Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Michael W Richards]

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?

Hi Gut,,

There is a very specific criteria when considering how the cloth may have been transported if by a human....someone who was at Mitre Square before being at the entrance to the Model Homes. The supposition is that the killer is the one that must have transported the apron section, however we know of at least one other individual that was at both locations.... in the correct order.

I believe its time to stop assuming that the cloth was there but PC Long must have missed it.....the directness of his statement on the matter does not leave that possibility open. So, if we have a foundation that is stable enough to build on with that remark, (and in the absence of any evidence that PC Long is untrustworthy), the question is how did it get there and who brought it there....we can establish using Longs statement that it must have been dropped or placed within slightly more than a 20 minute window...the timing of his passes by that spot.

So, if its between 2:20 and almost 3am, it cannot conceivably have been dropped by the killer still on his way home from Mitre Square.

Which raises this question.....why not destroy it? Why take it out again if he had a bolt hole to leave it in? Why place or drop it at that spot?

Those questions lead to the issue of the writings possible connection with that cloth, and based on the above, I see a great argument for someone to have planted the cloth and writing as a means of assigning "blame". Maybe completely without any factual evidence, perhaps with some. Like a woman being killed on Immigrant Jews private property that same night...and unlike a ripper style killing.

Cheers

[MrBarnett]

t.....the directness of his statement on the matter does not leave that possibility open.
Cheers

So, Michael, do you believe that in the history of British jurisprudence, no police officer has ever told a lie in court?

MrB

[GUT]

G'Day Mr B

This question can be best answered by any serving or ex police officers on the boards.

I can tell you that if a police officer in cross examination cannot or will not produce his notebook when called upon to do so will cast, almost always, irreparable doubt on the evidence he gives.

I might add that this does not only apply to police but anyone who clams to have made contemporaneous notes, or might reasonably be expected to have done so.

[GUT]

G'Day Michael

You will note that I posted earlier that the dog appears to be a non starter.

Human intervention is the only logical explanation, but the big question is which human, and just because we have one we know might fit the bill doesn't mean that there aren't others we know nothing about.

[Michael W Richards]

So, Michael, do you believe that in the history of British jurisprudence, no police officer has ever told a lie in court?

MrB

Im certain some have Mr Barnett, the criteria for assuming this was the case in PC Longs statement is absent...where is there evidence that he lied, lied in the past, or lied in the future? Granted, if he was never caught in a lie then its a difficult thing to assess, but I would look for some kind of reason to question his integrity before assuming its malformed.

Cheers

[MrBarnett]

Michael,

I was challenging your statement that Long's evidence should not be questioned. Even if we knew nothing about Long, surely we must assume that the possibility of his lying to cover up a mistake was there. And knowing that he made a basic procedural error in forgetting his notebook, and that he was subsequently sacked for drunkenness would seem to strengthen that assumption.

MrB

[Jon Guy]

Mr B

And knowing that he made a basic procedural error in forgetting his notebook,

Was it a basic procedural error in forgetting his notebook ?

At the end of a shift didn`t the policeman have to hand his notebook (if there had been an incident) to his Sergeant or Inspector so that a report can be made out.

Long`s inquest appearance was 11 days after the murders and the notebook was only requested after questions arose as to the spelling of the GSG. I can`t recall any other policeman referring to his notebook during a Whitechapel murders inquest appearance.

Also, although I don`t condone Long being drunk on duty it is a fact that the rules regarding this were recently tightened up as it was common place for a policeman on his beat to take a drink. There were lots of police dismissed for this at this time.

[Stewart P Evans]

PC Long

Bearing in mind that Eddowes' body had been found at 1.45 a.m., and that the murderer would have fled through Goulston Street only minutes after the deed, the bloodstained apron would have been deposited in the doorway before 2 a.m. This, as we have seen, does not tie in with PC Long's statement of events which, if it is to be believed, indicates that the murderer returned and left the apron after 2.20 a.m. This, clearly, is an unthinkable course of action for a killer fleeing the scene of his crime. What is far more likely is that the apron and the writing on the wall were indeed there when PC Long passed at 2.20 a.m. but that he did not spot them. No doubt part of his brief for patrol was to check all doorways, recesses, and courts as he passed and he would not have been able to admit that he had failed in his duty without getting into serious trouble.

The fact that police officers were only too aware of the punitive measures they were subject to was highlighted in an article in the Star of the East of Monday 1 October 1888. The writer, displaying unusual insight into police practices, stated:

In view of the mystery which surrounds the whereabouts of the murderer or murderers, it might be suggested that the police authorities should take the constables into their confidence, and, for the time being, considering the exceptional circumstances attending the murders, put aside a very stringent rule of the service, the enforcement of which under ordinary conditions is absolutely necessary. For instance, it is by no means unusual, doing duty in the streets, to have suspicious incidents come under his observation of which he takes no notice until after he learns of a crime such as has just rekindled public indignation. Under existing circumstances, an officer who made known such 'negligence' would undoubtedly be dismissed the service, and in view of this it cannot be expected that any officer would knowingly bring about his own discharge. Information which might be of the greatest importance as regards a case such as the present is possibly withheld for the very reason that, unless the authorities relax their severity, the man would be bringing about his own downfall. - Stewart P Evans, 1993.

