Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

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.

38 ain´t that young ...

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

38 ain´t that young ...

Is that how old the killer was? Blimey!

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: 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.

Exactly, so we can rule those ingredients out, and settle for what we DO know - that the wording Long used spells certainty.

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

You don´t wish for reason, my friend - it´s compliance you ask for. Can´t you see that? And of course we can conclude that Long was seemingly very certain - it lies in his answer to the coroner. That can´t be spirited away. It´s there and it remains there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

And of course we can conclude that Long was seemingly very certain - it lies in his answer to the coroner.

Which is recorded in a newspaper report in which, to self-quote, "we get some of the notes, mostly in the right order; but there's no indication of dynamics or tempo".

I don't think up these analogies for fun, you know. They're there to underscore certain key points. Too bad if they fall on clef ears.

[Sam Flynn]

Exam Question

Exactly, so we can rule those ingredients out, and settle for what we DO know - that the wording Long used spells certainty.

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No

Each of the above represents the responses to a series of questions at a legal hearing from over 100 years ago, as reported in a newspaper. The names of the protagonist(s) have been removed to protect their identity/identities. Using your imagination, rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how confident the protagonist(s) were when they gave their answers. If you feel they actually hesitated over an answer, please mark it with an asterisk.


(Rhetorical point to which I don't want a reply. Just think it over.)

[Fisherman]

Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No

Each of the above represents the responses to a series of questions at a legal hearing from over 100 years ago, as reported in a newspaper. The names of the protagonist(s) have been removed to protect their identity/identities. Using your imagination, rate on a scale of 1 to 10 how confident the protagonist(s) were when they gave their answers. If you feel they actually hesitated over an answer, please mark it with an asterisk.


(Rhetorical point to which I don't want a reply. Just think it over.)

Thinking it over is quickly done, Gareth. It is very clear that it is impossible to say how confidently these answers were given.

I don´t know if you once again missed that I agree with you in my former post? I have already acknowledged that the element of speech illudes us in the paper reports.

That, however, does not mean in the least that we should not conclude that what we have points in one direction and one direction only: that of Long being certain.

I would also like to point out that we cannot compare a set of yes´s and no´s to what Long said. The words yes and no carry no other implications than recognition or denial. I think we may agree on that?

In Long´s case, there is a context to note: The coroner asked him if he was able to say if the apron was there at 2.20 or not, to which Long replied "the apron was not there at the time".

This is not a simple yes or no. As I have already pointed out, Long got one question and answered another. But when we soak up what was asked and answered, we may add to Longs answer, getting the wording: "Yes, I am able to say whether the apron was there or not. I can do so since I checked it at 2.20. And it was not there at the time."

That is three sentences. If you object to any of them, please say so. Let´s look at them one by one:

1. "Yes, I am able to say whether the apron was there or not."

Long said that the apron was not there at 2.20. That means that he also, by implication, stated that he was able to answer the question whether the apron was there at 2.20 or not.

2. "I can do so since I checked it at 2.20."

Long said that the apron was not there at 2.20. If he did not know, he could not say. It therefore applies that he must have known, to be able to say that it was not there. And to know, he must have checked.
That is the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from what he said.

Now, please note that I am not here saying that Long must have been right. That is another question. This is a question of what implications lie in the words Long used. I am only saying that if what he told the coroner was correct, then he MUST have checked.

3. "And it was not there at the time."

This we know that Long actually stated.

All in all, this makes for another case altogether than your yes´s and no´s. With them, nothing more can be read into the issue. Longs words, however, allow us to draw some further conclusions about the connotations of his answer to the coroner.

What you are doing here, Gareth, is to try and build a castle out of thin air. Or even less, to be honest. There is absolutely nothing that points us in the direction of any hesitance on behalf of Long. Nothing at all. The proposal is utterly baseless in terms of corroboration.

