Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[curious4]

Floating

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so cryptic My point, in offering those two phrases as food for thought was simply this, that "on the wall above the apron" could be taken merely to signify the wall to which Long was referring, as opposed to a statement about the apron's relationship to the graffito.

Perhaps this will make it clearer:

"On which wall was the message written?" - "On the wall above the apron".

As distinct from:

"On which wall was the message written?" - "On the wall opposite the apron".

In either case, "above/opposite" is being used simply to distinguish one wall from the other. Seen in that light, the first statement ("on the wall above the apron") isn't making any special claim about the relationship between apron and graffito at all. It's just saying that both were on the same side.

Hello Sam,

I understand your reasoning but doesn't "on the wall above the apron" make it sound as though either the apron was buried under the wall, or that the wall was suspended somehow over it? Unless you put a comma in, of course - "on the wall, above the apron" :-). Perhaps my english is finally deserting me. Mind you, the passage wasn't that wide, so perhaps opposite or under is a moot point.

Best wishes,

C4

[Sam Flynn]

but the point is-there is no evidence Long missed anything.

But there is ample evidence that he could have missed it.

the only reason anyone says so is that they cant understand the time gap!

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.

saying he probably missed it goes beyond speculating. its basically making stuff up from scratch.

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.

[Abby Normal]

Let me reiterate, for the umpteenth time, that I am NOT knocking Long's character. I'm saying, like I have said throughout, that he was only human.

I could have missed a swatch of cloth chucked in a dim passageway just as easily as Long, or anybody else with normal vision.Someone would have found it, simple as that. If they'd noticed the bloodstains, I've little doubt that they would have alerted the authorities, too. Don't forget that ordinary folk were finding things and bringing them to the attention of the police throughout this case.(a) I'm not "faulting" Long... as I've consistently said; and (b) One can be perfectly diligent and still overlook things that were there all the time.

but the point is-there is no evidence Long missed anything. the only reason anyone says so is that they cant understand the time gap! is that a valid reason for dismissing evidence and sworn police testimony? No way.

saying he probably missed it goes beyond speculating. its basically making stuff up from scratch.

[Sam Flynn]

wow he cant get a break can he?

Let me reiterate, for the umpteenth time, that I am NOT knocking Long's character. I'm saying, like I have said throughout, that he was only human.

I could have missed a swatch of cloth chucked in a dim passageway just as easily as Long, or anybody else with normal vision.

I don't buy your idea that 'someone would have found it " and done the same thing. the rag could have been gone by that time and or it could have been found and merely thrown out, without ever being brought to the police.

Someone would have found it, simple as that. If they'd noticed the bloodstains, I've little doubt that they would have alerted the authorities, too. Don't forget that ordinary folk were finding things and bringing them to the attention of the police throughout this case.

Also, someone can have faults that are unrelated to their ability to do their duty and be diligent and perceptive

(a) I'm not "faulting" Long... as I've consistently said; and (b) One can be perfectly diligent and still overlook things that were there all the time.

[Abby Normal]

It's not much of a clue, though, is it? And, if he hadn't found it, one of the residents almost certainly would have the next morning. So, in pure "sleuthing" terms, it wouldn't rate very high on the Sherlock Scale. Not that I'm knocking him, but it's all a bit "meh!", when you put it in context.

(PS: Besides, Mike's point wasn't about Long's detective work, but Fisherman's)

wow he cant get a break can he?
here we have people knocking his character bringing up his faults in trying to bolster their arguments that he probably missed it the first time around and now you are trying to down play the fact that it was HE, no one else that found it, realized its potential and was diligent and dutiful enough to bring it in, all the while also noticing the graffiti.

I don't buy your idea that 'someone would have found it " and done the same thing. the rag could have been gone by that time and or it could have been found and merely thrown out, without ever being brought to the police.


Also, someone can have faults that are unrelated to their ability to do their duty and be diligent and perceptive, and yet still get them canned from their job.

[Sam Flynn]

If you on the other hand believe that it was just a coincidence that a piece of Kate's apron...

Perhaps I shouldn't have been so cryptic My point, in offering those two phrases as food for thought was simply this, that "on the wall above the apron" could be taken merely to signify the wall to which Long was referring, as opposed to a statement about the apron's relationship to the graffito.

Perhaps this will make it clearer:

"On which wall was the message written?" - "On the wall above the apron".

As distinct from:

"On which wall was the message written?" - "On the wall opposite the apron".

In either case, "above/opposite" is being used simply to distinguish one wall from the other. Seen in that light, the first statement ("on the wall above the apron") isn't making any special claim about the relationship between apron and graffito at all. It's just saying that both were on the same side.

[curious4]

The apron was very worn as well because she had (or someone else) sewed a giant patch onto it, so I don't believe it had have looked respectable at this time. As I said, there were smaller aprons and more decorative ones, and she wasn't exactly a domestic. I think she wore one just to keep her clothing clean.

Mike

Hello Mike,

While the French maid's uniform was in vogue in certain establishments, the victims, who were reputedly going for the street trade, were probably more practical in their choice.

But you are right - there were many kinds of apron.

Possibly Kate made use of a worn-out apron by cutting off a length from the bottom (making it a better size for her) and using it to patch over the worn/damaged part.

