Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Ally]

I agree with Jeff that we can't discount the possibility that it was there and he just didn't see/notice it. At the time, it would have been nothing but a rag on the ground. It's not like it had meaning until they were "searching" for "something. It would have been easy to overlook a rag on the ground, when you were mostly looking for problems.... "random sleepers", "burglars" .... people. Then when you're searching for a "criminal" every item where they might have hidden suddenly becomes "more relevant". If that makes sense. People pass litter on the street every day and pay no particular attention to it.

He could genuinely think that it wasn't there, because he did check, and his brain just didn't register "rag on the ground" because at the time, it was just a piece of random litter.

If I were you I would take a step back from this your posts are becoming irrational and repetitive

....

....

Nah. Too easy.

[Aethelwulf]

Whether you personally think Long lying or being mistaken is more probable than JtR venturing out again after a kill is completely irrelevant.

Who knows whata serial killer would consider risky:

Bundy: He later returned to the UW alley the morning after and, in the very midst of a major crime scene investigation, located and gathered Hawkins's earrings and one of her shoes where he had left them in the adjoining parking lot, and departed, unobserved. "It was a feat so brazen," wrote Keppel, "that it astonishes police even today.

[rjpalmer]

Bundy: He later returned to the UW alley the morning after and, in the very midst of a major crime scene investigation, located and gathered Hawkins's earrings and one of her shoes where he had left them in the adjoining parking lot, and departed, unobserved. "It was a feat so brazen," wrote Keppel, "that it astonishes police even today.

And I think that possibility is greater than JtR reemerging, hence my preference in the ordering if those theories.

Whether you personally think Long lying or being mistaken is more probable than JtR venturing out again after a kill is completely irrelevant.

Gentleman, I realize this isn't the main thrust of what is under discussion, but let me throw it out there, because I have an opposing view.

Isn't the concept of the murderer 'reemerging' or 'venturing out again' influenced by the widely held--but quite possibly mistaken--belief that the murderer was a local man, with a remarkable ability to allude the police, and maybe even some 'daring'?

Why must it be so?

If Long was not wrong, and I have no reason to believe that he was, the inordinate delay between cutting the apron and depositing the apron might be explained by the murderer not having particularly good knowledge of local geography; as he made his getaway, he got 'turned around,' lost his bearings in the dark, and was thus literally wandering the streets for the better part of 40 minutes.

He never 'reemerged' because if never returned home to begin with.

In short, his supposed expertise of local geography is not in evidence. He was flat-out lost.

[Kattrup]

Gentleman, I realize this isn't the main thrust of what is under discussion, but let me throw it out there, because I have an opposing view.

Isn't the concept of the murderer 'reemerging' or 'venturing out again' influenced by the widely held--but quite possibly mistaken--belief that the murderer was a local man, with a remarkable ability to allude the police, and maybe even some 'daring'?

Why must it be so?

If Long was not wrong, and I have no reason to believe that he was, the inordinate delay between cutting the apron and depositing the apron might be explained by the murderer not having particularly good knowledge of local geography; as he made his getaway, he got 'turned around,' lost his bearings in the dark, and was thus literally wandering the streets for the better part of 40 minutes.

He never 'reemerged' because if never returned home to begin with.

In short, his supposed expertise of local geography is not in evidence. He was flat-out lost.

Possible, RJ, though personally I do not believe it. His willingness to enter confined areas like Hanbury Street suggests to me a familiarity with the surroundings.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby,

We only have PC Long's statement that he believed it wasn't there, and if he missed it, that would be his belief. He doesn't go into detail, like say "I checked that very stairwell, and it was empty..." for example, he just says it wasn't there when asked. As such, we can't evaluate his statement by comparing it to his actions, or find corroborating evidence from others (note, there is one detective who also passes around 2:20, but he says he could have missed it, which opens the possibility that PC Long could have too). All we can do is consider the possibility that he missed it, and so believes it wasn't there at 2:20.

I just find the notion that JtR would make it home, and then go back out into a high risk area just to toss an apron away and possibly scribble some cryptic graffitti to be more improbable than PC Long, who was doing the beat for the first time that night, overlooked a piece of cloth in a stairwell when he had no reason to think anything was up that night. It sounds to me like he hadn't heard of the murder in Mitre Square until closer to 2:55, so would just be doing his rounds. The stairwell didn't have a door for him to check, so all it would take is for him to be patrolling closer to the other side of the road, or some such thing. It's a subjective thing, which seems more improbable, PC Long missed a piece of cloth, or JtR goes back out at a time when the police will be buzzing around the place? To me the latter seems the more unlikely, hence my preference. But as I say, if the probabilities seem more the other way to you, then your preference will be the opposite. Just because we have different ideas about those relative probabilities doesn't mean one of us is being more/less analytical or evidence based, we just weight the evidence differently because there is no objective way to weight those things available to us and we have to weight them somehow (even to say "either is equally valid" is just to weight them equally after all).

- Jeff

Hi Jeff
I know I dont disagree with you much, but Im afraid I totally disagree with you here. Im even going to go so far as to say that you are wrong. Long didnt say he could have missed it, or he didnt think it was there. He said it wasnt there. There is no evidence he was wrong or lying, so we must go with his evidence. He could have missed it of course-but thats veering into speculation when there is no need to. And lets face it-the guy found the only clue in the whole ripper case, so lets give credit, where credit is due.

