Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

The timing on the organs and hand cleaning is however dependant on a lot of variables just two:

The material the apron is made of.

The amount of soiling on his hands.

Unfortunately we just don't know about either of these.

On the first point, I'm sure that the apron would have been good enough for either purpose, irrespective of the material of which it was made.

On the second, we know that excrement was "smeared over" Eddowes' externalised entrails - smeared being the operative word. That could only realistically have come about if the killer swished an excrement-contaminated hand, or hands, over the surface of the intestines.

[The Good Michael]

Does anyone on these boards know of someone who has misplaced something, blamed someone for moving or taking it (keys, come to mind), and then when they've found it in the place they thought it was in, but didn't see it at the first glance, still refused to accept that it was there all the time? I'm thinking about perhaps a hurried parent, who is late for work.

Mike

[c.d.]

Quite so, GUT. Whatever purpose it served, it was clearly an incriminating thing to be carrying around or to take "home". Another reason in favour of the idea that he discarded it as soon as possible.

Hi Sam,

Doesn't that seem to imply that he would have tossed the organs at the same time? Being stopped with organs in your pocket would only be slightly less incriminating than having both organs and the apron.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Agreed, but I also believe that at some point you have to look at what you believe is certain just because they said it with certainty.

If a color blind person says that a granny smith apple is red, no matter how certain they are it is red, we know them to in fact be green.

I've said it before, I want him to be correct and maybe even he believes himself to be correct, however, it is more probable and likely that he was mistaken.

I don't want to reiterate my Star Trek analogies and quotes (although I'm still hurt nobody commented on them previously!!) but it is more logical that he missed it at 2:20. I don't think there is anyone that would argue the scenario is much easier to explain if there is no time gap. Sometimes the easy answer is the right one.

Cheers
DRoy

It is more logical because ...?

As for the apple analogy, Long wasn´t exactly blind, was he?

It is true that you may feel and think what you want. But prepare to be challenged when you state "it is more probable and likely that he was mistaken".
I would say that the fact is that the exact opposite applies; when a person says that something was not in place at a certain time, then it is more reasonable to accept this than to suppose that the person was wrong. There is no way around that. It´s the exact same thing with an apple: when somebody says "that apple is red", we should not ask ourselves "is this guy blind?" When and if we get confirmation that the apple is NOT red, THEN those questions come into play. Not before it. That´s not how it works.

And actually, the only information we have on the colour of the Eddowes apple comes from Long. Until we can prove him wrong, he makes the colour calls.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

Not wrong, Caz, only human.

Ah - so he was NOT wrong?

Or is it supehuman to be able to do at 2.20 what you can do at 2.55...?

If he wasn't on the lookout for a discarded scrap of cloth, he could be forgiven for not registering it in the middle of the road in reasonable light.

Yes, but not for stating with certainty that it was not there, right?

The fact that the apron was, in fact, nestling on the floor of a recessed doorway, as Long walked past at 90º in the middle of the night, makes it rather remarkable that he spotted it at all.

Even at 2.55 ...?

Come on, Gareth - Long was up to standards at 2.55 - what tells you he was NOT at 2.20?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The phenomenon to which I'm referring, Fish - namely, the habit of the press to "roll up" and/or paraphrase testimony so as to make a neat paragraph - is rather different to mishearing what a witness said. The latter is relatively easy to unpick, even if it takes over a century (witness the Shelden discovery of Mrs Felix, as opposed to "Phœnix"), whereas the former can cause all kinds of problems. Whatever, we simply cannot treat newspaper précis as if they were definitive, verbatim records.

And did I say we could - or did I say that they are a very useful source, and sometimes the only one, and as long as we are cautious, we´ll be fine?
Don´t paint me out as somebody reccommending blind faith in paper reports. I never did and I never will. We all use them and we should all use them - without them, we would be very much more in the dark than we already are, wouldn´t we?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

On the assumption that he only used the cloth to absorb any excess blood/fluid, the organs could have been "dry" enough to store in his pocket within 10 minutes of leaving Mitre Square.


