Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Scott Nelson]

It's a good thing that the piece of apron was found and ultimately recognized as part of the murder. Otherwise, there would be nothing to discuss, would there?

[caz]

The man who found it was a human being, and human beings are fallible. That alone gives sufficient reason to question his testimony.

Yes, but Long's all too human fallibility still doesn't put the apron there, Gareth. It makes it 50-50 at best, since we don't know why another fallible human being wanted or needed to take it from the murder scene, and therefore how long he wanted or needed it on his person. We don't even know how easy the thing was for Long to see at 2.55. All we know is that he did see it and did not believe it had been there earlier.

Its unknown and unknowable journey from Mitre Square to Goulston St was entirely down to the whim of this other deeply fallible human being, who thought little of slaughtering and mutilating a fellow human in a public place, risking death by hanging.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've been through this entire thread, at my leisure, of course and cant recall how long the time gap was. Or even if there was actually a time gap. Someone please refresh my memory on these two points.

Kind regards
Mr Holmes

[caz]

Elementary my dear

Hi Sherlock,

A look at the original post on page one will show you the purpose of the thread, which is to presume the apron was not deposited until after PC Long passed the spot at 2.20 and before he found it at 2.55, and then to debate the possible reasons for this time gap (from about 1.45 to, say, 2.35, give or take).

Not many of us have managed to stick to the thread's purpose for more than about two posts at a time.

And yes, I'm looking at you, Gareth.

Love,

Sister Spank
XX

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but Long's all too human fallibility still doesn't put the apron there, Gareth. It makes it 50-50 at best

My faith in the infallibility of human perception is not as high as yours, Caz. 'Specially not when it comes to a bored copper plodding through a darkened street in drizzly conditions. I'd put it at least at 60:40 in favour of his missing it. If, as Halse states, the apron wasn't particularly easy to spot, then we're up to at least 70:30 in my book.

[Abby Normal]

My faith in the infallibility of human perception is not as high as yours, Caz. 'Specially not when it comes to a bored copper plodding through a darkened street in drizzly conditions. I'd put it at least at 60:40 in favour of his missing it. If, as Halse states, the apron wasn't particularly easy to spot, then we're up to at least 70:30 in my book.

Hi Sam
Your not getting it and I'm going to be slightly un subtle here to try to awaken you and everyone else on this thread that keeps missing this apparently too subtle a point that Caz (and me)keeps trying to make.

Try this. Take halse and long out of it. THERE IS A 50/50 CHANCE THAT THE APRON IS THERE at 2:20. Its either there or not.The problem is you keep starting with the assumption that he "missed it".

Capice' ?

[Lechmere]

It doesn't really matter whether it's 10-90, 50-50, or 90-10.
The premise for this thread is that it wasn't there.
So Gareth's posts are all irrelevant.

[Sam Flynn]

Try this. Take halse and long out of it.

Sorry we can't, because they are our "eyes" in this matter.

Its either there or not.

Well, it's there and not there simultaneously, depending on whether it is observed. You know, Schrödinger's Cat and all that.

The problem is you keep starting with the assumption that he "missed it".

No, I don't start with that assumption... that is my considered conclusion, based on an understanding of the vicissitudes of human cognition, logistics and the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time.

Capice' ?

Capito in veramente, never fear

[Sam Flynn]

So Gareth's posts are all irrelevant.

But not all the time, I hope.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry we can't, because they are our "eyes" in this matter.Well, it's there and not there simultaneously, depending on whether it is observed. You know, Schrödinger's Cat and all that.No, I don't start with that assumption... that is my considered conclusion, based on an understanding of the vicissitudes of human cognition, logistics and the environmental conditions that prevailed at the time.Capito in veramente, never fear

Hi sam

Sorry we can't, because they are our "eyes" in this matter.

Sorry sam. we can and we should because they have absolutely nothing to do with whether the apron is there or not at 2:20. Please tell me you understand this.

Well, it's there and not there simultaneously, depending on whether it is observed. You know, Schrödinger's Cat and all that

Um no. its a macroscopic object not a fundamental particle. and shrodingers cat is a thought experiment meant to demonstrate the absurdity of trying to apply the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics to everyday sized objects, let alone a living thing with a conscious mind of its own that may be quite capable of collapsing its own wave function. and besides, with the Many Worlds theory interpretation gaining ground today, it just may be that what actually happened in our world is that the apron was there (or not) but in an alternate universe it was not there (or was). But we are still back to a 50/50 chance.

Now admit Im right and agree with me! Dammit!! : )

[Sam Flynn]

Um no. its a macroscopic object not a fundamental particle.

Well, I'm sure you realise that I wasn't really suggesting we should use Quantum Theory in this context, Abby. However, it can teach us something, i.e. even at the macro level, we are inevitably constrained by the instruments with which we measure reality. The instruments in this case are Long's eyes and brain. If neither instrument was 100% reliable - and nobody's eyes or brains are - then our confidence in drawing any deductions from them must be tempered accordingly. If our (inherently fallible) instruments are, in addition, used in sub-optimal conditions - such as in poor lighting - their reliability is compromised further still.

Taking all that into account, it's quite clear to me that the chances of the apron being there earlier, and of Long's missing it, are rather greater than 50/50.

Apologies for another irrelevant post

[Natasha]

forgive me if someone else has suggested the following, but there are alot of messages on ere

Could the GSG be connected to Liz Strides' murder?

[GUT]

G'Day Natasha

Welcome.

Do you have a particular idea here?

[Natasha]

Hi

Thank You

I think maybe Israel Schwartz had something to do with the GSG, because of the animosity he experienced after possibly witnessing the death of Liz Stride

or

Maybe P.C Long, had something to do with it, the time scale don't add up so it's a possibility. The reason for planting evidence? I haven't made my mind up on yet

[caz]

Hi Sam
Your not getting it and I'm going to be slightly un subtle here to try to awaken you and everyone else on this thread that keeps missing this apparently too subtle a point that Caz (and me)keeps trying to make.

Try this. Take halse and long out of it. THERE IS A 50/50 CHANCE THAT THE APRON IS THERE at 2:20. Its either there or not.The problem is you keep starting with the assumption that he "missed it".

Capice' ?

Thanks Abby.

I'm not at all sure Gareth isn't just winding us up. He can't be that thick.

He says we can't take Halse and Long out of it because - and get this - 'they are our "eyes" in this matter'. Did either of them see the blasted thing at 2.20? No. Nobody saw it at that time.

Then he goes on to suggest that the apron was only not there in the sense that it was not observed to be there.

And then he claims not to have started with the assumption that it was there.

It's a wind-up. It has to be. He is saying as clear as day that if only Halse and Long had had eyes to see it, it would have materialised before them.

The very fact that Long saw it when it was there at 2.55, with no apparent trouble at all, means we can depend on him being our "eyes" in this matter at that time. Yet according to Gareth his eyes most probably let him down at 2.20.

Only if the apron was actually there, Gareth. Only if. Nobody can be expected to see something that isn't there. Yet you do see it, purely based on your opinion of the killer's likely behaviour - immediately following his antics in Mitre Square.

It's certainly not based on anyone else's powers of observation.

And it's most certainly still off topic.

Bad boy.

Love,

Caz
X