Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

Sam Flynn:
...that's not the point. The point is, if he truly inspected the doorway at 2:20 and knew that the graffito was not there, then it was obviously fresh at 2:50.

Aha, so thatīs what you mean! Well, thatīs true, of course. No qualms. But I donīt think he DID inspect the jamb thoroughly at 2.20.

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

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.

[Wickerman]

It might be worth mentioning that Long only noticed the graffiti while using his lamp to check for blood stains/spatter? on the wall. The inference being this graffiti was not immediately noticeable by itself in the dark.
Reference Halse, who also stated it was difficult to read because he had no lamp.

No-one should attempt to fault PC Long for not scouring each brick of every archway on his beat as part of his normal duties.
What we have is a PC who suddenly noticed a bloody rag which had not been there before. Then while inspecting the area with his lamp, including the immediate wall for blood stains/spots, he noticed the miniscule graffiti somewhere above but near the rag.

There isn't anything in PC Long's statement of his conduct that night that suggest a lack of diligence or dereliction of duty.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
...that's not the point. The point is, if he truly inspected the doorway at 2:20 and knew that the graffito was not there, then it was obviously fresh at 2:50.

Aha, so thatīs what you mean! Well, thatīs true, of course. No qualms. But I donīt think he DID inspect the jamb thoroughly at 2.20. If he had done that, he would have stated that the GSG was not there at the time - or that it WAS there - just as he stated that the rag wasnīt there at 2.20. He would not have withheld information like that, rationally speaking.

If you wanīt to say that if he could miss one, he could miss the other, I would like to point out that anybody standing right outside the door would have the writing on the jamb at an angle that made it impossible to see, more or less. The rag, however, if it was on the ground by the jamb, would have been very easy to see - if it was there. I would also like to point out that when he noticed the rag, he had already missed the GSG. So the two donīt compare in terms of visibility and detectability.

Conversely, if he truly inspected the doorway at 2:20 and knew that the graffito was there, he would have known that it wasn't fresh at 2:50.

If he had known that the GSG was there at 2.20, why would he not have told the inquest?

But he could not form an opinion as to its freshness. The corollary is obvious - Long did not truly inspect the doorway at 2:20.

Eh - no. It only tells us that he did not observe the GSG at 2.20. He could well have inspected the doorway as such - you yourself claim that the jamb did not belong to that doorway - it belonged to a treshold area, right?

Anyway, imagine that he took a step inside the doorway, standing with the writing an inch from his right shoulder. He then lights his lamp and searches every inch of the floor, he lifts the lamp and searches every inch of the ceiling and the inner walls.

After that, Iīd say that he has done a pretty thorough search of the doorway. It would not necessarily mean that he saw the smallish writing on the jamb, though. Moreover, why would he feel inclined to shine his light at the jamb...???

The bottom line is that he could very well be pretty damn sure that the rag he saw on the ground at 2.55 had not been there at 2.20, and STILL not be aware whether the writing had been there at 2.20.

He saw the writing at 2.55. He was not sure if it was old or new, and maybe he did not think all that much about the question at the time. It was a message, chalked on the jamb, it was in white chalk on a black surface, it could have been one hour old or ten hours old, as far as he was concerned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I really donīt agree with that, Gareth.

Of course you don't, Fish. But you're mistaken.

Can you tell one hour old graffiti from ten hours old? Ten hours old graffiti from twenty hours old? Thirty?

No, but that's not the point. The point is, if he truly inspected the doorway at 2:20 and knew that the graffito was not there, then it was obviously fresh at 2:50. Conversely, if he truly inspected the doorway at 2:20 and knew that the graffito was there, he would have known that it wasn't fresh at 2:50. But he could not form an opinion as to its freshness. The corollary is obvious - Long did not truly inspect the doorway at 2:20.

