Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike!

I´m taking a chance that it´s OK if I present my take on things...?

To be fair, Halse did not say that he was "at the same spot as Long at the exact same time". He said he passed over the spot at 2.20. And the timings given may well have been to some extent approximations.

As for your thesis that the apron "was something that would normally be overlooked by any policeman unless one (like Long at 3:55) was specifically on alert for something because there had just been one or two terrible murders", I disagree.
I think Halse´s words relate very much to the situation he was in when passing down Goulston Street.
He was looking for people, and he was pressed for time - the quicker he scanned the streets, the better the chances that he would net as many of them as possible. If he stopped and searched doorways, he would potentially lose out on the people.

Imagine, if you will, the differences built into the duties ascribed to Halse and Long. Which is the main differerence? It is that Halse was expected to move as quickly as possible, whilst Long was expected to be as meticulous as possible - and that would have meant that he was NOT supposed to rush.

I would propose that if there had been motorcycles around in 1888, then Halse would have loved to use such a vehicle, whereas Long would not have had any use for it.

And that is why I say that we must be very careful about the suggestion that Gareth has made: that it is okay to accept that Halse was of the meaning that the rag was "easily overlooked". He never said such a thing, and I believe that what he DID say was that he himself would easily have missed the rag, since he was in a hurry and did not take any much notice about doorways and such things.
That, however, does not necessarily mean that he would have thought that a PC, meticulously patrolling the area with time on his hands to check doorways, could also easily have missed the rag. Halse may well have thought that any PC performing that kind of duty would quite easily have found the rag.

There is a very clear distinction between the expressions "I should not necessarily have seen it" and "It was easily overlooked", and that distinction is knit to Halse speaking explicitly about himself only.

You should have stopped at "I disagree." What new nonsense is this that Long would have been more meticulous than Halse? Halse was looking for people, true. And I presume Long was looking for cigarette butts, newspapers, and fish bones? No. He was, or would have been had he been doing his job, looking for suspicious activity. At 2:20 (when Halse was supposed to have been there too) he was just doing his boring beat. When they both were aware that something was up, they probably both would have examined a cloth had they seen it. Your arguments are failing you. It's because of Lechmere. I'm going to start Calling you "Sven", Svenska Ben.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

we must be very careful about the suggestion that Gareth has made: that it is okay to accept that Halse was of the meaning that the rag was "easily overlooked". He never said such a thing

But he did say "such" a thing, if not with those precise words - something like "I would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building". Now, if something is "not necessarily see-able", then it is, by definition "easily overlooked".

I believe that what he DID say was that he himself would easily have missed the rag

If Halse himself could have easily missed the rag then, mutatis mutandis, any mortal could have missed it.

Don't forget the "it was in the building" bit, Fish! Mind you, if you think that Halse was only referring to his own perceptual limitations (as opposed to Everyman's), you don't have to take his word for it - because, as Long himself said, the apron was "lying in the passage leading to the staircase".

[Sam Flynn]

A revealing exchange

Crawford: And [the message] appeared to have been recently written?

Long: That I could not form an opinion upon.

Daily News, 12th Oct 1888, backed up in prose by the Times: "He could not form an opinion as to whether the writing was recent".

Hmm... if Long really inspected the passage at 2:20, he'd have known for sure that the graffito must have been recently written, or at least would have been equipped to form an opinion to that effect. If he inspected the passage at 2:20, and the graffito was (or wasn't) there, why didn't he just say so? I mean, if he'd really inspected the entrance at 2:20, and found no graffiti, any graffiti turning up between then and 2:50 must have been fresh!

The fact that he couldn't even form an opinion about the freshness of the graffito makes it obvious that he hadn't inspected the passage the first time round.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=The Good Michael;292732] What new nonsense is this that Long would have been more meticulous than Halse?

Both men were of course expected to be meticulous in relation to the tasks they had at hand. But Halse did not have time at his hands to make meticulous searches of the doorways.

Halse was expected to move quickly. Long was not.

Does that make sense to you?

Halse was looking for people, true. And I presume Long was looking for cigarette butts, newspapers, and fish bones?

Why do you presume that?

No.

