Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

I just can not reconcile the two views that Phillips seems to present.

Personally, I think the poor chap was rather flustered by it all. Wynne Baxter's penchant for melodrama and hyperbole couldn't have helped, either.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

I realise I'm nitpicking here, but we already know Long missed seeing the apron piece at 2.20, honestly or otherwise. How could he 'admit' to having missed it earlier, if he didn't see it and therefore couldn't say when it got there? When he did notice it at 2.55 and examined it, he guessed rightly its connection to a violent crime, but thought it had been committed in or around that location.

We already know? From where please?

All the best

Dave

[GUT]

G'day Dave

You're quite right he wasn't new to the force, but he was totally new to the beat, and was only just beginning to impress his personality onto it...do you honestly reckon his first, second, third or even fourth circuit would've finally crystalised his understanding of the area he'd been allocated?

At one time I worked as a security guard, walking various beats with my Doberman, it takes [in my experience] a few times around a new beat to establish a pattern, but in my experience I know that I tended to pay more attention on the earlier passes than I did once I was more comfortable with the route.

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Gareth. Perhaps Phillips's comment about "skill" referred to the cuts themselves?

Cheers.
LC

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Gareth. Perhaps Phillips's comment about "skill" referred to the cuts themselves?

Maybe, Lynn, but you'll forgive me for not elaborating on that here. You know how anal I am about "thread-drift"

[harry]

Fisherman,
We cannot test Long against anyone else or any other situation.His words were either true or untrue,the apron was either there or it was not.No one person,or one piece of evidence has been submitted that can prove otherwise.
Now supposing,and that's all we can do,that the killer did injure himself enough that he required a large piece of cloth to cover the wound.Don,t you think that once getting into cover,he would address that problem first.In those days blood poisoning and its after effects were well known and feared,and he would understand the need for proper cleansing and dressing,and he didn't have much time,and unless you can come up with a time the apron was dropped,possibly no time at all.To return, that is.

[The Good Michael]

The 50/50 prospect is slightly misleading though, Mike, unless you are suggesting that PC Long did notice the apron at 2.20 and flat out lied.

If we at least accept that he didn't see it then, for whatever reason, it's still only 50/50 if it was there or not. Nobody saw it until he saw it and dealt with it efficiently and professionally.

X

I did say it was at best 50/50 and that is based upon many possibilities and without independent corroboration. It was dark; did he always go into that exact area on his routes; was he actually on his route at 2:20; was he on higher alert at 3:50 (most probably); did he think he had to make some definitive statement or look in dereliction; was he friends with the murderer; was he drinking; did he see it, but not see it; was he trying to say what he thought they wanted to hear....many, many possibilities. I don't think something being at best 50/50 without corroboration is misleading or unrealistic. Anyway, this argument for me has gone with the Hutchinson signature argument. Some folks have been blinded and don't want the lasic surgery.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

wow, then we really do live in a fantasy world. and according to your reasoning then what you just said has more chance of being incorrect, meaning that the opposite of what you just said has more chance of being correct, which means...

see what I mean? fantasy world.

Yes, because your truth is different. You see how simple that is? Good work.

Mike

[harry]

If one wants to make comparisons between Long and others,there are many instances of policemen having lied,some have even gone to prison because of it.Doesn't prove Long did,but it does lessen a probability that he must have told the truth.To 50/50.

[Fisherman]

There is absolutely no prejudice inherent in acknowledging that Long's cognitive apparatus would have worked the same way as yours, mine, or Halse's.

"It was easily overlooked. It was in the building."

(Thinks: I might make that my signature.)

Maybe is more appropriate as your signature than Halseīs? Is there any treu provenance on it? Can you tell me where Halse says that the rag was "easily overlooked"?

As for prejudices, I am not speaking about Longīs and Halseīs cognitive properties - I am speaking of how people tend to think that it is allowed for to speculate that Long was a bad man, a man who would lie to save his job, and from this infer that it somehow points us in the direction of him having been untruthful about the rag.

I would advice very strongly against such thinking, since we cannot substantiate it. Long may just as easily have been a good man as a bad one. He may just as easily have been very adverse to people who would lie to save their jobs, he may have had principles that governed his thinking that we know nothing at all about. Therefore we must treat the issue neutrally in this respect. But we donīt do so, at least not some of us.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer



You're quite right he wasn't new to the force, but he was totally new to the beat, and was only just beginning to impress his personality onto it...do you honestly reckon his first, second, third or even fourth circuit would've finally crystalised his understanding of the area he'd been allocated?

No, of course not...his familiarity with the area and it's customs would've developed alongside his own experiences...

