Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Cogidubnus]

I believe totally in Baxter's acceptance of Long's statement at the Coroner's Inquiry...what I'm not so sure about is the degree of authenticity involved in Long's certitude...but as I've stated many times before I've nothing particularly invested either way...

I have to say though that the possibility of Long being mistaken and missing the piece at the first pass does raise interesting possibilities...and this in itself justifies studying the alternatives...

I will admit straightforwardly that I'm presently of the belief that the GSG was probably initially written by somebody unconnected with the case and that, at best, the apron piece was dropped under it to emphasise a point...regardless, it was dropped within a stairwell and not outside on a doorstep...Warren exagerated...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

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.

This is completely La-La-land, Gareth.

Long said SOMETHING out loud.

If you propose that it was "Sure the rag was there at 2.20!", then feel free.

My own VERY dangerous and frivolous guess is that he said "The apron was not there at the time".

And when he did so, he said something out loud that belongs to the evidence.

For goodness sake, can we be for real here? Please!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Sam Flynn;291236]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 wish you were not misrepresenting me, Gareth But you DID write, and I quote "...why persist in asserting that we can know how any word (or sentence) was uttered ..."
And I have NEVER said such a thing. Never!

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

Just read what I say, and you will be fine, Gareth! Not a single soul with intact gifts of thought would propose that we today would be able to assess in what voices the witnesses at the inquests spoke.

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......

What ...!? Where do I claim to know how he gave his response? I said that his response was "The apron was not there at the time". That´s exactly how the Daily News quoted him.
Explain to me how quoting the Daily News can be going too far in trying to establish in what voice he delivered his message!

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

No, it does not. This suggestion of mine alluded to the wording of the sentence only, and not to the unknown element of how it was voiced. And the wording of the sentence does not allow for any interpretation of hesitation. "The apron was not there at the time" leaves no opening for any such thing. It is not until we add totally baseless speculations about how he voiced the sentence that we can add this ingredient.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I will admit straightforwardly that I'm presently of the belief that the GSG was probably initially written by somebody unconnected with the case and that, at best, the apron piece was dropped under it to emphasise a point

Yes, Dave, and that means he was local to a very tiny area, possibly even from the Wentworth Buildings.

Cheers,

Mike

[Wickerman]

Yes, Dave, and that means he was local to a very tiny area, possibly even from the Wentworth Buildings.

Cheers,

Mike

...but not the Victoria Home though.



On a more serious note, given the small size of the graffiti I can't see him noticing it any more than any else did. Now, if the graffiti had been emblazoned across the wall in a large hand for all to see like modern graffiti there might be a case.

[Fisherman]

...but not the Victoria Home though.



On a more serious note, given the small size of the graffiti I can't see him noticing it any more than any else did. Now, if the graffiti had been emblazoned across the wall in a large hand for all to see like modern graffiti there might be a case.

Nah, Jon - I am convinced that a killer who wanted the whole world to see what he was about, would scribble a hopelessly enigmatic message hidden inside a passage, in small letters and a round schoolboy hand.
And he would take special care not to mention the words "killed", "murder", "prostitute" and "knife". And perhaps a few more.

THAT would show them!!!

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

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.

Fish,

They knew there were two different spellings of the word 'Jews' and the 'not' was in a different place. They knew this before either gave their testimony so they surely could have asked Halse if he was sure or not but they didn't.

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.

You can use that same theory why they questioned him about the GSG the way they did. Because it differed from Halse's version but they didn't give the same further questions to Halse did they?

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.

They had to believe the testimony on the apron piece, there was nothing to dispute it. Unlike the GSG where there was. Maybe they believed Halse over Long because Halse was a detective, that at least makes sense, but they believed him more none the less. That observation comes from reading the context.

You've spent a lot of time on Long's quote that the apron wasn't there at 2:20. I wish you'd spend the same amount of time dissecting what Baxter said, how he questioned, how Crawford questioned, etc. I think you may change your mind about how they felt about Long being a trustworthy source.

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

You've spent a lot of time on Long's quote that the apron wasn't there at 2:20. I wish you'd spend the same amount of time dissecting what Baxter said, how he questioned, how Crawford questioned, etc. I think you may change your mind about how they felt about Long being a trustworthy source.

Cheers
DRoy

Well, it´s either that or I already have spent a lot of time dissection what Baxter and Crawford said and did - and come up with another wiew than yours.

It would eminently explain why I say what I say in this matter, you know!

Maybe it´s the other way around? Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what weight should be given to baseless guesswork about why Long would have been wrong?

Or maybe we should jointly leave the subject, and try and live with others disagreeing with us?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=291584&postcount=5

Has an equivalent record been obtained for PC Long?

[Monty]

It doesn't exist Jon,

Not all records made it.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't exist Jon,

Not all records made it.

... COVER-UP !!!!


(Before somebody else said it )

[Monty]

Well, there is something...

....Just nothing revealing.

Monty

[DRoy]

Well, it´s either that or I already have spent a lot of time dissection what Baxter and Crawford said and did - and come up with another wiew than yours.

It would eminently explain why I say what I say in this matter, you know!

Fish,

I'm assuming then that you mistakenly passed over some important sections

Maybe it´s the other way around? Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with what weight should be given to baseless guesswork about why Long would have been wrong?

I'm not guessing, I'm reading the evidence. They were there, they're the ones that questioned Long the way they did for who knows what reason. They believed Long to be wrong on a couple things so to call that baseless guesswork is wrong.

Or maybe we should jointly leave the subject, and try and live with others disagreeing with us?

I can live with others not agreeing with me, it just means they're wrong

Cheers
DRoy

[Paddy]

The Writing Size

Hi Could any of you give your opinion as to the size of the letters please?
It was said that the letters were 3/4 inches in size.
As this is tiny I always thought they meant 3 "to" 4 inches.
I really cant imagine someone sitting in the dark writing such tiny letters.
It defeats the object of writing a protest on a wall !

Pat...................................

[Sam Flynn]

It was said that the letters were 3/4 inches in size.
As this is tiny I always thought they meant 3 "to" 4 inches.

Detective Halse's testimony settles the question definitively, Paddy: "The capitals would be under an inch high, and italics in proportion." (London Daily News, 12th Oct 1888)

I really cant imagine someone sitting in the dark writing such tiny letters.

Indeed, which is one of the reasons why I personally don't think the graffito was written by the killer.