[Fisherman]

Didn't see/didn't notice... one or 'tother. They key point, as far as I'm concerned, is that he couldn't even form an opinion as to how fresh the graffito was. Given that it was written in white chalk on a black background, that speaks volumes for Long's observational skills, or at least shows that he couldn't have been paying all that much attention when he passed the doorway the first time round.

I really donīt agree with that, Gareth. As you know, there were those who said it looked fresh and there were those who said it looked old. That goes to show that it is perhaps not an easily decided question.
I have seens lots of graffiti in my days, much of it chalked on walls. Of course it will sometimes be hazy and worn and it will be easy to say that it has probably been there for some time. But otherwise, when it is not worn, it could have been around for an hour or a week as far as Iīm concerned. How on earth would I be able to make any decisive call on that score.
Long may well have acknowledged the exact same thing.

I could not say whether they were recently written, Long said. I donīt think thatīs any make or break judgement on his powers of observation, and I specifically donīt think it compares to either seeing a rag or not seeing it.

Can you tell one hour old graffiti from ten hours old? Ten hours old graffiti from twenty hours old? Thirty?

I canīt.

We must keep in mind that the specific answer Long would be answering, though not outspoken, was: "Was that graffiti written within seventy-one minutes of your finding it?"
That, of course, was what the inquest wanted to know.

Halse said that his impression - not his certainty - was that the graffiti was fresh. But it could be just two hours old, and it would not be fresh enough to be by the killerīs hand!

Who can make such a call and get it right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I am convinced that Long did not see the GSG at 2.20. I think we may agree on that point?

Didn't see/didn't notice... one or 'tother. They key point, as far as I'm concerned, is that he couldn't even form an opinion as to how fresh the graffito was. Given that it was written in white chalk on a black background, that speaks volumes for Long's observational skills, or at least shows that he couldn't have been paying all that much attention when he passed the doorway the first time round.

[Fisherman]

All I would contest here is that the beat PC had a duty to check for the homeless sleeping on the stairs. Whether he would check all "6 or 7" flights of stairs is debatable, but we might expect him to enter the 'passage' and at least check for sleepers at that level.
For this he may not need his lamp.

I didnīt think about that, Jon. It could have had him stepping into the doorway, of course, and just like you say he would arguably not have needed any light to do that particular check.
If he was walking on the eastern side of the street at 2.20, however, he may not even have needed to step inside - he would have been close enough to make the call from the outside.

Thanks for the addition, anyhow!

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

... It was said that the GSG was over the rag, and no matter how we cut things, this will hold more true the closer to the entrance the rag gets. If it was in the furthest corner, by the staircase, it would make less sense to say that the writing was over the rag.

Quite so, the graffiti need not have been 'directly' above the rag, just reasonable so. Enough for any person to infer a relationship, not a factual relationship.

This suggestion is - to my mind - aided by my belief that Long would not have entered all the doorways on his round, since that would have been very timeconsuming. He would probably have concentrated on locked doors, leading to factories, warehouses etctera. The Wentworth Model Dwellings doorways were open, and the doors inside them would also be open, allowing the tenants to pass in and out at all hours. It would not be a top priority to check there specific doors - other doors would have been more important to look at.

All I would contest here is that the beat PC had a duty to check for the homeless sleeping on the stairs. Whether he would check all "6 or 7" flights of stairs is debatable, but we might expect him to enter the 'passage' and at least check for sleepers at that level.
For this he may not need his lamp.

[Fisherman]

I do agree, Fish. A splendid analysis. So, the writing was on the jamb, and the apron was in the passage leading to the stairs. Also, despite its being on the jamb, Long couldn't form an opinion as to whether the writing was freshly written at 2:50. It follows that he couldn't have been paying much attention to the doorway the first time round, or he'd have known whether the writing was fresh or not.

Thanks, Gareth! I am happy you agree on the jamb business - I do think itīs an inevitable conclusion.

On the part about whether Long checked at 2.20 or not:

I am convinced that Long did not see the GSG at 2.20. I think we may agree on that point?

