Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Long didn't lie about it - or, specifically, he never gave precise coordinates that fixed the position of the apron with respect to the graffito. He just said that the latter was "above it on the wall" / "on the wall above it" (take your pick).

Ehrm. That was a tongue in cheek comment, Gareth, not a suggestion as such.

All we know is that the writing was on the jamb, and in shoulder heigth, which fixes that particular location very precisely. The rag would have been below the writing, but not necessarily rigth below it. However, the more below it, the more precise the phrasing "above it on the wall" / "on the wall above it" will be.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Incidentally, even if it was a juror* (as you suggest) who came up with the "in the building" statement, from whom did he get that information? Not everything that was said ended up in the papers, or in the official records for that matter. Happily for us, the main man - Long - places the apron unequivocally in the passage leading to the stairs, whichever source you read.


* Edit: It wasn't a juror, it was 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. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron." (Halse, in the Daily Telegraph)

"At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building." (Halse, in The Times)

What I was pointing out Gareth was that Halse made no mention of the location in the original Inquest statement. And, even in the Daily Telegraph he is not credited with suggesting it was "in the building".
The only mention of "in the building" came from a juror..

A Juror: It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the buildings, and yet made no inquiries in the buildings themselves.

What you have is contention between two press sources, the Times credits him saying it was in the building, the Daily Telegraph does not.
The original also does not.
What you may have is the result of assumption in paraphrase by the Times reporter.

Halse did not know because he was not present, his opinion therefore is mere heresay. There is no point in promoting the opinion of someone who did not see the apron in place, especially when we can't be certain those words were actually spoken by him, as opposed to a reporters assumption.

[Wickerman]

So either it was written on the inside wall, in a format cut out to fit the jamb exactly. Or it was on the jamb.

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

Harry.
What do we have to substantiate the piece of apron being anywhere else in this building? Where is the proof?

Halse never saw the apron in place.
PC long is the only witness, who else do you prefer to believe?

If Long's statement is good enough for the Coroner, why is it not good enough for you?

[Monty]

G'day Monty



Yep and I follow what you mean, except it was the handwriting they read all the time and not being able to get the "not" in the same place worries me more than the spelling of "Juwes".

Yep, fair comment.

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

I don't believe that the papers made up Halse's statement that, owing to the apron's being "in the building", he might not necessarily have seen it.

Incidentally, even if it was a juror* (as you suggest) who came up with the "in the building" statement, from whom did he get that information? Not everything that was said ended up in the papers, or in the official records for that matter. Happily for us, the main man - Long - places the apron unequivocally in the passage leading to the stairs, whichever source you read.


* Edit: It wasn't a juror, it was 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. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron." (Halse, in the Daily Telegraph)

"At about 20 minutes after 2 he passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found. If it was there then he would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building." (Halse, in The Times)

[Sam Flynn]

But...I don't believe it matters. Had Long said there was a lot of different graffiti above the apron, then we have a completely different situation. Had he said, that they were very close to each other, which is the implication I believe, that would be good enough for me to make a connection, valid or not.

It matters inasmuch as some are wont to make a connection, and assert that they were closely aligned. But was the alignment really that close? We really can't confirm that it was, based on the evidence we have.

[Sam Flynn]

Obviously, Long would lie about that, right?

Long didn't lie about it - or, specifically, he never gave precise coordinates that fixed the position of the apron with respect to the graffito. He just said that the latter was "above it on the wall" / "on the wall above it" (take your pick).

[The Good Michael]

In fairness to Long, all he says was that the graffito was on the wall above the apron. What is unsubstantiated is the idea that the apron and graffito were directly aligned

But...I don't believe it matters. Had Long said there was a lot of different graffiti above the apron, then we have a completely different situation. Had he said, that they were very close to each other, which is the implication I believe, that would be good enough for me to make a connection, valid or not.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Halse never saw the apron in situ, in fact in the official Inquest source he does not suggest a location for the apron.

