Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

... the people that think Long couldn't have been mistaken, will not have anything implied.

Cheers,

Mike

Who are those people, Mike?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

we have the fact that Long found the only clue in the whole case. great detective work indeed!

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)

[Abby Normal]

We don't need this. We have a history of negligence. We have the fact that Long was expendable enough to move him to a different division for a time. We have the fact that people are often in error. We have the possibility that he wasn't in error, but simply lied. We have, according the the coroner's report in the paper, no cross-examination of Long's answers. We have a single man's sentence. We also have the amount of time that it would take for someone to get from Mitre Square to the Wentworth Buildings with the presumption that a murderer would move as quickly as manageable towards his next destination. All of that, much like all of the circumstances connected to the Hutchinson signature, should be enough to make this at least in the realm of 50/50. But we have you trying to bolster a slipshod suspect chronology which takes Long into the realm of a robotic answering machine. Great detective work.

Mike

we have the fact that Long found the only clue in the whole case. great detective work indeed!

[Sam Flynn]

However, half of it would still be considerably larger than a tea-towel (or at least those we have in the States). It would take at least 3 or 4 normal size tea towels, but more like 6 or 8 -- to reach from the waist to the floor and from the navel to the mid back and worn over other clothing.

Perhaps it is a "cultural" thing. I'm a slightly overweight, average height male, but I could easily make a serviceable apron from two of my mother's (British) tea-towels. Granted, it would not reach the floor, nor wrap around my front and back, but I'm not aware of any rule that says that an apron must do so. Certainly, in my time as a chef and restaurant worker, I've worn aprons that only reach as far as my knees and just cover my front. We don't know the dimensions of Kate's apron anyway, so your guess is as good as mine.

It scarcely matters, because the salient points are (a) that the apron was easy to miss because it was in the passageway; (b) it was almost certainly not laid out neat and flat, and was more likely crumpled or folded to a greater or lesser extent; and (c) whatever its size or disposition, it was after all only a discarded swatch of cloth... one more piece of junk among many others on the squalid streets of an East End slum.

[The Good Michael]

Hello Mike,

Thank you on both counts. :-) Wouldn't part of his duty on the beat be glancing into doorways? "passing" could include a quick glance in - implied if not spoken.

It should be part of his duty. I suggest that police were looking for suspicious people more than anything because that's why some of them were transferred to the division, to find a killer. If no one was around, why not just pass by on one's rounds? Later when Long found out something was amiss, he doesn't say he passed the spot. This is just the use of a few words of course, but the people that think Long couldn't have been mistaken, will not have anything implied. That's my point on this issue.

Cheers,

Mike

[curious4]

Passing

Congrats on the grandchild. And I agree with the statement about Long. It is interesting that Long never said he looked around this spot, but said he 'passed' it. Not to be nitpicking, but passing is much different than searching or looking in.

Cheers,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Thank you on both counts. :-) Wouldn't part of his duty on the beat be glancing into doorways? "passing" could include a quick glance in - implied if not spoken.

Best wishes,
C4

[The Good Michael]

If the message was "on the jamb", and the apron piece was lying underneath, then it was in the doorway (see my post vis a vis jamb brick) and fairly noticeable by someone passing. We register things subconsciously when viewing a familiar scene. P.C. Long perhaps passed the doorway when there was nothing there, not perhaps consciously registering that there was nothing there, but noticing when the doorway looked different in some way when he next passed it.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Quite sure no-one is particularly interested but my new grandchild weighed in at four and a half kilos - thank god for c-sections, mum is five feet tall and weighs around seven stone (under 98 lbs for you americans :-) )

Congrats on the grandchild. And I agree with the statement about Long. It is interesting that Long never said he looked around this spot, but said he 'passed' it. Not to be nitpicking, but passing is much different than searching or looking in.

Cheers,

Mike

[curious]

Not at all, Jon. Half a woman's apron would be about the size of a tea-towel.

We can also be pretty certain that the chirpy little sparrow, Catherine Eddowes, did not have an apron the size of Goliath's winding-sheet.

Good Morning,
I do agree that Eddowes size would make her apron considerably smaller than that of MJK or Chapman's.

However, half of it would still be considerably larger than a tea-towel (or at least those we have in the States). It would take at least 3 or 4 normal size tea towels, but more like 6 or 8 -- to reach from the waist to the floor and from the navel to the mid back and worn over other clothing.

Get out a tea-towel, put it to your waist and look. It would take 3 or 4 tea towels (maybe 5), hanging vertically, then another two, stitched horizontally to take the apron from the knees to the floor. Then remember, the apron has to be worn over voluminous skirts. The piece of material from Eddowes' apron would have been substantial.

curious

[curious4]

Doorway

If the message was "on the jamb", and the apron piece was lying underneath, then it was in the doorway (see my post vis a vis jamb brick) and fairly noticeable by someone passing. We register things subconsciously when viewing a familiar scene. P.C. Long perhaps passed the doorway when there was nothing there, not perhaps consciously registering that there was nothing there, but noticing when the doorway looked different in some way when he next passed it.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. Quite sure no-one is particularly interested but my new grandchild weighed in at four and a half kilos - thank god for c-sections, mum is five feet tall and weighs around seven stone (under 98 lbs for you americans :-) )

[Sam Flynn]

Thatīs why I am saying that the example with the papers is just useless.

