Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Michael W Richards]

I see no reason why he'd double back on himself to throw the police of the scent.

You say that you see no reason Sam, while at the same time providing quite a reasonable one...... I think that the possibility the killer of some of the Canonicals could easily have lived outside the East End is very real actually.

And 40 minutes is a lifetime I would think to someone carrying human organs and a knife and a piece of evidence that links him directly with a murder that night Sam. Particularly when many of the streets were active with police investigators from 2 murders.

I think the delay, even if just a minimum of the 40 minutes, could easily translate to an organ drop off and a chalk retrieval. From a City address, or a West one, or North, or South.

Lets put it this way....there were also affluent criminals in this same big picture at this time, for example... lots of "toffs" who stood to lose a great deal based on revelations from the Commission. Men who had money but were involved in schemes involving robberies and murders.
What lengths might an educated man go to to conceal his whereabouts or involvement in something if the risk was loss of wealth, power, and freedom?

The reason Kate was killed, if not just for the gratification for a mentally ill person, may well indicate which direction the killer likely came from. If it was because she presented a risk to someones income, that could easily have been someone of means outside the East End.

Cheers Sam

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
I'm not suggesting he did. Furthermore I can't - anymore than you can tell that he was utterly resolute in what he said. Besides, he could have been the model of certainty in that dock, but if (as I've often pointed out) the apron simply didn't register with him, his "certainty" would count for nothing.

If.

You just cannot tell how certain Long was from the newspaper reports, Fish - anymore than you can for any utterance by any witness, doctor, juror, clerk or coroner. The papers just do not tend to give us that sort of information.

They don´t give us all the information. But what we have is more than enough to conclude that Long was seemingly very certain. Nothing at all in the whole wide world speaks against it.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

They don´t give us all the information. But what we have is more than enough to conclude that Long was seemingly very certain.

Most telling word in that sentence being "seemingly".

[Fisherman]

Most telling word in that sentence being "seemingly".

Yes. It tells - for example - that I do not claim to know. There is a possibility that Long expressed himself like "Eeehhh - It was ...not ...there at ... the , eeehh, time."

This, however, is a ridiculously offhand suggestion, as most people will realize. And Long could just as well have said "IT WAS NOT THERE AT THE TIME!!!"

My own take on things is that the second, very adamant version, is the more likely one, since people who word themselves like Long did are normally adamant not only in the wording but also in how they pronounce it.

At the end of the day, this is something that parallels the former suggestion that Long´s drinking problem should be extrapolated to influence us to think that he was sloppy or lying on the mirder night.

I said then that since we don´t know, we should not make the call either way but instead just treat the material neutrally: He said the rag was not there, so we must use that as our best guess.

This is the same thing, basically: He COULD have sounded wawering and he could have sounded certain and adamant. And since we don´t know, it would be wrong to make that call either way. All we are left with, therefore, is a wording that speaks of certainty.
In other words, the appearance of the matter is that he was certain. We cannot be sure, but we must accept that this is what we are - and here it comes again, GUT - seemingly faced with.

All those who wants to work from the assumptions that Long was sloppy or lying or half drunk, and that he whispered his answers in a hesitant way to the coroner, refusing to look Baxter in the eye, are of course free to do so!

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

I don't argue that he was sloppy, half (or even fully) drunk nor lying.

Nor do I necessarily think that he was in any way hesitant in his evidence.

However I do know that many people state things, often in total honesty and sincerity, both in Court and out, that are later proven to be incorrect.

We cannot know with any degree of certainty when it ended up there and how it came to be there and in my opinion [and it is merely my opinion] any hypothesis that rests on one or other reading is at best suspect.

Though to be fair I am not sure that at this point in time anything really turns on it, it is simply another, albeit interesting, aside in the whole case.

[Fisherman]

GUT: ]I don't argue that he was sloppy, half (or even fully) drunk nor lying.

Nor do I necessarily think that he was in any way hesitant in his evidence.

To paraphrase yourself: "necessarily" being the most telling word?

However I do know that many people state things, often in total honesty and sincerity, both in Court and out, that are later proven to be incorrect.

Yes. But you will ALSO know that people who state what they have seen (or not seen) in an honest manner, are much more often correct than wrong. Those who say "it was a red car" will normally not have seen a blue car - although they MAY have done so.
Or are you of the opinion that the car is as likely to have been blue as red in such a case?