We are therefore faced with two possibilities, if we are to believe Long:

1. He went into the doorway and took a look at 2.20, observing that there was nothing there that called for any interest on his behalf.

2. Long overlooked all the doorways from the road as he passed, one by one, and that was his check.

As for option 1, we must keep in mind that he could have done the job in two ways: Aided by his lamp or unaided by it.

If he did not shine his light inside the doorway, I have no problems accepting that he could have missed the GSG.

On the other hand, why do the inspection in that darkness without using the lamp? If I was to answer that question, Iīd be in favour of Long having used his light.
Would that have ensured that he saw the GSG? I donīt think so - it was small, it was on the jamb, and I think he would primarily have scanned the floor.

Nevertheless, I think option 2 is by far the better proposition. It was said that the GSG was over the rag, and no matter how we cut things, this will hold more true the closer to the entrance the rag gets. If it was in the furthest corner, by the staircase, it would make less sense to say that the writing was over the rag. And we now know that it would not have been "on the wall over the rag", since it was on the jamb, and not on the wall at all.
I think it was lying at the foot of the jamb, thus, either directly to the left of the jamb, or to some little extent hidden behind the small protruding part of the jamb that forms a corner on the inside of the doorway. It would in such a case be some inches inside the doorway, and not directly "on the treshold", as you put it. The rag could of course also have been lying "bent" around that corner - rags can be formed to fit may shapes.

I also think that what had Long expressing himself with such certainty at the inquest was that he immediately and easily spotted the rag as he passed at 2.55. Therefore, he knew that it could not have been in place at 2.20, since he overlooked the doorways from the street at that stage too, and he knew there was not a chance that he could have missed it. Anybody who looked WOULD see it, it was inevitable.

This suggestion is - to my mind - aided by my belief that Long would not have entered all the doorways on his round, since that would have been very timeconsuming. He would probably have concentrated on locked doors, leading to factories, warehouses etctera. The Wentworth Model Dwellings doorways were open, and the doors inside them would also be open, allowing the tenants to pass in and out at all hours. It would not be a top priority to check there specific doors - other doors would have been more important to look at.

Letīs also ponder the fact that if the writing was on the jamb, then it would have been at a ninety degree angle to Longs vision as he passed, meaning that it would not be easy to see from the street level just outside the doorway.

So there you are, Gareth, my take on the rag and writing:

The writing was on the jamb, just as Warren said it was.

The rag was directly underneath or almost directly underneath the writing, just as the testimony seemingly tells us.

The rag was impossible to miss from street level IF YOU DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE DOORWAYS, allowing Long to be sure that he would not have missed it at 2.20.

Halse corroborates Long to some extent, by pointing out that he sure didnīt see any rag either at 2.20. He however feels the need to clarify that he was very hurried at that stage, speeding along the streets with the explicit aim of finding whatever people there were on them. He therefore realizes that he actually may have overlooked the rag in his haste, especially since it was not out in the open street, but instead in a doorway.

To me, this breakdown of the different bits and pieces makes the overall most sense, and works logically with all elements included.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Jon,
We do not know how much acceptance the coroner or Long's superiors gave to Long's conduct that night.I doubt, with all the disagreement over the wording and claimed position of the rag,that they patted him on the back and said what a good job he had done.He interfered with potential evidence,at the least,when it was in his power to call for assistance and secure the sight as he found it.It is claimed he did call for assistance and it was provided by a constable from another beat.If that is so,it defie s belief that he would not disclose his reasons for doing so,and show this constable the scene as it was,thus providing a second,unquestionable source.Yet we hear nothing from this second constable.No w you tell me what reason Long could have had for picking up the rag and taking it to a police station.?What advantage was gained?.If I can't provide evidence of Long lying,where have you provided evidence he told the truth.

