Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[DRoy]

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

Not at all Jon. You make him sound like Sherlock. I was merely pointing out there are many things that could have distracted him even for a split second that could have made him miss it.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

Not at all Jon. You make him sound like Sherlock. I was merely pointing out there are many things that could have distracted him even for a split second that could have made him miss it.

Cheers
DRoy

And that could well be the case, yet you have explicit examples within his testimony of PC Long saying when he was "not sure".
Apparently he was not reluctant to say "not sure" when that was the case.

[Michael W Richards]

Bottom line.....you can only legitimately challenge the statement regarding the aprons presence at 2:20am if you present evidence from someone else of authority that disputes that comment directly, or some evidence that Long cannot be held to his word.

Neither are present here.

Ergo, Longs statement into the records about whether it was there at 2:20am should be acceptable as is.

This is one of the most futile and desperate acts that we often see in this particular study...the urge to question the qualified data in order to construct an answer which satisfies the researchers sensibilities. Another stunning example of that is the interruption theorizing about Berner Street...because some people cant accept the fact that the person who killed Liz didnt intend to do anything but what he did...based on the evidence. As for the cloth....It doesnt make sense that the guy would go back out later and leave it there....but thats what the evidence says. Accept it. If you can, then you can move onto the next obvious and far more pertinent question....why after that time had elapsed does he go back out into the streets with the cloth on him?

Cheers

[DRoy]

Michael and Jon,

I can see where this is going. Seen it from you both a million times in your posts. Only testimony and evidence should be considered, blah blah. We all know that but when does rational thought ever come in?

Don't give me that crap. How many people testified at inquests and gave wrong/mistaken 'evidence'? Since they testified though it must be so?

Based on that theory Liz Stride might actually be a dead sister even though dead sister was alive and not Stride. Based on that theory MJK was both alive and dead at the same time. Come on guys, sing a new tune with a little rational thought to go with it

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy: 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

As I said, if you are of the meaning that Long was correct, I couldn´t be more pleased. However, asking questions like these implicates another stance altogether.

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.

If the killer went further west after having killed Eddowes - exactly as he did after having killed Stride! - then how is it "logical" that the rag ended up in a doorway to the east?
You see, DRoy, what you are asking for is not logic - you are asking for things to pan out with your thinking. And if it does, it magically becomes "logical".

My take on things is that Lechmere was the killer, and that he went to Broad Street to deposit the organs and clean up after the strike. If this is correct, then it is perfectly logical for the apron to be missing at 2.20 but be there at 2.55.

It´s not YOUR logic, but it is logic nevertheless.

I am not saying that this must be what happened, I am merely pointing to how the term "logical" cannot be owned by specific people or fractions of people.

As long as we have no idea what the killer did after killing Eddowes, we must try and be a little more discerning.

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.

Let´s break this down, DRoy, since it is very interesting!

To begin with, you mean that the testimony does not belong to the evidence. I am of another meaning. Have you heard the phrase "to give evidence"? That means to testify.

Next: You dub Longs assertion a "tiny little blurb". Why would we belittle what he said, and not acknowledge that it was not a tiny little blurb but instead a confident assertion?

Next: You state that believing in Long is going down the rabbit hole, meaning that Long must be wrong. And after that you brag about your own openmindedness and how you will at least consider possibilities...

... and to sign off, you elevate the possibility to a probability and logic.

That´s not bad for a few sentences on a public board.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Fish,

I normally enjoy your posts because whether I agree with you or not, I find them at least amusing. This last one makes no sense, there is nothing I learned, nor did it entice me to think otherwise. I'd like to argue with you but I don't see anything worth debating.

That´s pretty bad for a large post on a public board.

Cheers
DRoy

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
I shall have to disagree with you if only to prove that we are not the same person – unless there is something Janus-like happening here.

I wouldn’t say that it is more logical for the apron to be placed in Goulston Street within, say, fifteen minutes of the murder taking place. But it makes more sense that it was. It seems to be the simplest thing to have happened.
Otherwise the murderer must have gone off somewhere (e.g. Broad Street), left any body parts that he still may have had with him and presumably cleaned himself up as required, then went out again with the bloody apron and went perilously close to the murder scene and dumped it, and possibly at the same time wrote the graffiti. That seems to be quite a mission.