We cannot know with any degree of certainty when it ended up there and how it came to be there and in my opinion [and it is merely my opinion] any hypothesis that rests on one or other reading is at best suspect.

So, to your mind, it would be suspect to say that since Long stated that the rag was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20, it was probably not there?
My own take on things is that believing Long is the only stance that is NOT suspect. Stating that it is more probable that Long was wrong or lying - now THAT is suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

GUT: ]I don't argue that he was sloppy, half (or even fully) drunk nor lying.

Nor do I necessarily think that he was in any way hesitant in his evidence.

To paraphrase yourself: "necessarily" being the most telling word?

However I do know that many people state things, often in total honesty and sincerity, both in Court and out, that are later proven to be incorrect.

Yes. But you will ALSO know that people who state what they have seen (or not seen) in an honest manner, are much more often correct than wrong. Those who say "it was a red car" will normally not have seen a blue car - although they MAY have done so.
Or are you of the opinion that the car is as likely to have been blue as red in such a case?

We cannot know with any degree of certainty when it ended up there and how it came to be there and in my opinion [and it is merely my opinion] any hypothesis that rests on one or other reading is at best suspect.

So, to your mind, it would be suspect to say that since Long stated that the rag was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20, it was probably not there?
My own take on things is that believing Long is the only stance that is NOT suspect. Stating that it is more probable that Long was wrong or lying - now THAT is suspect.

All the best,
Fisherman

Red car or blue car? Again, a terrible analogy. There WAS a car. The apron is completely different. A person who didn't see something will often say it wasn't there because in their understanding, if they didn't see it, it wasn't. Did anyone ask Long if he was 100% sure? No. He may have been mistaken without lying. Again, who knows if Long was wrong or right; if the apron was there or not; if Long lied or told the truth? No one knows, but you can't use analogy of a positive for a situation where the absence of something is questioned.

Mike

[Fisherman]

The Good Michael: Red car or blue car? Again, a terrible analogy.

It was not an analogy in the first place. It was used as an example to show that people who offer an honest opinion are more often right than wrong. I could of course used the example that people who say that they have checked a floor and found it empty, with no bloodied rag on it, are more often right than wrong. But since this case is so specific, I preferred the car example.

A person who didn't see something will often say it wasn't there because in their understanding, if they didn't see it, it wasn't.

Often? How often? Will they in fifty per cent of comparable cases (large objects being present or not on a two square meter open surface) be wrong?Is that what you are saying?
If so, I beg to differ very much. If Long did check, it stands to reason that it would have been very, very hard for him to miss the rag.
if he did NOT check, or if he checked very sloppily (so sloppily as to prevent him from being able to see the rag), then he could not be certain at the inquest. If this was the case, he should have said so: "I did check, but I may have missed it on account of XXX."

Did anyone ask Long if he was 100% sure? No.

I am sorry, but that question was actually posed in a roundabout way of the coroner: "Are you able to say whether the rag was there at that remove in time?"
That question cleared the inquest of any suspicions that Long was not certain: He WAS able to say. When Long answered the coroner, the latter had not even asked the question if the rag was there at 2.20. He had instead asked the question whether Long would be able to answer that question, if he was asked.

So when Long answered the question, he did not answer the question the coroner had asked other than in a secondary manner. We may therefore add a few words to the answer Long gave, without altering what he wanted to say:
"Yes, I did check for the apron at 2.20, and therefore I am able to answer the question about whether the apron was there or not at that remove in time. And I can say that it was not."

This is all incorporated in Longs answer, albeit not spelt out.

By the way, the coroner may well have asked Long if he WAS a hundred per cent sure. But the papers would perhaps not have felt that it needed printing, since the coroner had already posed the question whether Long had the answer or not.

He may have been mistaken without lying.

Yes, of course he may have been. He may have checked every other doorway on every other round, and he may only have THOUGHT that he checked the doorway in question at 2.20, without having actually done so.
But it is perhaps the most moot suggestion in the world, Mike. As long as we cannot say any more that that - he MAY have been mistaken - it will always apply that the better suggestion is that he was NOT mistaken. Once again, look at the question the coroner asked: Was he able to...? And yes, he WAS able to!
The fact that we are either right or wrong when we say something, does not mean that this is a 50/50 issue; far from it!

