Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Monty]

I´m afraid you are a bit premature in your guesswork, Monty.

But I´m sure that you know a vast amount about the regulations and the routines of the PC:s.

You normally do.

Sometimes you even glean a little something about it.

But not today.

But I am equally sure that you have also noticed that Long claimed to know whether the rag was in place at 2.20 and 2.55, respectively. Whether that is at odds with what you know or think you know about the reglements, it still applies that it won´t change Longs testimony.

All the best,
Fisherman

Not really, you stated doors, so I naturally assumed you meant doors. Of course, doorways need not be entered on every pass, and in a public access doorway where many people pass to and fro, there is need as and when to inspect.

What I think I know? OK, lets wait and see yeah.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Not really, you stated doors, so I naturally assumed you meant doors. Of course, doorways need not be entered on every pass, and in a public access doorway where many people pass to and fro, there is need as and when to inspect.

What I think I know? OK, lets wait and see yeah.

Monty

Doorways are named doorways since they are ways that lead to doors. And no matter whether they need to be entered or not on every pass, it still remains that Long stated to know that the apron was not in place at 2.20 whereas it was at 2.55.

This in fact need not be complicated at all. We can even have Long walking different sides of the street, checking the particular doorway (sic) on his 2.20 round, seeing that there is nothing lying on it´s floor, and then the rag is placed in it so as to be fully visible from the street, whereupon Long sees it from the other side of the street at 2.55, thinking "Hey, that one wasn´t there last time over...?". And so he crosses the street to check.

Very, very uncomplicated.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Did you not just tell me that I could not know where the rag was...? And now YOU know what is far off the mark and what is not ...?

Not so much the position, Fish, as the illumination - the passage was recessed, and the sky was mostly overcast that night. Night! Of course, that photo was taken during the day, with daylight streaking across the doorway and into the passage. It would have been quite different at night, more like this:



We can nudge the apron a little closer to the doorway if necessary (as long as it stays IN the building, as opposed to "just inside", remember), but it would still be difficult to spot at first glance, and at a shallow angle.

[Sam Flynn]

Here's an invitation.
The next time the "ill informed sect" on this forum try to disparage the Morning Advertiser, consider yourself invited to the party.

Ta! It really is one of my favourite news sources, so I'll gladly join you at the party, Jon

[Lechmere]

Unless Long was lying then the apron was not there at 2.20. He stated this quite clearly. This is irrespective of what side he walked down on his beat. He explicitly stated that the apron was not there.
Even if Long was lying the apron may still not have been there at 2.20. All that can be said is that the apron was there at 2.55.
And, yes, there are reasons for supposing Long might have been lying.

[Sam Flynn]

Unless Long was lying then the apron was not there at 2.20.

He doesn't have to have lied, only not to have noticed it. Having not noticed it, he could quite honestly believe that it had not been there at 2:20.

It really is as simple as that.

[The Good Michael]

The passage was itself only a few feet deep, and the wall that formed the passage ran "above" the apron for its entire (short) length; so, the criteria of "above" and "within a few feet" are scarcely sufficient to support the contention that the two items were directly aligned. Again, nowhere is the apron referred to as being directly beneath the graffito; indeed, this is scarcely hinted at. If it had been directly underneath, I'm sure someone would have said.

Again, it's close enough for me. Stop speaking of this as if you know what is and isn't. My purposes are connecting the apron with a knowledge of the graffiti and nothing more. If the apron is a foot or two deeper into the passage, the connection is more solidified. I have no agenda for considering the apron directly, give or take a few feet, under the graffiti. Leave it be.

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Nothing is obvious.As Lechmere writes,if Long was telling the truth,and that is not obvious,not by a long chalk,telling the truth ,that is,and the photos are short, by a long way,of showing how dark it would have been.

[Lechmere]

Long was quite sure that he would have seen it if it had been there at 2.20.
So if it was there, and he wasn't skiving, but he just missed it, then he was at the least being economical with the truth in stating quite firmly that it wasn't there. Or he was just useless as a witness.

[Fisherman]

Long was quite sure that he would have seen it if it had been there at 2.20.
So if it was there, and he wasn't skiving, but he just missed it, then he was at the least being economical with the truth in stating quite firmly that it wasn't there. Or he was just useless as a witness.

Very true.

There was never any "I did not notice it" or any "I don´t think it was there".

"- Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
- The apron was not there at the time."
(Daily News, 12 October)

Long answers two questions here. The first one is the question whether or not he was able to esatblish if the rag had been there. The second one is the core question: Was it there?

Longs answers are yes and no, respectively.

He is quite adamant, and leaves no room for interpretations.

So I concur with your former post: He either lied or the rag was missing at 2.20.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Again, it's close enough for me. Stop speaking of this as if you know what is and isn't.

Just voicing an opinion, Mike. Besides, what I said was based on simple facts, and driven by no particular agenda of my own.

I have no agenda for considering the apron directly, give or take a few feet, under the graffiti.

Neither have I. My prime interest in this debate relates to the apron's visibility and how that may have had a bearing on Long's ability to detect it. Some give the impression that Long was 100% guaranteed to have noticed it. Surely we all know that our senses are simply not that reliable.

[Fisherman]

My prime interest in this debate relates to the apron's visibility and how that may have had a bearing on Long's ability to detect it. Some give the impression that Long was 100% guaranteed to have noticed it.

I trust I do not belong to that group of people, Gareth, since I have repeatedly and stubbornly pointed out, time and time again, that we cannot be sure that Long did see the rag.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I trust I do not belong to that group of people, Gareth, since I have repeatedly and stubbornly pointed out, time and time again, that we cannot be sure that Long did see the rag.

Not quite the impression I'd formed, Fish, but perhaps I missed some nuances in your argument. That's not to say those nuances weren't there all along

[GUT]

Very true.

There was never any "I did not notice it" or any "I don´t think it was there".

"- Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
- The apron was not there at the time."
(Daily News, 12 October)

Long answers two questions here. The first one is the question whether or not he was able to esatblish if the rag had been there. The second one is the core question: Was it there?

Longs answers are yes and no, respectively.

He is quite adamant, and leaves no room for interpretations.

So I concur with your former post: He either lied or the rag was missing at 2.20.

The best,
Fisherman

All well provided the papers quoted his exact words and didn't merely paraphrase or sumarise as we know theu can do at times.

[Sam Flynn]

All well provided the papers quoted his exact words and didn't merely paraphrase or sumarise as we know they can do at times.

I'm reasonably sure that the Daily News reproduced the exchange fairly accurately, GUT - the report has that ring of truth about it. It's also quite possible that Long genuinely believed that the apron wasn't there at 2:20. If it hadn't registered with him, then from his perspective it may as well not have been.