JTR - Cunning, Careful, or Lucky?

[Fisherman]

Not so, Fish. Eddowes' externalised intestines were smeared over with excrement. Smeared, not splashed or dotted with excrement; clearly implying that some part of the killer - almost certainly his hand or hands - spread that excrement around. That stuff takes some shifting.

I don't intend to turn this particular discussion into another apron thread, so that's all I'll say here on this (feculent) matter

Feculent matter takes some shifting, yes. But you are not going to be able to do that with an apron piece. As I said, the good it can do is performed in seconds and after that you are left with very smelly hands. Soap and water is the only thing that will have a real impact, and even then the smell won´t readily go away once it has sunk into the skin.
So, once again, what little good the apron could do would not have taken long to achieve.

But let´s talk about that first point you make! The intestines were smeared over with feculent matter, you write. But Brown was a bit more talkative: "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter."

In this context, "some" could mean one of two things.

1. It could point to "a sort of" feculent matter. But I don´t think there was much doubt what feculent matter it was, so I´d go for ...
2. It could mean some as in " a little", a quantity" etcetera - which is what I find Brown meant.

So far from having established a picture where the intestines were heavily taited with feces, it could well be that there were just some smears on them. So the killer could have had very little of the stuff on his hands.

In the end, I find it matters little if he had little or a lot on his hands. He would not be able to get rid of it using the apron anyway, other than to a limited extent. And wiping your hands for ten seconds would get him there.

Of course, the killer could have had half a pound of the stuff on his hands - but would he wait until Goulston Street to wipe them if that was the case?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, the killer could have had half a pound of the stuff on his hands - but would he wait until Goulston Street to wipe them if that was the case?

As I suggested earlier, Fish, all we can really say about Goulston Street is that it was the last place where the Ripper and the apron were together. He could have ducked into one or more other sheltered doorways before he got there. On the other hand, as I've said, Goulston Street was only a few minutes' brisk walk away, so personally I don't find it at all unlikely that he went straight there.

This might, incidentally, support the idea that he lived quite nearby. Perhaps he knew of an open, recessed doorway at Wentworth Model Dwellings where he was unlikely to be disturbed, and made a bee-line for it.

Hopefully what I've written above is nudging us back towards the "Cunning, Careful or Lucky" subject of this thread!

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

As I suggested earlier, Fish, all we can really say about Goulston Street is that it was the last place where the Ripper and the apron were together.

With respect, Gareth, we can say a bit more than that. We can, for example, say that it would appear that the killer did not arrive in the street until after 2.20, as per the very certain Long and the mildly corroborating Halse.

He could have ducked into one or more other sheltered doorways before he got there. On the other hand, as I've said, Goulston Street was only a few minutes' brisk walk away, so personally I don't find it at all unlikely that he went straight there.

It IS actually unlikely, since if he did, it seems he either stayed in the street, hidden from sight, until after 2.20, when he dropped the apron in the doorway of the Wentworth Model buildings, or he went somewhere else inbetween this first visit of his and the occasion when he dropped the rag.
I am of course being a bit provocative here, but there is no way that I will allow important testimony as that of Long and Halse be dissed with no good reason at all.

If we had known that the killer arrived home at 1.55, if we had been certain that he DID go home after the strike, if we had had some sort of indication about his doings after the Eddowes murder, there would have been reason to adjust things to accomodate these finds - but we do not know a single thing about it. Not a iot. The ONLY indication we have is Long, telling us in no uncertain manner that we must accept that the killer was not in Goulston Street before 2.20.

Measuring the distance between Mitre Square and Goulston Street and estimating how long it takes to walk inbetween the two does nothing at all for establishing what the killer did after 1.45. The two issues are not interconnected by anything at all.

This might, incidentally, support the idea that he lived quite nearby. Perhaps he knew of an open, recessed doorway at Wentworth Model Dwellings where he was unlikely to be disturbed, and made a bee-line for it.