The other angle - the one saing that Long was certain - has an almighty corroboration in what he told the coroner. It takes a dizzying flight of fancy to somehow imply that there was a single element of hesitation hidden in the sentence "The apron was not there at the time". It´s a sentence that is only possible to interpret in one single direction. It can mean only one thing. And that thing is what we have.

We have not a single hint about in what voice Long told this to the coroner, but for the statement of one juror that Long and the police deserved to be commanded on their efforts. To me, such a thing does not speak of an uncertain PC, but instead of a man who had parted with his task in a very commandable and clear manner.

If you wish to further pursue the "maybe he sounded uncertain" track, then go ahead. I have nothing at all to add.

On the matter of how he sounded, neither have you.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I don´t know if you once again missed that I agree with you in my former post? I have already acknowledged that the element of speech eludes us in the paper reports.

So why persist in asserting that we can know how any word (or sentence) was uttered with confidence, misplaced sincerity, or the merest suggestion of doubt? All we know is what's on the page. We cannot know exactly how it was inflected, still less what was going on in the speaker's head.

On the matter of how he sounded, neither have you.

Precisely, my dear Fish. I have no idea how confident he was either.

[Fisherman]

So why persist in asserting that we can know how any word (or sentence) was uttered with confidence, misplaced sincerity, or the merest suggestion of doubt? All we know is what's on the page. We cannot know exactly how it was inflected, still less what was going on in the speaker's head.Precisely, my dear Fish. I have no idea how confident he was either.

Gareth, I am trying to leave this discussion. But how can I do so when I am being misrepresented?

Why do you write that I "persist in asserting that we can know how any word (or sentence) was uttered with confidence, misplaced sincerity, or the merest suggestion of doubt?"

I argue the precise opposite - that we CAN´T know this. I am saying that the parameter of how things were uttered eludes us - it is in black and white in my last post.

What we have is the sentence "The apron was not there at the time". That is all. And that sentence in itself speaks of no uncertainty at all. It has got nothing to do with how it was uttered, it has everything to do with the words from which it was constructed.

Long does not say:

I don´t think the apron was there at the time

I am fairly certain that the apron was not there at the time

I cannot say whether the apron was there at the time

To the best of my recollection, the apron was not there at the time

The apron was not there at the time, as far as I can tell

He instead said "The apron was not there at the time", offering no opening at all for those who want him to have been uncertain. They are left to resort to speculations and conjecture about exactly how the words he said were uttered - the very thing you yourself say that we have no idea about.

How certain we are of something is not decided only by what voice we tell it in. The more important factor is the words we choose. If somebody says "I swear on my mothers grave that the rag was there at the time", then we have a very good reason to believe that this is true. If that somebody instead says "As far as I can tell, the rag was there at the time", then suddenly some little doubt creeps in, in spite of the latter sentence also being a rather certain statement.
We do not have to know what voice these things were said in to be able to see where they point. To some extent, the voice they were said in can have an impact, but the more important ingredient is the wording.

I also happen to think that Baxter, being the type of man that he was, would not let a very doubtful and hesitant voice on behalf of Long pass without remarking on it. If the PC was very wavering, making people think that he was perhaps not sure, it would have been odd if Baxter did not put further pressure on him.
Of course, this is not something that I can prove. But I do suspect that many posters with insights into Baxter would agree on this.

Anyway, Gareth! I am NOT saying and have never said that we can establish in what voice Long worded himself.
It would have been utterly stupid to do so, since we all, each and everyone, know that such a thing would be impossible to do.

And what I do not say, I do not wish to be accused of having said. Fair is fair, and I would like to keep my impression that you are a very fair poster!

All the best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

If the PC was very wavering, making people think that he was perhaps not sure, it would have been odd if Baxter did not put further pressure on him.

Fish,

I've said it before, in reading the inquest it is quite apparent Baxter and Crawford both put pressure on him on the questions where there was evidence conflicting with Long's.

