Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[caz]

Just because there are two options, doesn't mean there's a "50/50" chance. If I flip a fair coin, there's a 50/50 chance of heads or tails, but not everything in life is a fair coin. If I get strep throat, I have nearly 100% chance of getting better with antibiotics. The odds are still better than 50/50 without antibiotics, but they are much lower than 100%. Unless I am a child, in which case, unfortunately the odds drop below 50/50.

The cloth being there or not being there is not a "fair coin." At this point, I don't know all the factors that are operating, and I don't know what the odds are that Long would miss something, but he probably isn't a "fair coin" himself, and it's not a simple 50/50 proposition that he would or would not miss something.

Well you managed to miss the point - 100%.

I wasn't talking about the chances of PC Long missing the apron or not (ie if it was actually there). Of course that's not a simple 50/50 proposition. I was talking about the chances of it being there or not.

Once again, if we take PC Long out of the equation, despite the fact he didn't miss the bloody thing at 2.55, because we can't be sure he would have checked that location as carefully at 2.20, then there is no way on earth for any of us to estimate the chances of it being there or not at 2.20 as any more or less than a straight 50/50. Without any further information (beyond gut feelings about the killer's likely behaviour that night) that is the same as tossing a coin.

Is it me??

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

We already know? From where please?

All the best

Dave

Yes, Dave. We already know PC Long missed seeing the apron at 2.20. Nobody saw it there until Long did so at 2.55.

What we don't know is whether he missed seeing it earlier because a) he was new to the beat/he failed to look in the right place/he was only human (and humans often look but don't see)/he was incompetent/he was the worse for drink/he was skiving etc, or b) it wasn't there yet - in which case any of the above could still have applied, or he could have been doing his job and looking in the right place, because he'd have missed seeing it anyway.

It must be me.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

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

I give up.

At 2.20, PC Long could have been having tea with Queen Victoria for all I care. The possibilities for him missing that apron first time round are seemingly endless, but all rely on it being there in the first place. And there isn't a single, solitary indication of that - anywhere, or from anyone.

The possibility (50/50 at best was it?) that PC Long didn't know either way merely allows for the other possibility - that it was actually there. To argue any more strongly for it being there requires more than one possibility held together by another.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

Caz,

I don't get it can you please explain all that again?

Cheers
DRoy

[RivkahChaya]

Well you managed to miss the point - 100%.

I wasn't talking about the chances of PC Long missing the apron or not (ie if it was actually there). Of course that's not a simple 50/50 proposition. I was talking about the chances of it being there or not.

Once again, if we take PC Long out of the equation, despite the fact he didn't miss the bloody thing at 2.55, because we can't be sure he would have checked that location as carefully at 2.20, then there is no way on earth for any of us to estimate the chances of it being there or not at 2.20 as any more or less than a straight 50/50. Without any further information (beyond gut feelings about the killer's likely behaviour that night) that is the same as tossing a coin.

Is it me??

Love,

Caz
X

It's you. "Unknowable" /= "50/50."

[Fisherman]

Of course itīs not you, Caz. Relax - you are on the money.

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Harry

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.

Much as it saddens me to disagree with you, (I mostly find myself agreeing with your observations!), I'm not so sure at this time the role of bacterium in blood poisoning WAS fully understood by everybody...

Don't forget the "Great Stink" was only thirty years or so before, and then it was thought it was the smell that transmitted diseases...between 1866 and 1871 it became scientifically accepted, but how long after this did scientific reasoning become accepted amongst the lower classes of society as opposed to centuries old folklore?

I'm not saying you're outright wrong - just I ain't so sure!

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

Yes, Dave. We already know PC Long missed seeing the apron at 2.20. Nobody saw it there until Long did so at 2.55.

What we don't know is whether he missed seeing it earlier because a) he was new to the beat/he failed to look in the right place/he was only human (and humans often look but don't see)/he was incompetent/he was the worse for drink/he was skiving etc, or b) it wasn't there yet - in which case any of the above could still have applied, or he could have been doing his job and looking in the right place, because he'd have missed seeing it anyway.

It must be me.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz (and incidentally Christer)

I'm reassured...and it IS you!

Look, if the rag really wasn't there at 0220 then Long didn't miss seeing it...it simply wasn't there...if it was then he did...

I'm afraid you suggested categorically that:-

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 don't after all know for sure that Long missed seeing the apron piece at 0220. I believe it's likely....but we DON'T know for sure...and I'm sorry Christer but that does not leave either you or Caz "on the money"

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz



Hi Caz (and incidentally Christer)

I'm reassured...and it IS you!

Look, if the rag really wasn't there at 0220 then Long didn't miss seeing it...it simply wasn't there...if it was then he did...

I'm afraid you suggested categorically that:-



We don't after all know for sure that Long missed seeing the apron piece at 0220. I believe it's likely....but we DON'T know for sure...and I'm sorry Christer but that does not leave either you or Caz "on the money"

All the best

Dave

To my understanding, you misread Caz; what she says is that philosophically and when ALL other parameters are removed, itīs a 50/50 chance that the rag was there. And a 50/50 that it was not.

All very basic, therefore. And totally on the money. Which was why I said so.

But misunderstandings are the order of the day on this thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[RivkahChaya]

Much as it saddens me to disagree with you, (I mostly find myself agreeing with your observations!), I'm not so sure at this time the role of bacterium in blood poisoning WAS fully understood by everybody...

