Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

Oh I won't be betting anything, either way. And that's my whole point. All you have done above is give us yet more plausible reasons why PC Long might have missed the apron at 2.20 - if it was there - which is something I advise nobody bets a penny on, ever, because there is not one single solitary indication that it was.

Love,

Caz
X

All I have done? You make it sound as if it was my mission Caz, it isn't. As I said, its a moot point only of importance to suspect Ripperologists.

There is one solitary indication it was there, however it cant, and has been, countered.

Monty

[Monty]

Can't a copper multitask and be looking out for both the culprit and potential clues to his whereabouts? Besides, Long wasn't aware of the apron either, nor apparently of the latest murder, but he found it easily enough at 2.55. Yet he is now the one 'in the dock' for his pains so to speak. Seems a little harsh, when there were only 35 minutes in it, and no evidence that it was anywhere to be seen at the earlier time.

Love,

Caz
X

Sure Caz,

However I do not think a dirty piece of apron would be high upon that list of clues. May fall someway behind sharp knife and man with said sharp knife and kidney, besides, when considered, a man with sharp knife and kidney trumps any clue.

Long is not in the dock at all, who has stated this? I think some are getting rather over excited about the evidence presented upon the mans character and assume its an 'attack' on him.

Its extremely fascinating to see how people hang on to their precious perceptions, and even more fascinating to see that comment from me.

Don't believe the hype.

Monty

[Roy Corduroy]

Good morning Caz,

Hi Roy,

How patronising. What makes you think you are the only one who can figure out where Fish is coming from, while everyone else is in the dark?

Because everyone is humoring him. Instead of stating clearly whether they are aware who or what they are arguing against.

I am aware. Thats why when I post on this thread, I use the name Lechmere. And Pickfords. Because this a Lechmere thread. It's a Lechmere thread because Fisherman has far and away the most posts here, and he is posting for a reason. His reason is the apron wasn't there, just as PC Long said, because Lechmere hadn't put it there yet. I know that.

Interminable drawn out arguments like this one while avoiding the elephant in the room - that's called a farce.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy:

Fisherman is posting on this thread because he has a reason for the time-gap, the subject of the thread. But he won't say that. Fisherman has 124 posts on this thread. He could simply say 124 times he thinks Lechmere went to Pickfords first, then Goulston, and that's the reason for the apron delay.

Because I was reading through this thread, and it occured to me - poeple who are debating Fisherman don't know who or what they are debating against. Because he'd rather not say.

Iīve actually outlined the Lechmere part on more than one occasion on the thread, Roy.
But hereīs the thing:

When I mention that Lechmere could have been the killer and that he fits the missing rag scenario, it is requested of me to produce evidence.

And so I say that Long IS the evidence.

But when I do so, I get Monty breathing down my neck, saying that I am only trying to push my suspect.

The crux of the matter is that I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Is it that I have a favoured suspect? Or is it that I support my case with evidence? Or does the problem lie in Lechmere fitting the bill?

As I understand things, it is acceptable to have a suspect, as long as you donīt argue your case. Because when you do, you are only just trying to push a suspect.

As if that didnīt go with the territory ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DRoy:

So he can see a white apron piece that is discolored from blood and feces but not notice white writing on a black background?

Who says he did not see the writing? he saw BOTH, but not simultaneously.

Not very observant for someone who was so adamant the apron piece wasn't there before. Instead we are to believe he shined his light in the exact spot the apron wasn't at 2:20 but now was at 2:55 but didn't notice the writing until looking for blood spots at 2:55. Luckily the answer is easy!

It all boils down to where the two details were. If the rag was visible from the street, but the GSG not so, then itīs problem solved.

That example shows he was asked for clarification because they obviously knew it differed from Halse's and by treating him like this it is obvious who they believed. How do you seriously not see that?

Perhaps I am not as suspicious of people as you are. Maybe I need better grounds. Or something.
The Morning Advertiser tells us that Long was no pushover, the way you implicate. And I still say the jurors only knew that SOMEBODY had gotten it wrong. But how on earth would they know who?
Maybe they were not as adverse to Long as you are, and then they would have a tough call to make.

I've been shown? No that isn't the case at all.

You can lead a horse to water ...