They didn't and couldn't put pressure on him regarding the timing of finding the apron because there was nobody to dispute it. The things that could be disputed, they pressured him and he lost his confidence. The things they couldn't dispute, they had no choice but to accept his answer...similar to you.

I understand why you believe his words, honestly I do. However when I look at the entire picture, I can't help but side with Baxter and Crawford and they didn't believe much of what Long said. I further believe they knew of the discrepancies before hand and for some reason both Baxter and Crawford didn't side with Long's versions. Why? What did they know?

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Let us not forget that Long is not the only witness to be questioned about what he did or didnt see of the cloth after the murder, Halse also passed that area and by virtue of his being unable to recall seeing anything there, it doesnt contradict Long, and could therefore be used in support of his remarks.

As its been said ad infinitum though, Longs direct answer to a direct question seems to me to be worded without reservations.

There are so many words that could have been used to hedge on an answer, like Eagle used when talking about whether the body was there at 12:40, or like Halse says in his statement and in questioning, or like Richardson says about whether he saw a body....all 3 of them relate specifically to a time sensitive issue. When precisely was the woman killed? When precisely was the cloth placed at its Goulston location? In the three examples the witnesses did not provide their answers with any certainty, which doesnt help us determine the timing very much. But with Long, we could have a watermark based on his assurance that "it was not there" at 2:20am.

To not use some information that provides us with the ability to set a time is to me, counterproductive to the quest for answers. better to accept his remarks as they were given, he is after all a trustworthy source at this point, and to try an explain what that delay means. And if it suggests a message, which may link it with the writing.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Fish,

I've said it before, in reading the inquest it is quite apparent Baxter and Crawford both put pressure on him on the questions where there was evidence conflicting with Long's.

They didn't and couldn't put pressure on him regarding the timing of finding the apron because there was nobody to dispute it. The things that could be disputed, they pressured him and he lost his confidence. The things they couldn't dispute, they had no choice but to accept his answer...similar to you.

Haha! Good one, DRoy However, it is of course very evident that Baxter could have put pressure on him regarding the veracity of whether he had seen the rag or not at 2.20. If Baxter sensed that he was lying or that he was very uncertain, he had every chance in the word to follow up on it. "And you are really certauin of this?" for example, or even "It seems to me that you are perhaps withholding something!"
BAxter was everything but shy, and was not shy to call people stupid or something like that. So I very much disagree with you on this point. Look at other inquests Baxter presided over. You will be stunned, believe me.

I understand why you believe his words, honestly I do.

It´s a simple question of statistics, DRoy, nothing else. I don´t know the manand his inherent qualities, so I go with statistics, and statistics say that people who say something with certainty in a courtroom are normally correct.

However when I look at the entire picture, I can't help but side with Baxter and Crawford and they didn't believe much of what Long said. I further believe they knew of the discrepancies before hand and for some reason both Baxter and Crawford didn't side with Long's versions. Why? What did they know?

That´s where disagree with you. You tend to try and squeeze Baxter and Crawford in to fit your own theories, the way I see things. You speculate that they "knew something", implying that they had information that Long was not reliable.
I´m sorry, but I don´t do my Ripperology like that. I think it is the wrong path to take. That´s not to say that it is factually wrong - we dont know - but methodologically, I cannot condone it.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Haha! Good one, DRoy However, it is of course very evident that Baxter could have put pressure on him regarding the veracity of whether he had seen the rag or not at 2.20. If Baxter sensed that he was lying or that he was very uncertain, he had every chance in the word to follow up on it. "And you are really certauin of this?" for example, or even "It seems to me that you are perhaps withholding something!"
BAxter was everything but shy, and was not shy to call people stupid or something like that. So I very much disagree with you on this point. Look at other inquests Baxter presided over. You will be stunned, believe me.

Fish,

My point was that when they had two different answers (Long's or Halse's) they pressured Long. They could have asked him 100 times (and called him stupid) whether he was sure the apron piece wasn't there and there would be no reason for Long to give a different answer since there was no other witness to dispute it.

