|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| |
Thread |
Last Poster |
Posts |
Pages |
Last Post |
  | Archive through June 26, 2003 | Pedigree your chum | 25 | 1 | 6-26-03 10:21 am |
| Archive through July 08, 2003 | Monty | 25 | 1 | 7-08-03 11:21 am |
| Archive through July 10, 2003 | David O'Flaherty | 25 | 1 | 7-10-03 1:36 pm |
| Archive through May 15, 2005 | Howard Brown | 50 | 1 | 5-15-05 10:25 am |
| Archive through May 20, 2005 | Phil Hill | 50 | 1 | 5-20-05 3:03 pm |
| Archive through May 25, 2005 | Glenn G. Lauritz And | 50 | 1 | 5-25-05 12:28 pm |
| Archive through September 13, 2005 | Helge Samuelsen | 50 | 1 | 9-13-05 10:41 am |
| Archive through September 15, 2005 | Howard Brown | 50 | 1 | 9-15-05 4:21 pm |
| Archive through September 16, 2005 | Helge Samuelsen | 50 | 1 | 9-16-05 4:01 pm |
| Archive through September 28, 2005 | Monty | 50 | 1 | 9-28-05 3:17 am |
| |
 Closed: New threads not accepted on this page |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 698
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 28, 2005 - 9:30 pm: | 
|
Hi Phil,
Actually, I didn't re-present the data from which some of the conclusions are based because it appears earlier in this thread (I believe).
Anyway, the idea that Jack's arrives at GS at a similar time as Long's patrol is derived based upon Long's testimony of his patrol time, and working backwards from times when he places himself in this location (finding the apron). That is combined with estimations of when Jack might have reached GS from the square, on the assumption that he's travelling at a normal walking speed (or slightly quickly). This latter assumption is based upon the fact that nobody reports anyone moving at a suspicious pace, etc. Of course, the exact details of what he's doing are simply suggestions of one series of events. The basic idea is that if he arrived at GS about the time Long was making his patrol, then Jack would probably try and stay out of sight, wait for Long to move on, then proceed upon his way. Since this is the location where Jack disposed of the apron, I'm suggesting he wiped his hands at that point. Either after Long moved on, or perhaps while waiting for Long to move on. Since Long did not see Jack as far as we know, and from time estimations of events, it appears they may have been in the same location at the same time, then something like this appears to have happened. Providing, of course, that the time estimations are telling us something useful. No, nothing about this is undebatable, but it is all derived from an examination of the evidence and following one (of many) possible trails that the eviedence leads us along.
I fully admit the interpretation is not unequivical, however, underlying it are the limited facts and information we have. So, rather than pure fantasy (which implies based upon no factual foundation at all), rather I would suggest that this is simply "an interpretation that is suggested by the known evidence".
However, it is also based upon a total unknowable, which is whether or not Jack dropped the apron upon his first pass of GS, and that Long missed it on his patrol round prior to finding it. If the apron simply wasn't there, that means Jack has ample time to have travelled in just about any direction, and all bets are off.
As for when Jack left MS, using the information and times given by Watkins patrol, and the estimations given by the doctors as to how long it would take to perform the mutilations (about 5 minutes was given by the doctors), combined with the times of Eddowes last sighting (if reliable), then from all this information it does appear that Jack left the scene just before Watkins found the body. There is very little room for anything else, provided of course, the time evidence is reliable. Since there is no way for us to determine if the evidence is accurate, we either work with it to see if it can produce a realistic picture of what might have happened, or we dismiss it altogether, which leaves us with nothing to work with at all. I prefer the former approach.
Since tesimony places Harvey patrolling Church Passage shortly before Watkins enters the Square, and around about that time we have Morris testify that he was sweeping up and opening his door shortly before Watkins arrived, then either of these events could have resulted in Jack deciding to leave the crime scene. There is absolutely nothing to suggest he hid in the shadows, and the idea that he was simply hiding in a dark corner while Watkins shown his light around can hardly be considered an alternative based upon any facts we have, and is much more fanciful than what is being suggested.
Anyway, my suggested "concerns" are derived from the idea that something disturbed him (which again is what is suggested by the time line we have from the testimony), and from what appears to have been his actions (leave the scene, later clean his hands and/or knife). If this is what he did, which the evidence appears to suggest, then I interpret that as indicating that Jack's behaviour reflects his concerns, which then become "distance before cleanliness".