I don't believe that the papers made up Halse's statement that, owing to the apron's being "in the building", he might not necessarily have seen it. Besides, its being "in the building" is entirely consistent with Long's testimony that it was "in the passage".

We know from other sources that "where the apron was found was pointed out to him", however precise this was, and who pointed it out remains unknown.

Irrespective of precision, I'm sure Halse's source could distinguish between the pillar at the entrance and the passage itself. And Long places it in the passage (as distinct from "by the entrance").

Warren also added that it couldn't be covered up (easily?), due to its location.
On the jamb would indeed be difficult, but inside on the wall should not cause a problem given its small size and the fact it was lower than 4ft from the ground.

On the jamb could have been easier, because we're dealing with a "corner" against which some purchase could be attained. Covering something up on a flat wall would have been rather more difficult, especially in the days before Blu-Tack was invented.

[Sam Flynn]

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

In fairness to Long, all he says was that the graffito was on the wall above the apron. What is unsubstantiated is the idea that the apron and graffito were directly aligned, which some people take as axiomatic - despite the fact that neither Long, nor anyone else at the time, makes any such claim. All we can say with reasonable certainty is that the writing was somewhere above the apron on the same wall.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Not obvious, but possible.

[Fisherman]

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.

Obviously, Long would lie about that, right?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

This is a good example of something that I find unacceptable.
Speculation is like steppingstones, you must establish a sound footing on the first stone, before you leap to the next one.
First stone is: IF, we think he cut himself...
Second stone is: ...and this is why he took the apron..
Third stone is: ...and restricting the flow of blood is why he took so long to deposit the apron.

Three stones, and not one is first established before we leap to the next one.

What you do here, Jon, in all honesty is to surmise that the speculation goes along three steps:

What if he cut himself?

What if he took the rag to bandage it?

What if he threw it away when it had stopped bleeding?

The overall suggestion is one where it all hangs together. And the reason I speculate along these lines lies in the fact that it was pointed out that a portion of the rag was wet with blood when found.

Apparently, the rest of, bloodstained as it was, was dry.

I find it hard to believe that the wet blood came from Eddowes. Itr therefore asks for an explanation.

If it did not come from Eddowes, we need to speculate. And the speculation that it came from a cut killer would answer both the freshness of the wet blood and the fact that he would have needed the rag.

It really is that simple.

I welcome other suggestions too, that would explain why the rag was dry but for the wet portion.

The "Achillees heel" in this proposal is, to my mind, that if the cut was so severe to need such a large piece of apron, how does it then become less severe and stop bleeding to the point he can throw the rag away?

I tend to look upon it the other way: All untreated wounds, but for lethal ones, will eventually stop bleeding. Some do so after a minute or two, some after five, some after ten, some after ...

As long as it bled, he would have hung on to the rag. Then he would have thrown it away.

I see no mystery here at all. He bled, he bandaged himself, he checked the wound every now and then. As he arrived in Goulston Street, it no longer bled. So he threw the rag there.

This suggestion has all the hallmarks of an argument born of necessity, it's severe when it needs to be, then unimportant when it is no longer needed.
The suggestion is being molded to fit the evidence.

No, Jon, it is not. The suggestion is put forward to explain the blood. It is also an effort to explain why Long could easily have been right, which is the topic of the thread, more or less.

At the end of the day, any suggestions should fit the evidence. Not all do, mind you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The various police officers who saw it couldn't reach consensus as to the exact wording or even the spelling of the word 'Juwes', 'Juews' 'Juewes', so I find it unsurprising that there is no consensus as to the exact location of the graffito.

There is no disagreement inbetween the various police officers on that issue, Colin - itīs just us having a disagreement about that.

Warren said that the writing was on the jamb of the doorway.

If it was, then it must have been divided up in a number of lines and the writing must have been small.

And what do we have? Exactly, we have a very small writing and five lines of it.

So either it was written on the inside wall, in a format cut out to fit the jamb exactly. Or it was on the jamb.

The best,
Fisherman