Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[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

No, just curious. Halse wasn't aware about the apron at this time, so would be looking for persons, which he found two of in Wentworth Street. That gives us an idea he was looking for the culprit, not clues.

Yes, he could have looked in the doorways, however I suspect he was doing the briefest of sweeps for people, before returning back to Mitre Square and seeking clues there.

Monty

[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.

Caz,

I was offering a suggestion, not an explanation. I don't have an agenda or a suspect so it doesn't matter to me either way.

I'm leaning more towards the apron piece being missed by Long at 2:20 but can be convinced otherwise by something other than him saying it wasn't there (no proof the inquest wording is an exact quote, I think it's obvious it would be next to impossible to choose which one was even closest to the original quote).

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Hi everyone,

I'm going out on a limb here with this post but it is my personal opinion and speculation based on the evidence. By all means, feel free to comment...

Let's consider the following about Long...

- He didn't spot the graffito until looking for blood after finding the apron. He couldn't tell if it was new or old which means he didn't spot it earlier. If it was there how did he miss it and if it wasn't there before why did it take him to look for blood when the writing was white chalk on black facia? It was obvious enough the police removed it so why the difficulty in Long finding it?

- Long might have got the GSG wrong in placing the 'now' in the wrong spot and spelling 'Jews' differently.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place.
Sounds to me like The Coroner feels Long was being misleading/fibbing a bit/holding back...doesn't it?

- I read and interpret his testimony as such... after telling his summary version he probably assumed he'd get a few questions which he'd answer matter of factly then he'd be on his way. Yet something happened...Crawford questioned him on the graffito and his confidence seemed to dwindle.
His answers instead of sounding matter of fact, instead sound pressured into admitting he may have got the spelling wrong and put a word in the wrong place!
The Coroner directs him to get his notebook which must have been quite embarrassing for him. He returns and again seems to have little confidence when discussing the GSG.
He doesn't get the Constable's name who he left for two hours at the sight.
He doesn't hear of the objections of having the GSG rubbed out although we know there was objections.
A Juror 'rips' him for not checking the dwellings.
He admits to not knowing about the back of the buildings as it was his first time on duty there. In other words, he didn't know what to look for or where to look because it was his first day.

All in all, his testimony bombed. He got 'ripped' by Crawford, The Coroner and a Juror, while also giving testimony about the GSG where he offers evidence that differs from Halse and other reports about the GSG.

I'm not saying any of this means he missed the apron at 2:20 however I think it helps establish a better understanding of his character...in my opinion of course. This has helped push me closer to believing he missed it at 2:20 and therefore there isn't much of a time-gap...in my opinion.

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

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

Hi Christer

Yes I have to agree with that...however, it did occur to me to wonder whether earlier on the killer had concealed himself somewhere within the WMD for some reason, (hearing someone approaching perhaps), only emerging, discarding the rag as he did so, after hearing Long pass at 2.20

Can't really see it, but it's possible I suppose

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Caz,

I was offering a suggestion, not an explanation. I don't have an agenda or a suspect so it doesn't matter to me either way.

I'm leaning more towards the apron piece being missed by Long at 2:20 but can be convinced otherwise by something other than him saying it wasn't there (no proof the inquest wording is an exact quote, I think it's obvious it would be next to impossible to choose which one was even closest to the original quote).

Cheers
DRoy

Exact quote? Itīs a toss-up between:

Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.

and

Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - The apron was not there at the time.

Not exactly devlishly varying.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Not exactly devlishly varying.

Fish,

Those are two choices we have yes. Look at the other inquest reports, they vary all over the place.

I also specifically said I'm looking for evidence other than because he said so. You haven't done that yet Fish, you instead gave me exactly what I'm not asking for. Thanks though.

Cheers
DRoy

[Mr Lucky]

Alfred Long had claimed he found something, and additionally he stated quite clearly that it wasn’t there previously when he was at the same location. At the time he actually had three options, he could state;-

The apron wasn’t there earlier
The apron was there earlier
He didn’t know

He was under no pressure other than to tell the truth. The importance of this cannot be overstated;- whether someone had the capacity to place the apron there at the correct time or not, could be the difference between their guilt or innocence.

So was it there at 2,20 or not ? Most people are quite capable of distinguishing between something that they had seen for the first time compared with something that they have seen previously. Long was clear that it was not there earlier, he realised it was ‘new’ to him personally and this caused him to investigate further. There is no real potential to be confused about this.

The much repeated notion that as Long wasn’t the Mets best officer we can not trust him with evidence of this kind is absurd, as is the claim that he drinks devalues what he stated. This is the kind of evidence that would be admissible from a child. Let’s be honest about this, if Long’s Testimony cannot be relied on regarding this point then it cannot be due to witness competency or the complexity of the issue itself. It can only be due to Long’s wilful and deliberate perjury.

