Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Again, Fish, we do not have a definitive verbatim record that Long said "it was not there", nor that he said "it was definitely not there", still less "I know it was definitely not there, because I looked inside the doorway". Instead, we have Halse saying that "[Long] would not necessarily have seen it, because it was in the building". This view is strengthened by Swanson, who said that it was found "at the bottom of a common stairs". Every source indicates that the apron was located inside the passageway, not laid out at the entrance like a grotty "Welcome" mat, nor spilling out of the entrance onto the pavement. To the contrary, the apron had been thrown/placed in a recessed entrance-way, which is entirely conducive to, and consistent with, its being initially overlooked.

No, Gareth, you are misunderstanding things rather flagrantly here. Halse did not comment on whether Long should have seen the rag or not, he referred only to himself! And Halse was on another mission altogether than Long was, since Halse was searching the streets for people, and not bowing into doorways.

Long, on the other hand, WAS bowing into doorways, since that was HIS mission.

There is no reason at all to think or suggest, however, that the rag could not be seen from the street - clearly it COULD, if one took a look into the doorway! The rag was NOT hidden from sight for those who passed by in the street.

And how do I know this? I know it because Halse said that he did not notice the rag at 2.20, whereafter he hastened to add that he should "not necessarily" have done so since it was in the building.

Ergo, Halse COULD have seen the rag if he had glanced into the doorway, but he was on the prowl for people, and so it was no certain thing that he WOULD have noticed the rag, although it was plain to see - for those who peered into the doorway. The rag was in the building, it was not outside, in the open street - but the doorway was an open one, and the rag lay on it´s floor.

If Halse had known for sure that he could not possibly have seen the rag, he would not have said that he should not necessarily have seen it - he would arguably have said that he COULD NOT or WOULD NOT have seen it.

At any rate, he did NOT comment on whether Long should have seen it or not! But in a reversely logical way you have a point: Long would not have seen the rag at 2.20 - since it was not there at the time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Could the apron have been a marker for him of where he dropped off the organs...?

If he were a local, CD, he'd have known fairly well where to stash the organs, and where to recover them (opposite the chip-shop in Goulston Street ). He's also likely to have known that there was a good chance of the local vermin disposing of the organs fairly quickly. If it was his intention to keep his trophies, leaving them outside was probably not a good idea. He either took them home, or deliberately jettisoned them, knowing that they wouldn't last long in Ratsville.

[c.d.]

Hello Sam,

So I was right after all!!!! It was a bad idea.

c.d.

[Sam Flynn]

No, Gareth, you are misunderstanding things rather flagrantly here. Halse did not comment on whether Long should have seen the rag or not, he referred only to himself!

It counts for the same, Fish. If the apron could have been "easily overlooked" by Halse, then it could have been "easily overlooked" by anyone who didn't happen to look in the doorway.

BTW, I try not to do "flagrant misunderstanding" too often... I find it spoils a good argument.

[Sam Flynn]

There is no reason at all to think or suggest, however, that the rag could not be seen from the street - clearly it COULD, if one took a look into the doorway!

Precisely - IF you looked in the doorway.

The rag was NOT hidden from sight for those who passed by in the street.

It was effectively hidden to those not happening to turn their heads 90º to the left and gazing down as they walked past the entrance. An entrance which, by the way, would probably take you all of a second to walk past, even at trudging pace. If, during that second, your eyes aren't peering into and beyond the doorway, you're just not going to notice what's lying on the floor inside.

..."it was easily overlooked". Quite so.

[Fisherman]

It counts for the same, Fish. If the apron could have been "easily overlooked" by Halse, then it could have been "easily overlooked" by anyone who didn't happen to look in the doorway.

BTW, I try not to do "flagrant misunderstanding" too often... I find it spoils a good argument.

Halse did not comment on Longs possibilitites to find the apron - full stop! Arguing that he did, is to lead the true story astray in an unflattering manner.

Halse was in a haste, hurrying through the streets, focusing on whatever people he could find. We know he found a couple, and asked them about what they were doing there.
Clearly, we cannot compare this task to that of a PC who had the EXACT task to check doorways, and who had instructions to turn his head 90 degrees at EVERY doorway!

It is therefore much, much likelier that Long would find the rag if it was visible from the street, since it was his job.

I cannot contest your point that somebody who did not "happen to look into the doorway" could "easily have overlooked" the rag - when you don´t look, you don´t look, and then you won´t see.

I genuinely don´t think that the argument is useful to the discussion, though, since it is goes without saying.

Once again: Long said that the rag was not there at 2.20. If he did not check, he would not know. He knew. Ergo, he checked. The 2.55 check bears out that he did go about things in a manner that ensured his finding the rag at that stage - and we have ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to think that he would have done it differently at 2.20. He MAY have - but nothing speaks for it.

His word has to be good enough for us. We have no option but to accept that his words take precedence over whatever unsubstantiated ideas we may conjure up.

But we won´t get much further here, will we? You said the last time over that I wanted to have the last word. Let´s do it the other way around this time, for justice´s sake, Gareth: be my guest! I´ve had my say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Halse did not comment on Longs possibilitites to find the apron - full stop! Arguing that he did, is to lead the true story astray in an unflattering manner.

