Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

How about "floor inspector" or "litter warden"?

Long had neither title.

Good one, Gareth!

... however, I meant the title assigned to Longs foremost occupation.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

... however, I meant the title assigned to Longs foremost occupation.

Which was "policeman", as opposed to "floor inspector" and "litter warden".

[Sam Flynn]

Eh - I only said that this was where I think the apron would have been, justaboutish. Surely, I must be allowed to have my own picture of things?

Of course, Fish, as long as that picture reflects the evidence, which is quite clear and was repeated on many occasions at the time. Consistently, it was stated that the apron was found in the passage. Not "just inside", not "near the threshold", but actually "in" the passage.

[Sam Flynn]

And Halse, as I´m sure you will recall, was hasting along, looking for people. If Goulston Street had no people on it, my best guess is that he would not care a iot about the doorways

Doorways where people might just be hiding? Halse - knowing that there'd been a murder nearby, and on a mission to find people - had arguably more reason to gawk into doorways than Long ever did, on that night or any other.

[Wickerman]

Not at all, Jon. I'm merely trying to be precise. Long describes the location of the graffito thus: "It [the apron] was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of 118 and 119". He goes on: "It [the graffito] was written on the black brick... The bricks are painted black up to about four feet high, like a dado, and above that are white."

Putting "too finer point on it" is the same as "being precise", when we both know PC Long was generalizing because the Coroner was not concerned about the precise location of the graffiti - "above it" is plain enough for most people.

So, the apron was "in the passage" and the writing on "a dado", as opposed to being "at the very entrance of the passage" and "on a pillar", respectively.

There is no passage, and there is no pillar (unless you mean the one at the foot of the stairs). There is a vestibule at the foot of the stairs between the access stairs and the street.

He was, later, where Halse describes the graffito as being on the "black fa[s]cia of the wall".

Halse did not see the piece of apron in situ.

Fascia, to me and the OED, suggests a long, flat expanse of wood, stone or marble; not the narrow, elongated cube of bricks forming the pillars at the entrance of Wentworth Model Dwellings.

Don't use the more recent photo (that I posted) as an indication of how the building was painted. It is just as likely that the entrance arch and the interior wall was painted the same.
This is something we can only speculate on.

To me, Warren's statement as to the graffito's location is distinctly at odds with both Long's and Halse's testimony.He'd almost certainly have asked, and/or would have been shown where the apron lay.

And I see Warren's statement as clarifying what PC Long meant by "above it".
Not only that but Warren's placement of the graffiti is also consistent with what Halse told the Inquest. That the Met. were concerned about the market being set up and people seeing the graffiti.
If it was inside the building the writing could easily have been covered up, and it cannot be seen from the outside.

Also Halse suggested that if the writing had been there any length of time it would have been rubbed off "by people passing".
This is unlikely to happen on an internal wall, but if written on the inside arch of the entrance (where Warren placed it) then people may easily brush against the wall as they pass through.

Finally, while passing through Goulston St. Halse claims to have "passed over the spot" where the apron was found. As we know he Halse had no cause to step within the entrance to 109-118 on his way passed then the apron must have been directly at the the entrance where he could have "passed over" the spot.
He could not have passed over it if it was inside.

The statements by Warren, Halse & Long all mutually support each other if we place the apron at the foot of the archway.

[Cogidubnus]

Followers of these postings will surely not be surprised to discover that my own personal view is that the murderer left the apron piece directly under the graffito...

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

There is no passage, and there is no pillar

There is a passage, Jon, because (a) it's referred to on numerous occasions in the contemporary reports; and (b) you clearly didn't step over the threshold directly onto the stairs. There were a few feet between the entrance and the foot of the steps, and that's the passage.

By "pillar" I meant "one of the narrow vertical bits either side of the [outer] part of the doorway" - I couldn't think of any other word for it. Whatever the word is, I'm referring to where you've shown the graffito in your drawing, i.e. that part of the entrance-way that resembles neither a "dado" nor a "fascia", and which really isn't "in" the passageway at all.

The statements by Warren, Halse & Long all mutually support each other if we place the apron at the foot of the archway.

Not really, as their testimony only converges (or diverges) with respect to the location of the graffito. Warren does not mention the apron.

[GUT]

G'day Dave

Followers of these postings will surely not be surprised to discover that my own personal view is that the murderer left the apron piece directly under the graffito...

BUT


Did the killer write it?


If so when?

[The Good Michael]

BUT


Did the killer write it?


If so when?

Gut,

He didn't have to write it. He just had to have known about it. Agreeing with the message is more important than having written it.


Mike

[GUT]

G'day Michael

He didn't have to write it. He just had to have known about it. Agreeing with the message is more important than having written it.

Yes but do you have a view on the issue?

I agree that he may have been taking advantage of what was already there.

[The Good Michael]

Yes but do you have a view on the issue?

I agree that he may have been taking advantage of what was already there.

