Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Mere humans overlook things all the time

Mere humans overlook things every now and then. Not all the time. It is much more rare to overlook things than not to do so.

I know that itīs a colloquial expression. I just donīt like it in this context.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Halse's corroboration of Long is also open to interpretation. Halse said he was at the same spot as Long at the exact same time, but neither saw each other or even heard each others' footsteps. Halse said that, had the apron been there, he wouldn't have necessarily seen it. That means to me that it was something that would normally be overlooked by any policeman unless one (like Long at 3:55) was specifically on alert for something because there had just been one or two terrible murders. Again, corroboration is debatable.

Mike

Hi Mike!

Iīm taking a chance that itīs OK if I present my take on things...?

To be fair, Halse did not say that he was "at the same spot as Long at the exact same time". He said he passed over the spot at 2.20. And the timings given may well have been to some extent approximations.

As for your thesis that the apron "was something that would normally be overlooked by any policeman unless one (like Long at 3:55) was specifically on alert for something because there had just been one or two terrible murders", I disagree.
I think Halseīs words relate very much to the situation he was in when passing down Goulston Street.
He was looking for people, and he was pressed for time - the quicker he scanned the streets, the better the chances that he would net as many of them as possible. If he stopped and searched doorways, he would potentially lose out on the people.

Imagine, if you will, the differences built into the duties ascribed to Halse and Long. Which is the main differerence? It is that Halse was expected to move as quickly as possible, whilst Long was expected to be as meticulous as possible - and that would have meant that he was NOT supposed to rush.

I would propose that if there had been motorcycles around in 1888, then Halse would have loved to use such a vehicle, whereas Long would not have had any use for it.

And that is why I say that we must be very careful about the suggestion that Gareth has made: that it is okay to accept that Halse was of the meaning that the rag was "easily overlooked". He never said such a thing, and I believe that what he DID say was that he himself would easily have missed the rag, since he was in a hurry and did not take any much notice about doorways and such things.
That, however, does not necessarily mean that he would have thought that a PC, meticulously patrolling the area with time on his hands to check doorways, could also easily have missed the rag. Halse may well have thought that any PC performing that kind of duty would quite easily have found the rag.

There is a very clear distinction between the expressions "I should not necessarily have seen it" and "It was easily overlooked", and that distinction is knit to Halse speaking explicitly about himself only.

All the best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Size

Despite the fact that Long is dismissed after the fact for whatever reason, (drinking on duty for street police of that era and district wasn't rare, in fact some were encouraged during that "Jack" period to spend some of their time plying information about the murders from pub dwellers at play), I see no compelling reason in all the contrary posts made here to assume that he didn't tell the truth when he stated "It was not there", while being cross examined.

The size of the section of cloth taken surely must factor into any assumptions as to whether it would be clearly visible as he passed, as would its state at the time...being bunched up, or lying relatively flat...etc.

As I recall it was at leas 2 feet in either length or width, and approximately the same in the remaining measurement. Not a hanky..or a tissue...but something like a small shirt size.

Cheers

Hello Michael,

Could you give a reference for the size of the apron?

Best wishes,

C4

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
"There is ample evidence he could have missed it" ?!? Im no Logic expert but I do believe there is something amiss with that statement.

Well, Abby, there's several million years of human evolution or - if that doesn't appeal - your own personal experience of overlooking things. So, there's plenty of evidence that he could have missed it.

First off you have been arguing that long would have been only too human to have missed it, but now he has to be superhuman to find it?

No - all I'm saying is that he'd have to be superhuman in order NOT to be susceptible to overlooking things. Mere humans overlook things all the time, and we all know that we do.

Secondly -your arguing against yourself by saying the time gap any time gap is no big deal.

All I'm saying is that the gap could have been as small as 37 minutes. If the apron really wasn't there at 2:20, it could easily have been there at 2:22, after Long had passed.

The alternative scenario is that the apron was deposited there just before Long arrived at 2:50, thereby constituting a gap of over an hour since the murder. That's possible, but I find it unlikely for a number of reasons. In short, I find the arguments for a circa 2:48 "drop" far less likely than the simple probability that Long just overlooked it the first time round.

From my view it is you is latching onto one thing and that one thing is the ghostly branch of he probably just missed it when there is no, non, none, nine, zero, zilch, evidence that he did.

There is plenty of evidence that he probably missed it, apart from the simple facts of human experience alluded to earlier. In addition, we have the gloomy conditions, the fact that the apron was "in the passage/in the building", therefore not particularly obvious to passersby. Finally, we have such imponderables as the angle at which Long approached the entrance the first time round, whether he was distracted at the time, whether he was looking straight ahead, whether or not the moon peeped out of the clouds at 2:50, etc etc.

So, you see, I don't latch onto anything ghostly if I can help it. Give me Ockham's razor before Procrustes' bed, any day

I'm taking into account other variables. Like Halse corroborating long (that's more evidence not making stuff up).

Halse corroborates Long in one important respect, namely that the apron was not sitting in the doorway.

