Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

He had no need to impress anyone Dave, Warren was all about 'the truth'.

Rubbish...he was on his hind feet fighting forward..and the death of his non-military career came in days...He was a prick - and his post WCM career wasn't that clever either

All the best

Dave

[Monty]

Sir Charles Warren was a man way ahead of his time.

Innovative, disciplined and set the foundation for the golden age. The Home Office lagged too far behind.

He is the most misunderstood character in this story.

Monty

[harry]

The apron and writing were either there or were not there at about the time Long speaks of.Nothing predudicial about that statement.Long was capable of telling the truth and he was capable of lying.We all are.There can be no agenda for believing either.As a clue to who left the apron,and why,we can assume the killer left it,but it is not so easy to assume why,or when.That he did so as soon as possible after serving a purpose,appears logical,as does the thinking that it was soon after leaving the murder scene.What appears illogical,though not impossible,is that the killer would loiter in the area,or once having reached safety,return to dump a piece of rag.Perhaps those that believe he did,might like to submit a logical reason why he did so.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps the same logical reason he loitered around to kill a second victim.

[harry]

And what was that?

[Cogidubnus]

Sir Charles Warren was a man way ahead of his time.

Innovative, disciplined and set the foundation for the golden age. The Home Office lagged too far behind.

He is the most misunderstood character in this story.

And his subsequent military career proves this?

Sorry mate

Dave

[Fisherman]

Harry: The apron and writing were either there or were not there at about the time Long speaks of.Nothing predudicial about that statement.Long was capable of telling the truth and he was capable of lying.We all are.There can be no agenda for believing either.

That predisposes that people lie half of the time and tell the truth the other half, Harry. THEN there would be no reason to believe either.
But if the world had looked like that, why would there be inquests and trials? If we could bank of being told half truths, half lies?
Luckily, inquests and trial are useful instruments, and that largely depends on witnesses being truthful in a huge majority of the cases.

As a clue to who left the apron,and why,we can assume the killer left it,but it is not so easy to assume why,or when.

No, it is not easy. But we do have a useful clue that people are trying to throw out so that they may have their "simple" scenario.

That he did so as soon as possible after serving a purpose,appears logical,as does the thinking that it was soon after leaving the murder scene.

Yes, and that suggestion must be the better one up til the time we have evidence speaking against it. When we have, we should not say "nah, the evidence does not fit with the simple scenario", we should instead say "the simple scenario does not fit with the evidence".
And bearing in mind that we don´t have a clue which scenario would fit the killers agenda best, this becomes all the more important.

What appears illogical,though not impossible,is that the killer would loiter in the area,or once having reached safety,return to dump a piece of rag.Perhaps those that believe he did,might like to submit a logical reason why he did so.

I have submitted MY scenario already, and it´s easy to find on the thread. What we should not do is to compare scenarios because the simplest scenario will remain the simplest scenario. The crux is that it seemingly does not apply here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

If this is aimed at me, can I point out that I have no conviction that Long cannot be trusted. What I have is a belief that his evidence should be viewed in the context of what is known of his character.

And exactly what IS known of his "character", Colin? Do we have a full picture of it? Or do we have just the odd unflattering detail from a point in time after the Goulston Street issue?
You are obviously suggesting that Longs character was badly flawed. From what I can see , he seemingly had a drinking problem. To what extent would you say that this should colour our impression of his overall character?
To what extent would you say that it would have influenced his ability to do his job on the night we are discussing, a night when he obviously was NOT drunk? Bear in mind that we know that he did find the rag at 2.55, so in that case he achieved all that could be asked of him, and in that respect he apparently WAS diligent.
Should we conclude that his drinking problem would have affected his chances to find the rag at 2.20? Is that realistic?
Or are we extrapolating his drinking problem to be merely the top of the iceberg? Are we ascribing an overall flawed character to Long as a result of it?

