Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Wrong. I wasn't expecting them to be there, because I don't normally put my paperwork there. So I didn't notice them... but I still swore blind to my colleagues that they weren't there! And, because I was so adamant, my colleagues too must have assumed that I'd "taken a look" - indeed, I thought I must have looked there, but I clearly hadn't.

So, yes - the EXACT same with Long, I'd suggest.

More of the same illusionism. The two examples are incomparable. There was never any left side/right side problem for Long.

To work, this example would predispose that Long took a look in the doorway, not expecting to find anything in it. He would need to have a predisposition for thinking that the rag would not be there, just as you did not expect the papers to be where they were.
Nothing at all can bolster such a suggestion. But since your suggestions in this errand chronically are based on nothing at all, whoīs surprised?

Why has it not been suggested yet that Long could have suffered from temporary blindness. It happens. He was just normal, after all.

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Jamb

Jamb brick: a brick with the corner of one end rounded for use on the vertical side of an opening in a brick wall.

Best wishes,
C4

[Fisherman]

To conclude that he was wrong. Taking all factors into account that's probably the safest conclusion, irrespective of what Long may have genuinely believed to have been the truth.

There we are- we DID reach the Dark Ages after all!

You have a way with words - "irrespective of what Long may have genuinely believed to have been the truth".

Fables, Gareth. Fables and fantasy.

You sholuld have written "irrespective of Longs certainty that the apron was not in place at 2.20."

We have that. We do NOT have any evidence at all of Long being honestly mistaken. Thatīs just an invention, carefully carved out to fit another invention - that of the apron being in place at 2.20.

You are seriously suggesting that -with no knowledge at all about what the killer did after Mitre Square - we should shove the evidence aside in favour of wishful guesswork.

I wonīt be part of it. And you know what? You used to be somebody I would have relied on to be every bit as unwilling to deal in such things.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I'm sure you recall that Long placed the graffiti above the apron.

On the wall above the apron... somewhere. Reports differ, and sadly we don't possess any consistent (still less specific) coordinates.

[Sam Flynn]

Perhaps there exists a different meaning for "half"?

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

And Warren locates where the graffiti could be seen.

Warren locates where he said the graffiti was - although some, myself included, have reservations about his report - but he does not locate the apron at all. Halse does, however, and he says that it was "in the building" (hence easy to miss, blah, blah).

We can be pretty certain that the apron wasn't neatly spread out like a welcome mat across the very threshold of 118-119 Wentworth Model Dwellings. 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.

[Wickerman]

I don't think it would be "much, much" larger, Jon - perhaps something similar in size to a common-or-garden kitchen towel.

Perhaps there exists a different meaning for "half"?

And the source for that statement is...? Neither Halse nor Long, for sure. Is there a "Made-Up A to Z" that I haven't heard of?

I'm sure you recall that Long placed the graffiti above the apron.
"I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced,... Above it on the wall was written in chalk, etc.

And Warren locates where the graffiti could be seen.
There were several police around the spot when I arrived, both Metropolitan and City. The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street and could not be covered up without danger of the covering being torn off at once.....

Given all the vague opinions floating around, we should be grateful its precise location was identified.

[Sam Flynn]

Not an easy item to miss laying where it was under the archway, on the edge of the building entrance.

And the source for that statement is...? Neither Halse nor Long, for sure. Is there a "Made-Up A to Z" that I haven't heard of?

[Sam Flynn]

Not the size of a handkerchief, not the size of a scarf, but something much, much larger.

I don't think it would be "much, much" larger, Jon - perhaps something similar in size to a common-or-garden kitchen towel. Something which, unless laid out completely flat, would not be particularly obvious to the eye if chucked inside a passageway. Less obvious still when seen in one's peripheral vision, at walking pace, and in conditions of low or poor lighting.

Certainly, any bloodstains would not have been particularly evident under such conditions - or, if they were, they may as well have been gravy, paint or mud. Some might have us believe that what confronted Long was an obviously blood-stained apron, screaming out to be seen. The reality was very different.

In truth, what Long had to contend with was a crumpled/folded piece of discarded rag dropped inside a darkened passageway, which would have been easily overlooked. A conclusion which, as I never tire of pointing out, is fully supported by the independent, contemporaneous testimony of Detective Daniel Halse.

[Wickerman]

You make it sound as if the piece of apron was large, which it wasn't, ....

To be fair Gareth, the only estimations we have as to the size came from both Det. Halse, and Major Smith, who both estimated that "half the apron" was missing from the body.
Both Halse & Smith were present, not passing on second-hand opinion.

Given that we know the common domestic apron was quite large, even if we exclude the bib, it covered the body from waist to ankle, and wrapping all around, we can see that several square feet of material are used for an apron.
Equally then "half of it" is quite large. Not the size of a handkerchief, not the size of a scarf, but something much, much larger. Possibly up to 6 sq. ft.

Not an easy item to miss laying where it was under the archway, on the edge of the building entrance.

[The Good Michael]

Had long been sober. Had he been dutiful that night. Had he been looking for a piece of cloth. Had he scoured the dark ground. Had he actually passed the graffiti spot at exactly 2:20. Had all these things been true, the apron couldn't have been there.

One thing definitely wasn't true. He wasn't looking for a piece of cloth. He had no reason to. He also wasn't looking for graffiti. He had no reason to. What would this diligent, sober, stalwart man have been looking for? People. He would have been looking at faces of people, at what how they were moving, who they were with. He would have been looking at what they were carrying, this brave, noble, bearer of truth and justice...so far removed from his later sluggishness, drunken habits, and on-the-job punting. Yes, this PC was in his prime, and above all that stuff. In fact, it may have been his keen nose for sniffing out culprits that got him transferred. Yet, despite his brilliance, he wasn't looking for trash on the ground or graffiti on the walls.

