The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Joshua Rogan]

In the absence of a perfect chronology we've little choice, but at least my suggestion was based on everyday practicalities. "About 2:20" and "at 2:20" are different things and, as you know, Goulston Street isn't a particularly long thoroughfare; the difference between "about" and "at" could easily have given ample time for Long and Halse to have missed each other.

Most of the press coverage has Halse saying "about", for what it's worth...

Daily News
I came through Goulston street about twenty minutes past two, where the apron was found, and then went back to Mitre square

Daily Telegraph
I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary.

Morning Advertiser
I came through Goulston street, where the apron was found, about 20 minutes past two.

Times
He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary.

[Joshua Rogan]

Halse must have passed by the archway twice.

How do you work that out?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Considering what played out between Halse and Long a bit later, it's not hard to imagine them both being outside the entrance to Wentworth Model Dwellings at 2.20 am.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

In the absence of a perfect chronology we've little choice, but at least my suggestion was based on everyday practicalities. "About 2:20" and "at 2:20" are different things and, as you know, Goulston Street isn't a particularly long thoroughfare; the difference between "about" and "at" could easily have given ample time for Long and Halse to have missed each other.

But there was no one else in the street it seems, one must have either seen or heard the other.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's say Halse was there at exactly 2:20 (although that's questionable in itself) and Long's "about twenty minutes past two" could have meant anything between 2:17 and 2:23 (say), and we already have quite a margin, especially if Long was moving at beat-pace and Halse was moving more briskly. It wouldn't have taken the latter much time to pass the Wentworth Dwellings' doorway and out of Long's orbit.

Halse must have passed by the archway twice.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I sense you're making this up as you go along.

In the absence of a perfect chronology we've little choice, but at least my suggestion was based on everyday practicalities. "About 2:20" and "at 2:20" are different things and, as you know, Goulston Street isn't a particularly long thoroughfare; the difference between "about" and "at" could easily have given ample time for Long and Halse to have missed each other.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would disagree with that Monty, although Im sure you know the letter of the law better than I do. It seems to me that until such time as the author of the message was identified and a time for its appearance could be established....it remains possibly connected to the physical evidence relating to a murder based on their discovery time and proximity to one another alone. Any message content is therefore a potential clue.

Since its been 130 years and we still don't know who wrote it or when, it should have been properly recorded verbatim at least.

130 years later it means no more today than it did in 1888. And anyone who believes it to have been written by the killer or relates to any murder is deluded.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

To clarify, the apron was soaked at the corner with blood, as well as dotted with the material.

Enough for PC Long to be concerned, and to report it.

Monty

But his statement is not corroborated by anyone else. No one mentions a corner being soaked with blood. There is mention of a corner being wet (Pc Longs signed inquest testimony)

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

I sense you're making this up as you go along.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Catherine Eddowes Inquest—

DC Halse: "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then."

PC Long: "I passed [the spot where the piece of apron was found] about twenty minutes past two o'clock."

Let's say Halse was there at exactly 2:20 (although that's questionable in itself) and Long's "about twenty minutes past two" could have meant anything between 2:17 and 2:23 (say), and we already have quite a margin, especially if Long was moving at beat-pace and Halse was moving more briskly. It wouldn't have taken the latter much time to pass the Wentworth Dwellings' doorway and out of Long's orbit.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Herlock,

Catherine Eddowes Inquest—

DC Halse: "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then."

PC Long: "I passed [the spot where the piece of apron was found] about twenty minutes past two o'clock."

Things don't get much more approximate than this.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Monty
Thanks! But couldn't a photo of it have been used at trial as a comparison to the suspects handwriting?

If they'd managed to bring a suspect to trial, they would have had far stronger evidence than the GSG available. (See also previous comments about the difficulties with vertical handwriting.)

[Abby Normal]

Not many, a few.

Halse was against the erasure because, I suspect, of the reason Herlock states. A potential lead. However more evidence than that would have been required to gain a trial.

However it wasnt Halses patch, it was Arnold. Halses remit it detection, Arnold prevention. Arnold’s manor, Arnold’s call.

Monty

Hi Monty
Thanks! But couldn't a photo of it have been used at trial as a comparison to the suspects handwriting?

[Monty]

At least we'd know what it actually said.

True, but it’s interpretation is entirely subjective.

Monty

[Monty]

I would disagree with that Monty, although Im sure you know the letter of the law better than I do. It seems to me that until such time as the author of the message was identified and a time for its appearance could be established....it remains possibly connected to the physical evidence relating to a murder based on their discovery time and proximity to one another alone. Any message content is therefore a potential clue.

Since its been 130 years and we still don't know who wrote it or when, it should have been properly recorded verbatim at least.

I speak purely in terms of trial. It may have some benefit as an investigatory tool, as Herlock points out. So yes, ‘potential’ in that sense.

Monty