Like the apron portion was large and white and very visible.

We don't know that it was large. We don't know that it was white. We don't know that it was very visible. All those are suppositions, I'm afraid. In fact, a good case could be made to the contrary on each point.

Like no one at the time questioning that he probably missed it.

We don't really have evidence for that, either, come to think of it. Besides, if someone had asked him directly "did you miss it?", how do you think he'd have answered?

Apologies for the lengthy reply, but you raised quite a number of points there!

[The Good Michael]

I'm taking into account other variables. Like Halse corroborating long (that's more evidence not making stuff up). Like the apron portion was large and white and very visible. Like no one at the time questioning that he probably missed it.

Halse's corroboration of Long is also open to interpretation. Halse said he was at the same spot as Long at the exact same time, but neither saw each other or even heard each others' footsteps. Halse said that, had the apron been there, he wouldn't have necessarily seen it. That means to me that it was something that would normally be overlooked by any policeman unless one (like Long at 3:55) was specifically on alert for something because there had just been one or two terrible murders. Again, corroboration is debatable.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

But there is ample evidence that he could have missed it.Even if the "Long-was-superhuman" brigade are right, the time gap need only have lasted until 2:21, or thereabouts. It's hardly a yawning chasm.
How on earth is stating a basic human truth - i.e., that normal, healthy folk with 20/20 vision can, and do, overlook things - be "making things up from scratch"? It's a fact of life.

How on earth is taking into account a number of other variables "speculating"? Surely, that's the sensible thing to do... as opposed to latching onto a brief instant in Long's testimony and building one's case entirely on that one utterance.

Hi Sam
"There is ample evidence he could have missed it" ?!?
Im no Logic expert but I do believe there is something amiss with that statement. : )

Even if the "Long-was-superhuman" brigade are right, the time gap need only have lasted until 2:21, or thereabouts. It's hardly a yawning chasm.

First off you have been arguing that long would have been only too human to have missed it, but now he has to be superhuman to find it?

Secondly -your arguing against yourself by saying the time gap any time gap is no big deal.

How on earth is taking into account a number of other variables "speculating"? Surely, that's the sensible thing to do... as opposed to latching onto a brief instant in Long's testimony and building one's case entirely on that one utterance.

[/QUOTE]

From my view it is you is latching onto one thing and that one thing is the ghostly branch of he probably just missed it when there is no, non, none, nine, zero, zilch, evidence that he did.

I'm taking into account other variables. Like Halse corroborating long (that's more evidence not making stuff up). Like the apron portion was large and white and very visible. Like no one at the time questioning that he probably missed it.

[Sam Flynn]

But Gareth, this is precisely why we are here. You are inventing a controversy over the location of the apron, it has been officially located by Long & Warren.

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. So I'm not inventing any controversy at all - it's crystal clear, from both Long's and Halse's accounts, that the apron was not strewn across the very threshold of the entrance. Warren may have located the graffito there (and that's a controversy in itself, albeit not of my invention), but he said nothing about where the apron was in relation to it.

In short, there is nothing at all in the surviving evidence that puts them in a direct, perpendicular relationship with one another. In fact, if Warren was right about the graffito, and both Long and Halse were correct about the apron, then apron and message must have been offset by a good few inches, if not feet.

All we can safely say is that the apron and graffito were on the same side of the building's entrance.

[Fisherman]

Monty's message re: Long's dismissal left me an opening to ask, in general, about police dismissals for Met and City with more of an interest in Brown and all the officers who were let go/canned. I specifically didn't mention Long hoping that you wouldn't have to post, yet again, your thoughts on him. I was mistaken. You can't let lechmere go and Long is your lynch pin. I get that, but I really don't care about either one of them to be honest. I do care about police procedure.

Mike

Iīm so sorry, Mike - if the aim of your posts is to prevent me from answering, you really need to mention that. In this case, it goes without saying that your question about police procedures in general - a topic I elaborated on extensively in my answer, where I very much agree with the core of your thinking - will have an influence on how Alfred Long is looked upon.

I realize now that I was not supposed to comment on that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Of course the issue belongs here, Mike. After all, the topic is the interval between the murder and the graffito.
And no matter if you spoke of Long or not, the inference is kind of hard to avoid, donīt you think?

Monty's message re: Long's dismissal left me an opening to ask, in general, about police dismissals for Met and City with more of an interest in Brown and all the officers who were let go/canned. I specifically didn't mention Long hoping that you wouldn't have to post, yet again, your thoughts on him. I was mistaken. You can't let lechmere go and Long is your lynch pin. I get that, but I really don't care about either one of them to be honest. I do care about police procedure.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Long was mildly criticised by a jurer for not conducting a thorough search of the building,but replied that he did not know of Eddowes murder.That is a version I have in front of me,and nowhere have I read that he knew of the Stride killing at that time..So I am still a bit surprised that finding nothing that might account for the blood stained rag,and there could be many reasons,he immediately took it to he police station.I do have an idea though.
Anyone know what happened at the police station when he produced the rag?What was done with it for example,and when first the officers on patrol in the Goulstan street,and surrounding areas were alerted that two murders had been committed?