Oh - you were just joking! But that would only be funny if somewbody had said that Long would be looking for cigarette butts, newspapers, and fish bones.

And nobody did.

He was, or would have been had he been doing his job, looking for suspicious activity.

Or sings of it, Mike. That´s why he checked doors and such things.

At 2:20 (when Halse was supposed to have been there too) he was just doing his boring beat.

I don´t know if it was boring. People who find things boring do not always wish to work with them.
How about "unglamorous" instead?

When they both were aware that something was up, they probably both would have examined a cloth had they seen it.

But we don´t know that Long was aware that somebody had been killed, do we?

Your arguments are failing you. It's because of Lechmere. I'm going to start Calling you "Sven", Svenska Ben.

You can call me whatever you want. I am not sure that Ben will appreciate it, though, but never mind. What you do is your business - so far. But you won´t find me wanting for arguments. By the way, for a person who thinks that no evidence amounts to a larger probability than an evidence-cbasesd suggestion, there may be reason to find a name to mock himself by.

I´m sure you can manage that too, given the richness of your fantasy.

Now, if there is nothing more ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn: But he did say "such" a thing, if not with those precise words - something like "I would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building". Now, if something is "not necessarily see-able", then it is, by definition "easily overlooked".If Halse himself could have easily missed the rag then, mutatis mutandis, any mortal could have missed it.

Anybody who did the exact same thing that Halse did, yes. But not necessarily anyone who did what Long did!
Have you not read my posts on this?

Semantics are dangerous things. If we are to allow ourselves to swap a wording for another just like that, we will be on very thin ice. Meanings glide, as you will appreciate. Next thing we know, you will be saying that Halse claimed that the apron was hard to detect. Or that he understood if it was not found at 2.20, even if it was there.

I have pointed out to you on an earlier occasion that there is potentially a large difference inbetween the two expressions, and at that stage, you said that you had mistaken the doctor´s words about Eddowes kidney (easily overlooked since it was hidden by a membrane).
I wopuld very much appreciate if you took the consequences of this mistake and refrained from putting other words in Halse´s mouth than the ones he used himself.

I hope you can see the difference I am speaking of, Gareth. What Halse says, he qualifies by saying that it himself he is speaking of, in the situation he was. If I am to follow suit and place words in Halse´s mouth, I´d say that my take on what he said would be " Others may well have been able to make the apron out easily, but as for me, running away down the street at full speed ahead, I should not necessarily have seen the rag, lying, as it was, to the side in a doorway."

Surely, you can see the portential relevance in this? And equally surely, you can also see that "It was easily overlooked" is a more definitive statement, where there can be no doubt that not only Halse, but also others, Long included, would have had a hard time spotting the apron.

Don't forget the "it was in the building" bit, Fish! Mind you, if you think that Halse was only referring to his own perceptual limitations (as opposed to Everyman's), you don't have to take his word for it - because, as Long himself said, the apron was "lying in the passage leading to the staircase".

You know that we see this differently, Gareth. Since bneither of us knows exactly where it was, it applies that it may have been easily visible from the street.

On that score, the moon mapping you posted was useful. What I would like to know is where the lamps in Goulston Street were, and what help they may have been of.
Do you know?

There would also have been ambient lighting, of course. But to what extent is hard to say.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crawford: And [the message] appeared to have been recently written?

Long: That I could not form an opinion upon.

Daily News, 12th Oct 1888, backed up in prose by the Times: "He could not form an opinion as to whether the writing was recent".

Hmm... if Long really inspected the passage at 2:20, he'd have known for sure that the graffito must have been recently written, or at least would have been equipped to form an opinion to that effect. If he inspected the passage at 2:20, and the graffito was (or wasn't) there, why didn't he just say so? I mean, if he'd really inspected the entrance at 2:20, and found no graffiti, any graffiti turning up between then and 2:50 must have been fresh!

The fact that he couldn't even form an opinion about the freshness of the graffito makes it obvious that he hadn't inspected the passage the first time round.

Some said the GSG looked fresh. Others said that it looked old.

How "able" were they to form a sound opinion ...?

Nevertheless, I think we may be fairly certain that Long did not see the GSG at 2.20. But that does not mean that he did not inspect the doorway!