The simpler alternative is that Long was wrong.
We know he was seconded to this beat and it was his first night in the area. This may have made him resentful and less than diligent in his duty and less than aware of which stairwells it was appropriate to give more attention to than others.
We know that he was not aware of any murder having taken place until after he discovered the apron, which means he had been ‘out of the loop’ while on his beat.
We know that he was dismissed for drinking on duty some months later.
We know he neglected to bring his notebook with him to court.
From this can doubt be placed on his testimony? I think it can.

It has been stated that Long was not always certain in his testimony but he was certain about the late appearance of the apron. This is advanced to demonstrate the truthfulness of Long’s testimony.
But actually it was the only part of his testimony that could have seriously impacted on the proper diligence of his duty that night. In other words, if he had been skiving he could not admit this and had to express certainty that the apron was not there at the earlier time.
Accordingly as both interpretations make sense, no weight can be placed on a textual analysis of Long’s testimony.

I don’t know what actually happened.

[DRoy]

Lech,

I made a mistake believing Michael and Janet Jackson were the same person until I saw them on stage at the same time so I'm happy to hear you aren't Fish as well!!

Well said post by the way, thank you for chiming in.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Fish,

I normally enjoy your posts because whether I agree with you or not, I find them at least amusing. This last one makes no sense, there is nothing I learned, nor did it entice me to think otherwise. I'd like to argue with you but I don't see anything worth debating.

That´s pretty bad for a large post on a public board.

Cheers
DRoy

I think you´ve made a very sound decision - and wisely hidden why you made it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Bottom line.....you can only legitimately challenge the statement regarding the aprons presence at 2:20am if you present evidence from someone else of authority that disputes that comment directly, or some evidence that Long cannot be held to his word.

Neither are present here.

Ergo, Longs statement into the records about whether it was there at 2:20am should be acceptable as is.

This is one of the most futile and desperate acts that we often see in this particular study...the urge to question the qualified data in order to construct an answer which satisfies the researchers sensibilities. Another stunning example of that is the interruption theorizing about Berner Street...because some people cant accept the fact that the person who killed Liz didnt intend to do anything but what he did...based on the evidence. As for the cloth....It doesnt make sense that the guy would go back out later and leave it there....but thats what the evidence says. Accept it. If you can, then you can move onto the next obvious and far more pertinent question....why after that time had elapsed does he go back out into the streets with the cloth on him?

Cheers

because he didn't know he was going to be interrupted by a bunch of jews that night so he did not bring any chalk with him to implicate/get back at them for pissing him off.

[Lechmere]

He left the chalk in his pocket after spending the evening with his schoolgirl daughter.

[Abby Normal]

Fisherman
I shall have to disagree with you if only to prove that we are not the same person – unless there is something Janus-like happening here.

I wouldn’t say that it is more logical for the apron to be placed in Goulston Street within, say, fifteen minutes of the murder taking place. But it makes more sense that it was. It seems to be the simplest thing to have happened.
Otherwise the murderer must have gone off somewhere (e.g. Broad Street), left any body parts that he still may have had with him and presumably cleaned himself up as required, then went out again with the bloody apron and went perilously close to the murder scene and dumped it, and possibly at the same time wrote the graffiti. That seems to be quite a mission.

The simpler alternative is that Long was wrong.
We know he was seconded to this beat and it was his first night in the area. This may have made him resentful and less than diligent in his duty and less than aware of which stairwells it was appropriate to give more attention to than others.
We know that he was not aware of any murder having taken place until after he discovered the apron, which means he had been ‘out of the loop’ while on his beat.
We know that he was dismissed for drinking on duty some months later.
We know he neglected to bring his notebook with him to court.
From this can doubt be placed on his testimony? I think it can.

It has been stated that Long was not always certain in his testimony but he was certain about the late appearance of the apron. This is advanced to demonstrate the truthfulness of Long’s testimony.
But actually it was the only part of his testimony that could have seriously impacted on the proper diligence of his duty that night. In other words, if he had been skiving he could not admit this and had to express certainty that the apron was not there at the earlier time.
Accordingly as both interpretations make sense, no weight can be placed on a textual analysis of Long’s testimony.

I don’t know what actually happened.

nice try fish

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

Fisherman
I shall have to disagree with you if only to prove that we are not the same person – unless there is something Janus-like happening here.

Disagreeing with me is fine, as long as it does not result in you mourning the loss of my wits. DRoy ended up there, and now I guess I have a tough uphill stretch to impress him again...

I wouldn’t say that it is more logical for the apron to be placed in Goulston Street within, say, fifteen minutes of the murder taking place. But it makes more sense that it was. It seems to be the simplest thing to have happened.

