Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

What is missing then Gareth, is a passage.
So lets drop another apron in the same location, at Millers Court.



Ok, so now we have a genuine passage, and the piece of apron placed in the same location. Notice it is not in contact with the paving stones (footpath), so it is definitely not outside.

Is that white lump? inside the passage, yes or no?
Is that white lump? inside the building, yes or no?

As you know, Jon, I agree fully. I think that anyone who claims that the rag is NOT inside the passage or the building in your drawing, will have a hard time nailing the exaxt position in which the rag can be approved of as actually being in the passage/building.
Two inches further in?
Four and a half?
Five feet?

I donīt think anyone who hears "it was lying in the passage to Millerīs Court" would have said, "Well, then it canīt be this rag, since it is not". So obviously, there is some obscure difference between "in" and "inside"...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The turn made me smile Christer,

Tis all,

Monty

Youīre welcome, Monty. Thereīs probably a lot more in store where it came from.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

The turn made me smile Christer,

Tis all,

Monty

[Fisherman]

Negative evidence?!

Outstanding.

Monty

You are way too generous, Monty.

I may have stumbled on the language ever so slightly - I take the liberty to do so at times, given that I am a Swede.

But you already knew that.

What I meant was that the answer to the question "was it there?" was given in the negative. As a negation.

I actually trust that everybody out here understood what I was aiming for.

I hope it is clearer now.

And just as outstanding.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Negative evidence?!

Outstanding.

Monty

[Monty]

Thankyou Neil.
Though the important question is, how diligent was he on the night in question.

If I recall, wasn't Insp. Chandler let go too for being drunk?
Policemen and drinking was a broad problem in this period, but diligence is a different issue.

Surely the fact Long did not heed his warnings is a sign of his lack of diligence, whilst different, its mitigating.

Monty
.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

Fisherman,
In reply to your question,the reference I have is"Jack the ripper AtoZ".

Thanks for that, Harry!

but that apart ,I can find no reference that Long saw or contacted anyone before taking the rag to the police station.

This is from Longs written report, stamped Home Office 6 Nov. 88 RECd. DEPt. :

I was on duty in Goulston Street on the morning of 30th Sept: at about 2.55 A.M. I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the door-way leading to Nos. 108 to 119 Model Dwellings in Goulston Street.
Above it on the wall was written in chalk "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", I at once called the P.C. on the adjoining beat and then searched the stair-cases, but found no traces of any persons or marks."

And no, it was not apparent evidence at that time,the connection to Eddowes was not made until Sunday afternoon at the mortuary.Untill then it was a blood and excrement stained piece of rag,and on finding it there were several options open to Long on how to treat it,but he took it to a police station,Why?

No matter when the connection to Eddowes was made, Long explicitly says that he had been informed about the Mitre Square slaying as he left the WMD, and that there were also rumours of another murder (Stride, reasonably).

That would have been quite, quite enough to convince Long that he needed to take the rag to his superiors and show it to them. Longīs own thoughts seem to have been that there had been a third slaying. Whether he knew of the other killings as he searched the stairs or whether he only found out afterwards (but before he left the building, from the PC he had called from the adjoining beat) is open to discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your question,the reference I have is"Jack the ripper AtoZ".but that apart ,I can find no reference that Long saw or contacted anyone before taking the rag to the police station.And no,it was not apparent evidence at that time,the connection to Eddowes was not made until Sunday afternoon at the mortuary.Untill then it was a blood and excrement stained piece of rag,and on finding it there were several options open to Long on how to treat it,but he took it to a police station,Why?It was not Long,but obviously someone at the police station who saw a possible connection to Eddowes murder,and it was after that time,that attention was centred on Wentworth building.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

Please look at the map below.

[/URL]

With reference to your point 1., given the many streets between Mitre Square & Goulston St. can to justify your use of "as soon as possible"?

Also, with respect to your point 2., just how many dark shadowy passageways do you think he passed between Mitre Square and Goulston St.?

Lastly, I think the map destroys your proposal in point 3.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, Long and Halse's testimony are consistent with its not being in the doorway: Long said it was found in the passage, Halse said it was in the building.

What is missing then Gareth, is a passage.
So lets drop another apron in the same location, at Millers Court.



Ok, so now we have a genuine passage, and the piece of apron placed in the same location. Notice it is not in contact with the paving stones (footpath), so it is definitely not outside.

