Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[MrBarnett]

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................................

Pat,

Long was Met and Eddowes was killed in the City, just half an hour earlier. In an age before police radios, I think it's unlikely that he had heard about her killing. He is more likely to have heard of Stride's murder. And, given the previous murders, he might have been generally alert to material that could have been used to remove blood from a killer's clothes or person.

MrB

[Wickerman]

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.

Agreed, in principal. Though it must be acknowledged that any theory, from the sublime to the ridiculous, could be seriously proposed if all that was necessary was to claim any statements to the contrary are simply the result of a mistaken witness.
Once we accept this, we open the gates to dismissing anything we do not agree with under the pretext of a "mistaken witness".

Considering the witness made a mistake might best be reserved for cases where evidence is in direct conflict. For instance, if one witness says it was there, but another says it was not.

[Wickerman]

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

Do you mean those railings in front of the windows on either side of the entryway?

Apparently, those railings prevented anyone from falling down the opening between the windows (at street level) and the pavement/sidewalk.

If the piece of apron had been thrown at the entryway, I wonder if the police looked down that opening for the contents of the apron?
If the police merely thought the apron was nothing more than for wiping his hands, then maybe they did not.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi C.D.
When PC Long was unsure about a question posed to him at the Inquest, he said he was not sure.

Absolutely incorrect Jon.

From the Inquest transcripts, Daily Telegraph, Friday Oct 5th;

"[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?

Long: "I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock."
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?

Long: "It was not".

How is it that that fact is unknown to so many here?

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Absolutely incorrect Jon.

From the Inquest transcripts, Daily Telegraph, Friday Oct 5th;

"[Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?

Long: "I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock."
[Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?

Long: "It was not".

How is it that that fact is unknown to so many here?

Cheers

Michael.
Your reply has nothing to do with the line you quoted from me.

[Hunter]

... ...

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon

Do you mean those railings in front of the windows on either side of the entryway?

Yes, them.

If the piece of apron had been thrown at the entryway, I wonder if the police looked down that opening for the contents of the apron?
If the police merely thought the apron was nothing more than for wiping his hands, then maybe they did not.

If they were open then yes they would have checked down there.
Warren himself, would have been leaning on the railings whilst discussing the removal of the writing, so, we can be confident that someone thought about checking.

Long tells us himself that he at once searched the staircase and areas of the building.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Pat

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?

This was discussed recently over on JTRForums.
I thought it was likely that by the time Long found the rag he may have known about the murder in the city. At 2.20 DC Halse was in Goulston Street, and by the time Long was about to dash off to the Police station with the rag he had heard of the murder in the City and rumours of another one.
Of course, this could have been relayed to Long by the copper on the adjoining beat who was called for assistance. Long tells us that it was common knowledge that two murders had been committed.
But, over on JTRForums, the majority seemed to agree that Long did not know of the murders when he found the rag.

[DRoy]

MrB,

Long was Met and Eddowes was killed in the City, just half an hour earlier. In an age before police radios, I think it's unlikely that he had heard about her killing. He is more likely to have heard of Stride's murder.

This is what Long said at the inquest regarding hearing of a murder that early morning at about 3:00 after finding the apron...

[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
[Long] Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
[Coroner] Which did you hear of?
[Long] I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.

Jon,

But, over on JTRForums, the majority seemed to agree that Long did not know of the murders when he found the rag.

I personally think he did know of at least one of the murders prior to finding the apron. He found the piece of apron at about 2:55 which is almost two hours after Stride was found and over an hour after Eddowes was. He was only a 5 minute walk or a third of a mile from Eddowes. How could he not have heard of the murders from either police or civilians?

Cheers
DRoy

[Sam Flynn]

I think your coprocentric interpretation of the Eddowes murder is misguided.
Who on earth would wipe their hands on an intestine, when there was yards of cloth readily available?

Freshly extracted viscera are the ultimate ablutionary aid, Ed. Wet-wipe and warm towel all in one.

[Sam Flynn]

Portion of Dr. Frederick G. Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest as reported in the London Times on Oct. 5, 1888:

On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

I've never quite been sure whether this snippet relates to what the reporter heard (from Brown and/or AN Other), or what the reporter saw. Whatever it is, it's definitely a condensed prose summary of proceedings, and not a verbatim transcript.

Not that it matters too much in this context, but it does highlight a problem with some of these newspaper/press-agency reports, particularly those in the Times. We often don't know exactly who's speaking at a given moment and, even if we do, we can't really be sure of precisely what they said!

[Michael W Richards]

Michael.
Your reply has nothing to do with the line you quoted from me.

I misread it Jon, my apologies. You know what I thought you had said.

Cheers

[MrBarnett]

Hi DRoy,

But what do you make of this exchange:

Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer? - Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.

Long clearly didn't make a connection between the City murder (assuming he had heard of it) and the discovery of the bloody apron at the time. He thought he had found evidence of a murder in Goulston Street.

MrB

[Michael W Richards]

I dont believe anyone has addressed this possibility in this particular thread, but it is possible that the method of transfer of that cloth was not by the killer.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

I misread it Jon, my apologies. You know what I thought you had said.

Cheers

Yes, I realized you had misread it, easy done, no problem.