Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[curious4]

Clue

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)

Hello Sam,

I agree. That's why I referred to the "clue" as cliche'd.

Best wishes,
C4

[Fisherman]

...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.

Hmmm, Gareth - on the one hand you make the point that Long would not look for litter.
On the other hand, you claim that Long only realized that the rag had blood on it when he steeped closer and shone his light on it.

Question: If he would not take any interest in litter, and if the rag only looked like a discarded swatch of cloth, one more piece of junk among many others ... then why did Long investigate it? Why did he step closer, if litter and junk was not of any interest to him?

There are two possible answers:

1. It was evident from the outset that the rag was not any everyday junk, and he could see that from whatever distance he first looked at it. Therefore he approached it and examined it further.

2. He actually stepped into the doorway to take a look if there was something in it, and when he saw the rag, he examined it closer.

He did not discard it as a piece of junk - he examined it and realized that it could be a clue in a murder case. So he either DID examine what seemed to be litter as a procedure relevant to his job, or he did not regard the rag as junk in the first place.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I found two (british) tea towels vertically quite adequate from waist to floor.

Best wishes,
C4

And does that mean that these tea towels are big or small? A woman of 150 centimeters (normal in 1888), would represent a length from waist to floor of a bit more than half of her total length, say 80 centimeters.

Is a piece of cloth of 80 centimeters a large or a small piece of cloth?

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

How big is big?

Hello Fisherman,

Yes, 80cm is about right - although I have some difficulty in locating my waist these days! The thing is, that as far as I know, we don't know how big the piece was (unless I've missed this somewhere). I don't think Jack would have cut the apron into two equal pieces. Nevertheless, lying actually in the doorway (under the jamb) it would have been visible from the street in my opinion - and the doorway would most probably be less likely to be cluttered with rubbish.

Best wishes,

C4

Should probably stop posting now, lack of sleep affecting my spelling and grammar. Also meant horizontally. Definitely need sleep.

[Sam Flynn]

Nevertheless, lying actually in the doorway (under the jamb) it would have been visible from the street in my opinion.

But it wasn't lying in the doorway, under the jamb. That's where Warren (controversially) locates the graffito, but he doesn't locate the apron. Halse, on the other hand, is quite clear that the apron was "in the building" - i.e. in the passageway. He further makes clear that it was easy to miss. A piece of cloth sitting on the doorstep meets neither criterion.

That it was visible from the street is undeniable. Just how "obvious" it was to a passing observer is another matter - a matter about which Halse's testimony, and Long's missing it the first time round (if indeed he did), speak volumes.

[curious4]

Under the writing

But it wasn't lying in the doorway, under the jamb. That's where Warren (controversially) locates the graffito, but he doesn't locate the apron. Halse, on the other hand, is quite clear that the apron was "in the building" - i.e. in the passageway. He further makes clear that it was easy to miss. A piece of cloth sitting on the doorstep meets neither criterion.

That it was visible from the street is undeniable. Just how "obvious" it was to a passing observer is another matter - a matter about which Halse's testimony, and Long's missing it the first time round (if indeed he did), speak volumes.

Hello Sam,

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the apron was under the graffito. Long stated that his attention was drawn to the writing when he found the piece of cloth.

Halse wasn't the first on the scene.

Best wishes,
C4

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Sam,

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I thought the apron was under the graffito. Long stated that his attention was drawn to the writing when he found the piece of cloth.

The reports vary, from "on the wall above", to "on a wall in the same street" (!!!). No report says the graffito was directly above the apron, and most reports actually say "above it on the wall". Long himself only says he noticed the graffito whilst searching the passage, so - assuming Long had normal perception - it wasn't exactly "in his face" when he picked up the apron.

Given that there was "X" square feet of wall available above the apron, that the apron occupied "Y" inches on the floor, and the graffito only took up "Z" (small number) inches, we have quite a bit of leeway to play with.

All one has to do is muse on two simple phrases, in order to get an idea of how ambiguous things are. Here are the two phrases:

Phrase 1: "on the wall above the apron"

Phrase 2: "on the wall opposite the apron"

Get my drift?

[Fisherman]

But it wasn't lying in the doorway, under the jamb. That's where Warren (controversially) locates the graffito, but he doesn't locate the apron. Halse, on the other hand, is quite clear that the apron was "in the building" - i.e. in the passageway. He further makes clear that it was easy to miss. A piece of cloth sitting on the doorstep meets neither criterion.

That it was visible from the street is undeniable. Just how "obvious" it was to a passing observer is another matter - a matter about which Halse's testimony, and Long's missing it the first time round (if indeed he did), speak volumes.

"In the doorway, under the jamb" qualifies as in the building, Gareth. Once you step a centimeter over the treshold, you are in the building.
If Halse had qualified himself by saying "a long was into the building", or "a significant stretch into the building", it would have been another matter. As it stands, all of the floor, counting from the outer wall line, was "in the building".

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Nevertheless, lying actually in the doorway (under the jamb).

Also...

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase."

- PC Long, Morning Advertiser, 12 Oct 1888

[Fisherman]

Also...

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase."

- PC Long, Morning Advertiser, 12 Oct 1888

And where did that passage begin?

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Also...

"It was lying in the passage leading to the staircase."

- PC Long, Morning Advertiser, 12 Oct 1888

We shouldn't waste time debating something that never existed. There was no passage. Once you step through the archway you are in a hall, entrance or vestibule.
We cannot be certain what was meant by passage, so it is self defeating to use a source that is unclear & in itself controversial.

However, as Christer has also pointed out, anything under the arch is also "in the building".
As it wasn't on the footway (outside), then it was 'in the building'. The archway is the entrance to the building, and part of it.

[Wickerman]

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

Domestic apron's were 'one-size-fits-all'.
Those Domestic aprons have only survived into the 21st century as butchers aprons (still made of the same course material in the 1970's), no-one else wears them (as far as I know).
When I was in butchering we had short guy's on the staff. Its the way you raise up the apron before you tie it around the waist that adjusts the length. They didn't come in different sizes.

[The Good Michael]

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

He finally found something after being alerted. He had passed by earlier, though didn't say he was actually looking for anything.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Domestic apron's were 'one-size-fits-all'.
Those Domestic aprons have only survived into the 21st century as butchers aprons (still made of the same course material in the 1970's), no-one else wears them (as far as I know).
When I was in butchering we had short guy's on the staff. Its the way you raise up the apron before you tie it around the waist that adjusts the length. They didn't come in different sizes.

Same with waitstaff. But, it does depend on what kind of apron this was. Was it functional or decorative?

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I was looking at some Irish tea towels. Some were 22" by 30", and others were a hair larger. Large aprons were roughly 42" by 27". If the apron piece were a bit less than half of that, and presumably it would have been closer to a third if the apron were bib style, we'd have a 20" by 27" piece, roughly the size of the Irish tea towel.

It's irrelevant really. A crumpled up piece of cloth in the dark is just trash unless one is looking for a crumpled up piece of cloth. No different than a crumpled up newspaper.

Mike