[DRoy]

Because the record in the notebook had a significance that a recollection did not. If so, long was negligent in forgetting it.

MrB,

Show me something that he was required to take his notebook to the inquest. Show me it was mandatory and negligence if it wasn't brought. With all due respect to Colin and other former officers, they weren't around in 1888. Perhaps things are different?

While you are digging for that proof, please also consider answering these... What is the significance of the notebook if he quoted his notebook word for word? Was his recollection incorrect in any way? Did his notebook differ at all from the inspector's report? Did he even give the slightest doubt in his testimony? Was Halse asked to produce his notebook at the inquest?

Cheers
DRoy

[Abby Normal]

Bearing in mind that Eddowes' body had been found at 1.45 a.m., and that the murderer would have fled through Goulston Street only minutes after the deed, the bloodstained apron would have been deposited in the doorway before 2 a.m. This, as we have seen, does not tie in with PC Long's statement of events which, if it is to be believed, indicates that the murderer returned and left the apron after 2.20 a.m. This, clearly, is an unthinkable course of action for a killer fleeing the scene of his crime. What is far more likely is that the apron and the writing on the wall were indeed there when PC Long passed at 2.20 a.m. but that he did not spot them. No doubt part of his brief for patrol was to check all doorways, recesses, and courts as he passed and he would not have been able to admit that he had failed in his duty without getting into serious trouble.

The fact that police officers were only too aware of the punitive measures they were subject to was highlighted in an article in the Star of the East of Monday 1 October 1888. The writer, displaying unusual insight into police practices, stated:

In view of the mystery which surrounds the whereabouts of the murderer or murderers, it might be suggested that the police authorities should take the constables into their confidence, and, for the time being, considering the exceptional circumstances attending the murders, put aside a very stringent rule of the service, the enforcement of which under ordinary conditions is absolutely necessary. For instance, it is by no means unusual, doing duty in the streets, to have suspicious incidents come under his observation of which he takes no notice until after he learns of a crime such as has just rekindled public indignation. Under existing circumstances, an officer who made known such 'negligence' would undoubtedly be dismissed the service, and in view of this it cannot be expected that any officer would knowingly bring about his own discharge. Information which might be of the greatest importance as regards a case such as the present is possibly withheld for the very reason that, unless the authorities relax their severity, the man would be bringing about his own downfall. - Stewart P Evans, 1993.

Thank you for posting this Mr Evans-very informative.

This, clearly, is an unthinkable course of action for a killer fleeing the scene of his crime.

But so is murdering and mutilating a women after just murdering another woman ten minutes away. Returning later to drop the apron and scribble some graffito might seem crazy to us, but may have been peanuts in the killers mind, compared to what he was used to doing!

Long was pretty emphatic it was not there the first time around, and unless there is any evidence to show he was incorrect, IMHO we should lean toward believing him.

[DRoy]

Long was pretty emphatic it was not there the first time around, and unless there is any evidence to show he was incorrect, IMHO we should lean toward believing him.

Abby,

I agree. Halse didn't see the apron either and he said he passed over that spot at 2:20 which is the same time Long was supposed to have found it. Obviously one of them was off by a at least a couple minutes. Halse would have passed the spot first otherwise he would have seen Long or Bettles and he didn't see the apron.

Regardless of Halse's reasons for saying he may not have noticed the apron if it was there, he admits so at the inquest. So for those who say Long is lying to protect himself, I don't think it holds much clout when there is no report of reprimand for Halse not seeing it or admitting he may not have seen it even if it was there.

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

Thank you, Stewart, for your input and providing that press clipping. I had been searching for it in my files to post - remembering your referencing it before... says a lot when one is considering Long's situation at the time.

Don Souden (Supe) wrote a comprehensive article on this very subject in NIR a while back. I wish he was able to get in on this discussion right now.

[Michael W Richards]

I also appreciate Stewart weighing in on the matter.

I cant however agree with the assumption that Long must have missed the cloth. Separating the writing from the cloth for a moment, I could easily understand if he missed seeing the writing, and I can see arguments that leave open the possibility that the writing preceded the cloth at that location, but if the cloth was left between that pass at 2:20 and the next time round by the killer of Kate Eddowes, I would suggest a stronger case would exist for both the cloth and the writing to be linked with that particular killer, in that it would seem the location for the "drop" as it were was selected by the killer. He had no need at that point to be fleeing or hurried...if he had already dropped off the organs somewhere and only had some chalk and that bloodied cloth on him. He might be stopped and questioned, but clearly the man in question was a cool cucumber when it comes to under pressure scenarios.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'Day Stewart

Thanks for that post.

[GUT]

G'Day Jon Guy

Was it a basic procedural error in forgetting his notebook ?

At the end of a shift didn't the policeman have to hand his notebook (if there had been an incident) to his Sergeant or Inspector so that a report can be made out.

An massive procedural error, read my earlier post about a witness who purports to have written contemporaneous notes and the doesn't, can't or won't produce them.

I have never known a police officer to be on duty, and on duty his is when giving evidence, not to have his notebook with him.

As far as I am aware the officer has always been responsible for producing his own reports. As a matter of practicality how could a Sergeant or Inspector be expected to compile the reports for every officer under his command?