Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

That's not my point Jon,

Long wasnt diligent enough to keep his job.

Monty

Thankyou Neil.
Though the important question is, how diligent was he on the night in question.

If I recall, wasn't Insp. Chandler let go too for being drunk?
Policemen and drinking was a broad problem in this period, but diligence is a different issue.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Seems reasonable enough. And concisely Argued-well done.

However, why would the ripper take the time to cut away a large portion of apron, to take away to wipe his hands later? He didnt with any of the other victims. Why not just wipe his hands on the apron as attached to her body when done and leave the piece there? As you say it's an "incriminating" piece that he would want to get rid of quickly. Wouldn't it make eminently more sense not to have it at all and just wipe the hands on it (or any other part of her clothes)as still on her body and leave it there?

[GUT]

G'day Abby

However, why would the ripper take the time to cut away a large portion of apron, to take away to wipe his hands later? Why not just wipe his hands on the apron as attached to her body when done and leave the piece there? As you say it's an "incriminating" piece that he would want to get rid of quickly. Wouldn't it make eminently more sense not to have it at all and just wipe the hands on it (or any other part of her clothes)as still on her body and leave it there?

If you don't mind my 2p on this.

I've always considered that the apron may have been cut accidentally and then been convenient, for use.

If so, why wait around wiping your hands, even for a few seconds, when you can do it on the run?

I do think that the killer would wish to dispose of it as soon as it was safe, and convenient, to do so.

[Wickerman]

Sorry, Jon, Long and Halse's testimony are consistent with its not being in the doorway: Long said it was found in the passage, Halse said it was in the building.

What is missing then Gareth, is a passage.
So lets drop another apron in the same location, at Millers Court.



Ok, so now we have a genuine passage, and the piece of apron placed in the same location. Notice it is not in contact with the paving stones (footpath), so it is definitely not outside.

Is that white lump? inside the passage, yes or no?
Is that white lump? inside the building, yes or no?

[Wickerman]

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.

Please look at the map below.

[/URL]

With reference to your point 1., given the many streets between Mitre Square & Goulston St. can to justify your use of "as soon as possible"?

Also, with respect to your point 2., just how many dark shadowy passageways do you think he passed between Mitre Square and Goulston St.?

Lastly, I think the map destroys your proposal in point 3.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your question,the reference I have is"Jack the ripper AtoZ".but that apart ,I can find no reference that Long saw or contacted anyone before taking the rag to the police station.And no,it was not apparent evidence at that time,the connection to Eddowes was not made until Sunday afternoon at the mortuary.Untill then it was a blood and excrement stained piece of rag,and on finding it there were several options open to Long on how to treat it,but he took it to a police station,Why?It was not Long,but obviously someone at the police station who saw a possible connection to Eddowes murder,and it was after that time,that attention was centred on Wentworth building.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

Fisherman,
In reply to your question,the reference I have is"Jack the ripper AtoZ".

Thanks for that, Harry!

but that apart ,I can find no reference that Long saw or contacted anyone before taking the rag to the police station.

This is from Longs written report, stamped Home Office 6 Nov. 88 RECd. DEPt. :

I was on duty in Goulston Street on the morning of 30th Sept: at about 2.55 A.M. I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage of the door-way leading to Nos. 108 to 119 Model Dwellings in Goulston Street.
Above it on the wall was written in chalk "The Juews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing", I at once called the P.C. on the adjoining beat and then searched the stair-cases, but found no traces of any persons or marks."

And no, it was not apparent evidence at that time,the connection to Eddowes was not made until Sunday afternoon at the mortuary.Untill then it was a blood and excrement stained piece of rag,and on finding it there were several options open to Long on how to treat it,but he took it to a police station,Why?

No matter when the connection to Eddowes was made, Long explicitly says that he had been informed about the Mitre Square slaying as he left the WMD, and that there were also rumours of another murder (Stride, reasonably).

That would have been quite, quite enough to convince Long that he needed to take the rag to his superiors and show it to them. Longīs own thoughts seem to have been that there had been a third slaying. Whether he knew of the other killings as he searched the stairs or whether he only found out afterwards (but before he left the building, from the PC he had called from the adjoining beat) is open to discussion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Thankyou Neil.
Though the important question is, how diligent was he on the night in question.