With respect, Gareth - how on earth would he know that he would be undisturbed in that particular doorway..? Did he keep a schedule over the nocturnal movements of the tenants there?

The Wentworth Model buildings were inhabited by working people, and many of these worked odd hours. There would always have been a risk of detection in such a place. Compare, if you will, to George Yard with Crow, Mahoney and Saunders running up and down the stairs.
Now, if he had chosen a factory doorway, a synagogue doorway, a school doorway - places that he could count on being out of traffic at night - then the suggestion would be a much better one. But he chose the doorway of a house where people could come down the stairs any minute of the day - or night!

Hopefully what I've written above is nudging us back towards the "Cunning, Careful or Lucky" subject of this thread!

Choosing that particular doorway would have been distinctly uncunning, very uncareful - but perhaps lucky in the end, anyway. If he stopped there for a cleaning up tour de force of many minutes, that is.
If he just passed by at 2.30 and threw the rag into the doorway when doing so, he would not need any cunning, carefulness or luck at all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn:

As I suggested earlier, Fish, all we can really say about Goulston Street is that it was the last place where the Ripper and the apron were together.

With respect, Gareth, we can say a bit more than that. We can, for example, say that it would appear that the killer did not arrive in the street until after 2.20, as per the very certain Long and the mildly corroborating Halse.

No we can't, Fish. Halse does not negate - mildly or otherwise - the possibility that Long missed the apron first time round, and Long himself was by no means "certain" that the apron wasn't there then.

Whether it was or it wasn't, it is of no relevance whatsoever to the subject of this thread, on which I'll say no more about it.

[Sam Flynn]

Hopefully what I've written above is nudging us back towards the "Cunning, Careful or Lucky" subject of this thread!

Choosing that particular doorway would have been distinctly uncunning

Why so? It was recessed and secluded entrance-way. Irrespective of the time he was there (which, I repeat, is of no relevance to this thread), it was a useful shady place to hang out.

If he just passed by... and threw the rag into the doorway when doing so, he would not need any cunning, carefulness or luck at all.

Why not just drop it somewhere in the street when there was nobody around?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Why so? It was recessed and secluded entrance-way. Irrespective of the time he was there (which, I repeat, is of no relevance to this thread), it was a useful shady place to hang out.

Secluded? Sort of, yes.
Shady? You bet!

... but the more troublesome part - as I mentioned - was that it was a doorway leading into a bunch of people, anybody of whom could come scrambling out into the street at any given moment.

So! Choose a church door, a school door, a factoy door, a shop door - and you will be cunning.
Choose the only type of door where there is traffic at night, and you won´t be.

Why not just drop it somewhere in the street when there was nobody around?

Indeed! He could have done so, and I am inclined to believe he may well have done just that if he had decided to rid himself of the apron in immediate relation to the murder. The fact that Long tells us that the apron was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20 tells us, however, that he apparently had no plans on parting with the apron during the first half hour after the slaying.

... which is why I say that necessity may well have ruled his hanging on to it. And to me, necessity implies a possible cut in his hand, meaning that he used the rag as a makeshift apron. Which is why it was wet with blood in one corner - the corner, I would suggest, that he held on to as he started wrapping the apron piece around his damaged hand.

Throwing away a filthy piece of rag in the open street may well have passed unnoticed in the longest, if there was not any significant amounts of blood on it.
Throwing away a piece of cloth that was soaked wet with blood is another matter - it would attract attention the same second it was found, not least if it was a PC that did the finding. And especially on a night when two women had been killed in the vicinity.

