Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

[ATTACH]15891[/ATTACH]

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

Thanks for that, Roy!

If it was our carman, I would have found it odd if he had more than one place to stash trophies, and I donīt think he would bring them home. So to me, the more logical thing would be to employ Pickfords.

One thing that has had me wondering a bit is why he would choose a relatively southern route after leaving Pickfords, taking him past Goulston Street - using Hanbury Street and a more northern route would take him further out of harmīs way, one would have thought.
Then again, leaving Pickfords, he would need to round Liverpool Street station - or walk right through it - and I find that he may have opted for the small, secluded Devonshire Street instead, in which case Goulston Street fits the bill much better.

It may of course well be that the fact that Lechmere opens up for this scenario is just a coincidence. But he nevertheless does so, and since the rag not being in place at 2.20 as per Long has always been regarded an anomaly, it is of value to show that there may have been a perfectly logical explanation to the apron absence.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

So is that Long suspended for being drunk and absent (presumably from his beat) for three hours in December 1888 and then he was sacked for a similar offence the next July?
How long was he suspended for in December?

Combined with his being seconded and that being his first night of secondment, and his failure to take his notebook to court (small point perhaps), I think there is good reason to doubt Long.

But we just don't know and the Pickfords detour makes perfect sense.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Hi Jon
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

Warren's choice of words had nothing whatsoever to do with him wanting to save his job.

I seem to recall you trying to promote this idea before. The very idea is preposterous.

[Monty]

Apologies for the crap photo, it is one I had on my phone.

To clarify, the photo I show is of the Police Orders dated 14 December 1888. Long was suspended for a day (from 13th December) and reduced in classification.

A constable moves up the classification scale, depending on his disciplinary record, every 12 months. However, as punishment, that can be differred, this is called Retardation. In Longs case, his retardation started in March 89, for 6 months, meaning he wasn't eligible to move up a class until September 89.

However his didn't make it until then, being dismissed in July 89. It seems Long didn't heed his final warning.

Which, to me, shows a man who had drink related issues.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Dave.

Warren's choice of words had nothing whatsoever to do with him wanting to save his job.

I seem to recall you trying to promote this idea before. The very idea is preposterous.

Why so preposterous Jon? He'd just had a (possibly hostile) interview with the Home Secretary, who may well have criticisised his actiuons in Goulston Street...He's been instructed to prepare an account...a few days later he was history anyway... so what's to say he didn't read the tealeaves and wasn't feeling threatened or defensive?

My reading is that he didn't make up his mind to go...he was pushed...

All the best

Dave

[harry]

No Fisherman,my remarks do not suggest people lie half the time and tell the truth half the time in equal proportions.My remarks only convey the information that persons can and do lie.That Long could have lied.There is no information,anywhere,on what the killer did on leaving Mitre Square.There is strong belief that he took the apron part on leaving,and at some time deposited it in Wentworth building.Anything else is pure conjecture.There is not one jot of information on which to base a theory of his having loitered in the area,or returned at some time.Long's testimony is debateable,it has not,nor was it in 1888,proven reliable.Even if it had been so,in itself,it would not point to any particular individual,or any particular location.

Jon,
No one can decide why he was in any particular place at any one time,or that he was actively searching for a second victim.We connot determine his intentions.The fact that he committed multiple murder,in no way demonstrates he was not capaple of rational thought on other matters,the principal one,I should think,being self preservation.There was,in the words of the police of that time,no clue to his identity,which rather negates the idea that he roamed the area,or loitered in an uncaring fashion,not worried if he was seen or identified.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
No one can decide why he was in any particular place at any one time,or that he was actively searching for a second victim.We connot determine his intentions....

Ok Harry, then we both agree, we cannot argue that loitering, or returning to the streets to drop the piece of apron, are beyond consideration for this killer?

[The Good Michael]

Since some people believe that the killer spent a lot of time wandering around with an apron piece before depositing it, has anyone considered that he threw it away and then upon running into the graffiti that he agreed with, went back to get the piece and then deposit it?

Mike

[Fisherman]

So is that Long suspended for being drunk and absent (presumably from his beat) for three hours in December 1888 and then he was sacked for a similar offence the next July?
How long was he suspended for in December?

Combined with his being seconded and that being his first night of secondment, and his failure to take his notebook to court (small point perhaps), I think there is good reason to doubt Long.

But we just don't know and the Pickfords detour makes perfect sense.

Hi Edward!

I only think we know that the dismissal was on grounds of drinking - the suspension could theoretically have been about anything. Of course it is very reasonable, though, to suspect that the suspension was about the exact same thing as the dismissal, and Montyīs suggestion that the suspension was a final warning that he feiled to heed makes a lot of sense to me.