This is your distortion of what has been suggested, which is that Long's credibility as a witness should be assessed in the context of what we know about his conduct on other occasions. I haven't accused Long of lying or of anything else. I have suggested as a possibility , no more, that he may not have been as diligent as he claimed.

My distortion? Are you saying that it has NOT been suggested that he lied, and that it has NOT been suggested that his "flawed character" would have lain behind it...?
And if we should judge the man "in the context of what we know about his conduct on other occasions", then how is it that the occasion removed thirtyfive minutes in time, when he found the apron as the result of a diligent enough search, is not counted into those other occasions?
Why would we instead opt for an occasion that had not appeared yet, that lay in the future?
Is THAT the better choice, to condemn him prospectively for something he had not yet made himself guilty of?

You do realize, don´t you, that in the choice between trusting the evidence and trusting your hunch that the killer went directly to Goulston Street, you actually choose to go with your hunch?
What amazes me is that you have company on that chosen route. Anyone who made that choice really should be left alone on it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

And exactly what IS known of his "character", Colin? Do we have a full picture of it? Or do we have just the odd unflattering detail from a point in time after the Goulston Street issue?

What we know is that within a few weeks of giving evidence at the Eddowes inquest he was suspended from duty and that he was subsequently dismissed for being drunk on duty. What we know is all we know. But what we know isn't good.

You are obviously suggesting that Longs character was badly flawed.

No. What I am suggesting is that we should look at his credibility against a background of what we know about his conduct on other occasions. I am suggesting, as a possibility that he may have been (not that he was, that he may have been) less diligent than he claimed.

From what I can see, he seemingly had a drinking problem.

Really? This you deduce from one occasion when he is known to have been drunk? There is no evidence that Long was drunk on more than the one occasion which resulted in his dismissal. Are you here drawing a sensible conclusion that a man who acted in a certain way on one occasion may have done so on others? Mirabile dictu! I would be awfully grateful if you would extend the same privilege to me. We could thus end this debate and concentrate on what we seem to agree on - that there is a possibility that the apron piece was in situ at 2.20am, even though, sincerely or not, mistakenly or not, Long stated that it wasn't.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: What we know is that within a few weeks of giving evidence at the Eddowes inquest he was suspended from duty and that he was subsequently dismissed for being drunk on duty. What we know is all we know. But what we know isn't good.

Exactly - we know extremely little, and it comes from the time AFTER the rag incident.
We also know that however flawed his character was, it did not stop him from doing his job on the Goulston Street night. And THAT night is the one we should look upon, not some time that was months away. Clearly, Long was up to scratch on the murder night. That cannot be contested.

No. What I am suggesting is that we should look at his credibility against a background of what we know about his conduct on other occasions. I am suggesting, as a possibility that he may have been (not that he was, that he may have been) less diligent than he claimed.

That´s a lot better, Colin, and completely fair. At least as long as we weigh in that we actually know that he WAS diligent on the murder night - otherwise, he would not have secured the apron.
Your suggestion is that much as he was diligent enough at 2.55, he may have been a lot less so at 2.20, right? And yes, he MAY have been, just as you say - but the inference is that he was not. All we have to judge and compare by is the 2.55 occasion, and he was every bit as diligent as he needed to be then. It therefore must apply that the better guess is that he was equally diligent at 2.20. It is no certainty, but it IS the only suggestion that rests on our knowledge about his overall behaviour in Goulston Street. The only material at our disposal speaks FOR him, not against.

Really? This you deduce from one occasion when he is known to have been drunk? There is no evidence that Long was drunk on more than the one occasion which resulted in his dismissal. Are you here drawing a sensible conclusion that a man who acted in a certain way on one occasion may have done so on others? Mirabile dictu! I would be awfully grateful if you would extend the same privilege to me. We could thus end this debate and concentrate on what we seem to agree on - that there is a possibility that the apron piece was in situ at 2.20am, even though, sincerely or not, mistakenly or not, Long stated that it wasn't.