These are all quite uncertain parameters we are dealing with, Gareth. But I genuinely feel that if the rag had been used for a quick cleaning up only, then it would have been found the fewest of yards from Mitre Square, quite probably out in the open street. It would have represented the killer getting rid of an incriminating piece of evidence and it would not as clearly have indicated which way he took after the murder. As it stands, he clearly chose to hang on to the rag for at the very least four or five minutes - which is a long time, all things considered - and, according to the evidence given by Long and to some extent Halse, perhaps he hung on to it for more than an hour!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

... but the more troublesome part - as I mentioned - was that it was a doorway leading into a bunch of people, anybody of whom could come scrambling out into the street at any given moment.

A local Jack would have known that the building - indeed, most of the street - was populated with decent hard-working folk, many of them Jews, who were unlikely to be scrambling out of that doorway at that time of the morning.

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that Long tells us that the apron was not in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20 tells us

Aaaaaaarghhhhhhh! Stop bringing that up on this thread, please! What Long did/didn't see has nothing at all to do with the subject.

[Fisherman]

A local Jack would have known that the building - indeed, most of the street - was populated with decent hard-working folk, many of them Jews, who were unlikely to be scrambling out of that doorway at that time of the morning.

... and a local Jack would also be familiar with the fact that he would have been GUARANTEED that it would not happen in a church doorway, a school doorway, a factory doorway, a synagogue doorway, a shop doorway etcetera.

To know for sure that none of the people in the exact Goulston Street doorway would come crashing out into the street, this local Jack would have to know exactly who lived in it and what their habits were - and even then, he could still not be sure! People get ill in the middle of the night, quarrel in the middle of the night etcetera. Unlikely or not.

No matter how we look upon it, Gareth, that doorway was NOT the best bid for privacy and secrecy. Sorry, but that´s a plain and simple thing to see.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

No we can't, Fish. Halse does not negate - mildly or otherwise - the possibility that Long missed the apron first time round, and Long himself was by no means "certain" that the apron wasn't there then.

None of us can tell to what degree Halse verified Long, Gareth - he said he passed over the spot, but "should not necessarily" have seen the rag, since it was "in the building". He did not say that he COULD NOT have seen it. Meaning that he may have done so - if it was there.

And - once again - with due respect, Long WAS certain that the rag was not there. The coroner asked him whether he was able to say whether it was there or not, and Long replied: "It was not".

That is as certain as it gets. It leaves no room for thinking that he probably meant that it could have been there just the same.

Another poster on this thread (I think) said that he would have wanted the coroner to ask Long if he had shone his lamp in the doorway or something like that, and that is an interesting thing to say.

I believe that if Long had expressed himself "The apron was not there at 2.20. I know this since I walked into the doorway, searched it and the other doorways thoroughly with the aid of my lamp, and I am quite certain that all doorways in Goulston Street were empty and clean at 2.20!", then people would have accepted his words more readily.

Which is ludicrous.

The same people - to some extent - are the ones saying that Hutchinson will have lied since he overembellished his testimony to the ridiculous.

So being very detailed about things does NOT equal being truthful, obviously. And Long could have lied in many words just as he could have lied in few.

What remains is the fact that he expressed certainty when he was asked by the coroner if the rag was in place at 2.20; "it was not". And that certainty, short and sweet, should count for as much as a longwinded assertion. Certainty is certainty. And behiond Longs assertion must have lied a search, otherwise he could not have been certain. And, once more, we know full well that Long was capable of searching the doorway and finding the apron, since he did this exact thing at 2.55. So all the bits and pieces are in place, and to refute this, we must add conjecture - that he did not do the same type of search at 2.20 as he did at 2.55.

Until we have indications that he changed search methods, the picture is and stays complete.

Why you suggest that he was not certain is written in the stars, as far as I can tell. Maybe you can explain?

Alternatives:

Yes I can.
No I can not.

