JTR - Cunning, Careful, or Lucky?

[Sam Flynn]

NOW we can put an end to the discussion - while it´s correct.

While you've had the last word, you mean.

Or we can switch channels - I will follow suit should you do so.

Switch channels by all means.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

While you've had the last word, you mean.

Well, to be fair, the last word should ideally reflect the truth. And the truth is NOT that Long was by no means certain, at least not if we go by he expressed himself!

Switch channels by all means.

I am waiting for you to do so, if you wish. I am still very interested in hearing how you are going to bolster your take that Long was uncertain (and yes, if he was by no means certain, then he WAS uncertain).
That would be an interesting addition to the discussion, if you´re up to it.
If not, I´m fine as it is.

All the best,
Fisherman

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

HI fisherman Im still of the thinking he was cleaning up as he was moving, if he could of made the doorway in 4-5 mins then I think that is reasonable time to try at the same time remove as much crud as he could whilst keeping to shadow, As for long he is firm in his statement but that dose not mean he was through in action, did he just give a quick look into the doorway? did he cast his light in there? But also if he is correct then the killer was maybe very close to hand laying low maybe in the doorway itself? could it be on first pass Long see's not the rag nor the killer and on second take the rag is there but "J" has flown just having one hell of a close scrap with a rozzer.

[Fisherman]

HI fisherman Im still of the thinking he was cleaning up as he was moving, if he could of made the doorway in 4-5 mins then I think that is reasonable time to try at the same time remove as much crud as he could whilst keeping to shadow, As for long he is firm in his statement but that dose not mean he was through in action, did he just give a quick look into the doorway? did he cast his light in there? But also if he is correct then the killer was maybe very close to hand laying low maybe in the doorway itself? could it be on first pass Long see's not the rag nor the killer and on second take the rag is there but "J" has flown just having one hell of a close scrap with a rozzer.

Let´s be perfectly clear about one thing: I am not and have never been saying that Long must have been right. Any scenario could apply, and the rag may well have been in place in the doorway at 2.20. We cannot be certain.

However, Long COULD be certain, if he had checked the space at 2.20! And that´s where my point lies.

The problem I am having is the idea put forward that Long was "by no means certain" about what he said. It does not work on any level - Long DID express himself in a certain manner. He did not leave any learoom for suspicions that he was not certain when he said "It was not" in reply to the question whether the rag was in place at 2.20 or not.

There are three alternatives and three alternatives only open to us:

1. Long had done the check at 2.20, and the rag had not been there.

2. The rag had been in place at 2.20, but Long believed he had checked the premises and not found it. He would be honestly mistaken in such a case.

3. Long lied about it, he had not checked the doorway. In this case it of course applies that the rag could either have been there or not.

There can be no other options. After having had these options presented to us, we must look at the surrounding circumstances and the other evidence and weigh the matter as best as we can. If we arrive at alternative 1, 2 or 3 is something that is governed by how we think and how much we know.

In my own case, I ask myself "Is there anything at all that can tell us anything about what went down at 2.20?", and I find there is: We know that Long, during his 2.55 visit to Goulston Street, performed his duties in a manner that ensured that he found the rag!
This means that to accept that the rag was in place at 2.20 but stayed undetected by Long (alternative 3, in which Long lies), we must make the assumption that he did not make the same sort of search then. We must speculate about a deviation without being able to explain why that deviation would have come about.

I also weigh in that Halse said that he had "passed over the spot" at 2.20, and that he had not noticed the rag at that stage. He added that he should not necessarily have done so, since the rag was in the building.
This would mean that it WAS potentially visible to those who looked - but Halse was not in the street to look in doorways, he was looking for people moving out on the streets. But the fact remains that he says that he did not notice any rag there at the time!

All in all, these three factors - Longs certainty, Halses not noticing any rag, and the method of search employed by Long at 2.55 procuring the rag for him - are all evidencebased, and in combination they speak very clearly of Long being on the money.

What we have to counter this is conjecture, nothing else. There is a not a scrap of evidence to point to Long lying or being mistaken in this case. And the distance inbetween Mitre Square and Goulston Street is no measure we can use either, since we do not know what the killer did after the murder.

These are all very straightforward things. It is a case with very little evidence but many possibilities. It´s okay to assume that Long was wrong - but only as long as it is accepted that the idea goes against the evidence.

On your notion that the killer would have spent the five minutes walking to Goulston Street wiping his hands while keeping to the shade, you may be right. My own stance is that it would be a very long wiping. I´d suggest that you take a piece of cloth with you and take a five minute stroll whilst rubbing the cloth between your hands. It will give you an idea just how long that time is. Practical exercises are often useful in contexts like this one.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

There's at least a fourth option:

Long looked in the doorway but something like only a quick look to see no one was hiding there and didn't look down.