But it can apply that the suspension related to something else, and that the drunkenness added another vice to the list, having Long sacked as a result.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

No Fisherman,my remarks do not suggest people lie half the time and tell the truth half the time in equal proportions.My remarks only convey the information that persons can and do lie.That Long could have lied.

I concur, of course. But it is important to realize that we are not speaking of 50/50 proportions here, as was suggested earlier.

There is no information,anywhere,on what the killer did on leaving Mitre Square.There is strong belief that he took the apron part on leaving,and at some time deposited it in Wentworth building.Anything else is pure conjecture.

Exactly - we are at a loss in this respect.

There is not one jot of information on which to base a theory of his having loitered in the area,or returned at some time.

But of course there is such information - Long tells us that the apron was not there at 2.20, and that IS information that tells us EXACTLY that he loitered in the area or returned to it.
There is however no information at all to base a theory on, about the killer going directly to Goulston Street. Not a scrap. What we have speaks AGAINST it.
Once again we should not say that the evidence does not fit with the scenario, itīs the scenario that does not fit with the evidence. And the evidence takes precedence in such a case. We cannot regard Longs words as disallowed evidence. He proved himself at 2.55, and that means that we must accept that he was correct all along.

Long's testimony is debateable,it has not,nor was it in 1888,proven reliable.

What is the evidence that Longs testimony was deemed unreliable in 1888? Did the coroner and/or the jury question what he said? No. They readily accepted it, no questions asked.
It was of course thought an odd thing back then as now, and thereīs nothing remarkable about that - it IS odd, and most peoples guesses would be that the apron was deposited before 2.20.
But then as now, these guesses are unsubstantiated, and in conflict with the evidence.

Even if it had been so,in itself,it would not point to any particular individual,or any particular location.

No, it would not. My observation that it tallies with what we know about Lechmere was not on the table back then. So itīs about time that the suggestion is made now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Since some people believe that the killer spent a lot of time wandering around with an apron piece before depositing it, has anyone considered that he threw it away and then upon running into the graffiti that he agreed with, went back to get the piece and then deposit it?

Mike

I havenīt seen such a suggestion before. But logically, if he went eastwards after the strike (possibly/probably heading home) and threw the apron away before he came to Goulston Street, then he would have a stretch of less than five minutes walk to pick it back up again. And then he would have a less than five minute stretch back to Goulston Street again.
That means that if he did it that way, then the apron would be in place long before 2.20 anyway.

If it suggested that he did not walk eastwards until later in the process, but instead did an initial tour of the western/southern/northern streets after the murder of Eddowes, only to shoot eastwards at a later stage, then it could work as a theoretical construction.

Personally, I would not bet any money on it, however.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Yes Jon, we can argue the point of whether he loitered anywhere,especially when there is no indication from any source,of what his actual movements were.Nowhere have I said it was impossible for him to have done so,or to have deposited the apron after 2.20AM.I have expressed my belief,which is in line with others,both now ond in 1888,that the apron was deposited soon after the killer fled Mitre Square.

No Fisherman,Long's information cannot be accepted as being proven to be correct because it was given at an inquest.There was no indication either of a positive or negative view,which is as it should be,bearing in mind that anything Long said could be tested in a later criminal trial,should there be one,and decided by a jury.Lechmere,like the thousands of others that could have gone to Wentworth buiding after 2.20am,fail the test because there was not then,and not now,one single piece of physical evidence,or eye witness testimony that would put any one of them there.Not even Hutchinson.
.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

No Fisherman,Long's information cannot be accepted as being proven to be correct because it was given at an inquest.

Correct, of course, Harry. Proven it is not - we would not be having this discussion if it was!
I am not saying that we should regard it as proven either - only that it should be accepted as our best bet.

There was no indication either of a positive or negative view,which is as it should be,bearing in mind that anything Long said could be tested in a later criminal trial,should there be one,and decided by a jury.

What I reacted to was that you in your former post wrote "Long's testimony is debateable,it has not,nor was it in 1888,proven reliable", as if it had been tested and found unreliable. Itīs good to hear that this was not so, just as I proposed it wasnīt.

Lechmere,like the thousands of others that could have gone to Wentworth buiding after 2.20am,fail the test because there was not then,and not now,one single piece of physical evidence,or eye witness testimony that would put any one of them there.Not even Hutchinson.

Lechmere fails the test of being a case that can be proven. But he passes all the other tests, on the other hand. And he provides us with a logical solution to the absence of the apron. The line Berner Street - Mitre Square follows to a significant extent what would arguably have been his former route to work when he lived in James Street, and then Pickfords was but a short stretch away. A pit-stop there would neatly explain Longs assertion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

NB. It does specifically state that Long was suspended in December for drinking on duty.

[Fisherman]

NB. It does specifically state that Long was suspended in December for drinking on duty.

Right you are - my bad! It even states that he was cautioned for the last time at that stage. Makes for a simpler case thus; he very obviously HAD a drinking problem.

Fisherman