Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

I would say the shape of the stain is evidence. And what use is evidence, if not to stimulate theory?

MrB

Hi MrBarnett.

The shape of your stain would suggest a knife was used, but you are able to suggest this because you know you used a knife to produce the stain.

Do you have a specific quote to suggest the blood stain on the apron was knife shaped?

In the Times we read:
"...presumably used it to wipe his hands or his knife on, and then threw it away."

There may be another quote available more definite, but that reads to me like they were guessing.
If a blood stain did exist on the piece of apron that was knife shaped then why would they suggest he wiped his hands on it? Then as an alternative, "or a knife"?
Surely the knife would have been the first assumption.

Perhaps there was no such definite elongated knife-shaped blood stain on the apron.

[Hunter]

Hi Mike,

I apologize for appearing so obstinate.

Since we've veered off here a bit, I'll just cut to the chase one last time and leave it at that for this subject.

You stated, "We dont have evidence that the cloth showed smearing of any kind..."

Three different publications printed testimony making these statements:

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side.. "

"On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood..."

The third source was a repeat of the second.

These are descriptions of the piece of cloth found in Goulston St. and examined by City Police Surgeon, Mr. F. G. Brown.

That is evidence that the cloth was smeared because it was described that way. Brown's subjective opinion - as you call it - on what caused these smears doesn't negate the fact that the cloth evidenced smearing of some kind. Thus your assertion that this was not the case is incorrect.

[MrBarnett]

Why use the word 'smear' unless you are describing the spreading of a small amount of blood across the surface of the material? Whether by a knife or a hand, the resulting stain looks different from that produced by splashing or deep absorbtion.

[Michael W Richards]

Hunter,

I havent checked back on the quote you keep referring to, but as I recall I also mentioned the hand and knife. Contextually significant. Smears could have occurred any number of ways. Brown saw fit to suggest a possible answer to the question....just as Killeen saw fit to suggest a dagger or bayonet to explain a single larger wound...just as Baxter saw fit to suggest the motivation for the killings of Polly and Annie was to obtain uteri...just as Bond saw fit to question the validity of his colleagues observations about the knife skill exhibited in the first 4 murders.... just as many suggest the lack of wounds on Liz Stride was a result of an interruption.

These are subjective comments or conclusions of the investigators, and do not constitute what I intended to convey in my comments....they are not "evidence" as such. They are qualified opinions, which were offered to explain certain questions that need answers.

Youre correct...we are off topic, so I wont address the inevitable disagreement about this particular issue.

On the thread issue, once again...on what basis do we question the empirical "IT WAS NOT THERE" by PC Long regarding his pass a little over a half hour after the Mitre Square murder? Is there ambiguity in that remark? Does he have a history of falsifying statements? Did he qualify the remark in later remarks?

I believe the time gap is a real, tangible problem for the theories that suggest the cloth was used to wipe his hands, or knife.

Cheers

[Hunter]

On the thread issue, once again...on what basis do we question the empirical "IT WAS NOT THERE" by PC Long regarding his pass a little over a half hour after the Mitre Square murder? Is there ambiguity in that remark? Does he have a history of falsifying statements? Did he qualify the remark in later remarks?

I believe the time gap is a real, tangible problem for the theories that suggest the cloth was used to wipe his hands, or knife.

I agree with you, Mike, that there was no ambiguity in Long's remarks. He said that it was not there.

I also believe the man who actually examined both apron pieces, City Police Surgeon Gordon Brown, made a well qualified diagnosis of the apron pieces also.

[c.d.]

Was long simply saying that he did not see the apron as opposed to 100% certainty that it was not there? He doesn't have to be lying, he simply could have been mistaken. The apron was dark, it was nighttime. Was he looking specifically for an apron? It seems to me that he could have easily missed it.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

.... It seems to me that he could have easily missed it.

Hi C.D.
When PC Long was unsure about a question posed to him at the Inquest, he said he was not sure.