Don't forget the "Great Stink" was only thirty years or so before, and then it was thought it was the smell that transmitted diseases...between 1866 and 1871 it became scientifically accepted, but how long after this did scientific reasoning become accepted amongst the lower classes of society as opposed to centuries old folklore?

I'm not saying you're outright wrong - just I ain't so sure!

All the best

Dave

Whether anyone understood the mechanism or not, I have often wondered whether JTR died of a wound that he got during one of the murders. That knife must have been filthy.

BTW: can you contract syphilis from blood-to-wound transfer, by something like a knife, or does it have to be sexually transmitted? Some bacteria and viruses survive very poorly in contact with metal, or outside the human body even briefly, but JTR could have cut himself, then had his hands inside the victim.

[Bridewell]

We MUST treat that issue neutrally. It must be taken on itīs own, no prejudices added, good or bad.

Fisherman

Prejudice doesn't come into it and it's not 'neutral' to accept without question the evidence of a witness, just because that witness happens to be wearing a police uniform. Long's evidence is that the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell at 2.20am, yet was there when he made his next pass half an hour later. If this is accepted without question it means that the killer was still (or again) on the street, within a quarter of a mile of the murder scene in possession of incriminating evidence more than half an hour after the discovery of the body. That's not impossible, but it begs the question of whether the item might have been in situ earlier than Long's evidence would indicate. It's not prejudice to question the likelihood that this was the case; it's prudent. It's also prudent, when subjecting the evidence of a witness to scrutiny, to check on what else we know of that witness's character. Monty has posted that Long was suspended from duty in November 1888 - at most 2 months after the Eddowes murder. We also know that he was dismissed in the following year.

So suspended in November 1888, dismissed in July 1889. I contend that this officer is quite likely to have been less than conscientious in late September of 1888. That's not a certainty but it's far from being an unreasonable contention, surely? The 'time-gap' scenario depends in its entirety on the assumption that the apron piece wasn't there at 2,20am just because Long says it wasn't. Given what we know of his subsequent conduct it's far too flimsy a basis on which to draw a firm conclusion that Eddowes' killer was (as he would have to be) on Goulston Street at 2.25am (or later) in possession of a large section of her bloodstained apron when the area had a large police presence, on the alert for a savage murderer.

[Bridewell]

The alternative would be that he did see the rag - and denied it at the inquest.

Or that he didn't check the stairwell at 2.20am and, at the inquest, was afraid to admit it.

[Wickerman]

But does the stairwell have any bearing on the issue?

Warren told us where the chalk writing was found..

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street..."

And PC Long had already said the writing was above the piece of apron..

"I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced........ Above it on the wall was written in chalk"

Putting both statements together we can determine the piece of apron was in a visible location, not hidden in the shadows.

.... The 'time-gap' scenario depends in its entirety on the assumption that the apron piece wasn't there at 2,20am just because Long says it wasn't. Given what we know of his subsequent conduct it's far too flimsy a basis on which to draw a firm conclusion that Eddowes' killer was (as he would have to be) on Goulston Street at 2.25am (or later) in possession of a large section of her bloodstained apron when the area had a large police presence, on the alert for a savage murderer.

If you transfer this argument to the Stride murder, we might assume the killer would go to ground after killing Stride, not stay on the streets when police are actively looking for a savage murderer.
Yet, some are quite willing to accept the killer not only stayed on the streets, but went looking for a second victim.

Therefore, is it reasonable to believe this killer was not afraid of being seen on the streets?

[Fisherman]

Or that he didn't check the stairwell at 2.20am and, at the inquest, was afraid to admit it.

Colin!

We should avoid further complications, as it is complicated enough already.

I wrote "The alternative would be that he did see the rag - and denied it at the inquest" in response to Daveīs "We already know? From where please?", which in itīs turn was questioning Caz` "I realise I'm nitpicking here, but we already know Long missed seeing the apron piece at 2.20, honestly or otherwise."

So what you say simply confirms what Caz said from the outset - Long did not see the rag. If that was due to him not checking is immaterial in this context.

Fisherman

[Monty]

Prejudice doesn't come into it and it's not 'neutral' to accept without question the evidence of a witness, just because that witness happens to be wearing a police uniform. Long's evidence is that the apron piece wasn't in the stairwell at 2.20am, yet was there when he made his next pass half an hour later. If this is accepted without question it means that the killer was still (or again) on the street, within a quarter of a mile of the murder scene in possession of incriminating evidence more than half an hour after the discovery of the body. That's not impossible, but it begs the question of whether the item might have been in situ earlier than Long's evidence would indicate. It's not prejudice to question the likelihood that this was the case; it's prudent. It's also prudent, when subjecting the evidence of a witness to scrutiny, to check on what else we know of that witness's character. Monty has posted that Long was suspended from duty in November 1888 - at most 2 months after the Eddowes murder. We also know that he was dismissed in the following year.

So suspended in November 1888, dismissed in July 1889. I contend that this officer is quite likely to have been less than conscientious in late September of 1888. That's not a certainty but it's far from being an unreasonable contention, surely? The 'time-gap' scenario depends in its entirety on the assumption that the apron piece wasn't there at 2,20am just because Long says it wasn't. Given what we know of his subsequent conduct it's far too flimsy a basis on which to draw a firm conclusion that Eddowes' killer was (as he would have to be) on Goulston Street at 2.25am (or later) in possession of a large section of her bloodstained apron when the area had a large police presence, on the alert for a savage murderer.

As an abstainer, well best I can, its good to see some common sense from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Great post Colin.

Monty