The idea that cleaning either his hands or knife might be considered "odd" by some is based upon posts in this thread, where some people have questioned the idea that the apron was used for such a purpose. It seems "odd" to them that he covered such a distance before cleaning up and disposing of the rag. I'm suggesting it's not so odd if Jack's concerns were "distance before cleanliness". And, as you point out, if he's not that covered in blood, then there's no great rush to clean up, so more distance before cleanliness.
Anyway, I probably should have mentioned that the times and such have been discussed before. I admit, that there are other interpretations that could be drawn. The evidence we have is so limited that we are forced to either do nothing (which guarentees we'll go nowhere) or we attempt to interpret the data. Of course, once we start to interpret, we leave ourselves open to errors. Errors of interpretation go with the territory when all you have are a few pieces of a puzzle.
- Jeff
(Message edited by jeffhamm on September 28, 2005) |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 949
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 1:34 am: |
|
Jeff - I simply don't believe that the timings are accurate or reliable enough to form the basis of the sort of construct you erect upon them.
As for my point about hiding in the shadows, I simply made it to indicate that there are other alternatives. I have no idea whether he did or did not.
Occam's razor (simplest explanation) suggests to me only one pass of Goulston St - we have no evidence to suggest more.
Phil |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1907
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:34 am: |
|
Phil, Jeff,
But (my god, Im starting a sentence with but !!!!) we do have an accurate time with regards Morris and therefore a very good estimation time with regards to Watkins finding Eddowes body.
I understand the point Phil is making re facts and scenario creating however this will not stop the more obscure ideas coming forth (unfortunately). Especially, as Jeff correctly states, as we have very limited factual evidence to work with.
When Im investigating a case and my facts are limited and questionable, I suppose and conject. Sometimes it pays off. However, and I think this is the point Phil is making (sorry if Im wrong) no matter how much I do these thing I should never forget that without hard and fast evidence, my supposition and conjecture is not fact, it has no support.
Basically I see your point.....yet I also see Jeffs.
Not that it matters I guess.
Cheers Chaps
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 700
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 29, 2005 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Hi Phil and Monty,
Actually, I think we now all agree. Phil is correct in questioning the time estimations. In fact, if one were to question any of the facts I've based this on, I can't say any of them are rock solid; but I'm pretty sure I indicated that. Although I think the times around the Mitre Square events themselves (The murder and its discovery) are within acceptable limits of accuracy, and the estimation of how long it would take to walk from MS to GS is also within acceptable limits, it's Long's Location that is most questionable. He's in that area at "the right time" only based upon his average patrol time. He was new to the patrol, individual patrols may have varried quite a bit in his time, so it's impossible to be sure where he was at any given time expect those where he reports his location.
And Monty's right. Stories like these ones are not "facts", they are "theories", or "interpretations", and just because the story sounds good doesn't mean it's true. If this were a modern case, we would certainly want to have more solid information before trying to fit pieces together. Unfortunately, we can't do that.
I find it can be useful to try and extract the story from the limited evidence, but one must try and keep the story as simple as possible. Jack bumping into Long is probably a stretch. It's just curious how when we estimate the time that Jack first gets to GS, that Long's patrol time would place him in roughly the same location at the same time. And it's this location where the apron was found. It's a weak foundation, and I certainly don't claim this is what must have happened. I do think, however, it's worth considering as a possibility, and one that is derived from facts, although the derivation process involves some unknowable assumptions.
- Jeff |
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 799
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:13 am: |
|
Is it possible to develop an objective way to measure the degree of speculativeness in a theory? As Jeff says, with the amount of evidence we have it is almost impossible to get anywhere without some speculation.
I would propose 3 criteria, each one to be rated on a scale of 1 to 10, giving a maximum possible score of 30.
1. Quality of Evidence What kind of evidence is the theory based on? Abberline's preserved notes are one thing. The word of Aunt Matilda who got a Ripper anecdote from her cousin, who got it from his great uncle who lived in Whitechapel as a four year old child in 1888 is another. The former rates a 10 and the latter a 1. Other information falls somewhere inbetween. Generally official documents are more reliable than newspaper accounts.
2.Degree of Support How closely is the argument or theory tied to the evidence it is supposedly based on? Are there only glancing references to the evidence with most of the argument supported by imagination, or is there a point by point relationship between the argument and the evidence?