He DID inspect the doorway at 2.55. But he did not see the GSG until he used his lamp and shone it on the wall!

And the only reason he did so - he says this himself, I believe - was because he had found the rag.

Ergo - if he had NOT found the rag, he would not have shone his light on the wall.

So, what we can learn from this is that if he DID inspect the doorway at 2.20 - and since he was admant that the rag was not there at the time, it would seem that he had inspected it - then obviously the rag was not in place at that time. Otherwise, he would have used his lamp and he would have searched the walls too and seen the GSG. If, that is, the GSG was not unrelated to the rag, and written after it´s deposition by somebody else.

Personally, I find that a not very viable solution. I think the GSG was in place as the killer arrived in Goulston Street.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This is the passage I was thinking of, speaking about Long and how and when he saw the GSG. It´s from the Times, 12 of October:

"He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time. His attention was attracted to the writing on the wall while he was searching."

This actually sounds to me as if Long stepped into the doorway to search it, and only then saw the apron. It is of course possible that he saw it from the street, and that it was the apron that called his attention to the doorway, but if so, it is not mentioned in this snippet - which I think it should have been, given how meticulously the timeline is chiselled out.

He had his lamp on at the time, it is said, and just like I remembered it, that was what subsequently made him see the GSG as he shone it around in the doorway, looking for more information.

Let´s realize that if it had not been for the apron on the floor, chances are that he would thus NOT have seen GSG, even with his light on.

This quotation sounds like he stepped into the doorway with his light on to make the same sort of search he would - going by his certainty at the inquest - have made at 2.20. But at 2.20, there was no rag about, so Long simply shone his light on the floor and did not make any extended enough search of the rest of the doorway, and therefore he did not see the GSG at that stage.

The possibilities of different interpretations are many - but it is obvious that his not having seen any writing on the wall at 2.20, does not necessarily equal him not having made a search of the doorway.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I missed out on marking who said who in two of my posts, which is why I repost them, mended in that department. First post 1234:

The Good Michael:

What new nonsense is this that Long would have been more meticulous than Halse?

Both men were of course expected to be meticulous in relation to the tasks they had at hand. But Halse did not have time at his hands to make meticulous searches of the doorways.

Halse was expected to move quickly. Long was not.

Does that make sense to you?

Halse was looking for people, true. And I presume Long was looking for cigarette butts, newspapers, and fish bones?

Why do you presume that?

No.

Oh - you were just joking! But that would only be funny if somebody had said that Long would be looking for cigarette butts, newspapers, and fish bones.

And nobody did.

He was, or would have been had he been doing his job, looking for suspicious activity.

Or signs of it, Mike. That´s why he checked doors and such things.

At 2:20 (when Halse was supposed to have been there too) he was just doing his boring beat.

I don´t know if it was boring. People who find things boring do not always wish to work with them.
How about "unglamorous" instead?

When they both were aware that something was up, they probably both would have examined a cloth had they seen it.

But we don´t know that Long was aware that somebody had been killed, do we?

Your arguments are failing you. It's because of Lechmere. I'm going to start Calling you "Sven", Svenska Ben.

You can call me whatever you want. I am not sure that Ben will appreciate it, though, but never mind. What you do is your business - so far. But you won´t find me wanting for arguments. By the way, for a person who thinks that no evidence amounts to a larger probability than an evidence-cbasesd suggestion, there may be reason to find a name to mock himself by.

I´m sure you can manage that too, given the richness of your fantasy.

Now, if there is nothing more ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

... and then post 1235:

Sam Flynn:

But he did say "such" a thing, if not with those precise words - something like "I would not necessarily have seen it, for it was in the building". Now, if something is "not necessarily see-able", then it is, by definition "easily overlooked".If Halse himself could have easily missed the rag then, mutatis mutandis, any mortal could have missed it.

Anybody who did the exact same thing that Halse did, yes. But not necessarily anyone who did what Long did!
Have you not read my posts on this?

Semantics are dangerous things. If we are to allow ourselves to swap a wording for another just like that, we will be on very thin ice. Meanings glide, as you will appreciate. Next thing we know, you will be saying that Halse claimed that the apron was hard to detect. Or that he understood if it was not found at 2.20, even if it was there.

