Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[caz]

I'm sure there were was all sorts of debris hanging around the East End streets, especially close to busy markets.

Hi MrB,

I'm not sure about that at all. Petticoat Lane (also known as The Jews' Market) sprang to life early on Sunday mornings, so not much debris about on a Saturday, and the Model Dwellings were still shiny and new, so the entrances would have been looked after relatively well by the proud occupants.

However, the message may have been a sly dig at the Jews who would shortly be manning the old clothes stalls. If connected with the apron it could have implied they didn't care where they dumped their old rags.

Love,

Caz
X

[DRoy]

One is the odd choice of words ' I passed that way' rather than ' I looked into' the stairwell. It suggests someone being economical with the truth.

MrB,

If he knew that his words would be broken down in the manner we do, I'm sure he would have worded it so that everyone who ever heard or read his quote would understand 100% exactly what was meant with no room for misinterpretation.

I'm sure there were was all sorts of debris hanging around the East End streets, especially close to busy markets.

I believe that anything besides actual garbage that was not nailed down wouldn't have lasted too long on the streets. One person's garbage was another's treasure. I don't think there would have been much debris other than small scraps of paper being blown around.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hi Caz and DRoy,

Here's Jack London's description of Spitalfields backyards around the turn of the century:

'The roofs of these hovels were covered with deposits of filth. In some places a couple of feet deep –the contributions from the back windows of the second and third stories. I could make out fish and meat bones, garbage, pestilential rags, old boots broken earthenware and all the general refuse of a human sty.'

No treasure there apparently. Perhaps a torn piece of cloth covered in blood a fecal matter was a cut above the usual run of pestilential rags.

His description of the stairs and landing of a building in frying pan alley is also worth noting:

'each landing two feet by three in area, and heaped with filth and refuse.'

It may have been the case that the residents of the relatively new Dwellings took a certain amount of pride in their surroundings, but the stairwell was open to all and sundry and this was the East End, so I still find it strange that Long would find the cloth of interest. Unless of course he had checked the area half an hour or so before and then he might be curious about what someone had dropped since his last visit.

I can't see an East End copper considering a dirty piece of cloth worthy of note otherwise.

MrB

[caz]

...I still find it strange that Long would find the cloth of interest. Unless of course he had checked the area half an hour or so before and then he might be curious about what someone had dropped since his last visit.

I can't see an East End copper considering a dirty piece of cloth worthy of note otherwise.

MrB

And yet he did, MrB.

And he was dead right to do so.

There's no getting away from that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

I can't see an East End copper considering a dirty piece of cloth worthy of note otherwise.

Maybe, as Cross thought the body of Nichols was a tarpaulin, Long may have initially thought the apron was attached to a body, sleeping or otherwise in the entrance to the building.

[MrBarnett]

Hi Jon,

A very small person perhaps

MrB

[Bridewell]

On the thread issue, once again...on what basis do we question the empirical "IT WAS NOT THERE" by PC Long regarding his pass a little over a half hour after the Mitre Square murder? Is there ambiguity in that remark? Does he have a history of falsifying statements? Did he qualify the remark in later remarks?

The time gap issue hangs by the single thread of Long's certainty that the apron piece was not in the stairwell on his earlier circuit.

There is no doubt about what Long said. The only issue is whether or not Long was correct in what he said. A witness can be 100% honest and 100% certain - yet still be mistaken. We know only that Long said the apron piece was not there on the first occasion. What we don't know is whether or not Long was mistaken. There is only a time gap if Long was correct; if he was incorrect the time gap disappears. His certainty does not prove the issue one way or the other.

[Jon Guy]

A very small person perhaps

I just knew you`d say that, Mr B .... :-)

But if all Long saw when he glanced in the doorway was the flash of white he may have thought there was someone in dark clothes (as they all wore) underneath the white cloth.

Remember there were railings around the doorway so he would have been 5 feet or so away from the rag.

[MrBarnett]

Jon,

I just knew you`d say that, Mr B .... :-)

I've only been on here five minutes and already I'm predictable.


MrB

[DRoy]

Hi Caz and DRoy,

Here's Jack London's description of Spitalfields backyards around the turn of the century:

'The roofs of these hovels were covered with deposits of filth. In some places a couple of feet deep –the contributions from the back windows of the second and third stories. I could make out fish and meat bones, garbage, pestilential rags, old boots broken earthenware and all the general refuse of a human sty.'

No treasure there apparently. Perhaps a torn piece of cloth covered in blood a fecal matter was a cut above the usual run of pestilential rags.

His description of the stairs and landing of a building in frying pan alley is also worth noting:

'each landing two feet by three in area, and heaped with filth and refuse.'

It may have been the case that the residents of the relatively new Dwellings took a certain amount of pride in their surroundings, but the stairwell was open to all and sundry and this was the East End, so I still find it strange that Long would find the cloth of interest. Unless of course he had checked the area half an hour or so before and then he might be curious about what someone had dropped since his last visit.

I can't see an East End copper considering a dirty piece of cloth worthy of note otherwise.

MrB

MrB

I understand what you're saying but garbage is garbage. The apron obviously caught his eye as something out of place which we can assume it would be because there was little litter in the area.

Long wouldn't have known the piece of apron had blood or fecal matter on it, nor would he know whether it was a full apron. There was a string attached to the piece so perhaps he thought it was a full apron which surely would entice him to check it out.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hi DRoy,

I mentioned the blood and fecal matter to challenge the suggestion that such a 'treasure' wouldn't have lasted long on the East End streets, and would therefore have piqued Long's interest.

A dirty discarded rag in the poorest quarter of a large, overcrowded city is surely not in itself remarkable.

But if you were the local beat cop who had passed that way a short while before and were sure the apron wasn't there at that time, it's sudden appearance might make you a little more curious than if you had simply caught a glimpse of it the first time around.

MrB

[Jon Guy]

I've only been on here five minutes and already I'm predictable.

Not at all. I should have explained it clearer in my post that Long would have been especially looking out for people sleeping in doorways, and that was what drew his attention to the rag as he passed the entrance.

[Paddy]

At first it was not there !

I think I believe Long when he said apron piece was not there at 2.20, because he would have already have been very likely alerted regarding the murder.

(Approx 1:45 PM: PC Edward Watkins discovers Eddowes' body in Mitre Square)

Long would have been looking for anything suspicious and in doorways surely?

Pat................................

[DRoy]

MrB

We aren't talking about a 3" square piece of cloth here. It was a much larger piece and it had string attached to it.

If he noticed the string and a big piece of cloth he most likely would have put his policeman's thinking cap on and by the process of elimination presume it to be an apron.

I'm pretty sure the police didn't just look straight ahead at eye level while walking their beats. What better place to look than stairwells and doorways? He probably was looking for Jack in every stairwell and nook & cranny and so happened to find a portion of apron instead.

Cheers
DRoy

[andy1867]

Just how messy must the streets have been in 1888 though.
Why should a piece of discarded cloth catch a Poilicemans eye?
Surely it must have been the blood stains to make him take an interest, which suggests there was nothing of "such" interest prior?
Its simply another enigma to add to the myriad of enigmas that dog the subject I suppose