Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

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.

So, how big was this portion of apron found in Goulston Street?
We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
(Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
(Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

[GUT]

G'Day Jon

I'd just been off re-reading on those issues and in retrospect agree that bthe apron was probably far to big to have been stuck to his shoe and as I say above a stray dog seems now highly unlikely, so the only viable answer would seem to be the hand of man.

[Bridewell]

What Long Was Aware Of

Long's inquest testimony includes the following:

"When I found the piece of apron I at once searched the staircase leading to the Buildings. I did not make any enquiry at the tenements of the Buildings. There were 6 or 7 staircases. I searched every one, found no traces of blood or recent footmarks. Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square."

The sequence seems to be that he found the piece of apron, conducted thorough searches as a result, heard of a murder in Mitre Square, then went to the police station.

No mention, at that point, of his knowing about the Stride murder. With no radio communication, the beat officers would have been appraised of any information they needed by sergeants and inspectors when they made points. Would the supervisory officers have had time to do this in the aftermath of a murder, or would they have been committed elsewhere? I'm not sure. I don't think we can safely assume that he knew about the Stride murder.

Btw, what is the source for Long saying that it was common knowledge that there had been two murders? I can't find it in the Ultimate.
(N.B. I'm not saying there is no such reference - just that I haven't seen it.)

[Hunter]

It was the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford who is reported to have made the statement you refer to. Here is the transcript of the inquest session of Oct. 11, as reported by the Evening News:

Mr Crawford - It is common knowledge that two murders were committed that morning, which had you heard of?

Constable Long - Of the one in Mitre square. When I left I left in charge of the stair Constable 190 of the H Division of the metropolitan police. I told him to observe if any one left or entered. I returned to the building about five o'clock.

[Bridewell]

Thanks for that, Hunter. As I read it, Long was saying that he was aware of the Mitre Square but (by implication) that he was not (at the time of the apron incident) aware of the Stride murder on his own force area.

[DRoy]

Colin,

That is how I read it as well. All he is saying is that before leaving, he knew of one for sure, not positively about the second.

Hunter,

According to The Daily Telegraph October 5, it is Long that stated it was common knowledge regarding the two murders. Not sure which version is actually correct but it would seem odd for the question would come from Crawford that way as he'd be quite leading the witness. Was it common knowledge at 3:00 or not?

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

Long had not testified by Oct. 5. The last witness on Oct. 4th was Dr. Brown.

[Hunter]

The DT of Oct. 12th gives Longs testimony and it still is Crawford who makes the "common knowledge" remark leading up to the question about which murder Long has heard of.

[DRoy]

Hunter,

Yes, I was incorrect about the day it was reported in The Daily Telegraph on the 12th. However, they quote Long as the one commenting on the two murders being common knowledge. I wonder if there is a different source to clarify who said it?

Cheers
DRoy

[Prosector]

PC Long has always seemed to me to be one of the least reliable of the policemen on the ground. At the inquest he forgot to take his notebook with him and was sent back to get it by the Coroner. Of the two versions of the graffito that were copied down his is generally regarded as the less likely. He was castigated at the inquest for not having searched the building as soon as possible after finding the apron and the graffito. So the fact that he may not have noticed it on his earlier pass down Goulston Street does not altogether surprise me.

Prosector

[DRoy]

Prosector,

The reasons you noted as Long being unreliable really have nothing at all to do with whether the apron was there at 2:20 or not.

Forgot to take his notebook? Where do you get this from? He obviously had given his report previously when he most likely had his pocketbook hence the Coroner and Crawford questioned him about the word 'not' and the spelling of 'Jews'. He likely didn't think he'd need his notebook in the physical form.

Long gives reasons why he didn't search the buildings right away. He left someone to watch the dwellings and keep track of the coming and goings. By the way, it was a Juror who was upset about Long not searching the dwellings, not Crawford or Langham.

Long left for the police station at about 3 and returned around 5. Why did it take two hours for them to return? This time is backed up by Crawford as well. This to me is much worse than Long not searching the dwellings immediately. However, if the killer was in one of the rooms then he would have been picked up when the dwellings were searched.

One of the most unreliable policeman on the ground? Pretty harsh with nothing to substantiate that view, IMHO.

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

Long left for the police station at about 3 and returned around 5. Why did it take two hours for them to return? This time is backed up by Crawford as well. This to me is much worse than Long not searching the dwellings immediately...

After presenting the apron piece at Commercial St. Station, Long went to Leman St. Station and handed it over to Divisional Surgeon, G.B. Phillips.

[DRoy]

Hunter,

Thanks, it still doesn't make sense what took so long (no pun intended) for policemen to go to the scene regardless where Long took the piece of apron.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

PC Long has always seemed to me to be one of the least reliable of the policemen on the ground. At the inquest he forgot to take his notebook with him and was sent back to get it by the Coroner. Of the two versions of the graffito that were copied down his is generally regarded as the less likely. He was castigated at the inquest for not having searched the building as soon as possible after finding the apron and the graffito. So the fact that he may not have noticed it on his earlier pass down Goulston Street does not altogether surprise me.

Prosector

I agree with this. His pocket book was his original note and it is a basic error for a police officer not to have it in his possession when giving evidence. It's not a mistake I ever made in my service and I don't recall any of my colleagues doing so either.

I've raised this before, but it bears repeating I think. When the 'A' Division Commander was told he must send officers to assist 'H' Division he will not have sent his best officers, but those he could most easily manage without. Is that an unfair observation? I don't think so. It's what happens today, so I'd be surprised if it didn't happen then. Long was dismissed in July 1889 for being drunk on duty.

[Bridewell]

He likely didn't think he'd need his notebook in the physical form.

The wording of the GSG was in dispute, but Long didn't think he might be asked to produce the pocket book in which he'd noted the content?

One of the most unreliable policeman on the ground? Pretty harsh with nothing to substantiate that view, IMHO.

He couldn't be relied upon to take the relevant pocket book when he was to give evidence at a high profile inquest. There is no record that I've seen of any other police witness making this most basic of errors. Was it a one-off mistake? We don't know, but it was a kindergarten error for a police witness so the claim that there is nothing to substantiate the view that Long was "one of the most unreliable policemen on the ground" is incorrect.