I weighed my words here very carefully, Colin - I initially wrote that the drunkenness that had him fired could be a one-off. But then I thought that it would be argued that the suspension would probably had been about the same thing, and I erased the lines. Instead, I settled for writing that he SEEMINGLY had a drinking problem, thinking that it would cover things admirably.
Obviously, it was hoping for too much

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.
So, as I say, we have a situation where an endorsed scenario does not fit with the evidence. That should always lead to the deduction that the scenario is probably wrong.
But here, it instead has led to the belief that the evidence is wrong, and not the scenario.

I´m fine with a reservation, but I am not fine with a toppled-over logic. If people WANT to believe that the rag was there at 2.20, then that´s their own choice. But once it is stated that it is the better guess, then it interferes with the most basic principles of what can be concluded and what can not. The quick-drop scenario needs to be quickly dropped as a contender for the more probable solution to the rag enigma. It is and remains second best.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

And his subsequent military career proves this?

Sorry mate

Dave

No need to apologise Dave,

His subsequent career has no bearing on what he did for the Met. He came in during a time of crisis and began to instill a discipline which was lacking, and had a willingness to explore innovative ideas.

He started the ball rolling for Commissioners like Wood to follow.

Monty

[Wickerman]

And what was that?

Harry, the fact this killer was not a mile or more away from Berner St. by 1:30 am strongly indicates he had his reasons for staying within the vicinity. Naturally, whatever his reason was it was logical to him.

The murderer certainly had to have left Berner St. by 1:00 am, and must have met up with his next victim before 1:30. Mitre Sq. is roughly a 10 minute walk or thereabouts from Berner St. so he did not hot-foot his way to 'home', out of any concern for his safety.
Evidently he was not concerned about being seen in adjacent streets and stopped by police, and found in possession of a bloodstained knife, this was not his prime concern.

If this killer (assuming the dominant theory of one killer for the double event), was more intent on causing extra disturbance and consternation by loitering in adjacent streets to target a second victim, then, returning to the street with a portion of apron a full hour after that murder was not beyond reason for this character.

The objection on those grounds is proven wrong by the apparent fact he sought out a second victim while police were being alerted to a murder in a nearby street.

[Roy Corduroy]

1 Mitre Square, 2 Broad Street, 3 Goulston St

Good morning Fisherman,

You suggest Charles Cross (Lechmere), after murdering Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, then went to Broad Street Goods Depot, where he stashed the body parts. Then a little later, still carrying the Eddowes apron piece, proceeded to Goulston Street, where he deposited the apron there. Sometime after 2.20 am when PC Long first swung by on patrol. So you have a reason why the apron actually wasn't there the first time. It's because your suspect was spending time at his local hidey-hole.

You may be the only one ever to actually come up with a reason it wasn't there the first time. Not saying I agree with it, but this may be a first. I think Trevor Marriott proposed something, but it was toally different.

You have an original thought on the matter. In which your suspect Lechmere plays the key role.

Roy

[Monty]

Apologies,

It was not November 1888, it was December 1888.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

When it comes to questioning witness discovered evidence, the filters should be....is the witness worthy of trust, is there any evidence that is in conflict with this witness evidence, and is the witness unsure of the accuracy of what they are submitting.

In Longs case that would be no, and no, and no. In fact a second witness account, about the same spot... near the same time, offers us no material objection to Longs remarks.

Ive been reading the posts and it occurs to me that almost all the challenges to the remarks made by Constable Long are based primarily in a belief that the killer dropped the cloth on his way from Mitre Square.

Deciding on an outcome that is directly contradicted by the known, non-contradicted evidence, is not, in my opinion, how to suss out fact from fiction.

No-one espouses that Longs remarks were inaccurate...because why?...because they had no evidence that they were. End of story. It "was not there" at 2:20am.

Until one accepts that as the the reality of this situation no-one will ever be able to figure out where he went and what he was doing for that time between 12:45 and almost 3am.

Cheers