I don't think it matters which version is accepted as the more likely one, the point is it is obvious who was believed at the time. Just read the inquest!

Would that help - you? It hasnīt so far.

Fish, they are labelled as two different Jurors as I have written them. One is 'A Juror' and the other is 'The Juror'. You are talking about something different.

That would not surprise me in the least. I normally do.

They listened to Long, they gave him 4 questions about the wording, they listened to Halse, they didn't ask him one question about the wording although he offered the wording himself, they ask Long 5 more questions about the wording.

Has it occurred to you that they had already shut a number of doors when Halse went on stage? It has occurred to me.

Yeah, they totally believed Long and felt Halse was wrong.

Itīs always interesting when somebody puts words in your mouth. It says a lot. Not about the case, though.

Proven wrong: there was a dispute whether to erase the GSG
Disputed: wording of the GSG
Result: They obviously believed Halse and not Long for some reason! They were there, they had the evidence, they heard the testimony, there must be a reason they thought this way. The questions they asked, who they asked, why they asked them...all had a purpose. Why did they feel they needed to go over the questions as they did with Long if he was completely believed?

More of the same, Iīm afraid. They knew somebody was wrong, and could prove neither man the culprit. So what goverened them to opt for Long? Did he wear the wrong cologne?

Now why on earth would you stick up for this guy after I have shown (quite convincingly in my opinion) I have "suspicions against Longs veracity"? Oh yeah, forgot you have a suspect in mind...interpret the evidence to fit which scenario best fits your favorite scenario by totally disregarding rational thought and evidence that doesn't fit it. This makes me hope I never have a favorite suspect

...aaaand there we go again: If you canīt fault me factually, you can always say that I argue my case only because Iīm befuddled with Lechmere - itīs all very convenient. Join the club!
I "stick up for this guy" because so many others prefer their prejudices to the recorded evidence. I have no personal feelings for Long, I am looking at the factual points only, and I find others do not do so always.

So maybe you need to get a suspect after all?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Roy,

How patronising. What makes you think you are the only one who can figure out where Fish is coming from, while everyone else is in the dark?

Love,

Caz
X

HELLO! Is it any secret where I am coming from? To ANYBODY around here? I mean ... get real, folks!

Fisherman
Who thinks Charles Lechmere was the Ripper (see?)

[DRoy]

Blimey, poor PC Long. Damned because he found both clues but not precisely at the same time. He had to see one before the other; it just happened to be the apron first. I believe both he and Halse admitted they could have missed the writing if it was there earlier.

Love,

Caz
X

Exactly my point Caz. In order for him to say the apron piece wasn't there at 2:20, we know it's because he looked at that exact spot twice (his first two laps around his route on his first day at that location) yet he still didn't notice the GSG. It was only after looking for blood did he see what others felt would be seen and possibly cause a riot.

Does that really sound reasonable? So observant to look at the apron spot twice yet so unobservant to not notice the GSG which was above the apron?

If he's looking at the ground every time he planned on passing the spot, he's going to miss everything not on the ground. If he looked up or at a different spot on the ground other than the exact spot he did before he might find something he missed earlier (like the GSG).

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

Oh, how I long (get it?) for the not too distant days when the argument was whether the apron was left by Eddowes herself or the underhanded DC Halse... LOL.

Theorists are losing their imagination...or their medication.

[DRoy]

Who says he did not see the writing? he saw BOTH, but not simultaneously.

Fish,

I've addressed this in my last couple of posts

It all boils down to where the two details were. If the rag was visible friom the street, but the GSG not so, then itīs problem solved.

Maybe that could why he didn't see the GSG first but the rag was under the graffito so for an 'observant' person he wasn't very 'observant'.

Perhaps I am not as suspicious of people as you are. Maybe I need better grounds. Or something.
The Morning Advertiser tells us that Long was no pushover, the way you implicate. And I still say the jurors only knew that SOMEBODY had gotten it wrong. But how on earth would they know who?
Maybe they were not as adverse to Long as you are, and then they would have a tough call to make.

I wouldn't consider The Morning Advertiser as evidence. Yes I agree, someone got the GSG wrong but it is plainly obvious that the Coroner and Crawford both believed Long got it wrong.