Is that white lump? inside the passage, yes or no?
Is that white lump? inside the building, yes or no?

[GUT]

G'day Abby

However, why would the ripper take the time to cut away a large portion of apron, to take away to wipe his hands later? Why not just wipe his hands on the apron as attached to her body when done and leave the piece there? As you say it's an "incriminating" piece that he would want to get rid of quickly. Wouldn't it make eminently more sense not to have it at all and just wipe the hands on it (or any other part of her clothes)as still on her body and leave it there?

If you don't mind my 2p on this.

I've always considered that the apron may have been cut accidentally and then been convenient, for use.

If so, why wait around wiping your hands, even for a few seconds, when you can do it on the run?

I do think that the killer would wish to dispose of it as soon as it was safe, and convenient, to do so.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

Seems reasonable enough. And concisely Argued-well done.

However, why would the ripper take the time to cut away a large portion of apron, to take away to wipe his hands later? He didnt with any of the other victims. Why not just wipe his hands on the apron as attached to her body when done and leave the piece there? As you say it's an "incriminating" piece that he would want to get rid of quickly. Wouldn't it make eminently more sense not to have it at all and just wipe the hands on it (or any other part of her clothes)as still on her body and leave it there?

[Wickerman]

That's not my point Jon,

Long wasnt diligent enough to keep his job.

Monty

Thankyou Neil.
Though the important question is, how diligent was he on the night in question.

If I recall, wasn't Insp. Chandler let go too for being drunk?
Policemen and drinking was a broad problem in this period, but diligence is a different issue.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

If I may, Gareth?

This is a good a case as can be made for Long having been wrong. And if it had not been for what Long said, there would be little or no opposition about it being our best guess.

But Long DID say what he said, and that alters the picture completely.

There is no doubt that you could be right on this nevertheless; it could have gone down the simple way. But unlike you, I donīt think it did. Therefore, I will comment on your four points:

1. Yes. The apron WAS incriminating. So if he held on to it for up to more than an hour, he was either reckless (killers often are, perhaps especially serial killers) or he put the apron piece to use during that time. And as we all know, it would appear that a portion, probably a corner, of the apron was wet with blood when Long found it. That does not sit well with Eddowesī blood having had more than an hour to dry up.
The obvious possibility is that the fresh, wet blood was the killers own, and that he had felt forced to hang on to the rag as a bandage, stemming his blood and preventing a blood trail to form on the ground, giving him away.
Plus, of course, if he really wanted to rid himself of the rag as quickly as possible, then he would have rubbed his hands in the process of fleeing Mitre Square, throwing the rag away less than a hundred yards from the murder spot - or on it, even. There was no way that rubbing his hands would get himself fully clean anyhow, so the idea that he would leave the spot with his hands dripping with blood and feces, and then spend a full five minutes (an absolute eternity in this context) roaming the streets before he stole into the doorway in Goulston Street holds very little water the way I see things. Why would he suppose that nobody would see him, hands flowing with blood and muck, during this very considerable period of time? Would it not be better to rub down quickly and immediately and be done with the incriminating rag?

2. There would have been lots and lots of dark passages en route to Goulston Street. Do the test to get out on your own home town streets, and take a five minute walk. It is a whopper of a walk when you carry something along that could have you hanged!

3. Letīs not just consider the geography here, but also the time. If he was wary of the police coming looking for him, then he needed to drop the rag sooner, not later. He had a head start, so why not use it and be done with the wiping immediately?

4. Goulston Street works as a passing point from many westernly adresses. One of them is Broad Street, another is Mitre Square, but there will be almost innumerable starting points that work in the context. The trouble is that we only know of Mitre Square being part of the killerīs whereabouts, and so we tend to think that he came from thence to Goulston Street. But since the only piece of evidence we have about the whereabouts of the apron between 1.45 and 2.55 is negative evidence - it was NOT in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20 - we must accept that we may be dealing with any address to the west of Goulston Street, where the killer may have gone after the Eddowes strike. Perhaps to stash his trophies, perhaps to look for more victims, perhaps for another reason, undisclosed to us.

Reasoning that he would have gone directly from Mitre Square to Goulston Street is something that requires evidence, just like reasoning that he would not have gone there directly. And the evidence for that IS in place, courtesy of Alfred Long.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

That's a good post, Sam, and well argued.