Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[The Good Michael]

I will have to agree with Dave on this one. I don't care about when the apron was placed or if Long missed it the first (or second) time around. But, a person doesn't usually lose his/her job... at least not in Victorian times because they had a beer on duty. There also wasn't necessarily a reprimand given the first, second, or third time a person was caught. Many secrets were kept between officers, and are still kept today. That's why internal investigations always have difficulties uncovering details.

Now, I suspect that many officers in those days got into trouble with drinking or with prostitutes, bribes, gambling, threats, whatever, and that Long is on the radar, as was Harvey, because they were involved in the case and we have to look at possibilities of dereliction. I am absolutely fine with the thought that Long was derelict long before he was sacked. Yet I am also comfortable with the idea that he wasn't derelict and still didn't see the apron, or that the apron wasn't there at the time he said he passed by. We don't know, but we certainly can say Long was most probably not an exemplary officer because he was transferred to H and because of his later history which must have had a beginning before he was fired, and a year earlier is not so far before.

Mike

[Fisherman]

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

Yep.

Of course, I argue my case with some heat, so it´s understandable if people sometimes get the impression that I am very rigid in my take. But just because I have a conviction, it does not mean that I am blind to the alternatives.

Many a time, I´ve been told that I am sure that Lechmere was the killer, or that I have said something to that effect. Once again, I can see why people reason like this, but I can´t help thinking that it´s slightly preposterous that such suggestions are made; everybody with the slightest gift of recognizing the value of evidence will quite easily see that there is not a shred of proof that he was the killer. Not one.

There are, however, lots of inconsistencies and enigmas surrounding him, and a chain of events can be constructed that makes for a viable case. This is exactly what I do, and when doing so, I am perfectly aware that the option that Lechmere had nothing to do with the killings is also a viable one. But that does not help very much, since I am constantly being told that I do not listen to the arguments for an innocent Lechmere.

That is wrong. I do listen to the arguments. It´s just that I don´t think they are as strong as are the arguments for guilt.

It´s the exact same with Long: I know that he could have been wrong; mistaken or lying. I just happen to think that the clearly better suggestion is that he was not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

It is correct that we do not know in what voice things were said. But that does not mean that we should make the guess that Long was hesitant in any manner. He could have been, and he equally could not.
All we have is the wordings in the different papers, and not a single one of them expresses any doubt as per Long.
So what we have to work with is the recorded versions, nothing more. And these versions all speak of a certainty on Longs behalf.

It´s a straightforward question by the coroner, and it´s a straightforward answer from Long: Yes, he was able to say, and no it was not there at the time.

So what do we do? We leave the door open for alternative thinking, as long as it is substantiated by something, but otherwise we work from the assumption that Long expressed himself with great certainty.

And to be perfectly fair, I am having trouble seeing what could possibly substantiate the take that Long could have wawered as he spoke.

How certain are you yourself that Long expressed himself with certainty? Is it 50/50 for you? Or 60/40?

For me, it´s 99-1.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

And so have I!
So what we need to do here, is to form an opinion about how common it is that people miss things when they are sure that they have looked for them.

When doing this, we must also look at the built-in difficulties in different instances. For example, if we dig through a cubic metre of matches, looking for one that is slightly bent, it would be very easy to miss it.

But in the Long case, we have the issue of an apron on a floor either being there or not. So it´s an extremely easy question to answer. Not like the matches at all; one easy to spot object, that´s all.

Now, statistically, how often do people look at a floor of two square metres that has a large object on it, only to afterwards say "the floor was empty"? Not very often, I would say.

Of course, we do not know all the factors in this enigma, how careful Long looked, where he stood, where the rag was, how dark it was etcetera. But that does not change the overall proposition - we are dealing with a scenario with basically very simple ingredients.

No matter where we land in this - some will say that it is almost impossible to miss something like this, while others will say that it can be a hard task to see an object on a floor - we must all realize that it is possible to miss out.

After that, we must also all realize that it is far more credible that we don´t miss out - when people say "the floor was empty", they will in an overwhelming number of the cases be correct. If they DID check, that is.

So much as there is viability in the suggestion that Long may have been honestly mistaken, statistics should tell us that the proposition that he was NOT mistaken is overwhelmingly much better.

If Long was not on the money, the suggestion that he was lying to save his behind, is a far, far better suggestion than the one that he checked the doorway but missed the rag just the same, especially since we know that his method of searching was useful enough to secure the same rag in the same doorway at 2.55.

All the best,
Fisherman

[harry]

The fact that the papers were a hundred per cent correct in reporting what Long said,why shoul'dn't they be,in no way allows for an assumption that they believed the report to be true or false.I do not believe any of them went that far.

[Fisherman]

The fact that the papers were a hundred per cent correct in reporting what Long said,why shoul'dn't they be,in no way allows for an assumption that they believed the report to be true or false.I do not believe any of them went that far.