3.Quality of Logic Is the argument consistent with basic logic, what is known of human nature and the laws of physics and other sciences, and general perceptions of believable reality? Our evidence for the existence of Diddles is very good. He is mentioned in court testimony. It is established that he was in the building when MJK was killed by that same testimony. You could refer to the fact that cats can move through small spaces, see well in the dark, and like to eat organ meats. All those facts provide point by point support. But it would be ludicrous to suggest that Diddles killed MJK. It violates our experience of reality. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 702
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:35 am: |
|
Hi Dianna,
Interpretation is the phase in any analysis when you move from simply stating what the observable evidence is and attempt to explain "why" the evidence is the way it is. In science, for example, once one moves from reporting the speed at which an object falls down (the observable event) and start talking about "a force that attracts to bodies of matter, called gravity". You don't "see or observe gravity", rather you "observe falling objects" and speculate the presence of some force (gravity). Then, other experiments are conducted, and if the theory is true, the results (the observations) should turn out a certain way. If they turned out differently, then there's something wrong with the experiment. So far, the "theory of gravity" has been well supported.
Now, with something like the JtR case, we can't really do experiments. And, we don't really have high quality data. And all sorts of problems like that. However, as soon as we try and move from stating the evidence as we have it, and try and explain why the evidence is the way it is, we are offering an interpretation, or a theory, which is a form of speculation. Just like our understanding of gravity is really a specualtion that it works in a particular way (usually represented by mathematical formulas that represent things like distance in space, the amount of matter of the two masses, and so on). If something else also is important in terms of "gravity", and our formula doesn't include that "thing", then our results from our experiment will not turn out the way we expect. Meaning, our speculation about how gravity works will have been shown to be incomplete.
All interpretation is speculation. How well it ties in to the evidence, in a situation like a murder investigation, is hard to quantify most times.
Logical arguments, and flaws in them, can often just be pointed out. Phill points out that caution should be taken in terms of how valid some of my evidence should be viewed. He's right, and I admit that. This process is how ideas get mulled over.
- Jeff |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1908
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 3:40 am: |
|
Jeff,
Just a point re Mitre Square.
Morris set a time from which we can gage Watkins discovery of the body.
Like I said, just a point Buddy.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Diana
Chief Inspector
Username: Diana
Post Number: 800
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 30, 2005 - 1:46 pm: |
|
Have you ever wanted to avoid somebody? Most of us have been in that situation at one time or another though not because we just commited a murder.
If you round a corner and up ahead is somebody you don't want to interact with and they don't see you, you generally hang back and hide a little and watch till they're out of sight.
It is the most natural thing in the world to do this and probably most of us have done it at one time or another.
This is what appeals to me about Jeff's theory. It does not require us to go through contortions to be believable. Its natural. Its something we've all done.
Jack rounds the corner onto Goulston Street and up ahead is Long with his back to Jack and walking away from him. Jack slips back around the corner and waits until Long is out of sight, then proceeds down Goulston Street and drops the piece of apron.
Jeff has further supported his theory with timings. It explains the late appearance of the apron.
Can we know with absolute certainty that this is what happened? No.
But I think we can run with it till we find something better. |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 703
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 3:18 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
Yes, I agree that unless we argue that all the times given (or implied) by Watkins, Lawende, and Morris are wrong, the time line of events in Mitre Square is well enough supported to accept as reliable. Some events, such as when the apron piece was cut (pre/post mutilations), are less positive, but I think the data does suggest it was removed prior to rather than subsequent to the mutilations.
Anyway, it's the timing of when the apron was left at GS, the timing/placement of PC Long, the timing of Jack's getting to GS assuming he went directly there (which is not unreasonable, but also not proven), and so on that are the timings that I think Phil would be most concerned with. And rightly so. As I tried to indicate, none of this is "fact", it's all interpretation of facts, or calculated "facts" (a way of making estimations sound more solid than they are! ha!).
- Jeff |
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 704
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, October 02, 2005 - 3:27 pm: |
|
Hi Diana,
Thank you for that! Just as long as we all remember that the actions I suggest, as natural as they appear, are only theory. The evidence we have that Jack and PC Long may have been close enough for Jack to spot him is not altogether absent, but it is weak and at most suggestive.
But, it also may be that at present this is the sort of thing that we can expect to end up with. A story that doesn't require a lot of twisting to make fit, that fits the evidence that we have, but at the same time cannot be considered anything more than weakly supported. I would not be surprised if someone else presented an equally plausible story, that fit all the evidence just as well as mine does. At that point, we would be listing our "alternative explanations". Hopefully, in there, the right one will be listed. Then, as more evidence comes to light, we can start ruling some stories out and being left with the "right one".
- Jeff |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