Long said that he knew about the Mitre Square murder as he left the Wentworth Model Dwellings. It is quite possible, though, that he learnt about it from the colleague he left in charge as he left.
It seems the timeline is:
He found the rag.
He searched the doorway and found the GSG.
He searched the landings and the staircase.
He was joined by a colleague.
He left for the police station, rag in hand.

It is therefore possible that he would have been less prone to do the trek to the cop shop if he had not heard about Eddowes. Then again, it WAS in the middle of the Ripper scare, so he could well have made the same decision anyhow.

Could you provide the source you are using, by the way?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I wasn't talking about Long or my post would have belonged here. I was asking Monty in general because he has a handle on police matters that I don't.

Mike

Of course the issue belongs here, Mike. After all, the topic is the interval between the murder and the graffito.
And no matter if you spoke of Long or not, the inference is kind of hard to avoid, donīt you think?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Long was mildly criticised by a jurer for not conducting a thorough search of the building,but replied that he did not know of Eddowes murder.That is a version I have in front of me,and nowhere have I read that he knew of the Stride killing at that time..So I am still a bit surprised that finding nothing that might account for the blood stained rag,and there could be many reasons,he immediately took it to he police station.I do have an idea though.
Anyone know what happened at the police station when he produced the rag?What was done with it for example,and when first the officers on patrol in the Goulstan street,and surrounding areas were alerted that two murders had been committed?

[The Good Michael]

I wasn't talking about Long or my post would have belonged here. I was asking Monty in general because he has a handle on police matters that I don't.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Monty,

Maybe this isn't the place for it, but I don't care really. Do you have a general sense of what it would have taken to get dismissed, and would the rules have been roughly the same for metro and city? I am of the impression that there was a lot of covering up for each other and that tale-telling would have been really frowned upon. If that is so, it would seem to me that it would take one super-egregious offense, like grand theft or something, but that drinking offenses would be tolerated for a time unless committed in conjunction with some huge event. I'm reminded of Brown resigning and committing suicide (allegedly) just after Kelly's funeral and that he was charged with dereliction (I believe). Anyway, too much speculation there, but what would it take during normal circumstance, to get dismissed? Was there a 3 strikes and you're out concept?

Mike

I agree with you and Monty on the overall issue here, Mike. It probably took more than small matters to have you sacked from the force.
I would go so far as to say that keeping the staff in employment in spite of various shortcomings would have been more common in the police force than in most other occupations. It goes without saying that the police are supposed to set an example for the rest of the citizens about how to conduct yourself, and it wouldnīt look good if half the force was kicked out on account of being drunk, procuring stolen goods, using prostitutes etcetera.

Of course, there would be a counterweight to this mechanism present too; if it became common knowledge that policemen were being shielded from consequences that reasonably should have come their way, then the public would loose confidence in the force too.

So, practically speaking, the order of the day would be to try and make the PC:s shape up instead of kicking them out, and to carefully keep the information about these procedures under wraps.

However, Mike - what it seems you are after here is an understanding that Long very easily could have been a very bad egg, and that this would increase the probability that he was under the influence on the murder night. And technically speaking, you may have a point.

But we are nevertheless still left with the exact same scenario as I described earlier:

Maybe he was affected by drinking on the murder night.

Maybe he was not.

Itīs an open question, and the jury will stay out, no matter how we discuss the matter. Plus, of course, we have evidence of Long contacting his superiors and consorting with colleagues thoroughout the evening, none of who seem to have complained about him perhaps not being sober. Instead, he and the force in general were commended on their efforts at the inquest.

Anyhow, since we do not know either way, it is a non-issue. Itīs one of a thousand negative things that may have attached to Long, just as another thousand good and commandable things may have. May being the operative word.

Once the fog clears, we are left with statistics and evidence only:

-Normally, people who say "it was not there" say so since they have checked and not found.

-Long stated "the apron was not there at the time".

Everyting else is and remains baseless conjecture.

In his recent post, Barnaby made a very clear and useful assesment about things like these. Itīs well worth reading. And pondering.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Monty,

Maybe this isn't the place for it, but I don't care really. Do you have a general sense of what it would have taken to get dismissed, and would the rules have been roughly the same for metro and city? I am of the impression that there was a lot of covering up for each other and that tale-telling would have been really frowned upon. If that is so, it would seem to me that it would take one super-egregious offense, like grand theft or something, but that drinking offenses would be tolerated for a time unless committed in conjunction with some huge event. I'm reminded of Brown resigning and committing suicide (allegedly) just after Kelly's funeral and that he was charged with dereliction (I believe). Anyway, too much speculation there, but what would it take during normal circumstance, to get dismissed? Was there a 3 strikes and you're out concept?


Mike

Pretty much it Mike.

Sometimes examples were made, however it depends on the severity of the offence, the Superintedent in charge, the strength at that time and so on, but yeah, you are correct.

Monty