To begin with, it is only when we have to guess with no lead at all that the chances to get it right will be 50/50. Normally, most things we say are correct. And when we are asked whether we know something and reply in the positive, that changes the odds dramatically in the direction of a correct answer: Are you able to tell the time? Are you able to say if your brother is at home? Are you able to say if you saw the apron? When we answer "yes" to questions like these, we will in close to a hundred per cent of the cases know the correct answers.

He could have been mistaken, thus - but the odds for it are not in the least favourable!

Again, who knows if Long was wrong or right; if the apron was there or not; if Long lied or told the truth? No one knows, but you can't use analogy of a positive for a situation where the absence of something is questioned.

And I did not. I used it to show that we are GENERALLY SPEAKING more often right than wrong in situations where we pick one answer out of two, after having been shown the correct answer first.

Nobody knows as such if Long was wrong or right - but it is not by any stretch a 50/50 issue. He was probably right, but he may have been wrong, end of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

So, to your mind, it would be suspect to say that since Long stated that the rag was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20, it was probably not there?

No my take is that more likely than not it was not there, but it may have been.

[GUT]

G'day again Fisherman

To begin with, it is only when we have to guess with no lead at all that the chances to get it right will be 50/50. Normally, most things we say are correct. And when we are asked whether we know something and reply in the positive, that changes the odds dramatically in the direction of a correct answer: Are you able to tell the time? Are you able to say if your brother is at home? Are you able to say if you saw the apron? When we answer "yes" to questions like these, we will in close to a hundred per cent of the cases know the correct answers.

But if I saw my brother every other day for a year and was asked did you see hm on 15 August, my answer may be subject to some questioning.

[Fisherman]

No my take is that more likely than not it was not there, but it may have been.

Welcome aboard, then!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day again Fisherman

But if I saw my brother every other day for a year and was asked did you see hm on 15 August, my answer may be subject to some questioning.

That depends! If you were asked on the 16:th of August, you would probably have an easier task than if you were asked in April. And that´s why I say that the difficulty of the task also must belong to what we look at.

In our case, Long had an extremely easy task in the doorway: If you look at a floor in a smallish doorway, you will easily be able to see if there is a large rag with blood on it lying around there. If there is no such item, you will probably not think after having looked "maybe I missed a huge rag with blood on it?"

This part of the problem is easy.

The real problems arise when we question whether Long actually looked in the doorway or not, and that is another issue altogether.

Other problems are knit to the issue whether Long could have checked the wrong doorway - such things happen. But if he checked as a routine, he would reasonably check ALL doorways in the building, not half of them or just the one.

All in all, the suggestion that he could have checked the correct doorway and failed to notice the rag if it was there, is a rather silly one. It would have been the worst check in police history.

The much more reasonable suggestion is that he lied - but it still is not a good enough suggestion to win the race. Just like you said in that other post of yours, the better guess is that the rag was missing at 2.20, whereas the possibility that Long got it wrong remains a fully viable but not as good suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[caz]

So when John Pope says something, you believe it without doubt? Even if you've evidence that he has been unreliable in the past?

Monty

Er, no Monty. Of course not. I don't know where you got that idea from. I don't believe PC Long 'without doubt' either. I do believe he didn't see an apron at 2.20, but did see one later. But merely being unreliable doesn't put the thing there at 2.20, any more than it takes it away. It only means it may have been there, and equally it may not.

In short, it means nothing at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

You say that you see no reason Sam, while at the same time providing quite a reasonable one......

That he'd choose to head straight into the heart of Ripper Country with a piece of hugely incriminating evidence on his person, merely to decoy those out actively searching for him, was not even a faintly reasonable move. Go west, young man, go north or south, by all means! But... a few hundred yards to the east? Nah.

[Sam Flynn]

You just cannot tell how certain Long was from the newspaper reports, Fish - anymore than you can for any utterance by any witness, doctor, juror, clerk or coroner. The papers just do not tend to give us that sort of information.

They don´t give us all the information.

They certainly don't give us "stage directions", tone of voice, or much by way of descriptions of the utterances of any of the witnesses. To draw a musical analogy: we get some of the notes, mostly in the right order; but there's no indication of dynamics or tempo.

But what we have is more than enough to conclude that Long was seemingly very certain.

Please be reasonable, Fish. We can do no such thing... not for any of the participants at that inquest.