I rarely see police walking around looking for what's on the ground unless they are searching for something.

[Sam Flynn]

So... was JTR cunning, careful, or lucky?

[Fisherman]

There's at least a fourth option:

Long looked in the doorway but something like only a quick look to see no one was hiding there and didn't look down.

I rarely see police walking around looking for what's on the ground unless they are searching for something.

That would sort either under option 3, Long did not look properly enough, and lied when he said for sure that there was no rag, or option 2, he THOUGHT that he had made a thorough enough check, and so he was honestly mistaken.

Believe me, there are no more than three options - they cover it all.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

So... was JTR cunning, careful, or lucky?

He was wreckless, quick and stealthy.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I rarely see police walking around looking for what's on the ground unless they are searching for something.

And yet it is obvious that Long did exactly that at 2.55. And it seems apparent that he was not searching specifically for anything at all. He arguably did not know about the killings at this stage, but was informed by a colleague after he found the rag.
I would think myself that the blood on the rag was what attracted his full attention; it was said to look fresh and one corner was wet with blood. Finding such an item during the Ripper scare would raise any PC:s eyebrow! I also think that since the rag was lying in a very dark doorway and since colours are lost in those conditions, Long probably was aided by his lamp when searching the premises.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

But did he use the lamp when he looked 1st time around?

[Fisherman]

But did he use the lamp when he looked 1st time around?

Your guess is as good as mine, GUT. We can assume that he had not heard of any of the murders as he searched the doorway at 2.55, and if he did so with the aid of his lamp at 2.55, then why would he NOT have done so at 2.20? Did he only search the doorways on every other occasion?

Use your GUT feeling ...

Fisherman

[GUT]

G'day Fisherman

Use your GUT feeling ...

I'm willing to believe that he did look, but I can see reasons that he may have overlooked it.

After all when you walk the same beat 10 or so times a night you surely can not give every nook and cranny a 100% search every time around, some will get just a glance this time and a more thorough look next time.

To me a more telling point is that the blood is said to be fresh, and I think he said still wet, at 2:55 I'm not sure that would be so if it had been there for 1/2 hour.

[PC Fitzroy-Toye]

Hi fisherman,

On your notion that the killer would have spent the five minutes walking to Goulston Street wiping his hands while keeping to the shade, you may be right. My own stance is that it would be a very long wiping. I´d suggest that you take a piece of cloth with you and take a five minute stroll whilst rubbing the cloth between your hands. It will give you an idea just how long that time is. Practical exercises are often useful in contexts like this one.

All the best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

I work with my hands alot in the manner of cars and some butchery, etc hence why I thought it was a workable idear, at the moment Im just throwing out idears and seeing what works or dose not so thanks for the input , I think what calls me to question is that a fair portion of the evidence is personal statements and opinions and that leaves us trying to define there character as much as what was said so that brings in for me doubt, and if the case was clear cut it would lack the appeal and we would not be on a forum like this! trading theorems, thoughts and idear so it is all open in some manner to personal interpretation some well founded some not so and as Im new to this I suffer more with the latter and it is benificial that there are many here that can define the finer points better, but as it seems the norm in many things we are going off subject! and so.... I think by good prep being smart and an animal sense of cunning and the general thrill of it adding to his wit he made his own luck as best an opportunistic killer could.

[Fisherman]

GUT:

I'm willing to believe that he did look, but I can see reasons that he may have overlooked it.

After all when you walk the same beat 10 or so times a night you surely can not give every nook and cranny a 100% search every time around, some will get just a glance this time and a more thorough look next time.

We will never be able to establish what happened. Some people, however, are creatures of habit, and do things the same way all the time.

Others are not.

All we have is the knowledge that Long secured the rag at 2.55. That is all we have to go on.

To me a more telling point is that the blood is said to be fresh, and I think he said still wet, at 2:55 I'm not sure that would be so if it had been there for 1/2 hour.

Try seventy minutes, GUT - at least. Eddowes was killed in the space between 1.30-1.45.
Would the rag still be wet with blood after that time, if it was Eddowes blood on it?

I really don´t know myself.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

PC Fitzroy-Toye:

I work with my hands alot in the manner of cars and some butchery...

HOLD IT! Some butchery?

So maybe you could provide an answer to the question whether a piece of cloth that is dipped in blood will stay wet for seventy minutes or more ...?

All the best,
Fisherman