Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is extremely wise! If we know that criminals normally flee the scene, heading for home then we should apply the view that the Ripper in all statistical probability did that too.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary. I think that is where you keep getting derailed. Goodnight now.

But if what you say is correct then the killer would have passed by Goulston Street at approx 1.55am and that is the time he would have dumped the apron piece. So with that in mind Long should have seen it at 2.20am.

All this claptrap about the killer going home and coming out again is to ridiculous to even consider.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

All this claptrap about the killer going home and coming out again is to ridiculous to even consider.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I personally find too ridiculous to consider is ignoring the sources that are the only thing capable of giving us a notion of understanding what happened, in favour of some personal psychological mumbojumbo, "the killer would have done this" or "the killer would never have done that".

Long noticed the rag, and stated it was not there earlier.

[Fisherman]

But if what you say is correct then the killer would have passed by Goulston Street at approx 1.55am and that is the time he would have dumped the apron piece. So with that in mind Long should have seen it at 2.20am.

All this claptrap about the killer going home and coming out again is to ridiculous to even consider.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, Trevor, you are completely wrong - as expected.

I am saying that IF we can establish that criminals normally flee the scene and head for home directly after the deed, then we have a statistical background that suggests that the more likely thing would be for the Ripper to do the same thing.

And THEN I say that this statistically grounded view only holds true if there is not evidence telling us that the Ripper did NOT flee the scene and head for home immediately. And there IS such evidence in Longs words. He was at the crime scene at 2.20, and he assured the coroner that he was able to say that the rag was NOT there at that stage.

Therefore, we have a case where the evidence tells us - or seems to tell us - that the killer did not flee the scene and return home immediately after the murder. And this evidence weighs infinitely heavier than any statistically grounded suggestions about what we may or may not expect killers to do.

If you recall, Eddowes was killed on the same night as Elizabeth Stride was killed, and the victorian police concluded that the killer was one and the same in both cases. So they would certainly not be disinclined to believe Alfred Long, for they were of the opinion that the killer had NOT fled the scene and returned home after the Stride killing. Far from that, he instead stayed out in the open streets in search of another victim. It could therefore be concluded that if Stride was a Ripper victim, then the killer was in no way the type of man who would immediately head for home after a strike. Instead, it would seem that he was a very stealthy character, who was not inpressed with the risks involved in stalking the streets after having killed.

Now, do you see what I am saying, Trevor?

[harry]

Kattrup.
Edward Daniel died on May 20,1868,aged 31,in Hokitika hospital,South Island,New Zealand,and is buried in the local cemetary.
The forfeiture of Daniel's Victoria Cross was signed by Queen Victoria on 4 September1861.The information I have is that he was awarded the Victoria Cross on two occasions.I do not think I am mistaken except in saying he was the only one to win two.
No Fisher man,it doesn't make any difference,which is why I am surprised you appeared to use it to bolster longs image.Talk of quality.

[Fisherman]

Kattrup: What I personally find too ridiculous to consider is ignoring the sources that are the only thing capable of giving us a notion of understanding what happened, in favour of some personal psychological mumbojumbo, "the killer would have done this" or "the killer would never have done that".

And yet, when you look closer at the ripperological community, I think you will find that this is the exact thing that most people do - they set aside the source evidence in favour of "personal psychological mumbojumbo", as you put it.

Long noticed the rag, and stated it was not there earlier.

Eleven words - that´s all it takes. And now you will spend the next days answering people who say "But maybe Long was wrong!"

You are of course spot on, but that is not likely to help you. It rarely does out here.

[Fisherman]

No Fisher man,it doesn't make any difference,which is why I am surprised you appeared to use it to bolster longs image.Talk of quality.

I appeared to do no such thing. I VERY clearly stated that "NEITHER applies to the issue as such - it is a matter of it being on record that a serving PC adamantly denied that the rag was in place at 2.20, and nothing else."

The one and only reason I mentioned his decoration was so that you could see that even if you are hellbent on using his forgotten notebook and his dismissal from the force as evidence that Long was no good, you will be faced with the fact that there are good things to weigh in too.

In conclusion: If you use these matters to try and establish a smaller/larger likelihood that Long was correct on the rag, then you are quite simply very wrong.
But if you nevertheless persist in doing so, then you should at the very least try to avoid being onesided.

Putting in differently: If you MUST do the wrong thing, then do the wrong thing in the right way.

Incidentally, doing the wrong thing in the right way does not involve misrepresenting what I say. That´s doing the wrong thing the wrong way.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, you are completely wrong - as expected.

I am saying that IF we can establish that criminals normally flee the scene and head for home directly after the deed, then we have a statistical background that suggests that the more likely thing would be for the Ripper to do the same thing.

And THEN I say that this statistically grounded view only holds true if there is not evidence telling us that the Ripper did NOT flee the scene and head for home immediately. And there IS such evidence in Longs words. He was at the crime scene at 2.20, and he assured the coroner that he was able to say that the rag was NOT there at that stage.

Therefore, we have a case where the evidence tells us - or seems to tell us - that the killer did not flee the scene and return home immediately after the murder. And this evidence weighs infinitely heavier than any statistically grounded suggestions about what we may or may not expect killers to do.