My view is that he more than likely didn't stop to write it, but the apron being directly under it would be a massive coincidence. Some would say that the area was rife with graffiti, but that would be an exaggeration for that particular area, in my opinion, and wouldn't matter too much anyway. So, my scenario suggests that the murderer lived near enough to have seen the graffiti, read it, and agreed with it.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Mike

My view is that he more than likely didn't stop to write it, but the apron being directly under it would be a massive coincidence.

Unfortunately, nowhere is it said that the apron was "directly" under the graffito. Some sample reports/quotes illustrate this:

"In the wall above where the apron was found was written in chalk..." (Echo, 11th Oct 1888)

"The murderer, it is now known, walked to Goulston-street, where he threw away the piece of the deceased woman's apron upon which he had wiped his hands and knife. Within a few feet of this spot he had written upon the wall..." (PMG, 8th Oct 1888)

"The murderer, after killing his victim in Mitre-square… seems to have gone down Goulston-street… Here he threw away a portion of the murdered woman's apron after wiping his hands. On the wall in close proximity to the place where the bloody apron was found, there was written…" (PMG, 11th Oct 1888)

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of some model dwellings. Above it on the wall was written in chalk…" (IPN, 20th Oct 1888)

"Police constable Alfred Long deposed to finding a portion of the deceased's apron in Gouldston street with smears of blood upon it. On a wall in the same street was written…" (St James Gazette, 12th Oct 1888)

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of 108 to 199 building - a model lodging house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk…" (Morning Advertiser, 12th Oct 1888)

"He had not noticed the [writing on the] wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall... his attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching" (Times, 12th Oct 1888)

In that last report, in The Times, Long states that he only saw the writing as he was searching the passage. That "searching" would have been unnecessary if all he had to do was lift his eyes to that part of the wall immediately above the apron.

Based on all the references I've seen, it appears that the writing was probably on the same wall against which the apron had been placed/thrown, but that's the most we can say. The closest approximation to their being directly juxtaposed is found in the Morning Advertiser report, a paper for whom I have a lot of respect. Even here, however, all it says is that the graffito was "above it on the wall".

[The Good Michael]

Hello MikeUnfortunately, nowhere is it said that the apron was "directly" under the graffito. Some sample reports/quotes illustrate this:

"In the wall above where the apron was found was written in chalk..." (Echo, 11th Oct 1888)

"The murderer, it is now known, walked to Goulston-street, where he threw away the piece of the deceased woman's apron upon which he had wiped his hands and knife. Within a few feet of this spot he had written upon the wall..." (PMG, 8th Oct 1888)

"The murderer, after killing his victim in Mitre-square… seems to have gone down Goulston-street… Here he threw away a portion of the murdered woman's apron after wiping his hands. On the wall in close proximity to the place where the bloody apron was found, there was written…" (PMG, 11th Oct 1888)

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of some model dwellings. Above it on the wall was written in chalk…" (IPN, 20th Oct 1888)

"Police constable Alfred Long deposed to finding a portion of the deceased's apron in Gouldston street with smears of blood upon it. On a wall in the same street was written…" (St James Gazette, 12th Oct 1888)

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of 108 to 199 building - a model lodging house. Above it on the wall was written in chalk…" (Morning Advertiser, 12th Oct 1888)

"He had not noticed the [writing on the] wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall... his attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching" (Times, 12th Oct 1888)

In that last report, in The Times, Long states that he only saw the writing as he was searching the passage. That "searching" would have been unnecessary if all he had to do was lift his eyes to that part of the wall immediately above the apron.

Based on all the references I've seen, it appears that the writing was probably on the same wall against which the apron had been placed/thrown, but that's the most we can say. The closest approximation to their being directly juxtaposed is found in the Morning Advertiser report, a paper for whom I have a lot of respect. Even here, however, all it says is that the graffito was "above it on the wall".

"Above it" and "within a few feet" are close enough for me. If it had been any further away, Long may have missed the apron twice! Long said at the inquest that the writing was above the apron. he didn't say "above and to the right", nor did he say, "above and to the left." If I say "directly" it is my interpretation and even right or left still fits into the 'massive coincidence' concept regardless.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

"Above it" and "within a few feet" are close enough for me.

The passage was itself only a few feet deep, and the wall that formed the passage ran "above" the apron for its entire (short) length; so, the criteria of "above" and "within a few feet" are scarcely sufficient to support the contention that the two items were directly aligned. Again, nowhere is the apron referred to as being directly beneath the graffito; indeed, this is scarcely hinted at. If it had been directly underneath, I'm sure someone would have said.

[Sam Flynn]

The passage was itself only a few feet deep, and the wall that formed the passage ran "above" the apron for its entire (short) length.

For clarity, I meant the entire length of the wall forming the passage, not the entire length of the cloth! As in:

EEEEEWWWWWWAPRONWWWWW

EEEEEWAPRONWWWWWWWWWW

EEEEEWWWWWWWWWWAPRONW

"W" is for "wall", "E" is for "entrance" (Goulston St on the left). Take your pick as to where you think the apron was