Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[caz]

Hi Caz

Hi Caz (and incidentally Christer)

I'm reassured...and it IS you!

Look, if the rag really wasn't there at 0220 then Long didn't miss seeing it...it simply wasn't there...if it was then he did...

We don't after all know for sure that Long missed seeing the apron piece at 0220. I believe it's likely....but we DON'T know for sure...and I'm sorry Christer but that does not leave either you or Caz "on the money"

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

This is a language issue more than anything, but I now see what you are getting at. If I say I missed, or missed seeing, my Mum this Mothering Sunday, you will understand immediately that I don't mean she was sitting in the corner but I missed her. I am able to say that I didn't see her because she wasn't there. (She died in 1993.)

That's all I meant with the apron. PC Long clearly missed it (as in failed to see it) wherever it was at 2.20. He didn't miss it at 2.55. He felt able to say it wasn't in that spot on his earlier round. That's all we have. And yet without any more information you (and many others - I'm not singling you out) think it's 'likely' that it was there at 2.20. I just don't get that. At least you concede that you don't know 'for sure' (because, well, nobody knows where it was at 2.20 except the killer), but how did you manage to take it beyond 50/50 in the direction of 'it was there'?

Love,

Caz
X

[Albert]

Hi everyone,
If Long was such a bad copper, why did he bother to pick up the apron piece in the first place? Why not just ignore it and save himself the bother?
For what it's worth, I think he was telling the truth - he found the apron at the time he says he found it.
Cheers
Albert

[caz]

Or that he didn't check the stairwell at 2.20am and, at the inquest, was afraid to admit it.

Possible, of course, but if true it wouldn't follow that the apron was there at 2.20. If Long didn't check, it would be a straight 50/50 whether it was there or not.

Love,

Repetitive Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Hi Albert

If Long was such a bad copper, why did he bother to pick up the apron piece in the first place?

Because by 2.55 he had heard news of the other murder(s) ?

[caz]

No,

There is no prejudice at all. Colin has made a reasoned judgement based on evidence of PC Longs disciplinary record.

Should it form a full conclusion? No, however is gives us a good insight on Longs performance as a constable.

This is an important factor.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Incredibly important. If the apron is to stand any chance of having been there by 2.20, PC Long's performance has to be called into question. But while it can be argued that a poor performance could have caused him to miss something that was there, it doesn't help put that item there.

Again, Long could have performed pitifully at 2.20 and the apron would have had no more chance of being present than absent at that time. All we know is that at 2.55 he performed well enough to spot it, examine it and connect it with a possible crime of violence.

Credit where it's due.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Albert



Because by 2.55 he had heard news of the other murder(s) ?

Not so, apparently Jon.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Dave,

The 'A' Division commander was responsible for the efficient policing of that division. If he was sensible he sent those officers whose absence would have the least impact upon that efficiency. That is what would have happened in my time and I see no reason to suppose that it was any different in the 1880's.

Would it not have reflected very poorly on the 'A' Div commander if, when called upon to lend out officers to 'H' Div, at the height of the most sensational murder case in the short history of policing, he sent only those who couldn't be trusted to conduct proper searches of the killing zone?

And if this is what he did anyway, wasn't it fortunate that the useless PC Long didn't let 'A' Div down at that time, but identified Eddowes's apron as potentially significant, when he could have missed it, ignored it or tossed it aside in disgust?

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

Not so, apparently Jon.

How so, Caz ?

[Lechmere]

He found out about a murder after finding the apron.

[Lechmere]

He found out about a murder after finding the apron.

It is of course as Caz says.
If Long was skiving it doesn't mean the apron was there at an earlier time, it just means there is chance that it could have been there at an earlier time.
But if Long was telling the truth then it wasn't there.

[caz]

Perhaps the same logical reason he loitered around to kill a second victim.

Indeed, Jon. And the same 'logical' reason he loitered around the body of this victim to extract her womb and kidney, nick her eyelids and cut the large piece of apron, before making good his escape in the nick of time.

It kills me how some people accept all this totally illogical behaviour, then argue that the same individual would have been a good, sensible boy and gone straight home to cocoa and bed, looking left and right when crossing the road no doubt.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ive been reading the posts and it occurs to me that almost all the challenges to the remarks made by Constable Long are based primarily in a belief that the killer dropped the cloth on his way from Mitre Square.

No flies on you then, Mike.

That's the only possible reason for the doubts surrounding Long's statement. And if another, later statement were to emerge, along the lines of: "It's a fair cop, I did not even go down Goulston St until 2.55", it still wouldn't put the apron there any earlier. It would merely raise the chances from zero, at worst, to 50% at best.

Deciding on an outcome that is directly contradicted by the known, non-contradicted evidence, is not, in my opinion, how to suss out fact from fiction.

I agree with you about once in a blue moon, and this is one such occasion.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Since some people believe that the killer spent a lot of time wandering around with an apron piece before depositing it, has anyone considered that he threw it away and then upon running into the graffiti that he agreed with, went back to get the piece and then deposit it?

Mike

Yes, Mike, that's as good a guess as any that relies on PC Long screwing up. I also wondered if the killer threw it away but later moved it to that entrance in Goulston St to lure the cops there, for example, and/or underline the graffiti, whoever wrote it. I do think the least likely option would be wandering those streets for any length of time with that large piece of incriminating evidence on him. But that's not by any means the only alternative to it being there by 2.20.

Love,

Caz
X

[Jon Guy]

He found out about a murder after finding the apron.

Sorry, my error.
Where can I find your source for this please ?

[caz]

Hi Jon,

From previous posts here and over at jtr forums, the sequence of events implied by the relevant reported testimony appears to be as follows:

1) Long finds the apron at 2.55, quickly followed by the writing above it.

2) He sets about an initial search in and around that entrance, connecting the apron with a possible crime of violence and thinking the victim could be in that immediate vicinity.

3) He is then informed about the body found in Mitre Square, upon which he takes the apron to the police station, having found nothing during his limited search.

It doesn't appear to make much sense that he would have searched for another victim before proceeding there, if he only noticed and examined the apron as a result of hearing about the murder in Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X