If Long didn’t actually know whether the apron was there or not at 2.20 when he said that it wasn’t, as those in this thread claim, then he was wilfully lying, and he would be aiding the killer escaping from justice. Why would he do this ? - Those accusing him have yet to say.

Or Long is giving Testimony according to his oath and the apron wasn’t there at 2.20.

[harry]

Dave,
Your suggestion that the killer was in Wentworth buildind,may not be so far off.There is the time gap to explain,but as there is no indication what the killer did on leaving Eddowes,whether he momentarily panicked and took a wrong direction initially,or was extremely cautious and had to shelter from view often,it could be that he stepped into the building to avoid Long,both having reached that location at about the same time.So Long could be telling the truth,and the rag still there very shortly after 2.20.As for Long seeing him first,who would be the most alert?

[Fisherman]

Fish,

Those are two choices we have yes. Look at the other inquest reports, they vary all over the place.

Cheers
DRoy

They really donīt, DRoy, nor when it comes to Longīs certainty. Some donīt mention the business, like the Morning Advertiser, but those who do all give a picture of a man that was certain. If you have examples of wordings to the contrary, I would like to see them out here.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

Let's consider the following about Long...

- He didn't spot the graffito until looking for blood after finding the apron. He couldn't tell if it was new or old which means he didn't spot it earlier. If it was there how did he miss it and if it wasn't there before why did it take him to look for blood when the writing was white chalk on black facia? It was obvious enough the police removed it so why the difficulty in Long finding it?

I donīt see that he had any difficulty finding the GSG, DRoy. He noticed the rag first, whether from the street or from having walked into the doorway as a routine, we donīt know. But we do know that when he found the rag, he took a closer look in the doorway, and then he saw the GSG. I donīt think it was any more difficult than that.

- Long might have got the GSG wrong in placing the 'now' in the wrong spot and spelling 'Jews' differently.
[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place.
Sounds to me like The Coroner feels Long was being misleading/fibbing a bit/holding back...doesn't it?

To me, it only sounds like a coroner trying to work out what it said on the wall. There were discrepancies. Halse also differed, but nobody is saying that the coroner thought he mislead intentionally.

- I read and interpret his testimony as such... after telling his summary version he probably assumed he'd get a few questions which he'd answer matter of factly then he'd be on his way. Yet something happened...Crawford questioned him on the graffito and his confidence seemed to dwindle.
His answers instead of sounding matter of fact, instead sound pressured into admitting he may have got the spelling wrong and put a word in the wrong place!

It would have been hard for him to claim that he was the one who was correct and that the rest were amateurs, considering that he was a mere PC. So there was little he could do, but to accept that he could have been wrong.

The Coroner directs him to get his notebook which must have been quite embarrassing for him. He returns and again seems to have little confidence when discussing the GSG.
He doesn't get the Constable's name who he left for two hours at the sight.
He doesn't hear of the objections of having the GSG rubbed out although we know there was objections.
A Juror 'rips' him for not checking the dwellings.
He admits to not knowing about the back of the buildings as it was his first time on duty there. In other words, he didn't know what to look for or where to look because it was his first day.

But now you are only looking at one side of the coin. His notebook confirmed what he had said earlier. There would have been no need for him to get the name of the other PC, since he correctly was able to identify him as No 190 H division. He need not have been in earshot of the objections to rubbing the GSG out, and it was a matter he could not influence in any way anyhow. The juror you say ripped him also commanded him and the police. And being new on the job will always mean that you donīt know all the details.

All in all, his testimony bombed. He got 'ripped' by Crawford, The Coroner and a Juror, while also giving testimony about the GSG where he offers evidence that differs from Halse and other reports about the GSG.

I think you are very much exaggerating things:
" I do not wish to say anything to reflect upon you, because I consider that altogether the evidence of the police redounds to their credit." and "I am sure you did what you deemed best."

Thereīs also the Morning Advertisers report to consider:

A juror repeated what he had already said as to his surprise that the clue furnished by the finding of the apron in the passage of the building in Goulston street was not followed up by a search of the building himself. The evidence of Police constable Long and that of all the constables that had been given certainly redounded to their credit - (hear, hear, from the jury) - but it did seem strange that the clue was not followed up by searching the rest of the building, and not confining the search merely to the staircases. He asked the witness whether it did not occur to him that that should have been done.

Constable Long - I thought that the best thing I could do after searching the stairs, and instructing other constables to watch the building, was to proceed as soon as possible to the police station to make my report. The inspector was better able to deal with the matter than I was.