Has it occurred to you that they had already shut a number of doors when Halse went on stage? It has occurred to me.

I don't know what you mean?
Long was asked for details about the GSG, Halse went on stage but they didn't question him on the details, then Long returned after getting his notebook where they continued to question him on details about the GSG.

More of the same, Iīm afraid. They knew somebody was wrong, and could prove neither man the culprit. So what goverened them to opt for Long? Did he wear the wrong cologne?

I bet you're afraid, Long got beat up at the inquest and that hurts your preconceived theories.

...aaaand there we go again: If you canīt fault me factually, you can always say that I argue my case only because Iīm befuddled with Lechmere - itīs all very convenient. Join the club!

I honestly wasn't making fun of you Fish or your theory, I just don't know how you arrive at some of your conclusions in this thread unless it was because of your theory. I guess I was wrong.

I "stick up for this guy" because so many others prefer their prejudices to the recorded evidence. I have no personal feelings for Long, I am looking at the factual points only, and I find others do not do so always.

Recorded evidence such as the inquest where you've managed to dispute everything I've stated? It's the same evidence isn't it? We are reading the same inquest right?

So maybe you need to get a suspect after all?

Okay then I choose Alfred Long

Cheers
DRoy

[Monty]

But when I do so, I get Monty breathing down my neck, saying that I am only trying to push my suspect

.

Really? I was actually thinking of the Halse theory.

And you do push your suspect, on almost every thread you enter.

Monty

[Fisherman]

.

Really? I was actually thinking of the Halse theory.

And you do push your suspect, on almost every thread you enter.

Monty

What am I supposed to do? Diss him...?

Of course I will point out his viability. Isnīt that a rather obvious thing to do when you have a suspect?

In this case, Lechmere offers a very viable and useful explanation to the time gap. But of course, such a thing can only be pointed out by those who do NOT favour him as a suspect, since in only counts that way.

Kindergarten.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Okay then I choose Alfred Long

Cheers
DRoy

Yeah, you would. Hiīs probably responsible for Kennedy, Marat, Julius Caesar, Jay Leno and Abel too. (I know Leno isnīt dead, but when it happens, it will be Longīs doing too. That inquest really pinned him!)

Fisherman

[Monty]

What am I supposed to do? Diss him...?

Of course I will point out his viability. Isnīt that a rather obvious thing to do when you have a suspect?

In this case, Lechmere offers a very viable and useful explanation to the time gap. But of course, such a thing can only be pointed out by those who do NOT favour him as a suspect, since in only counts that way.

Kindergarten.

The best,
Fisherman

I'm long past caring what you do with Cross, the fact you feel the need to insert him into every thread only enforces the opinion that its a desperate act, this bolstering of a flawed theory, however that is all it is, an opinion.

Its an observation on the tiresome.

Monty

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Caz

It's as good a suggestion as any I suppose. We know he was in Goulston St at some point after the latest murder, with that 100% incriminating evidence still on his person. And we know the streets were not entirely deserted. He could have had to take evasive action and find temporary hiding places at any point between Mitre Square and where he was eventually headed.

In fact, if PC Long could have missed the apron at 2.20, he could presumably have missed the killer just as easily, crouching inside and out of sight with a cold kidney supper.

Thanks indeed...but it's not just a case of Long missing someone skulking around the same sort of area the GSG/Apron piece was subsequently found in, (ie he being negligent, and if he missed the gsg he could've missed seeing JTR)...

The stairwell contained a staircase which led to corridors, further stairs, more corridors, more stairs, etc...none of which he was tasked to check on his normal beat...so in fairness to Long he could've checked the stairwell at 2.20 and found nothing there, JTR being somewhere upstairs...JTR could've subsequently emerged, written the gsg, dumped the apron-piece under it then scarpered...

Long, to his credit, after discovering the evidence, did apparently check out the stairways and corridors (for either a body or a lurker)...by which time the murderer was long gone...

I admit again it's perhaps not a very likely scenario...but we ought to bear in mind it's possible...

All the best

Dave

[curious]

Oh, how I long (get it?) for the not too distant days when the argument was whether the apron was left by Eddowes herself or the underhanded DC Halse... LOL.

Theorists are losing their imagination...or their medication.

But NOT their keyboards -- unfortunately. :-)