Mike

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

There was never any doubt about that. It was the whole premise for your post, as I see it.

So whoīs dragging anything out?

Some posters have a habit of responding to a one-line post with an entire essay.

[Sam Flynn]

Then why did he see it at 2.55 - if it was not his job to look for discarded pieces of junk?

Because that's when it registered, and - for whatever reason - he was minded to take a closer look. I say "for whatever reason"... he might have nipped into the doorway for a pee, for all we know.

Your example works with a preconceived supposition about where to find an object at an occasion when the object is not there but instead at a place where it normally never is.

What "preconceived supposition"? I overlooked something that was there all the time - nothing unusual in that, and no "preconception" involved. It's not as if I "don't expect" papers to be on one side of the desk only; but, if I did, one would think that their presence "in the wrong place" would make them stand out even more! Yet, I missed them, despite their having been in my line of vision for a long time.

That is why your example is useless.

Unfriendly and incorrect. My example was perfectly relevant and useful.

All you will ever be able to prove is that people sometimes miss seing things, and that is not rocket science - we all know that.

If we all know that, and we do, what's the big deal about Long doing the same?

WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT A SPECIFIC PLACE OR SURFACE, AND AFTER THAT CLAIM THAT SOMETHING LIKE A BIG HUNK OF RAG WITH BLOOD ON IT WAS NOT THERE WHEN WE LOOKED, THEN IN AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF THESE CASES, WE WILL BE CORRECT!!!

No need to shout.

You make it sound as if the piece of apron was large, which it wasn't, and that it was laid out like a desert-island SOS message improvised from a parachute. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There was no "big hunk of rag with blood on it" when Long saw it from the street. He saw "something", off-white, almost certainly crumpled or folded, chucked up against a wall inside the passage, in the semi-darkness of Goulston Street. It was only when he inspected it at close range, and with better light, that any blood would have been apparent.

[Sam Flynn]

Let ME assure YOU that much as I have also overlooked things that were there, I will in more than ninetynine per cent of the cases when I claim that a large thing like a rag thing is not in place on an otherwise empty floor surface of a square meter or so, be absolutely correct. I will not turn around, wait for a second, then look again only to realize that there WAS a whopper of a rag in the middle of the floor and that I magically overlooked it before.

What "large rag thing"? What "whopper of a rag"? What "middle of the floor"? What's particularly "magical" about overlooking something? Especially when, according to another reliable witness, it was easy to overlook because of its location in the building

... to say nothing about the darkness that prevailed at the time... to say nothing of the fact that it was not a police officer's job to look for litter... to say nothing of the likelihood of a killer wanting to dispose of incriminating evidence as soon as possible... to say nothing of the fact that where the rag was discarded was on a perfectly logical trajectory for someone heading from Mitre Square into the heart of Spitalfields.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: Not "suppressing to look" - it just wasn't his job to look for discarded pieces of junk. How many times must this be pointed out before it sinks in?

Then why did he see it at 2.55 - if it was not his job to look for discarded pieces of junk?

What's that got to do with it?

Your example pointed out that if one was used to find things on one side, it was hard to see them on the other. Thatīs what itīs got to do with it - and you presented the issue.

It was a dreary night, the apron had been chucked inside a darkened passageway, the bloodstains were only apparent in close-up with a lamp on, and it was not Long's responsibility to notice every bit of litter on his beat. It simply wasn't.

Yet he did at 2.55. As for what he could see and where the rag was, we donīt know for sure. Not you, not me.

No it doesn't, not in the slightest. My example demonstrates that people can miss seeing things that are in their field of vision, and that they can be quite convinced that an object wasn't there, when it was present all the time.

Your example works with a preconceived supposition about where to find an object at an occasion when the object is not there but instead at a place where it normally never is.
The Long and rag business does not have that handicap. Long did not have any preconceived notion about where any rags would lie in a doorway, and therefore he would not fall prey to miss out on checking BOTH the right and the left side - ALL sides, in fact.
That is why your example is useless. All you will ever be able to prove is that people sometimes miss seing things, and that is not rocket science - we all know that.

The one and only thing we must keep in mind, however, when pondering that universal truth is this one - and I will only say it this once, then I will go to bed, so listen intently:

WHEN WE TAKE A LOOK AT A SPECIFIC PLACE OR SURFACE, AND AFTER THAT CLAIM THAT SOMETHING LIKE A BIG HUNK OF RAG WITH BLOOD ON IT WAS NOT THERE WHEN WE LOOKED, THEN IN AN OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF THESE CASES, WE WILL BE CORRECT!!!

You provided the example with your lost papers. Let ME assure YOU that much as I have also overlooked things that were there, I will in more than ninetynine per cent of the cases when I claim that a large thing like a rag thing is not in place on an otherwise empty floor surface of a square meter or so, be absolutely correct. I will not turn around, wait for a second, then look again only to realize that there WAS a whopper of a rag in the middle of the floor and that I magically overlooked it before.

Maybe you do that all the time.

I donīt.

Goodnight.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Let's not drag this out, Fish. It's perfectly simple: I was sure that the papers were not on my desk - and actually told people that - but they were there all along.

There was never any doubt about that. It was the whole premise for your post, as I see it.

So whoīs dragging anything out?

The best,
Fisherman