And re your balance of probabilites if the ripper would risk going out again_cmon Jeff, he just went from killing a woman, to minutes later, killing and mutilating another. The ripper was nothing, if not an extreme risk taker. Going back out to scribble some graffiti and drop the apron would have been peanuts to him. Peanuts.
Besides, the events of the night show that he even has a motive for doing so-getting back at those pesky jews for interupting him, and it also explains the missing time (and WHY it wasnt there the first time for Long to see it)because he had to go back to his bolt hole, and among other things grab some chalk.

On this one my friend, Im afraid you are quite wrong.

[Abby Normal]

Long did say that the apron wasn’t there so there has to be reasonable chance that it wasn’t but……and yes there’s always a but….can we be at all certain that Long wasn’t covering his own a**e? If he hadn’t actually checked the doorway properly at 2.20 he might have said that it wasn’t there just to show that he’d been diligent in his duty. Of course we can’t prove or disprove this but it remains a possibility imo. Unlikely perhaps but nowhere near an impossibility. And the fact that he was sacked 6 months later for drunkenness points at least to him possibly not being the most trustworthy of officers.

Hi Herlock
as I stated to Jeff, the dude found the only clue in the whole case-lets give credit where credit is due.

[Abby Normal]

Who knows whata serial killer would consider risky:

Bundy: He later returned to the UW alley the morning after and, in the very midst of a major crime scene investigation, located and gathered Hawkins's earrings and one of her shoes where he had left them in the adjoining parking lot, and departed, unobserved. "It was a feat so brazen," wrote Keppel, "that it astonishes police even today.

bingo and the list is endless what brazen risks serial killers will take.

[Abby Normal]

Possible, RJ, though personally I do not believe it. His willingness to enter confined areas like Hanbury Street suggests to me a familiarity with the surroundings.

totally agree with this and your previous posts K. But i think another possibility, although slim, is he might have not gone back to his bolt hole but wandered around a bit, perhaps evading police and such, hiding out here and there before depositing the apron. Just maybe though-all the events/circs of that night seem to point to him going to a bolt hole first.

[The Baron]

And it would not surprise me if he was still out because he was looking for yet a third victim, I agree, this Ripper is a serious risk fanatic

Haven't read this mentioned before, I do believe it is a possibility.


TB

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock
as I stated to Jeff, the dude found the only clue in the whole case-lets give credit where credit is due.

True enough Abby. We certainly have nothing even approaching concrete to suggest Long wasn’t particularly diligent at 2.20. The only thing that nags at me a little is personal experience. I’ve certainly mislaid things and then found the item after a second look somewhere that I’d already looked, thinking to myself “how the hell did I miss that?” I just think there might be a chance that it didn’t catch his eye first time past. I’d call it a possibility and no more than that.

[Fiver]

Then how did faeces get on the apron piece...

"About two feet of the colon was cut away."

...and besides the apron piece if we are to believe some that it was half an apron would be too big to use as a bandage...

As others have noted, are you familiar with the concept of folding?

...and there was only blood on one side of the apron if he had cut himself I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides

Regardless of the source of blood, I'd expect one side to be more bloodstained while there would be little or no staining on the other side, since that is the purpose of aprons.

[Fiver]

If I were you I would take a step back from this your posts are becoming irrational and repetitive.

Do you know the definition of irony?

[Trevor Marriott]

"About two feet of the colon was cut away."

As others have noted, are you familiar with the concept of folding?

Regardless of the source of blood, I'd expect one side to be more bloodstained while there would be little or no staining on the other side, since that is the purpose of aprons.

So you accept that given the alleged actions of the killer in cutting a piece of the apron and then using it to either stem the blood from a cut or to wipe his hands or knife there would likely as not be blood stains on both sides of the piece?

As I have said previous folding would still involve the killer having to touch/handle and cut a piece of the apron with two bloody hands leaving traces of blood on both sides

For your information Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

Possible, RJ, though personally I do not believe it. His willingness to enter confined areas like Hanbury Street suggests to me a familiarity with the surroundings.

Possibly, Kattrup, but I'd pose the following question.

How do we distinguish his familiarity from the victim's familiarity? In East London street prostitution, the woman leads the man; the man does not lead the woman.

Inspector Henry Moore:

"“What makes it so easy for him” – the inspector always referred to the murderer as “him” – “is that the women lead him, of their own free will, to the spot where they know interruption is least likely. It is not as if he had to wait for his chance; they make the chance for him."


In the general scheme of things, if a person traveling from point A to point B takes three times longer than expected it means he's slow; or that he has stopped somewhere along the way; or that he simply got lost.

But the idea that the Ripper was a man with great knowledge of the local geography has become such a popular part of the mythos of the case, that few care to entertain the third option.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the apron was cut at the murder scene,was it a forethought or afterthought on the part of the killer? Being as the clothing was bunched up around Eddowes midsection,it would hardly have been an afterthought,as the apron would probably have been inaccessable for cutting.So why was it cut before commencing the mutilations?

Hi Harry
And even if it were cut before and I see no logical reason for him to have done that, the killer would still have had to touch it with two bloody hands at some point thereafter for whatever purpose

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk