesn't think he got the wording wrong then accepts he may have got it wrong. With each question, his confidence seems to lessen.

And it is another issue altogether from the apron business. Like Jon said earlier, it seems every time a witness does not live up to what we want them to live up to, character assasination is the next step...

I don't believe he passed the spot more than the two times he said he did 2:20 & 2:55. He was asked if he had passed that spot and he answered 2:20, no other times noted. If he had passed that spot more than the two times then why wouldn't he say so?

Of course he passed the spot on every round he made. And of course the preceding round was the only one of interest for the question the coroner asked about whether the rag was there at the earlier stage. I fail to see that the coroner should speculate that the rag was there at 1.55, was gone at 2.20, only to reappear at 2.55.
He wanted to establish when the rag was deposited in the doorway, and learnt that it happened between 2.20 and 2.55.

As Cris noted, this was his first shift at that location. So we all can speculate how well he looked around at 2:20, how well he paid attention to the numbering of the dwellings (how can we be sure when he said the apron wasn't there that he wasn't looking at a different stairway?), or whether there were people who disctracted him, etc.

To begin with, we can not be sure of anything. Thatīs what you are using right now, to try and build a case for the rag being in the doorway at 2.20. To carry on, it still remains that Long was positive that the rag was missing in that doorway at 2.20.
Thatīs what we have, and thatīs what we should accept as the main trail of the issue. After that, it is anybodyīs prerogative to "reason" away. Far away, even, should they wish to.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

And it is another issue altogether from the apron business. Like Jon said earlier, it seems every time a witness does not live up to what we want them to live up to, character assasination is the next step...

How is me showing that his confidence and his answers changing become charcter assasination? It is his testimony!

Of course he passed the spot on every round he made. And of course the preceding round was the only one of interest for the question the coroner asked about whether the rag was there at the earlier stage. I fail to see that the coroner should speculate that the rag was there at 1.55, was gone at 2.20, only to reappear at 2.55.
He wanted to establish when the rag was deposited in the doorway, and learnt that it happened between 2.20 and 2.55.

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
[Long] I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

If you are going to use his Long's words as the gospel when he says the apron wasn't there then why do you get to speculate what the coroner and long meant here?

I said "So we all can speculate how well he looked around at 2:20..."
Fish response "To begin with, we can not be sure of anything. Thatīs what you are using right now, to try and build a case for the rag being in the doorway at 2.20."

I'm not trying to build a case at all. I said we can speculate how Long searched the dwellings previously which you are doing when suggesting he was correct. Re-read what I have posted in theis thread and you'd see I agree with many things you've said as in many cases I said them before you did.

I believe you enjoy arguing whether you've even read the posts you argue against.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

How is me showing that his confidence and his answers changing become charcter assasination?

By extrapolating that if he was unsure of one thing, heīd certainly be so about other things to. Thatīs how.

[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?
[Long] I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

If you are going to use his Long's words as the gospel when he says the apron wasn't there then why do you get to speculate what the coroner and long meant here?

I said "So we all can speculate how well he looked around at 2:20..."
Fish response "To begin with, we can not be sure of anything. Thatīs what you are using right now, to try and build a case for the rag being in the doorway at 2.20."

I'm not trying to build a case at all. I said we can speculate how Long searched the dwellings previously which you are doing when suggesting he was correct. Re-read what I have posted in theis thread and you'd see I agree with many things you've said as in many cases I said them before you did.

I donīt keep statistical track of who agrees with me or not. What worries me here is the nigh on universal acceptance of something that has no evidence basis, and the rejection of something that has. Somehow, the notion that Long got it wrong has gained the upper hand - with no evidence to support it at all.
If you subscribe to the theory that Long was correct, however, I could not be happier - though your posts do not unequivocally support such a thing.

I believe you enjoy arguing whether you've even read the posts you argue against.

There is very little I can do about what you believe or not. I can, however, point to the evidence basis in a case and promote the line of going WITH the evidence instead of against it. Whether others agree or not is not the issue - as I said before, you are welcome to speculate away as much as you like, as long as you donīt forget that you are doing so in conflict with the evidence.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

As Cris noted, this was his first shift at that location. So we all can speculate how well he looked around at 2:20, how well he paid attention to the numbering of the dwellings (how can we be sure when he said the apron wasn't there that he wasn't looking at a different stairway?), or whether there were people who disctracted him, etc.

It is easy to see what the implication is intended to be, but those of us who remember our first day on a change of job will likely recall how much we tried to pay attention to the smallest details yet, we apparently overlooked things that would later become obvious.

In other words raising the 'first day on the job' issue is of no help at all.

What I think is important is that this is only PC Long's first day at a new location, not his first day on the job as a beat constable.

Are we being asked to assume he had forgotten his duties that were applicable to any location?

[DRoy]

By extrapolating that if he was unsure of one thing, heīd certainly be so about other things to. Thatīs how.

What was my original comment? "I wonder if he was grilled about the apron the same way he was about the GSG wording, if he still would have been so matter-of-fact." Yup, character assassination and extrapolating

I donīt keep statistical track of who agrees with me or not.

Don't blame you for that one Fish, I'm sure we both would have one side clearly weighing down the other side (leave it there to speculate which side).

What worries me here is the nigh on universal acceptance of something that has no evidence basis, and the rejection of something that has. Somehow, the notion that Long got it wrong has gained the upper hand - with no evidence to support it at all.

For some reason I picture Mr S...k saying something about logical and illogical here. One theory is logical (apron was there), one theory isn't (the apron wasn't there). There is no evidence to confirm either one but there is testimony. Does one man's 'summary' testimony trump that which is more logical? I think it can be said in this particular case that logic clearly dictates that the beliefs of the many outweigh the beliefs of the few. (All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.)

There is very little I can do about what you believe or not. I can, however, point to the evidence basis in a case and promote the line of going WITH the evidence instead of against it.

There is no evidence, there is only one man's testimony. Yes he makes it sound like there is no doubt at all that the apron wasn't there but since when did witnesses become evidence? If his tiny little blurb about the apron not being there takes you down the rabbit hole then so be it. I will at least consider the possibility and probability that he was mistaken and see where logic takes me.

Cheers
DRoy