I don´t think they even asked themselves the question. We tend to believe what we are told, especially if it´s told in no uncertain terms.

I believe that todays Ripperologists are much more prone to question matters like these than people were back then. Ripperologists have a riddle to solve, anomalies to make sense of, and so they somethimes need to apply alternative thinking in order to find a functioning pattern.

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Long found the apron at the entrance to 106 - 119 at about 2:55. He then searched the staircases of the surrounding buildings (apparently 6 or 7 as per Long).

My question: did the buildings that he searched all look similar? Was it easy to determine the differences in the buildings to know which one he was in and searching?

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

As for agreeing on the possibility that the apron could have been there at 2.20, I have already said as much numerous times. What I object about is the fact that - generally speaking, and not specifically about you - people are so discontent with Long as to actually state that the more probable thing is that the apron WAS in place at 2.20, since that would fit with the scenario most posters endorse: the quick drop scenario.

Hi Christer,

Apologies for the delay in replying to this. I think we were closer than we realised. As I never said it was a certainty that he was mistaken, and you never said it was a certainty that he wasn't, I think we can bury the hatchet as the saying goes. Stay safe.

[Bridewell]

Halse was not even criticised for not checking the location in which Long found this very important clue.

Hi Caz,
Why would anyone think about criticising Halse? He was a City detective going onto the Met's area to search for an offender. It wasn't his job to check the location; that was the responsibility of the uniform Metropolitan beat officer - Long in this instance.

[Fisherman]

Long found the apron at the entrance to 106 - 119 at about 2:55. He then searched the staircases of the surrounding buildings (apparently 6 or 7 as per Long).

My question: did the buildings that he searched all look similar? Was it easy to determine the differences in the buildings to know which one he was in and searching?

Cheers
DRoy

The Wentworth Model buildings were brand new at the time. They were built around a year or two before the killings. They stood on each side of the street, where it adjoined Wentworth Street. They would have stood out on the street.

Of course, onw can argue that Long could have mistaken the sides.

And he could have.

But he could have been wrong in so many ways, they´re hard to keep track of.

It is a lot easier to keep track of the fact that he claimed to be sure.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer,

Apologies for the delay in replying to this. I think we were closer than we realised. As I never said it was a certainty that he was mistaken, and you never said it was a certainty that he wasn't, I think we can bury the hatchet as the saying goes.

Deep, preferably!

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

The Wentworth Model buildings were brand new at the time. They were built around a year or two before the killings. They stood on each side of the street, where it adjoined Wentworth Street. They would have stood out on the street.

Of course, onw can argue that Long could have mistaken the sides.

And he could have.

But he could have been wrong in so many ways, they´re hard to keep track of.

It is a lot easier to keep track of the fact that he claimed to be sure.

The best,
Fisherman

Thanks for the info Fish, much appreciated!

I purposely didn't suggest he could have got it wrong as I didn't have any idea whether it was reasonable to.

I'd agree with you, I would further suggest and assume that he would have looked in all the entrances as long as he was on that side of the street, it seems silly to think he'd only check a couple of them as he passed.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

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.

Thats true Sam, agreed. What it does suggest, even at the earliest possible time just after 2:20, is that it isnt very likely that the cloth was dropped by the Mitre Square killer as he headed home directly from the square.

That means the killer didn't necessarily live in the East End. What most have assumed based on a "direct route home drop".

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

And to be perfectly fair, I am having trouble seeing what could possibly substantiate the take that Long could have wawered as he spoke. How certain are you yourself that Long expressed himself with certainty?

I'm not suggesting he did. Furthermore I can't - anymore than you can tell that he was utterly resolute in what he said. Besides, he could have been the model of certainty in that dock, but if (as I've often pointed out) the apron simply didn't register with him, his "certainty" would count for nothing.

Is it 50/50 for you? Or 60/40? For me, it´s 99-1.

You just cannot tell how certain Long was from the newspaper reports, Fish - anymore than you can for any utterance by any witness, doctor, juror, clerk or coroner. The papers just do not tend to give us that sort of information.

[Sam Flynn]

Thats true Sam, agreed. What it does suggest, even at the earliest possible time just after 2:20, is that it isnt very likely that the cloth was dropped by the Mitre Square killer as he headed home directly from the square.

40 minutes isn't all that long, Mike. It could well be that the killer had cut himself, got more muck on his hands than he'd anticipated, and needed a little more time to remove the traces, on this occasion, than he'd faced in previous murders.

That means the killer didn't necessarily live in the East End. What most have assumed based on a "direct route home drop".

I see no reason why he'd double back on himself to throw the police of the scent. To do so would mean staying in the danger zone for longer than was necessary. If, say, he lived in North London, he could have been at King's Cross, well out of harm's way, within 40 minutes of Eddowes' death. Even if he lived in the East End, he could still have taken a 40 minute detour until things quietened down.

For me, the fact that he deposited the apron in Goulston Street is a very strong indicator that he indeed lived locally.