Best wishes,

C4

[The Good Michael]

The apron was very worn as well because she had (or someone else) sewed a giant patch onto it, so I don't believe it had have looked respectable at this time. As I said, there were smaller aprons and more decorative ones, and she wasn't exactly a domestic. I think she wore one just to keep her clothing clean.

Mike

[curious4]

A clean white apron

Same with waitstaff. But, it does depend on what kind of apron this was. Was it functional or decorative?

Mike

Hello Mike,

A clean white apron was seen as a mark of respectability. In "Oliver Twist" Nancy is kitted out with a white apron and a basket with a key in it to play the part of Oliver's respectable and sorrowful sister. In "The Uncommercial Traveller", Dickens comments on the fact that the young woman he has charged with using foul language turns up in court looking completely different and wearing a clean white apron. So it is not surprising that Kate wanted to hang on to hers. The fact that it was dirty could be put down to the hopping. Even with a sackcloth apron over it, the apron would have got very dirty, especially in rainy weather.

Best wishes,

C4

P.S. Of course it was useful for keeping the clothes underneath clean as well.

[curious4]

Clue

The reports vary, from "on the wall above", to "on a wall in the same street" (!!!). No report says the graffito was directly above the apron, and most reports actually say "above it on the wall". Long himself only says he noticed the graffito whilst searching the passage, so - assuming Long had normal perception - it wasn't exactly "in his face" when he picked up the apron.

Given that there was "X" square feet of wall available above the apron, that the apron occupied "Y" inches on the floor, and the graffito only took up "Z" (small number) inches, we have quite a bit of leeway to play with.

All one has to do is muse on two simple phrases, in order to get an idea of how ambiguous things are. Here are the two phrases:

Phrase 1: "on the wall above the apron"

Phrase 2: "on the wall opposite the apron"
y
Get my drift?

Hallo Sam,

Well, if you accept that the "clue" was deliberately placed there, there wouldn't be much point in putting the message in the doorway and the apron half-way up the passage. The fact that the tenants of the building were mainly Jewish does, I think, give this theory some support. Jack did seem to have an axe to grind in that direction.

If you on the other hand believe that it was just a coincidence that a piece of Kate's apron turned up in that particular doorway, and that the graffito was written at a different time, it doesn't make much difference if the apron piece was nowhere near the writing. Not your usual "Kilroy wuz here" kind of graffito, though.

Best wishes,
C4

[Sam Flynn]

A crumpled up piece of cloth in the dark is just trash unless one is looking for a crumpled up piece of cloth. No different than a crumpled up newspaper.

Quite so, Mike and - let's face it - a crumpled up newspaper would have served Jack just as well as a hand/knife-wiper or organ-carrier, as would Eddowes' apron. But for a twist of fate, we might well be talking about a sawn-off copy of the Star of the 27th September... and no doubt pondering the cryptic message the killer "deliberately" left behind in choosing that particular edition of the paper.

[Sam Flynn]

We shouldn't waste time debating something that never existed. There was no passage.

Long says there was.

Once you step through the archway you are in a hall, entrance or vestibule.
We cannot be certain what was meant by passage, so it is self defeating to use a source that is unclear & in itself controversial.

Neither should we invent controversies, where none exists. Passage, hallway, entrance, porch, lobby, vestibule... call it what you like. What it isn't is a "threshold", "doorway" or "archway".

However, as Christer has also pointed out, anything under the arch is also "in the building".

No it isn't. It's in the doorway, on the threshold, underneath the archway... whatever. It's categorically not the same as "in the building" nor "in the passage", by any stretch of the imagination. You can believe the contrary, if you wish, but you'd be deluding yourself if you did.

Halse says it was "in the building", Long says it was "lying in the passage".

It's as clear as that.

[curious]

Hello Curious,

I don't think we can assume that both pieces were the same size. The Gouldstone street piece was likely to have been smaller, having been roughly cut off - at least that's as I see it. In the dim distant past when I was Eddowes sized, I could easily get a dress out of a yard of a 60 inch width. Regarding the tea-towel test, (having gained in girth, but not in height) I found two (british) tea towels horizontally quite adequate from waist to floor.

Best wishes,
C4

Thanks, C4
Since I'm a shortie myself, I can safely say the British version of a tea towel must be considerably larger than what I am currently using.

curious

[The Good Michael]

I was looking at some Irish tea towels. Some were 22" by 30", and others were a hair larger. Large aprons were roughly 42" by 27". If the apron piece were a bit less than half of that, and presumably it would have been closer to a third if the apron were bib style, we'd have a 20" by 27" piece, roughly the size of the Irish tea towel.

It's irrelevant really. A crumpled up piece of cloth in the dark is just trash unless one is looking for a crumpled up piece of cloth. No different than a crumpled up newspaper.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Domestic apron's were 'one-size-fits-all'.
Those Domestic aprons have only survived into the 21st century as butchers aprons (still made of the same course material in the 1970's), no-one else wears them (as far as I know).
When I was in butchering we had short guy's on the staff. Its the way you raise up the apron before you tie it around the waist that adjusts the length. They didn't come in different sizes.

Same with waitstaff. But, it does depend on what kind of apron this was. Was it functional or decorative?

Mike