Apparently the rest of the jury cheered Long and the police as a whole on, so I donīt think Long was too flustered. Iīve seen worse rippings.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Dave,
Your suggestion that the killer was in Wentworth buildind,may not be so far off.There is the time gap to explain,but as there is no indication what the killer did on leaving Eddowes,whether he momentarily panicked and took a wrong direction initially,or was extremely cautious and had to shelter from view often,it could be that he stepped into the building to avoid Long,both having reached that location at about the same time.So Long could be telling the truth,and the rag still there very shortly after 2.20.As for Long seeing him first,who would be the most alert?

The distance between Mitre Square and the Wentworth Model buildings would have been covered in about five minutes. So we have about half an hour to account for if this scenario is to be believed.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
Directly,yes,but indirectly?

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Directly,yes,but indirectly?

Is your suggestion that the killer panicked after killing Eddowes, and got lost out on the streets? Or that he did not know his way around? Or a combination of both?

If the same man struck down Stride and Eddowes, I suppose that he could have panicked after Stride too, explaining why it took longer time than necessary to find and despatch the next victim. But I somehow think that what he did points a lot more to a chilling composure.

But as always, what we cannot rule out, we cannot rule out.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

I donīt see that he had any difficulty finding the GSG, DRoy. He noticed the rag first, whether from the street or from having walked into the doorway as a routine, we donīt know. But we do know that when he found the rag, he took a closer look in the doorway, and then he saw the GSG. I donīt think it was any more difficult than that.

Fish,

The point was he didn't see it in the first place. This is white chalk on black facia that many seemed quite paranoid about so it obviously could be seen relatively easily. Why didn't he see it before? The question isn't any more difficult than that.

To me, it only sounds like a coroner trying to work out what it said on the wall. There were discrepancies. Halse also differed, but nobody is saying that the coroner thought he mislead intentionally.

I had no doubt you'd see it that way. The Coroner 'calls him out' by making the comment that Long didn't share the spelling of Jews might have been Juwes. The Coroner nor Crawford gave it to Halse because Halse unlike Long was sure of the details and admitted when he wasn't. They obviously believed Hulse which is why he wasn't questioned the same way.

It would have been hard for him to claim that he was the one who was correct and that the rest were amateurs, considering that he was a mere PC. So there was little he could do, but to accept that he could have been wrong.

Most likely because he was?

But now you are only looking at one side of the coin. His notebook confirmed what he had said earlier. There would have been no need for him to get the name of the other PC, since he correctly was able to identify him as No 190 H division. He need not have been in earshot of the objections to rubbing the GSG out, and it was a matter he could not influence in any way anyhow. The juror you say ripped him also commanded him and the police. And being new on the job will always mean that you donīt know all the details.

You've got the perfect answer for everything! My point in all of this part was to show his confidence dwindle, mistakes he made, the way he was treated (almost like a hostile witness), etc. You make him sound like a hero that just happened to miss out on a bunch of important things going on around him except for the fact he was certain the apron piece wasn't there at 2:20. Okay Fish!

I think you are very much exaggerating things:

No, he got questioned pretty hard by Crawford and Langham. I believe by the first two questions Langham asks Long it appears he's asking Long is he really sure because the timing doesn't make much sense. Crawford and Langham follow those two questions with calling him out about the GSG...in other words they both believed Long was wrong about that too. It is apparent they believed Halse's version.

Regarding the Juror, there is 'A Juror' and 'The Juror'. I would suggest this was two different Jurors so one still gave it to him including commenting at the end of Hulse's testimony.

Not one of the witnesses got as 'harshly' questioned as Long did at the inquest. They must have had a reason for that. Whether he was being purposely or unintentionally misleading, I'm not sure how anyone can read Long's testimony and see it any other way than those that questioned him didn't believe or trust portions of his testimony.

If Long is to believed because his testimony is in evidence then what he said is correct until proven otherwise. Now ask yourself how many of the things he said can be either disputed or proven wrong by conflicting evidence? Based on my review, the only things not proven incorrect are the things where nobody else is present and therefore not possible to provide any conflicting evidence. Everything else that can be disputed is!

Cheers
DRoy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Christer

The distance between Mitre Square and the Wentworth Model buildings would have been covered in about five minutes. So we have about half an hour to account for if this scenario is to be believed.

Point taken...but we all seem to assume that after, (presumably very narrowly), evading the police at Mitre Square, (and other locations), he made off at high speed...what if that wasn't part of his escape MO? What if instead of racing off he went to ground until the fuss died down a bit?

Or what if circumstances dictated that he did so on this occasion only?

I'm not saying it's so...in fact it doesn't do much for me personally...but I think it's a possibility we ought to consider

All the best

Dave