What I think is that he would have brought along his former experience as he came to the Goulston Street beat, and he would have worked for that. If he normally took an extra look in deeply recessed doorways, then he would have done son in Goulston Street too. If he was in the habit of feeling the doorhandles, he would do so in Goulston Street too. If he was used to pay extra attention to shops, then he would do that in Goulston Street too. I trust you can follow my drift?

We form routines all the time, and many of them, we transfer from one area to another.

Much as we cannot say with certainty that he would have gone about things in the same manner at 2.20 and 2.55, it is actually our best guess nevertheless. And routine would have had a lot to do with that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz



We already know? From where please?

All the best

Dave

The alternative would be that he did see the rag - and denied it at the inquest. That seems a rather strained suggestion to make, but as Long was such a shady character, who can tell ...?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

harry:

Fisherman,
We cannot test Long against anyone else or any other situation.His words were either true or untrue,the apron was either there or it was not.No one person,or one piece of evidence has been submitted that can prove otherwise.

Sorry, but we do have clear and unambiguos evidence telling us that the apron was not there - Longs own statement. What we lack is corroborative evidence.
We of course cannot say that the apron could not have been there in spite of Longs assertion, but we cannot treat the issue as if it was a 50/50 issue. Long effectively hinders any such proposition.

Now supposing,and that's all we can do,that the killer did injure himself enough that he required a large piece of cloth to cover the wound.Don,t you think that once getting into cover,he would address that problem first.In those days blood poisoning and its after effects were well known and feared,and he would understand the need for proper cleansing and dressing,and he didn't have much time,and unless you can come up with a time the apron was dropped,possibly no time at all.To return, that is.

As you say, supposition is all we have. My suggestion is that he did use the apron as a bandage. Whether he was aware of there being feces on it or not, we donīt know. Whether he knew about the bloodpoisoning risk or not, we donīt know. Whether he knew that he had already had his wound exposed to feces before he bandaged himself or not, we donīt know. Whether the feces was on a portion of the rag that he kept away from contact with the wound, we donīt know.

But we DO know that open cuts bleed. And we DO know that blood is subjected to the laws of gravitation. So if there was such a cut, he would produce a trail of blood behind him if he did not do something about it.

We also DO know that there was a corner of the rag that was wet with fresh blood as Long found it. That is totally consistent with a suggestion of the rag having been used for bandaging purposes.

The chain is a very clear one, if I am correct:

He aborts up at Mitre Square after having cut himself - he manufactures a makeshift bandage by cutting the apron in half, meaning that he was not pressed for time - he grabs the bandage corner with his cut hand and wraps the rag around the hand - he makes for Pickfords, where he stores his trophies - he deposits the innards at Pickfords, and sets out for home - he arrives in Goulston Street, steps into the recessed doorway and takes of the bandage to check if it has stopped bleeding, which it has - he throws the rag, wet with his own blood, away and sets off for Doveton Street.

So Lechmere fits the bill once again, which he seemingly always does. And the Broad Street deposition place answers the question why the rag was not in place at 2.20.
How many other suspects have a perfectly logical explanation going for them on that score, I wonder ...?

Supposition? Absolutely. But totally tantalizing, to my ears.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yes, because your truth is different. You see how simple that is? Good work.

Mike

This, Abby, of course means that your truth is NOT different. And in itīs turn, that means that you and Mike agree.

Which is good.

But strange.

I canīt make out whether it was Kafka or Lewis Carroll who inspired this debate. But Iīve decided to go with Carroll, meaning that it must have been Kafka.

Once you get into the stride with this method of working, everything becomes very easy.

Meaning we will never get anywhere.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If one wants to make comparisons between Long and others,there are many instances of policemen having lied,some have even gone to prison because of it.Doesn't prove Long did,but it does lessen a probability that he must have told the truth.To 50/50.

Yes, if policemen as a general rule lie in 50 per cent of what they state, you will be right.

If they lie more often than so, then I say letīs damn Long - statistically.

If they lie less often, then Longīs in the clear - statistically.

We cannot reason like this, Harry! All we can say is that it is obvious that policemen can lie, and therefore it applies that Long could have done too. But trying to establish a 50/50 rule from it is - with respect - not sound.

Although I would not want to try and establish any ratio on the topic, Iīd say itīs pretty obvious that policemen tell the truth much more often than they lie. And that unknown ratio is what applies here. If policemen lie about one per cent of what they tell us, then statistically, it applies that there is a one per cent chance that Long lied. Und so weiter. Nothing else.

Itīs comparable to jumping from the Eiffel tower, sort of - we know that people have done so, but that should not make us think that there is a 50/50 risk that everybody will do so when visiting it. I went there with my whole family ten years ago, and not a single one of us jumped. Nor did any of the hundreds of spectators that saw the tower alongside us that morning.

If I had known then what course this debate would take, then maybe I would have jumped, though.

Fisherman