Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[GUT]

G'day Sam

It's also quite possible that Long genuinely believed that the apron wasn't there at 2:20. If it hadn't registered with him, then from his perspective it may as well not have been.

Totally agree.

[Fisherman]

Not quite the impression I'd formed, Fish, but perhaps I missed some nuances in your argument. That's not to say those nuances weren't there all along

Here you are then, Gareth - a small number of passages you´ve missed. Or "nuances". There are many more.

Post 325:
Just like you say, there is no knowing what applied in the Long errand. To me, his certainty is quite enough to make me opt for the apron arriving in Goulston Street after 2.20. But I´m fine with other suggestions too, as long as they are not elevated to the better bid, courtesy of our thoughts and ideas.

Post 483:
Anything can happen. Nobody is saying that Long could not have missed the rag. He could have missed checking that particular doorway whilst checking all the others. He may have been having tea instead of doing his job, lying about it afterwards.

Post 505:
That is not to say - as you imply - that I am of the meaning that Long COULD NOT have missed the rag. He could have done so, and I have said so numerous times.

Post 528:
I would strongly reccommend that we do not accept that he COULD not have lied. It goes without saying that he may have done so.

Post 583:
We of course cannot say that the apron could not have been there in spite of Longs assertion...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

All well provided the papers quoted his exact words and didn't merely paraphrase or sumarise as we know theu can do at times.

I agree with Sam that the Daily News will be close to the true wording. The Daily Telegraph, for example, has the more condensed version of Longs answer: "It was not". So it is correct to say that the papers did condense at times.

The thing is, however, there is not one single source that quotes any sort of hesitation in Longs answer. Therefore we may be reasonably sure that he WAS totally adamant on the point.

All the best,
Fisherman

[GUT]

All we can say with any real certainty is that it was found at about 2:55.

[Sam Flynn]

Here you are then, Gareth - a small number of passages you´ve missed.

Just goes to show that it's part of human nature to miss things that were there all the time, Fish.

[Sam Flynn]

The thing is, however, there is not one single source that quotes any sort of hesitation in Longs answer. Therefore we may be reasonably sure that he WAS totally adamant on the point.

We can't draw such a conclusion from a newspaper report of an inquest, Fish. Even the verbatim ones don't usually record such subtleties as how a word was inflected, nor how confidently - or hesitantly - a response was given. A close reading of the Daily News report of the 12th October 1888 is sufficient to demonstrate this:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/daily_news/18881012.html

As the report shows, there were lots of questions and answers, from a whole host of experienced and inexperienced witnesses. Some of them most certainly would have stumbled over an answer from time to time, but you really can't tell from the script-perfect manner in which the proceedings were recorded in the press.

[Michael W Richards]

All we can say with any real certainty is that it was found at about 2:55.

In these cases very often we are faced with this sort of dilema GUT, and youre correct, all we can say with any certainty is that it was found around 12:55am. Thats when the statements made by the officers who passed by that spot after 1:45 are critical to any further understanding, and although it seems some would like to dismiss the certainty that Long showed by his choice of wording, decisively "It was not there", I would agree with Fisherman and others who surmised that his choice of wording was dictated by the recollections of the constable during that pass around 2:20am. It was not his choice to state it in that manner, those were simply the facts as he recalled them.

When we have ample reason for suggesting a police witness tailored a response perhaps to avoid guilt for dereliction of duty for example....(like we have perhaps in the case of PC Harvey for example, by virtue of his time given in the passage and his seeing nothing in the square, when almost certainly the killer was still there, finishing his work over the body).....I see value in looking deeper at the individuals record and prior testimonies if possible.

We know that Harvey is dismissed the following year, and we dont know why.

The clock started for this cloth at 1:43 or :44, and the clock isnt stopped until its found around 2:55, leaving a hole of over 1 hour to explain. Questioning Longs statement or whether he might have missed seeing it isnt productive at all, its clear what he said. And there is no reason to suspect he may have missed seeing it...in the same way that there is no evidence Liz Strides killer was interrupted. Why follow bad investigative problem solving? Why not follow the evidence?

So maybe the threads real question isnt a bad one to try and solve, it may lead to some actual clues about where that killer went, or where he might have gone, and with the hour delay, whether he might have grabbed some chalk while he dropped off the organs.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day Michael

I do not believe he deliberately lied.

I do however accept that he still may have been wrong.

I know how many times I have heard someone state, without a shadow od doubt, that something wasn't where t should be and yet there it was, naturally I've never been guilty of it myself.

[Michael W Richards]

G'day Michael

I do not believe he deliberately lied.

I do however accept that he still may have been wrong.

I know how many times I have heard someone state, without a shadow od doubt, that something wasn't where t should be and yet there it was, naturally I've never been guilty of it myself.

Why should we assume Long would do so? On what grounds do we specifically cite Long as someone who lies vehemently, or, on what grounds do we assume that "I dont recall seeing it" wouldnt have been a natural choice for Long if thats they way he remembered it?