I have pointed out to you on an earlier occasion that there is potentially a large difference inbetween the two expressions, and at that stage, you said that you had mistaken the doctor´s words about Eddowes kidney (easily overlooked since it was hidden by a membrane).
I wopuld very much appreciate if you took the consequences of this mistake and refrained from putting other words in Halse´s mouth than the ones he used himself.

I hope you can see the difference I am speaking of, Gareth. What Halse says, he qualifies by saying that it himself he is speaking of, in the situation he was. If I am to follow suit and place words in Halse´s mouth, I´d say that my take on what he said would be " Others may well have been able to make the apron out easily, but as for me, running away down the street at full speed ahead, I should not necessarily have seen the rag, lying, as it was, to the side in a doorway."

Surely, you can see the portential relevance in this? And equally surely, you can also see that "It was easily overlooked" is a more definitive statement, where there can be no doubt that not only Halse, but also others, Long included, would have had a hard time spotting the apron.

Don't forget the "it was in the building" bit, Fish! Mind you, if you think that Halse was only referring to his own perceptual limitations (as opposed to Everyman's), you don't have to take his word for it - because, as Long himself said, the apron was "lying in the passage leading to the staircase".

You know that we see this differently, Gareth. Since bneither of us knows exactly where it was, it applies that it may have been easily visible from the street.

On that score, the moon mapping you posted was useful. What I would like to know is where the lamps in Goulston Street were, and what help they may have been of.
Do you know?

There would also have been ambient lighting, of course. But to what extent is hard to say.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

At 2:20 [Long] was just doing his boring beat.

...and doing so for the first time, too. So, hardly au fait with all the nooks and crannies of this new territory.

Langham: Did you not know about the back [entrance to WMD]?

Long: No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.

(Official inquest record.)

[Fisherman]

...and doing so for the first time, too. So, hardly au fait with all the nooks and crannies of this new territory.

Langham: Did you not know about the back [entrance to WMD]?

Long: No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.

(Official inquest record.)

Mmmm - been there, done that ...

This has been up before. It was then said from the one direction that he could have mistaken what doorway it was he checked since he did not have a grip, while the other side said that since it was a new beat, he would have been very much on his toes, taking in everything. No boring routine round, thus.

I pretty much think that still stands. And that makes the issue fit in with all the other suggestions of what may or may not have been.

Sigh.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Well, Abby, there's several million years of human evolution or - if that doesn't appeal - your own personal experience of overlooking things. So, there's plenty of evidence that he could have missed it.No - all I'm saying is that he'd have to be superhuman in order NOT to be susceptible to overlooking things. Mere humans overlook things all the time, and we all know that we do.All I'm saying is that the gap could have been as small as 37 minutes. If the apron really wasn't there at 2:20, it could easily have been there at 2:22, after Long had passed.

The alternative scenario is that the apron was deposited there just before Long arrived at 2:50, thereby constituting a gap of over an hour since the murder. That's possible, but I find it unlikely for a number of reasons. In short, I find the arguments for a circa 2:48 "drop" far less likely than the simple probability that Long just overlooked it the first time round.There is plenty of evidence that he probably missed it, apart from the simple facts of human experience alluded to earlier. In addition, we have the gloomy conditions, the fact that the apron was "in the passage/in the building", therefore not particularly obvious to passersby. Finally, we have such imponderables as the angle at which Long approached the entrance the first time round, whether he was distracted at the time, whether he was looking straight ahead, whether or not the moon peeped out of the clouds at 2:50, etc etc.

So, you see, I don't latch onto anything ghostly if I can help it. Give me Ockham's razor before Procrustes' bed, any day Halse corroborates Long in one important respect, namely that the apron was not sitting in the doorway.We don't know that it was large. We don't know that it was white. We don't know that it was very visible. All those are suppositions, I'm afraid. In fact, a good case could be made to the contrary on each point.We don't really have evidence for that, either, come to think of it. Besides, if someone had asked him directly "did you miss it?", how do you think he'd have answered?

Apologies for the lengthy reply, but you raised quite a number of points there!

hi sam
I pretty much take the opposite view of everything you have said. but that's OK. that's what a discussion board is for.
That being said I appreciate your cool headed responses-I know I can get a little hyperbolic sometimes.