Both sentences belong to the exact same absolutely certain type of expression as "It was not" by the way ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

To know for sure that none of the people in the exact Goulston Street doorway would come crashing out into the street

We're talking about Wentworth Model Dwellings, Fish, not a modern-day nightclub. It was a dwelling occupied by working-class people who earned rather more than a dosser's wage, i.e. respectable working folk. Emphatically NOT the sort to come "crashing out into the street" at 2 o'clock on a Monday morning. A darkened alcove in a quiet street, a 4 or 5 minute jog from Mitre Square, with optional stops in between. Sounds perfectly reasonable and calculating to me.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe that if Long had expressed himself "The apron was not there at 2.20. I know this since I walked into the doorway, searched it and the other doorways thoroughly with the aid of my lamp, and I am quite certain that all doorways in Goulston Street were empty and clean at 2.20!", then people would have accepted his words more readily.

Which is ludicrous.

Yup, it is ludicrous, but I wouldn't expect him to have expressed himself in that manner at all. All he had to say was "The apron was definitely not there at 2.20" - but he didn't even say that. Now can we please move on from PC Long and when he saw the apron? Or at least, let's pick up the conversation on a more appropriate thread.

[Fisherman]

We're talking about Wentworth Model Dwellings, Fish, not a modern-day nightclub. It was a dwelling occupied by working-class people who earned rather more than a dosser's wage, i.e. respectable working folk. Emphatically NOT the sort to come "crashing out into the street" at 2 o'clock on a Monday morning. A darkened alcove in a quiet street, a 4 or 5 minute jog from Mitre Square, with optional stops in between. Sounds perfectly reasonable and calculating to me.

Were they all nine-to-fivers, Gareth? Do you know? Is it possible that they worked shifts, some of them? Could they have been night watchmen, some of them? Were they never taken ill in the middle of the night? Did they never throw their spouses out after quarrels?

I fail to see why you pursue the "this-was-the-top-of-the-line-choice" suggestion when clearly it was not.
Why did he not choose a doorway where no people had their dwellings, if he wanted secrecy? That is the important question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Yup, it is ludicrous, but I wouldn't expect him to have expressed himself in that manner at all. All he had to say was "The apron was definitely not there at 2.20" - but he didn't even say that. Now can we please move on from PC Long and when he saw the apron? Or at least, let's pick up the conversation on a more appropriate thread.

If you are asked the question "Did you knock that vase down from the shelf?", do you answer that "I did not" or "I did not knock that vase down from the shelf"?
The coroner asked Long "Are you able to say if the apron was there at 2.20?" and Long answered "IT WAS NOT". That means that he actually said "The apron was not there at 2.20". It´s the only possible inference. The inference "Ehhh, I really don´t know ... sort of ... " is not up for grabs!

What YOU say, however, is - and I quote - " Long himself was by no means "certain" that the apron wasn't there then."

How can you even contemplate saying such a thing???

He was not by any means certain, you tell us. Could you please point to where he expresses ANY uncertainty at all?
On an earlier occasion, you had Long confused with Halse. Are you doing the same thing now?

To claim that Long was by no means certain is untrue. There was no need whatsoever for Long to be any more longwinded than he was, and apparently the coroner was of the exact same meaning.

If anybody asks me "were you in New York last night", I will answer "I was not".
Are you of the meaning that if I do not say "I was not in New York last night, I was home in Sweden instead", I have been uncertain in my first answer?
Have I left the opportunity open that I WAS in New York until I have expanded on the issue, or have I effectively denied that I was there?

Why are you spending time and effort on a totally lost cause like this, Gareth? "It was not" - it cannot get any more certain than that. It can be expanded on, yes - but such expansions would only go to explain the certainty already expressed.
Long could have explained WHY he was certain, and that would have been nice. But it would not add to his certainty whether the rag was there at 2.20:
IT WAS NOT!

NOW we can put an end to the discussion - while it´s correct. Or we can switch channels - I will follow suit should you do so.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I fail to see why you pursue the "this-was-the-top-of-the-line-choice" suggestion when clearly it was not.

I'm not suggesting that it was a "top-of-the-line choice" at all. I'm just saying that it was a reasonable alcove to duck into, if he knew his way around.