If you recall, Eddowes was killed on the same night as Elizabeth Stride was killed, and the victorian police concluded that the killer was one and the same in both cases. So they would certainly not be disinclined to believe Alfred Long, for they were of the opinion that the killer had NOT fled the scene and returned home after the Stride killing. Far from that, he instead stayed out in the open streets in search of another victim. It could therefore be concluded that if Stride was a Ripper victim, then the killer was in no way the type of man who would immediately head for home after a strike. Instead, it would seem that he was a very stealthy character, who was not inpressed with the risks involved in stalking the streets after having killed.

Now, do you see what I am saying, Trevor?

No I dont see what you are saying. Stride was never the victim of the same person who killed Eddowes. Everything about her murder is different to the rest.The police conclusions were clearly wrong.

Based on the timings from witnesses to Mitre Sq there is every likelihood that the killer was disturbed there. So therefore if that were the case the killer would want to distance himself as soon as possible from the crime scene, and in doing so dispose of any incriminating evidence he may have been in possession of, and if he were bloodstained he would want to avoid coming in contact with anyone in particular a police officer. Hiding and then coming out a short time later would be dangerous for him, as more police would be in the vicinity. I have known cases where criminals did hide after committing a crime, but most would wait till daylight until more people were on the streets before coming out of hiding.

On another connected point If the killer was disturbed, when did he have the time to cut or tear the apron in any event. The position of the victims clothes at the time she was found suggest that he could not have cut or torn it at the point of leaving if he were disturbed.

The weak suggestions that the killer cut or tore the apron piece for wiping his hands or his knife again do not stand up to close scrutiny for the reasons stated above. The carrying away of the organs in the apron piece has completely been blown out of the water, so what is left to even suggest the killer deposited the apron piece, and why deposit it at a location away from the crime scene in a dark recess where there was every likelihood that it would never be found by the authorities.

But it just happens to be found by a police officer, how good is that? out of all the buildings and doorways the killer must have passed between Mitre Square and Goulston street he picks that one with a dark recess, and even more strange is that the police officer decides to pay close attention to this dark recess and this screwed up piece of discarded rag.

While on the subject of Long it is unclear as to at what point and by whom he was told of the Mitre Sq murder, for him to take the action that he took thereafter. It would seem that from his evidence he only found out after he found the apron piece. It also seem he was never told of the Stride murder either which took place 2 hours earlier. This sequence events and his actions are puzzling to say the least

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

No I dont see what you are saying.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course not. Who am I trying to fool?

[Fisherman]

It also seem he was never told of the Stride murder either which took place 2 hours earlier.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Just trying to help out here, Trevor, so please don´t take this as an invitation to further debate: It was less than one hour earlier, not two hours.

[Kattrup]

Kattrup.
Edward Daniel died on May 20,1868,aged 31,in Hokitika hospital,South Island,New Zealand,and is buried in the local cemetary.
The forfeiture of Daniel's Victoria Cross was signed by Queen Victoria on 4 September1861.The information I have is that he was awarded the Victoria Cross on two occasions.I do not think I am mistaken except in saying he was the only one to win .

Absolutely, I was just curious since I only knew of the aforementioned three recipients of two VCs.

As said, the reward could be revoked, here is the wiki list of eight forfeited VCs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Victoria_Cross_forfeitures

[Trevor Marriott]

Just trying to help out here, Trevor, so please don´t take this as an invitation to further debate: It was less than one hour earlier, not two hours.

12.45am approx Stride Murder
2.55am Apron piece found

By my calculations that makes just over two hours, dont know about your calculations over there in La la land !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

What I personally find too ridiculous to consider is ignoring the sources that are the only thing capable of giving us a notion of understanding what happened, in favour of some personal psychological mumbojumbo, "the killer would have done this" or "the killer would never have done that".

Long noticed the rag, and stated it was not there earlier.

Thank god there are still some sane people left on these boards.

[Fisherman]

12.45am approx Stride Murder
2.55am Apron piece found

By my calculations that makes just over two hours, dont know about your calculations over there in La la land !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ah - I thought you were speaking of the two murder times on the double event night. You are not always very knowledgeable about these things, which was why I reacted. After all, you wrote:

While on the subject of Long it is unclear as to at what point and by whom he was told of the Mitre Sq murder, for him to take the action that he took thereafter. It would seem that from his evidence he only found out after he found the apron piece. It also seem he was never told of the Stride murder either which took place 2 hours earlier. This sequence events and his actions are puzzling to say the least

Clearly, this seems to imply what I thought it implied. But in spite of the poor sentence construction, I understand now what you mean, so sorry about the confusion.

I avoid La la land, since I dislike how you run it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah - I thought you were speaking of the two murder times on the double event night. You are not always very knowledgeable about these things, which was why I reacted. After all, you wrote:

While on the subject of Long it is unclear as to at what point and by whom he was told of the Mitre Sq murder, for him to take the action that he took thereafter. It would seem that from his evidence he only found out after he found the apron piece. It also seem he was never told of the Stride murder either which took place 2 hours earlier. This sequence events and his actions are puzzling to say the least

Clearly, this seems to imply what I thought it implied. But in spite of the poor sentence construction, I understand now what you mean, so sorry about the confusion.

I avoid La la land, since I dislike how you run it.

To much knowledge in the wrong hands can be catastrophic as you have proved time and time again on here

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

To much knowledge in the wrong hands can be catastrophic as you have proved time and time again on here

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, we´re probably better off with a total lack of knowledge in the right hands - where such a lack of knowledge belongs, that is.