Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

Incredibly important. If the apron is to stand any chance of having been there by 2.20, PC Long's performance has to be called into question. But while it can be argued that a poor performance could have caused him to miss something that was there, it doesn't help put that item there.

Again, Long could have performed pitifully at 2.20 and the apron would have had no more chance of being present than absent at that time. All we know is that at 2.55 he performed well enough to spot it, examine it and connect it with a possible crime of violence.

Credit where it's due.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

Its not just about performance, its about recall and honesty also.

There is the whole picture to observe.

Monty

x

[Jon Guy]

Hi Caz

From previous posts here and over at jtr forums, the sequence of events implied by the relevant reported testimony appears to be as follows

1) Long finds the apron at 2.55, quickly followed by the writing above it.:

Agreed

2) He sets about an initial search in and around that entrance, connecting the apron with a possible crime of violence and thinking the victim could be in that immediate vicinity.

Long knew there had been a murder when he found the rag because he was asked by a juror at the inquest

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.

It doesn't appear to make much sense that he would have searched for another victim before proceeding there, if he only noticed and examined the apron as a result of hearing about the murder in Mitre Square.

But , if he had heard of a murder in the City, and rumours of another then why not a third murder ? One in the city, one south of Commercial Rd and now one in Spitalfields.

[DRoy]

Perhaps he saw the apron piece at 2:20 but thought little of it since besides blood it had what appeared to be fecal matter on it. However, after learning of the murder(s), he picked it up this time as it could now be considered a possible clue.

Cheers
DRoy

[harry]

Loiter,in my dictionary,is to waste time on the way,to hang about.On the information to hand,I doubt the Ripper loitered in Mitre Square,Berner street,Hanbury Street,after killing Nichols,or upon leaving Millers Court,and especially not in Wentworth Model Dwellings.

[The Good Michael]

Loiter,in my dictionary,is to waste time on the way,to hang about.On the information to hand,I doubt the Ripper loitered in Mitre Square,Berner street,Hanbury Street,after killing Nichols,or upon leaving Millers Court,and especially not in Wentworth Model Dwellings.

Harry,

I agree, but he could have lived in the WMD and technically wouldn't have been loitering.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Its not just about performance, its about recall and honesty also.

There is the whole picture to observe.

Monty

x

Yeah, that's fine, Monty. Just add recall and honesty to performance in the context of my post and see what difference it makes.

I'll tell you - no difference at all.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz

Long knew there had been a murder when he found the rag because he was asked by a juror at the inquest

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.

That's not necessarily so, Jon. Long only thought the apron could indicate a nearby crime of violence, prompting him to look for a body. It stands to reason that if he had been right, there was also a murderer, but he'd have more likely fled the scene by then, explaining Long's response. He was, after all, only working in 'H' Div because a vicious murderer was believed to be at large there, and his job was to keep his eyes peeled for clues. That doesn't mean he knew that another murder (another two in fact) would be, or had been committed that very night, by the time he came across that apron and suspected foul play.

Long's testimony clearly implies that he took the apron to the police station upon learning of the body in Mitre Square. That would be quite misleading if he actually learned about the murder before he even found the apron, then conducted his brief search for a body before finally heading off to the cop shop with his prize.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Perhaps he saw the apron piece at 2:20 but thought little of it since besides blood it had what appeared to be fecal matter on it. However, after learning of the murder(s), he picked it up this time as it could now be considered a possible clue.

Cheers
DRoy

That's a most convenient explanation for those who really, really want the apron to have been there at 2.20 for some reason. But all the evidence suggests otherwise. PC Long could have said so with no comeback if the victim's apron had just been a dirty, smelly old bit of rag until he learned about the latest murder and realised it might be a clue upon seeing it again just 35 minutes later. Halse was not even criticised for not checking the location in which Long found this very important clue.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Loiter,in my dictionary,is to waste time on the way,to hang about.On the information to hand,I doubt the Ripper loitered in Mitre Square,Berner street,Hanbury Street,after killing Nichols,or upon leaving Millers Court,and especially not in Wentworth Model Dwellings.

I agree totally, Harry. Loitering will in all probability not be the reason for him not depositing the rag in the doorway until later. It would predispose that the killer was a deeply disorganized character, and if he had been, he would have gotten caught.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry,

I agree, but he could have lived in the WMD and technically wouldn't have been loitering.

