Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure where "shoulders" came from, Halse did say it may have become rubbed off, but I don't think he said by "shoulders".

One source described the writing as being lower than 4ft, because the black dado only went up that high.
Too low for shoulders.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Gareth

Don't get me wrong - I still have some doubts as to the graffito's location, because the records still leave room for ambiguity. However, your logic made perfect sense to me, and I'm edging towards your way of thinking on the matter. (Of the graffito's location, specifically - not the rest )

Sorry I still have huge trouble accepting the graffito as being anywhere other than inside...as was the piece of apron according to the primary evidence... (or as close to it as we're going to get)...it (the apron piece). had of course been removed by the time Warren arrived.

In fact it's only Warren's word in his formal report to the Home Office that suggests the graffito was on the jamb itself (as opposed to somewhere it might get rubbed by passing shoulders)...

All the best

Dave

[DRoy]

Long says he embarked on a search of the staircases inside WMD around about three, before taking the apron to the police station, leaving another Metropolitan PC in charge "of the stair" (interesting choice of words). He says that he'd heard about the Mitre Square murder before he left for the station, so it's quite possible that he got the news from the PC whom he'd left on sentry duty. Whilst Long doesn't give a specific time, it appears that he found out about Eddowes' murder some time after 3 in the morning.

Sam,

I don't see around 3:00 being the time, it doesn't make any sense. He said it was common knowledge a murder took place. How could such recent news (5 minutes if it was the PC) be considered common knowledge? In stating he heard of the first murder before he left for the station, he could mean anytime between those two events.

Maybe the timing isn't that important or maybe it is. In his second round, did he pay more attention hence he was able to find two clues he wasn't looking for before the first time? Speculation I know.

Cheers
DRoy

[harry]

Monty,
You may be right.Long is stated as calling the officer from the other beat,the how is not defined.Still doesn't mean he had to retrieve the rag before doing so.

[The Good Michael]

I find it highly unlikely Long blew his whistle.

Wet his whistle?

Mike

[Monty]

Jon,
The notebook was available for the superiors to check,and Long didn't leave the building to find the other constable,he blew his whistle,and the other beat constable came to his aid.I,ll say just once more,there was no need for Long to remove the rag,but by doing so,he created a situation where only his word remained that the rag was in the position he describes.So,was his actions dictated by accident ,lack of discipline,or design?

I find it highly unlikely Long blew his whistle.

Monty

[harry]

Jon,
The notebook was available for the superiors to check,and Long didn't leave the building to find the other constable,he blew his whistle,and the other beat constable came to his aid.I,ll say just once more,there was no need for Long to remove the rag,but by doing so,he created a situation where only his word remained that the rag was in the position he describes.So,was his actions dictated by accident ,lack of discipline,or design?

[Wickerman]

YES!!!

... but I think the material we have, Longs words at the inquest, Halseīs ditto, the acceptance on behalf of coroner and jury, the empirical data attaching to questions like these, all of these things are more in favour of Long NOT having missed the rag.

Agreed, he 'may have' missed it.
It is easy to convey the wrong impression, not speaking face to face is part of the problem, but yes, we are only talking about what the evidence suggests, not what is absolute fact.

It's a point we might all overlook from time to time in our haste to make a point?

[Fisherman]

You certainly gave that impression, but perhaps I was mistaken. If I was, I take it that you accept that Long would NOT necessarily have noticed the apron the first time round?

YES!!!

... but I think the material we have, Longs words at the inquest, Halseīs ditto, the acceptance on behalf of coroner and jury, the empirical data attaching to questions like these, all of these things are more in favour of Long NOT having missed the rag.

But of course he MAY have missed it. If I said anything else, I would not be making a sound argument.

Can I make a weighing inbetween the two? Is it 90-10 in favour of Long having been correct? Or 60-40?

I really canīt say. Personally, I would say that it is not a close call. Not at all. But I know that others say that they disagree.

I also believe that there are posters out here that intellectually realize that it would not be a close call, but nevertheless choose to argue solely that Long could have missed the rag.

But maybe thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Well, that was not the premise, was it - that Long would have noticed the apron?

The premise now was, and I quote: "your contention that it was his job to notice just about everything on his beat."

I never said any such thing, and I never believed such a thing.

You certainly gave that impression, but perhaps I was mistaken. If I was, I take it that you accept that Long would NOT necessarily have noticed the apron the first time round?

[Fisherman]

Don't get me wrong - I still have some doubts as to the graffito's location, because the records still leave room for ambiguity. However, your logic made perfect sense to me, and I'm edging towards your way of thinking on the matter. (Of the graffito's location, specifically - not the rest )

Iīm in no hurry at all, as long as we get it right in the end.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Do I really have to list the number of times where - in so many words - you've insisted that Long would definitely have noticed the apron if it had been there at 2:20? That detecting just about anything, even litter, would have been part of his job?

Well, that was not the premise, was it - that Long would have noticed the apron?

The premise now was, and I quote: "your contention that it was his job to notice just about everything on his beat."

I never said any such thing, and I never believed such a thing.

I think that Long would have taken an interest in the doorways along his beat, and I think that he would have checked them to some degree, thatīs all.

I have furthermore never said that "Long would definitely have noticed the apron if it had been there at 2:20". What I have said, and what I stand by, is that it is the better bid, given what he said at the inquest. Apart from that, I have repeatedly said that he may have missed the rag.

Finally, I have never said that detecting litter was part of his job, have I?

I am fine with criticism, but it has to deal with what I say, not with what others mistakenly claim that I have said.

I am certain that the exact same applies to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Iīll just merrily settle for the recognition that the writing was on the jamb, and call it a night, then.

Don't get me wrong - I still have some doubts as to the graffito's location, because the records still leave room for ambiguity. However, your logic made perfect sense to me, and I'm edging towards your way of thinking on the matter. (Of the graffito's location, specifically - not the rest )

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn: That doesn't square with your contention that it was his job to notice just about everything on his beat.

Tell me where I posted that!

Do I really have to list the number of times where - in so many words - you've insisted that Long would definitely have noticed the apron if it had been there at 2:20? That detecting just about anything, even litter, would have been part of his job?

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: That doesn't square with your contention that it was his job to notice just about everything on his beat.

Tell me where I posted that!

No... Long was no more a litter-warden than he was a graffiti detector. If he missed noticing the presence/absence of a block of white graffiti on a black background, he would just as easily have missed noticing the presence/absence of a crumpled rag tossed into the darkened passageway behind it.

... as if I didnīt foresee that one! Sigh!

Iīll just merrily settle for the recognition that the writing was on the jamb, and call it a night, then. Small steps forward are steps forward nevertheless.

The best,
Fisherman