Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[GUT]

I dont believe anyone has addressed this possibility in this particular thread, but it is possible that the method of transfer of that cloth was not by the killer.

Cheers

Extensively, a dog wouldn't be a bad bet.

I've also pondered, could it have got stuck on his shoe? and he not even known he had carried it there.

But if not deliberately planted I like the idea of a dog. My question though is how common were they on the streets in the LVP?

[Hunter]

I've never quite been sure whether this snippet relates to what the reporter heard (from Brown and/or AN Other), or what the reporter saw. Whatever it is, it's definitely a condensed prose summary of proceedings, and not a verbatim transcript.

Not that it matters too much in this context, but it does highlight a problem with some of these newspaper/press-agency reports, particularly those in the Times. We often don't know exactly who's speaking at a given moment and, even if we do, we can't really be sure of precisely what they said!

Indeed, Gareth.

The Times has been the most readily available source, as far as newspapers, for many years now and are probably more often quoted than any other publication, but at times - especially concerning inquest reports - they freely jump around from first to third person variations and elaborate on some aspects, while condensing others. I don't believe their editors gave the reporters much free reign. They knew their place in journalistic publications at the time and had some good reason to be comfortable with their position, despite people like Stead and O'Connor making fast inroads with the new, less affluent, class of readers emerging.

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy,

But what do you make of this exchange:

Mr. Crawford: I suppose you thought it more likely to find the body there than the murderer? - Witness: Yes, and I felt that the inspector would be better able to deal with the matter than I was.

Long clearly didn't make a connection between the City murder (assuming he had heard of it) and the discovery of the bloody apron at the time. He thought he had found evidence of a murder in Goulston Street.

MrB

MrB

Long had heard of the city murder, he said so himself. "I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."

You are assuming that Long was somehow aware that there were going to be two murders and two murders only that night. For all he knew it could have been a 'triple event' with him finding the third body.

At 2:55 he found the apron. By 3:00 he had searched the stairs and made the decision to go to the police station. He told the Coroner that before he even left to go to the station that it was common knowledge that two murders had taken place but also states that he knew of The City one and rumors of another. I interpret 'common knowledge' to mean everyone by at least 3:00 knew of the murders which we can interpret to mean he heard from more than one person about them. I further suggest that he somehow had received confirmation of The City murder most likely by a policeman (or plain clothes officer) but had only heard of the other murder from civilians hence it being only a rumor.

This was Long's first night of duty on that particular beat. I'm speculating of course but if it was my first day in a new area I wasn't that familiar with, I'd be shining my lantern everywhere and looking at everything in order to familiarize myself with the locale. I'm sure Long would do the same since he would have been trained as a policeman to do so. Perhaps that was why he was so confident in the apron not being there at 2:20.

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

GUT,

I've also pondered, could it have got stuck on his shoe? and he not even known he had carried it there.

No, the piece found was approximately half of the apron.

Unless of course he had a size 86 mens shoe, then yes it could have gone unnoticed. Were there any reports of large shoe prints found at any of the murder sites? (I'm not making fun of your question, just having fun picturing a guy with massive feet)

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hi DRoy,

Long was asked whether he had heard of a murder before he returned to the station, we don't know whether he had heard anything before he found the apron, let alone at the time of his first passing.

MrB

[GUT]

G'Day DRoy

I was thinking of like when you see someone with toilet paper stuck to their shoe, sometimes trailing feet behind them.

But as I said above really think f it wasn't deliberately placed there be someone a dog is possible, but I am not sure how common strays were,

[DRoy]

Hi DRoy,

Long was asked whether he had heard of a murder before he returned to the station, we don't know whether he had heard anything before he found the apron, let alone at the time of his first passing.

MrB

MrB,

Did you not read the rest of my post?

He found the apron at 2:55 and went to the station at 3:00 while commenting that it was common knowledge two murders had taken place.

Which is more likely?
a) He had confirmation of at least one murder prior to 2:55 (finding the apron)
b) He heard of both murders after finding the apron (2:55), spends five minutes checking the staircases (now 3:00), and before leaving to report his finding he is told of both murders

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

G'Day DRoy

I was thinking of like when you see someone with toilet paper stuck to their shoe, sometimes trailing feet behind them.

But as I said above really think f it wasn't deliberately placed there be someone a dog is possible, but I am not sure how common strays were,

GUT,

I assumed that was what you meant. The piece of apron was much too large to not notice stuck under his shoe. Picture half of a bar-b-que cooking apron stuck to your shoe.

I've heard of the dog carrying it away theory but I haven't a clue how many were actually running around. We do have a case of a certain someone fined for walking a dog without a leash so maybe this means strays were picked up relatively quickly?

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hi DRoy,

Surely for Long's knowledge to have any relevance to the time-gap, he would have to have been aware of the City murder before 2.20. The question is whether he made a thorough check then on the back of that knowledge. His inquest testimony only tells us that he was aware of one murder and rumours of a second some time before 3.00am, after he had been in contact with PC190H.

This doesn't quite gel with the idea that he was aware that both murders were 'common knowledge' before he left for the station. When he reached the station, yes. But prior to that I am less convinced, and at 2.20 I am very doubtful.

MrB

[GUT]

G'Day again DRoy

You say:

No, the piece found was approximately half of the apron.

Unless of course he had a size 86 mens shoe, then yes it could have gone unnoticed. Were there any reports of large shoe prints found at any of the murder sites? (I'm not making fun of your question, just having fun picturing a guy with massive feet)

But we don't actually know the size do we the only contemporaneous report I can find is:

Dr Frederick Gordon Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated on the first day of the Inquest, held on Thursday October 4th, that "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

So in reality we just don't know it's size do we "it was the corner of the apron with a string attached".

A Corner would, to me, certainly indicate something less than half.

[Observer]

Hi Gut

Both Halse, and Sir Henry Smith stated that half of Eddowes apron was missing. So a very sizeable section indeed.

Regards

Observer

[Observer]

The woman in the foreground in this pic of Dorset Street gives you an idea of the size of the aprons worn by women of that era.

Regards

Observer

[GUT]

G'Day Observer

Good picture and exactly as I imagined the apron to be, just like my Great Grandma wore, but a corner with string attached from the man who matched the pieces could mean any size.

I accept that the account of Eddowes property also says "a piece of apron" which, to me, implies a smaller sized part, but it is still not clear to me just how big the apron under the Graffiti was.

And yes I had read Halse and Smith, but will have to do so again, because it seems that Dr Brown was the one most closely associated with the Goulston Street piece and he only refers to a corner.

[GUT]

G'Day all

Jut reading part of Animal Rights: Political and Social Change in Britain Since 1800


On the question of dogs running free. In it the authors talks of the great fear throughout London in 1880's of Rabies and that police were empowered to muzzle dogs to try and prevent the spread, if such a fear was prevalent then one must suppose that there was no real shortage of dogs out and about, not under control.

[GUT]

Contrary to my above post however the author further on says:

"The removal of stray dogs from London was even advanced as a reason for Jack the Ripper being able to commit his crimes without raising suspicion."

An endnote is given for this quote unfortunately my copy has the endnotes missing.

So if that quote is correct by Autumn 1888 stray dogs had largely been removed from the scene.

So that suggestion ie that a dog carried the apron is perhaps dead.