First off Harry, lets not forget that it is the Coroner who decides which witnesses are summoned to give evidence. Constable 190H will have described his meeting with PC Long in his notebook, and subsequently provided a statement to that effect. He would have to do as he has now left his beat. PC Long would also have informed Commercial St. of this change of events (ie; PC 190H being stationed at WMD).
The Coroner apparently thought it redundant to have two witnesses providing the same story, so PC 190H was not called to testify.
It needs be no more complicated than that.

Also, PC Long will not leave the apron on the ground, he will retrieve the evidence and carry it with him as he ran? to find the nearest beat constable.
Naturally, the evidence could have vanished in the interval had he left it in situ. We cannot fault him for this.
It is only today that we treat crime scenes as if in 'quarantine', not to be compromised, but not in the 19th century.
Retrieval of evidence was the key back then, and this was done.

So the proof lies with Scotland Yard (two mutually supportive reports, one from PC Long, the other from PC 190H), therefore the question of PC Long's truthfulness is beyond doubt from the Coroner's point of view.

Please remember Harry, an Inquest is not a trial. A Coroner begins his Inquest with a certain number of assumptions he can rely on as factual. This, apparently, being one of them.
PC Long told the truth about when, where & how he found the apron.
Is this your concern?

[Sam Flynn]

I think this is the real key to the question. I hope those who are in favour of simple solutions - Occamīs razor and all that - will agree.

I do agree, Fish. A splendid analysis. So, the writing was on the jamb, and the apron was in the passage leading to the stairs. Also, despite its being on the jamb, Long couldn't form an opinion as to whether the writing was freshly written at 2:50. It follows that he couldn't have been paying much attention to the doorway the first time round, or he'd have known whether the writing was fresh or not.

[Sunbury]

G'day Fisherman

I think you are a bit high in your estimate of same width as height, I just measured some of mine and it is .5 to .75 of the height over a line.

Having said that I agree with the conclusion you reach.

I must add that I would not be surprised if the police overestimated [overstated?] the risk of those in the area seeing it from as distance.

Umm its a slippery slope starting to mimic even the most innocent of things, just keep away from sharp knives please especially on late night walks

[harry]

Jon,
We do not know how much acceptance the coroner or Long's superiors gave to Long's conduct that night.I doubt, with all the disagreement over the wording and claimed position of the rag,that they patted him on the back and said what a good job he had done.He interfered with potential evidence,at the least,when it was in his power to call for assistance and secure the sight as he found it.It is claimed he did call for assistance and it was provided by a constable from another beat.If that is so,it defie s belief that he would not disclose his reasons for doing so,and show this constable the scene as it was,thus providing a second,unquestionable source.Yet we hear nothing from this second constable.No w you tell me what reason Long could have had for picking up the rag and taking it to a police station.?What advantage was gained?.If I can't provide evidence of Long lying,where have you provided evidence he told the truth.

[Bridewell]

Jon,
Where has it been substanciated that the apron piece was on the floor beneath the writing? Nowhere.It is a claim by Long,an unsubtanciated claim,that it was so,and no,we do not have to accept it was there simply because Long states it was.We need corrorberating evidence,and there is none.

Hi Harry,

I'm not, as you probably know, someone who accepts Long's evidence uncritically, because of what we know of his conduct elsewhere. However, whilst it can be argued that he might have had reason to dissemble about an earlier visit to the stairwell location, I can't see that he would have had any for misrepresenting the precise location where he did find the apron piece, because there is no suggestion that I am aware of that it was in plain sight, and therefore unmissable. There is no corroboration of the exact location because no-one else saw it; that doesn't mean it wasn't there.

[Fisherman]

See....this is why I like to have your opinion, yes, the suggested arrangement of the words, essentially 'stacked in small groups', rather than written out in one continuous line is a strong indicator that the words were written in a location which was short of width space - ie; like a narrow jamb.



Thankyou, I don't recall anyone pointing this out before. Sometimes we fail to see the wood for the trees.

You are ever so welcome, Jon - as always!

The best,
Fisherman