That´s where disagree with you. You tend to try and squeeze Baxter and Crawford in to fit your own theories, the way I see things. You speculate that they "knew something", implying that they had information that Long was not reliable.

Disagree if you like and no it isn't a theory. They were already aware of the discrepancies before the inquest. It is in evidence at the inquest that they didn't believe Long but did believe Halse. They didn't have to come right out and say it in print for people to see they believed Halse over Long.

I´m sorry, but I don´t do my Ripperology like that. I think it is the wrong path to take. That´s not to say that it is factually wrong - we dont know - but methodologically, I cannot condone it.

What are you going on about? Are you saying that reading each question by itself is worth more than reading it as a whole? Seriously, read Long's testimony, then read Halse's then read the second half of Long's. Tell me with a straight face that you don't see a difference in how they questioned Long and how they questioned Halse. If you find a difference (you don't have to look too hard) then ask yourself why the difference?

Choosing to ignore evidence just because it isn't said out loud or written, in my opinion is the wrong path to take.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

DRoy: Fish,

My point was that when they had two different answers (Long's or Halse's) they pressured Long. They could have asked him 100 times (and called him stupid) whether he was sure the apron piece wasn't there and there would be no reason for Long to give a different answer since there was no other witness to dispute it.

They did not have two answers when they questioned Long. They had just the one. Halse witnessed later. If he had witnessed before, then maybe the coroner would have pressed HIM about the inconsistencies.

They would not know how Long would react to further questioning, DRoy - how could they? Until they had asked him a hundred times, there was no knowing. But they asked just the ONE time nevertheless, so I think we can bank on Baxter not sensing any uncertainty on behalf of Long.
I just reread Sugden today, and he is of the meaning that Long was "positive" that the rag was not there. He does not breathe a single ounce of distrust against Long. Maybe he is not as sensitive as you are...?

Disagree if you like and no it isn't a theory. They were already aware of the discrepancies before the inquest. It is in evidence at the inquest that they didn't believe Long but did believe Halse. They didn't have to come right out and say it in print for people to see they believed Halse over Long.

Yes, they did - as far as I´m concerned. And the two did not differ about the rag, so they would have believed BOTH men in that instance. There never was any more faith in Halse than in Long - all they knew was that one of them must have been wrong about the GSG. And Halse was a detective while Long was a foot soldier, who witnessed first to boot. You need to look at the context, DRoy.

What are you going on about? Are you saying that reading each question by itself is worth more than reading it as a whole? Seriously, read Long's testimony, then read Halse's then read the second half of Long's. Tell me with a straight face that you don't see a difference in how they questioned Long and how they questioned Halse. If you find a difference (you don't have to look too hard) then ask yourself why the difference?

The questions differed. The reason why is something you and I differ on. That´s what I´m on about.

Choosing to ignore evidence just because it isn't said out loud or written, in my opinion is the wrong path to take.

Choosing to ignore evidence that IS said out loud, then - what about that...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Choosing to ignore evidence that IS said out loud, then - what about that...?

But we're not hearing evidence as it was said out loud. In the main, we're reading pithy newspaper transcripts, which aren't particularly interested in conveying such nuances as the speaker's confidence and how he/she inflected a given response.

[Sam Flynn]

Gareth, I am trying to leave this discussion. But how can I do so when I am being misrepresented?

I'm not misrepresenting you at all, Fish. Just making some (I hope) sensible points about how cautious we should be when interpreting written evidence.

I argue the precise opposite - that we CAN´T know this.

It sometimes doesn't come across as such. I appreciate your enthusiasm and commitment, however. I really do.

He instead said "The apron was not there at the time"

And there's an example of it. We have no earthly clue how he gave that response. For all I know, he may have had his fingers crossed behind his back - but we can't tell that from the newspaper reports...

offering no opening at all for those who want him to have been uncertain.

... which is why the assertion you make there really goes just a little bit too far.