Well, have it your way. It's pointless my responding to anything else you have to say.

[Fisherman]

Also very crucial is Halse's statement that the apron "was in the building", which you omitted to include. Perhaps because that, in itself, demonstrates that the apron would have been easily overlooked (in the normal meaning of that word).

From my post 1154 a little further up this page:

"What Halse DID say was that he should not necessarily have seen the apron since it was in the building."


Goodnight, Gareth.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Except it wasn't a whopping great blood-stained apron, at first glance, was it. It was just an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway.

"I found a portion of an apron covered in blood" (Alfred Long)

Not: "I saw a large, blood-stained apron as I was walking down the street". Get real, Fish. Something caught his eye in the passageway, so he went for a closer look. Picked it up - smells a bit funny! - unwrapped it, switched on his lamp, and noticed the blood then.

It was, pure and simple, an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway. No doubt about it.

[Sam Flynn]

Please notice that "I should not necessarily have seen it" is NOT a means to say that he could/would not have done so. It is actually more or less a statement that he could/would have seen it if he DID look purposefully into the doorway.

Purposefully being the operative word. Besides, it's a moot point whether purposefully looking into a doorway would mean consciously registering any litter on the floor. And Halse, like Long, was not a litter warden. (Have I mentioned that before?)

Taking all of this into account, I hope that you will realize that "it was easily overlooked" is a description that actually lays down that the rag was hard to see even if you looked for it purposefully.

To say that something is "easily overlooked" does not at all imply that it is hidden or undetectable - just that it is not "in-your-face" noticeable.

So no low blow, Gareth - but instead a very crucial distinction.

Also very crucial is Halse's statement that the apron "was in the building", which you omitted to include. Perhaps because that, in itself, demonstrates that the apron would have been easily overlooked (in the normal meaning of that word).

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

OK - I'll play that game. There wasn't usually anything on my left, so you'd think that something unusual would stand out like a sore thumb. Now a large bundle of A3 paper, containing a spreadsheet with colour-coded cells, should be very noticeable on the left side of my desk. But I still didn't notice it. Furthermore, I swore that it wasn't there, when I was asked about it later.

Yes. And the REASON you did not see it was because you normally placed your stuff on the right hand side.

Now, substitute "large bundle of A3 paper... with colour-coded cells" for "whopping great blood-stained apron"; substitute "on the left of my desk" with "in the passageway of WMD". Finally, substitute "But I still didn't notice it" with "But he still didn't notice it", and "I swore" with "he swore".

Why would I substitute "the passageway of the WMD" with "on the left of your desk"? My whole point is that the passageway had no "left side" that would leave Long less likely to see the apron.
Thatīs why I am saying that the example with the papers is just useless.

Long could have overlooked the apron for many a reason - but a supposition that aprons donīt lie on the left hand side of a floor is not among them.

Except it wasn't a whopping great blood-stained apron, at first glance, was it. It was just an off-white rag tossed in a gloomy passageway.

"I found a portion of an apron covered in blood" (Alfred Long) Itīs hard to say how it looked when Long spotted it. We donīt know how close he was, we donīt know the ambient light etcetera. It could have reflected light the way wet things do, for example. And Hutchinson made out the colour red in gloom as did Lawende.
Letīs not be too sure about things we are not sure about.

The best,
Fisherman

off for now

[Fisherman]

Itīs not a low blow at all, Gareth. Let me explain why.

What Halse DID say was that he should not necessarily have seen the apron since it was in the building.

Now, follow me:

Halse was on the prowl for people in the streets, and he was moving swiftly since he wanted to find these people before they got out of range.

I have said this before, so you will recognize it. Roughly speaking, I think we may agree on it - Halseīs primary aim was to look for people, and not to search doorways since that would slow him down and disenable him to perform his true task.

Now, the rag was in the building of the Wentworth Model buildings, in a doorway. And Halses focus was aimed at people in the streets, meaning that if there were no people in a street, he would rush on to the next street.

If the rag had lain out in the open street, he would presumably have seen it. But it was in a doorway, and he did not look into doorways. Therefore, he should not necessarily have seen the rag EVEN IF IT WAS READILY VERY VISIBLE TO ANYBODY WHO DID LOOK INTO THAT DOORWAY. (Note that I am speaking of a possibility and not a proven fact).

This is how I reason, and right or wrong, it IS a viable suggestion - Halse could have (and would have, if you ask me) have meant that he should not have seen things that were not in the line of his priority.

Please observe that "I should not necessarily have seen it" is NOT a means to say that he could/would not have done so. It is actually more or less a statement that he could/would have seen it if he DID look purposefully into the doorway.

Taking all of this into account, I hope that you will realize that "it was easily overlooked" is a description that actually lays down that the rag was hard to see even if you looked for it purposefully. Itīs definitive.

So no low blow, Gareth - but instead a very, very crucial distinction.

All the best,
Fisherman