[GUT]

'm inclined to the view that he was saying well I didn't see it. After all how hard is it to be absolutely certain something wasn't there, unless he had particularly pointed his lantern at that point, I just don't see how he could be 100%. But of course if he did, for some reason examine the doorway a totally different matter.

[c.d.]

I don't have a dog in this fight. Just asking questions. Was he specifically looking for an apron or anything out of the ordinary? Again, he doesn't have to be lying to be mistaken but as GUT said was he saying that he went into that doorway and shined his light all about?

c.d.

[Hunter]

I know this has been posted before, but it bears reiterating again.

From the transcribed testimony filed in the Corporation of London records office and signed by P.C. Alfred Long, he states, "I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2:20, the apron was not there when I passed then."

[c.d.]

Hello Hunter,

The problem is that we don't know the basis for that statement. Did he actually go into the doorway where the apron was eventually found and shine his light all around for several minutes in a full top to bottom sweep or did he shine his light in the doorway for a second or two to make sure that no one was hiding there?

Also, and I don't mean to cast aspersions on P.C. Long but it probably would not have been good for his career to say that he missed a vital piece of evidence. Not saying that that happened but it has to be taken into consideration.

So for myself, I have to take his statement with a grain or two of salt.

c.d.

[GUT]

G'Day Hunter

P.C. Alfred Long, he states, "I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2:20, the apron was not there when I passed then."

I for one have no doubts that is what he said.

What I do wonder is just how closely he looked?

Haven't you ever said to someone, your wife your partner, your mother or workmate, "It's not there" only to have them go and get it. I sure no it has happened to me.

That is really my point you can be 100% certain something isn't/wasn't there when in reality it was and what you mean is I didn't see it.

[MrBarnett]

Hi All,

Two things occur to me. One is the odd choice of words ' I passed that way' rather than ' I looked into' the stairwell. It suggests someone being economical with the truth.

On the flip side, I wonder if the apron piece had been there the first time Long passed, would it have seemed significant to him. I'm sure there were was all sorts of debris hanging around the East End streets, especially close to busy markets. What might have made it stand out is if he was sure it wasn't there the first time and therefore it had recently been dropped - evidence of someone being there between 2.20 and 2.50.

MrB

[lynn cates]

bullseye

Hello Cris, Jon. As usual, you chaps are bang on target.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I know this has been posted before, but it bears reiterating again.

From the transcribed testimony filed in the Corporation of London records office and signed by P.C. Alfred Long, he states, "I passed that spot where the apron was found about 2:20, the apron was not there when I passed then."

Hi Cris,

Thanks, I think that needed to be posted again. I seem to recall Paul Begg once saying it can often take five repeat postings for even a simple message to get through effectively.

While it amazes me why anyone today would want Long to have been mistaken about this, it has to remain a possibility. But Long was the best qualified person on the planet, and indeed the only one, to know how he felt able to state the apron "was not there" at 2.20, as opposed to "I am sure it was not/I don't think it was" etc. He knew exactly where it would have been, had it been there at that time, because he knew exactly where he found it at 2.55, how it caught his eye and what made him investigate. That clearly implies he had looked in that same spot just 35 minutes earlier and there was nothing there then.

Nothing else makes sense of Long's simple statement of fact. He had nothing to fear from admitting it, if he could have missed the apron earlier, because unless I'm misremembering here, didn't he openly admit he might have missed the writing if it was there earlier?

There is also nothing to suggest that Long learned anything between 2.20 and 2.55 that would have caused him to refine what he was checking for or where. Taking him at his word, he checked the same place twice and the apron was only there on the second occasion.

Don't get me started on Mike Richard's assertions that the bloody thing was not 'smeared' with anything because that was only someone's 'opinion'. In that case it was only Long's 'opinion' that the apron wasn't there at 2.20; he may have temporarily lost his sight - or his marbles. And it was only 'opinion' that the murders were murders and not accidents or suicides.

And we may as well all go away and get a life.

Love,


Caz
X