He was asked directly....and he answered directly, and succinctly. I think its far wiser to look for answers as to why it was delayed, not create unwarranted aspersions about Long or his character.

Cheers GUT

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Mike[QUOTE]

In these cases very often we are faced with this sort of dilema GUT, and youre correct, all we can say with any certainty is that it was found around 12:55am.

When?

When we have ample reason for suggesting a police witness tailored a response perhaps to avoid guilt for dereliction of duty for example....(like we have perhaps in the case of PC Harvey for example, by virtue of his time given in the passage and his seeing nothing in the square, when almost certainly the killer was still there, finishing his work over the body).....I see value in looking deeper at the individuals record and prior testimonies if possible.

We know that Harvey is dismissed the following year, and we dont know why.

Like Long being suspended then sacked for being drunk on duty? That sort of guilt or dereliction of duty?

All the best

Dave

[Sam Flynn]

The clock started for this cloth at 1:43 or :44, and the clock isnt stopped until its found around 2:55, leaving a hole of over 1 hour to explain.

Actually, Mike, we might only have a hole of some 40 minutes. If, as Long believed, the apron wasn't there when he first passed, it could easily have been dropped there a mere few minutes after 2:20, with Long out of sight, or with his back turned.

[Wickerman]

Like Long being suspended then sacked for being drunk on duty? That sort of guilt or dereliction of duty?

If PC Long was derelict in his duty all the time then any reprimand would have come up sooner, don't you think?
So, if he was not always derelict, then when did he start?

If I'm reading Monty's pic & posts correctly, it appears his reprimand in March 1889 was due to his suspension back on 13th Dec. 1888. And that was for one day, for being absent from duty for 3 hours and being found drunk?
This was 10 weeks after 1st Oct.

Questions arise:
- Was PC Long still on duty with H Div. at this time, perhaps he began to hate the assignment?
If so, then this reluctance to be in Whitechapel may have grown worse over time, so not a consideration on his first day with H Div.

- Was PC Long back with A Div. in Dec 1888 when he was suspended?
If so, what occurred in his life or job to spark this change in character, here I am assuming his A Div records show no previous reluctance to perform his duties?

To be fair to PC Long, it is not his personal record AFTER Oct. 1st which should be used to question his performance that night, but his record BEFORE Oct. 1st.
Anything could have happened in his life after Oct 1st that may have changed his feelings about policework. But if he had a questionable record before Oct 1st, then there may be a case.

If there are no records of reprimand naming PC Long prior to his assignment to H Div. (Monty?), then there is no case.

[Cogidubnus]

If PC Long was derelict in his duty all the time then any reprimand would have come up sooner, don't you think?
So, if he was not always derelict, then when did he start?

If I'm reading Monty's pic & posts correctly, it appears his reprimand in March 1889 was due to his suspension back on 13th Dec. 1888. And that was for one day, for being absent from duty for 3 hours and being found drunk?
This was 10 weeks after 1st Oct.

Questions arise:
- Was PC Long still on duty with H Div. at this time, perhaps he began to hate the assignment?
If so, then this reluctance to be in Whitechapel may have grown worse over time, so not a consideration on his first day with H Div.

- Was PC Long back with A Div. in Dec 1888 when he was suspended?
If so, what occurred in his life or job to spark this change in character, here I am assuming his A Div records show no previous reluctance to perform his duties?

To be fair to PC Long, it is not his personal record AFTER Oct. 1st which should be used to question his performance that night, but his record BEFORE Oct. 1st.
Anything could have happened in his life after Oct 1st that may have changed his feelings about policework. But if he had a questionable record before Oct 1st, then there may be a case.

If there are no records of reprimand naming PC Long prior to his assignment to H Div. (Monty?), then there is no case.

Hi Jon

I hear what you say...and Long aplogists will doubtless keep saying it...but an alcohol problem doesn't really just appear overnight...it incubates, and develops, and then thrives until detected...are you realistically saying that the Met caught Long drinking the first time it ever happened?

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

I hear what you say...and Long aplogists will doubtless keep saying it...but an alcohol problem doesn't really just appear overnight...it incubates, and develops, and then thrives until detected...are you realistically saying that the Met caught Long drinking the first time it ever happened?

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave.

I'm interested in when the first time derelection of duty was substantiated.

We don't know the circumstances which led to the suspension, perhaps it was a Landlord who reported him?
You will admit, there is always a 'first time', yes?

Alfred Long was 34 years old, I assume he was married?, had served 12 years with the 9th Lancers, then 4 years with the Met.
This constable had a military record and we might want to think twice before we cast aspersions at him.

[harry]

Exactly Dave,and before we begin to examine where it might have been,if not in the building,it has to be proven that it wasn't there.One might think,that with all the problems,associated with it's whereabouts,prior to it being handed into a police station at about 3AM,the only positive,we should hesitate to explore further,unless one can produce an unshakeable fact,on which to begin.