If I recall, wasn't Insp. Chandler let go too for being drunk?
Policemen and drinking was a broad problem in this period, but diligence is a different issue.

Surely the fact Long did not heed his warnings is a sign of his lack of diligence, whilst different, its mitigating.

Monty
.

[Monty]

Negative evidence?!

Outstanding.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Negative evidence?!

Outstanding.

Monty

You are way too generous, Monty.

I may have stumbled on the language ever so slightly - I take the liberty to do so at times, given that I am a Swede.

But you already knew that.

What I meant was that the answer to the question "was it there?" was given in the negative. As a negation.

I actually trust that everybody out here understood what I was aiming for.

I hope it is clearer now.

And just as outstanding.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

The turn made me smile Christer,

Tis all,

Monty

[Fisherman]

The turn made me smile Christer,

Tis all,

Monty

Youīre welcome, Monty. Thereīs probably a lot more in store where it came from.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

What is missing then Gareth, is a passage.
So lets drop another apron in the same location, at Millers Court.



Ok, so now we have a genuine passage, and the piece of apron placed in the same location. Notice it is not in contact with the paving stones (footpath), so it is definitely not outside.

Is that white lump? inside the passage, yes or no?
Is that white lump? inside the building, yes or no?

As you know, Jon, I agree fully. I think that anyone who claims that the rag is NOT inside the passage or the building in your drawing, will have a hard time nailing the exaxt position in which the rag can be approved of as actually being in the passage/building.
Two inches further in?
Four and a half?
Five feet?

I donīt think anyone who hears "it was lying in the passage to Millerīs Court" would have said, "Well, then it canīt be this rag, since it is not". So obviously, there is some obscure difference between "in" and "inside"...?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

At this stage, a timely reminder of how Sugden saw the business in his book:

"The murdererīs escape was remarkable nonetheless. It would have been less so had he fled into Whitechapel immediately after the Mitre Square atrocity, before the City Police had been alerted, but this does not seem to have been the case. PC Long, whose beat embraced Goulston Street, patrolled it about 2.20. Although he passed the spot where he would afterwards find the apron he was positive that it had not been there then. And Daniel Halse, who passed by the same spot at about the same time in pusuit of the criminal, also failed to notice anything. They might have missed it, of course, but if their testimony is to be depended upon the apron was deposited at Wentworth Model Dwellings some time between 2.20 and 2.55, as much as thirty-six to seventy-one minutes after Watkins discovered the body in Mitre Square."

The fact that Sugden prioritizes the view that the apron was not in the doorway at 2.20 does not make it a fact. Many times, top authorities must be challenged and questioned.
The reason I quote Sugden on this is simply to point to the fact that one can be the most renowned researcher and historian in the field and STILL say that Long was more probably right than wrong. It does not take any Lechmere infatuation to do so.

Sugden would, just like we are, have been quite aware that the reasonable suggestion would be that the killer fled to Goulston Street immediately after the murder. But he recognizes that the evidence trumphs that suggestion, in spite of itīs being in conflict with what we would have expected.

Also, please note that Sugden suggests that Halse offers some corroboration for Longīs take, and that he writes that Long was positive about the apron not being in place at 2.20. No reservations about Long perhaps delivering his inquest testimony in a hesitating voice, thus - and the reason would be that Sugden very well knew that such a suggestion would be totally unsubstantiable and in direct conflict with the phraseology Long used.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

G'day Abby



If you don't mind my 2p on this.

I've always considered that the apron may have been cut accidentally and then been convenient, for use.

If so, why wait around wiping your hands, even for a few seconds, when you can do it on the run?

I do think that the killer would wish to dispose of it as soon as it was safe, and convenient, to do so.

Hi GUT!

Try to cut a large piece of cloth in two with a knife, and you will see that it is a hard task. You will need to stretch the cloth much before you can cut it, and then you need to keep it stretched throughout, otherwise the blade will just push the cloth in front of it instead of cutting.

I am not saying that it could not have happened - but I think it is a very off-hand possibility. We can - as far as I can tell - be reasonably certain that the killer cut himself that apron piece on purpose.

All the best,
Fisherman