I explained - quite clearly - that what applied to Halse apropos the visibility of the apron would have applied to anyone else. Long's chances of noticing the apron were precisely described by Halse's own experience, and Halse's experience entirely supports the idea that Long simply overlooked it.

So please don't accuse me of "leading the true story astray". It's not nice, and it's simply not true.

[Sam Flynn]

Clearly, we cannot compare this task to that of a PC who had the EXACT task to check doorways, and who had instructions to turn his head 90 degrees at EVERY doorway!

Even if that were his exact task (and I doubt it), it doesn't follow that Long would have looked in every single doorway, every time he passed. Even if he did - and you may be sure that he didn't - would he also have looked at the floor of every doorway on his beat?

[Tom_Wescott]

I explained - quite clearly - that what applied to Halse apropos the visibility of the apron would have applied to anyone else. Long's chances of noticing the apron were precisely described by Halse's own experience, and Halse's experience entirely supports the idea that Long simply overlooked it.

So please don't accuse me of "leading the true story astray". It's not nice, and it's simply not true.

I thought the 'true story' was that Halse took the apron piece and placed it in Goulston Street himself? No doubt he did this at the same time that Amos Simpson was lifting Eddowes' bloody shawl. Monty's right, the City and Met police could work together in harmony when needed. And all this only to have John Kelly pilfer through her hat for loose change.

While I don't agree with Sam on this matter, what he says is plausible, which as you can see is not the case for many theorists. Is Sam leading the truth astray? Considering his version might actually BE the truth, I'd have to say no.

But of course the conclusion that either or both Halse or Long were either mistaken or lying is supposition. The actual facts as they are have the killer leaving Mitre Square for parts unknown and emerging later to make his way through Goulston Street. But a list of facts, if not complete, will not necessarily lead to the truth. So, my personal opinion is that Sam's version (which is agreed upon by many of the most knowledgeable among us) is the second most likely.

But it does irk me a bit that even the most ardent of police apologists, who otherwise espouse the view that the police could and would do no wrong, conveniently accuse them of mistakes or dishonesty when a certain set of facts emerge that prove inconvenient for their cozy and simple 'an unknown local Joe Blow did it' theory. Their arguments requires such a weighty amount of 'coincidence' in order to stay afloat that it sinks under the weight of itself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Wasn't Long looking for the killer and wasn't time of the essence? I would think his task would be to take a look into the doorway, confirm that there was no one hiding there and then continue the process as quickly as possible. If that were the case, I can see him missing the apron since, as Sam pointed out, he wouldn't necessarily be looking at the floor.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

I explained - quite clearly - that what applied to Halse apropos the visibility of the apron would have applied to anyone else. Long's chances of noticing the apron were precisely described by Halse's own experience, and Halse's experience entirely supports the idea that Long simply overlooked it.

So please don't accuse me of "leading the true story astray". It's not nice, and it's simply not true.

I said that you could have the last word if you wanted to, Gareth. But now I must reply.

I you feel offended by my post, I apologize. But let me explain why I think you are wrong:

The visibility of the apron would be the same to anybody passing by the doorway, provided that they pass it at the same distance, walking at the same speed etcetera. So on that count, you are right.

But the different tasks of Halse and Long changes the conditions dramatically.

Halse did not have any reason at all to glance to the side, since he was hurrying along the streets to find PEOPLE out on them. Once he entered an empty street, his focus would lie on entering the next street and so on. He would have moved at a high speed, trying to cover as much ground as possible.

Long, on the other hand, had the main objective to check the doorways on his rounds. If something else arose, he would be obliged to tend to that too, but on the whole, if no such other errand came his way, checking doorways was his priority numer one.

But this was not what had me saying that we should not lead the story astray - I pointed out that implying that Halse had commented on Longs possibilities to notice the apron was wrong.
This I did in reply to this statement of yours:
"...we have Halse saying that "[Long] would not necessarily have seen it, because it was in the building"

We do NOT have Halse saying anything of the sort. Halse commented on how he HIMSELF should not necessarily have seen the rag, but as I have pointed out, this would owe to the fact that he did not search doorways - he looked for people, and he was in a rush.

Therefore, Halse said not a word about whether Long should have noticed the rag or not. He may actually have been quite sure that Long must have seen the rag if it was there, given his mission to check the doorways.

The two cannot be compared, thus. It is not about eyesight, it is about the tasks awarded to the respective men and the patterns of movements that followed as a result of them.

Once again, I am sorry if I offended you. I hope that I have been very clear about why I said what I said.

In response to your question:

Even if that were his exact task (and I doubt it), it doesn't follow that Long would have looked in every single doorway, every time he passed. Even if he did - and you may be sure that he didn't - would he also have looked at the floor of every doorway on his beat?


Do you doubt that he was expected to check the doorways? I don´t.