That is correct - it IS the simplest solution. But if it is the true solution, well, that is another matter altogether.

Otherwise the murderer must have gone off somewhere (e.g. Broad Street), left any body parts that he still may have had with him and presumably cleaned himself up as required, then went out again with the bloody apron and went perilously close to the murder scene and dumped it, and possibly at the same time wrote the graffiti. That seems to be quite a mission.

For all we know he may have enjoyed the challenge, Edward!

It is of course correct to say that it would have been a solution that entailed peril. But peril was always going to be present. Let´s not forget that if he killed Stride, then he would - judging from the apron - have walked eastwards after the Eddowes deed, taking him closer to peril with every step if he left immediately after the Eddowes strike.
If Lechmere was the killer, he needed to get past the Berner Street area before arriving home. And he would do so with his pocket filled with innards, quite possibly. To me, that sounds awkward too.

To my mind, it makes perfect sense that he deposited the innards at Pickfords, cleaned up as best as he could and then set out on his way back home again. The one strange thing about it is that he would not have dumped the apron at Pickfords, and - as I have said before - that points to necessity being the reason he did not do so. Which is why I believe he may have used the rag as a makeshift bandage.
It would conveniently explain how the rag could be wet with blood in one corner when found, as I have demonstrated.

The simpler alternative is that Long was wrong.
We know he was seconded to this beat and it was his first night in the area. This may have made him resentful and less than diligent in his duty and less than aware of which stairwells it was appropriate to give more attention to than others.

Speculation, Edward. And there is nothing wrong with that. It´s just that it can be speculated the other way around too - that he was extra diligent and on his toes since the beat was a new one.

We know that he was not aware of any murder having taken place until after he discovered the apron, which means he had been ‘out of the loop’ while on his beat.
We know that he was dismissed for drinking on duty some months later.
We know he neglected to bring his notebook with him to court.
From this can doubt be placed on his testimony? I think it can.

It is a chain of thought that has bearing here, no doubt about it. But the combination of the coroners very forgiving way of asking his question: "Are you able to say...?" and Longs certainty: "It was not", speaks to me of a PC that would not be held responsible for being lax if he simply said "I don´t think it was there, but I cannot be completely certain".
But Long did not employ that strategy, and I can only assume that was because he did not need to - he knew the answer to the question quite well.
And - as I keep saying - the 2.55 development tells us that without knowing about the murders, he STILL was diligent enough to find the rag. This is of the outmost importance, since it tells us that on the only occasion we can account for with certainty, Alfred Long performed his duties in a manner that produced the rag.

The combination of this thorough enough search at 2.55 and his certainty at the inquest makes for a very good argument that Long was truthful. In fact, I don´t see how it could have been any better; we KNOW that he was the real McCoy at 2.55 and we know that the real McCoy asserts us that the rag was not in place at 2.20. That´s as good as it gets. It adds up, with a PC that has proven himself.

It has been stated that Long was not always certain in his testimony but he was certain about the late appearance of the apron. This is advanced to demonstrate the truthfulness of Long’s testimony.
But actually it was the only part of his testimony that could have seriously impacted on the proper diligence of his duty that night. In other words, if he had been skiving he could not admit this and had to express certainty that the apron was not there at the earlier time.

True. But it predisposes that he did the job in another fashion at 2.20 as opposed to how he did it at 2.55. And that must be regarded as a stretch to believe.
Is it impossible? No, not at all - of course he could have been skiving at the earlier occasion. But it can only be a suggestion - and a suggestion that does not dovetail with what evidence we have.

Accordingly as both interpretations make sense, no weight can be placed on a textual analysis of Long’s testimony.

I disagree somewhat - I think that the certainty with which Long expressed himself must be taken into account. Just like you say, both interpretations make sense - but only one of them has support evidencewise, as long as we don´t know what the killer did after Mitre Square.

I don’t know what actually happened.

Maybe we ARE twins after all: I don´t know either. Luckily, it is not any make or break issue for the Lechmere theory ...!

All the best, Edward!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

nice try fish

Eh - the post you quoted was Edwards, not mine.

Fisherman

[DRoy]

I think you´ve made a very sound decision - and wisely hidden why you made it.

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

No idea what that means but are you saying because you've provided such a great argument that I'm scared to retort? I hope not, I'm quite willing to take the Pepsi challenge but at least argue something relevant to the thread that makes coherent sense.

Cheers
DRoy