Mike

That could be correct. But I think it is wrong. Only the fewest and the stupidest would drop a clue on their own doorstep. And once again, I do not think we are dealing with a stupid killer. Not even close, if you ask me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Yeah, that's fine, Monty. Just add recall and honesty to performance in the context of my post and see what difference it makes.

I'll tell you - no difference at all.

Love,

Caz
X

Yeah, I did, however it wouldn't be prudent to just focus on one factor and ignore the others.

Im not stating the apron was or was not there, and, to be honest, its a moot point unless you are a suspect theorist and your suspect/theory is supported one way, or the other, by the said apron being there, or not.

The fact is it was there at 2.55 am, and it belonged to Eddowes. Everything else is just bluster, 69 pages of it. It was debated in 1999 when I joined these boards, and still is now.

Progress made on if it was there at 2.20am? none.

Except we now know that Long was in trouble for drink more than once in his career, with one misdemeanour occurring a 6 or so weeks after finding the apron piece. However, that is significant only in terms of Longs character, not the events of that night, though the impact of drink on Longs working life was significant enough to get him suspended, declassified, retarded and subsequently dismissed within a year.

Apart from that, Im sure he was a capable constable.

Monty

[Monty]

That's a most convenient explanation for those who really, really want the apron to have been there at 2.20 for some reason. But all the evidence suggests otherwise. PC Long could have said so with no comeback if the victim's apron had just been a dirty, smelly old bit of rag until he learned about the latest murder and realised it might be a clue upon seeing it again just 35 minutes later. Halse was not even criticised for not checking the location in which Long found this very important clue.

Love,

Caz
X

Why would Halse be checking in that location?

Monty

[caz]

Im not stating the apron was or was not there, and, to be honest, its a moot point unless you are a suspect theorist and your suspect/theory is supported one way, or the other, by the said apron being there, or not.

Could have been me saying that, Monty. Agree wholeheartedly.

The fact is it was there at 2.55 am, and it belonged to Eddowes. Everything else is just bluster, 69 pages of it. It was debated in 1999 when I joined these boards, and still is now.

Progress made on if it was there at 2.20am? none.

Again, no argument from me there.

Except we now know that Long was in trouble for drink more than once in his career, with one misdemeanour occurring a 6 or so weeks after finding the apron piece. However, that is significant only in terms of Longs character, not the events of that night, though the impact of drink on Longs working life was significant enough to get him suspended, declassified, retarded and subsequently dismissed within a year.

Apart from that, Im sure he was a capable constable.

But it is precisely your 'except' that is this thread's lifeblood. PC Long's shortcomings are absolutely vital for those who presume the killer would have sensibly dumped the apron in Goulston directly after leaving his victim. PC Long would have to have been less than thoroughly observant/honest/sober or whatever, for that to even be a possibility. But Long could have been thoroughly unobservant (or whatever) at 2.20 and it would have no possible bearing on the apron's whereabouts at that time. It might have been there; it might not.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Why would Halse be checking in that location?

Monty

I may have this wrong, in which case apologies. But I thought I read that Halse had left Mitre Square, knowing about the murder, and passed along Goulston St at 2.20 (missing Long in the process?). Should his routine not have included checking as he went for clues about the murderer and his possible escape route? I don't know he had direct orders to look in the entrances or go inside to check them, but it would seem an obvious thing to do in the circumstances, while passing.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

But it is precisely your 'except' that is this thread's lifeblood. PC Long's shortcomings are absolutely vital for those who presume the killer would have sensibly dumped the apron in Goulston directly after leaving his victim. PC Long would have to have been less than thoroughly observant/honest/sober or whatever, for that to even be a possibility. But Long could have been thoroughly unobservant (or whatever) at 2.20 and it would have no possible bearing on the apron's whereabouts at that time. It might have been there; it might not.

Hmmm, maybe.

Long could have been ice cold sober, and extremely on the ball, yet still missed it. There is the matter of location, and time. A simple case of him having to make up time could have resulted in either a missing of the apron or the not bothering to walk across every recess to have a look.

There are lots of factors which could have impacted on him missing the apron at 2.20am, including his record, however on the scant information we have available to us now, we only have his word for it that it was not there at 2.20am, and yes, that's all we can go on.

However, I advise against betting the family jewels upon it just yet.

Monty