But let me ask you the basic question-why do you think it was there the first time around (when he missed it)?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.

But let me ask you the basic question-why do you think it was there the first time around (when he missed it)?

Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

[Bridewell]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

That's a good post, Sam, and well argued.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for your nice - and entirely "un-hyperbolic" reply - Abby. It's appreciated.
Simply logistics, the main factors being:

1. The apron was an incriminating piece of evidence, and it would have made eminent sense for the killer to have jettisoned it as soon as possible after the murder, lest he be caught in possession. (This militates against the idea that he went somewhere else then doubled back to drop the apron later, when there would have been even more police about.)

2. Assuming he wanted to wipe his hands (the evidence points to a "bloody hand or knife" having been wiped on it), then a dark, shadowy passageway in a quiet street would have been a sensible place to do it. If he'd gone somewhere else first, why didn't he wash/wipe his hands there?

3. Goulston Street was a mere few minutes' jog away from Mitre Square. Far enough away from the immediate attentions of the City Police, but close enough for him to quickly reach comparative safety, have a breather, and scrub up before heading home.

4. If Jack lived in Spitalfields, then Goulston Street was - and is - a logical stopping-off point for anyone coming from the direction of Mitre Square. This was picked up at the inquest by Solicitor Henry Crawford, and confirmed by Frederick Foster, the surveyor. I strongly believe that Crawford was thinking along the right lines.

If I may, Gareth?

This is a good a case as can be made for Long having been wrong. And if it had not been for what Long said, there would be little or no opposition about it being our best guess.

But Long DID say what he said, and that alters the picture completely.

There is no doubt that you could be right on this nevertheless; it could have gone down the simple way. But unlike you, I don´t think it did. Therefore, I will comment on your four points:

1. Yes. The apron WAS incriminating. So if he held on to it for up to more than an hour, he was either reckless (killers often are, perhaps especially serial killers) or he put the apron piece to use during that time. And as we all know, it would appear that a portion, probably a corner, of the apron was wet with blood when Long found it. That does not sit well with Eddowes´ blood having had more than an hour to dry up.
The obvious possibility is that the fresh, wet blood was the killers own, and that he had felt forced to hang on to the rag as a bandage, stemming his blood and preventing a blood trail to form on the ground, giving him away.
Plus, of course, if he really wanted to rid himself of the rag as quickly as possible, then he would have rubbed his hands in the process of fleeing Mitre Square, throwing the rag away less than a hundred yards from the murder spot - or on it, even. There was no way that rubbing his hands would get himself fully clean anyhow, so the idea that he would leave the spot with his hands dripping with blood and feces, and then spend a full five minutes (an absolute eternity in this context) roaming the streets before he stole into the doorway in Goulston Street holds very little water the way I see things. Why would he suppose that nobody would see him, hands flowing with blood and muck, during this very considerable period of time? Would it not be better to rub down quickly and immediately and be done with the incriminating rag?

2. There would have been lots and lots of dark passages en route to Goulston Street. Do the test to get out on your own home town streets, and take a five minute walk. It is a whopper of a walk when you carry something along that could have you hanged!

3. Let´s not just consider the geography here, but also the time. If he was wary of the police coming looking for him, then he needed to drop the rag sooner, not later. He had a head start, so why not use it and be done with the wiping immediately?

4. Goulston Street works as a passing point from many westernly adresses. One of them is Broad Street, another is Mitre Square, but there will be almost innumerable starting points that work in the context. The trouble is that we only know of Mitre Square being part of the killer´s whereabouts, and so we tend to think that he came from thence to Goulston Street. But since the only piece of evidence we have about the whereabouts of the apron between 1.45 and 2.55 is negative evidence - it was NOT in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20 - we must accept that we may be dealing with any address to the west of Goulston Street, where the killer may have gone after the Eddowes strike. Perhaps to stash his trophies, perhaps to look for more victims, perhaps for another reason, undisclosed to us.

Reasoning that he would have gone directly from Mitre Square to Goulston Street is something that requires evidence, just like reasoning that he would not have gone there directly. And the evidence for that IS in place, courtesy of Alfred Long.

All the best,
Fisherman