... but the apron was wet with blood some seventy minutes - at the very least! - after Eddowes was cut. I find that intriguing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Does anyone on these boards know of someone who has misplaced something, blamed someone for moving or taking it (keys, come to mind), and then when they've found it in the place they thought it was in, but didn't see it at the first glance, still refused to accept that it was there all the time? I'm thinking about perhaps a hurried parent, who is late for work.

Mike

I know of lots of people that have done so - myself, for example. But that does not mean that I think "Obviously wrong!" when somebode says "It was not there".
Once again, the BETTER guess is that Long was right. On what grounds would we proclaim him wrong? Because we want him to have been ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Sam,

Doesn't that seem to imply that he would have tossed the organs at the same time? Being stopped with organs in your pocket would only be slightly less incriminating than having both organs and the apron.

c.d.

Bravo, C. D. - clearsighted as always! Of course, it could be argued that the innards were easier to conceal - but a rag can also be concealed.
If he carried the innards in the apron, then why would he toss it away in the first place? Why not leave the innards in it, and stash them together?

I find the handwiping suggestion far more viable than the innards container ditto. But I favour a cut to his hand - the wet blood, the necessity of hanging on to the rag for a long time, his cutting it away from Eddowes clothing, which will not have been premeditated, arguably - it all speaks of a suddenly arising necessity.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Doesn't that seem to imply that he would have tossed the organs at the same time? Being stopped with organs in your pocket would only be slightly less incriminating than having both organs and the apron

The organs in question were rather small and squishy, arguably easier to conceal than a dirty sheet of blood- and fæces-stained cloth. That's not to say he didn't dispose of the organs at the same time, but that raises the question of why they weren't also found.

[Sam Flynn]

Bravo, C. D. - clearsighted as always! Of course, it could be argued that the innards were easier to conceal - but a rag can also be concealed.

Visually, yes - but this particular rag may have had certain olfactory qualities that could have given the game away

[Sam Flynn]

I know of lots of people that have done so - myself, for example. But that does not mean that I think "Obviously wrong!" when somebode says "It was not there".

Again, Fish, we do not have a definitive verbatim record that Long said "it was not there", nor that he said "it was definitely not there", still less "I know it was definitely not there, because I looked inside the doorway". Instead, we have Halse saying that "[Long] would not necessarily have seen it, because it was in the building". This view is strengthened by Swanson, who said that it was found "at the bottom of a common stairs". Every source indicates that the apron was located inside the passageway, not laid out at the entrance like a grotty "Welcome" mat, nor spilling out of the entrance onto the pavement. To the contrary, the apron had been thrown/placed in a recessed entrance-way, which is entirely conducive to, and consistent with, its being initially overlooked.

[Fisherman]

Visually, yes - but this particular rag may have had certain olfactory qualities that could have given the game away

True, true ...!

Fisherman

[c.d.]

The organs in question were rather small and squishy, arguably easier to conceal than a dirty sheet of blood- and fæces-stained cloth. That's not to say he didn't dispose of the organs at the same time, but that raises the question of why they weren't also found.

Hello Sam,

Here is an idea which I admit that I haven't thought through (although that has never stopped me before). Could the apron have been a marker for him of where he dropped off the organs (like on the other side of the street perhaps)? So his intent would be to drop off everything incriminating should he be stopped. He has a rough idea of where he dropped the apron and comes back the next day to find it and thus a marker for where he left the organs. Of course the big problem with this is that the apron could be found and removed before he has a chance to look for it.

Yeah, it's crazy but maybe someone can use the idea as a starting point and improve on it.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

I find the handwiping suggestion far more viable than the innards container

Indeed, Fish. We have that from Dr Brown himself, responding to a question from the Coroner:

Coroner: "On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips, were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it?"

Brown: "Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of fæcal matter"

Evening News, 5th Oct 1888.

(Usual caveats about newspaper reports apply, but at least this is unambiguously a dialogue )