Whether we think that he checked all, many, a few or no doorways is moot. Whether we believe he checked the floors is just as moot. He said that the rag was not in the particular doorway we discuss at 2.20. That´s why it is moot.
We may reason that he was a lazy man, and we may speak of how he lost his job later on. But that won´t affect the fact that he did a check of the doorway at 2.55 that produced the apron. This is the only checking point we have of how he worked - in a manner that secured the rag.

This may have been due to him diving into the doorway and shining his light, intensely searching the premises.

Or it may be the product of him taking a look into the doorway from a distance as he passed it, if the rag was easy enough to discern.

We really cannot tell.

But we CAN tell that if he dived into that doorway with his lantern guiding him, searching it intensely at 2.55, then there is no reason to suggest that he did not do so at 2.20.

Likewise, if the rag was easy enough to see from the street at 2.55, then it was easy enough to see from the street at 2.20 too.

The equation, at least, is an easy enough one.


All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Wasn't Long looking for the killer and wasn't time of the essence? I would think his task would be to take a look into the doorway, confirm that there was no one hiding there and then continue the process as quickly as possible. If that were the case, I can see him missing the apron since, as Sam pointed out, he wouldn't necessarily be looking at the floor.

c.d.

By the looks of things, Long did not know about the murders as he came down Goulston Street. He was informed by a colleague, it would seem, after having found the apron.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...it does irk me a bit that even the most ardent of police apologists, who otherwise espouse the view that the police could and would do no wrong, conveniently accuse them of mistakes or dishonesty when a certain set of facts emerge that prove inconvenient for their cozy and simple 'an unknown local Joe Blow did it' theory. Their arguments requires such a weighty amount of 'coincidence' in order to stay afloat that it sinks under the weight of itself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How about Mizen? Liar, clumsy, mistaken...? Or diligent, honest, truthful?

For another thread, of course. Just curious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

But this was not what had me saying that we should not lead the story astray - I pointed out that implying that Halse had commented on Longs possibilities to notice the apron was wrong.
This I did in reply to this statement of yours:
"...we have Halse saying that "[Long] would not necessarily have seen it, because it was in the building"

That was an error on my part, and not a deliberate attempt to mislead. My apologies.

Besides, as I said in my last post, if the apron was easily overlooked in Halse's estimation, he may as well be speaking for Everyman, PC Long included.

Halse commented on how he HIMSELF should not necessarily have seen the rag, but as I have pointed out, this would owe to the fact that he did not search doorways - he looked for people, and he was in a rush.

Halse said that it was easily overlooked, because it was inside the building; Swanson and Long's reports also bear this out. A rag thrown on the floor in a dark and recessed hallway would have been easily overlooked, even by someone scrupulously who made a point of turning his head towards every doorway he passed.

Incidentally, Long would have been looking for "people", too - vagrants, prostitutes or other ne'er-do-wells. A piece of manky cloth at floor-level was unlikely to have made much of an impact on his senses, even if he used that passing second to flick his gaze towards the doorway.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: That was an error on my part, and not a deliberate attempt to mislead. My apologies.

Apologies accepted, Gareth - I´m just glad that you can see why I disliked the wording!

Besides, as I said in my last post, if the apron was easily overlooked in Halse's estimation, he may as well be speaking for Everyman, PC Long included. So, just to playfully annoy you, "...we have Halse saying that [anybody] would not necessarily have seen it, because it was in the building".

But that´s just as bad, Gareth! Halse speaks only about HIMSELF. He does not comment on whether other people, doing other jobs altogether, would have seen it!!! What he said about himself does not apply to anybody BUT himself. In the situation that he was in, he was not sure that he should necessarily have seen the rag.
If he had not been rushing through the streets in search op people, but instead walking at a slow pace, checking doorways, then he would arguably make another stimation of his chances to see the rag.

We-cannot-use-what-Halse-said-to-bolster-a-belief-that-Long-would/could/should-have-overlooked-the-rag!

Halse said that it was easily overlooked, because it was inside the building; Swanson and Long's reports also bear this out. A rag thrown on the floor in a dark and recessed hallway would have been easily overlooked, even by someone scrupulously who made a point of turning his head towards every doorway he passed.

WHERE does Halse say that the rag was "easily overlooked"?? Are you extrapolating his mentioning that he should not necessarily have seen the rag into him meaning that the rag was easily overlooked? We don´t know how deep into the doorway the rag was placed, we don´t know the exact lighting conditions - but we DO know that Halse implicated that the rag COULD be seen when "passing over the spot" - if you looked!

Incidentally, Long would have been looking for "people", too - vagrants, prostitutes or other ne'er-do-wells.

Yes - if they were to be seen. If the street was empty, it would be another story. Then he´d just check doorways, right?

A piece of manky cloth at floor-level was unlikely to have made much of an impact on his senses, even if he used that passing second to flick his gaze towards the doorway.

Where does the "passing second" come from? How do we know that he was not a lot more thorough? How do we know that he did not step into the doorway? Why would we suggest when we don´t know? A few posts away, you implied that the smell of the rag would be such as to make it hard to hide - but now you say that Longs senses would not react to such a thing? The rag was also wet with blood - maybe that would have an impact on Longs senses?

All the best,
Fisherman