Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[DRoy]

Long wasn't "believed by those right in front of him"? Really? You challenge me to produce evidence and you make a statement like that?
Ok well the evidence is that long found the only clue in the case. Now you show me the evidence that he wasn't believed.

His "credibility as a witness"? Well it's looked like Sherlock Holmes so far compared with what else I have seen.

Abby,

Have you read the inquest? Read all the questions they ask him and compare that to questions asked of anyone else.

Did they believe he found the apron? Yes.
Did they believe him about the GSG? No.
Was he right about nobody disputing the rubbing off of the GSG? No.

Yes, I challenge his credibility as a witness for those reasons. Add in the fact he was fired and I think we have very good reason to.

Cheers
DRoy

[Bridewell]

Except we now know that Long was in trouble for drink more than once in his career, with one misdemeanour occurring a 6 or so weeks after finding the apron piece. However, that is significant only in terms of Longs character, not the events of that night, though the impact of drink on Longs working life was significant enough to get him suspended, declassified, retarded and subsequently dismissed within a year.

Monty

But dare to suggest that, knowing this, Long might have been mistaken or might have been less than diligent (not that he was but that he might have been) and the heavens come down on your head. I actually have no axe to grind one way or the other with regard to the presence or absence of the apron piece at 2.20am. It's not proven, or proveable, one way or the other. I just think it unwise to discount the possibility that Long was mistaken.

[Bridewell]

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.
The best,
Fisherman

If Long's claim (that the apron piece was not at WMD at 2.20am) is accepted, how does said claim constitute evidence that it was in the possession of Charles Allen Lechmere?

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

If you're arguing that Long's evidence supports the case for Lechmere being the killer of Kate Eddowes, I would agree with him.

[harry]

The apron piece was produced by Long at a police station about three oçlock that morning.It was found missing from her body when the body was examined in Mitre square.Long claims to have found it at about 2.55AM in Wentworth buiding.It is only a belief that the killer took it,only a belief that Long found it where he said he did,and only fantasy that Lechmere/Cross took it to Pickfords.Now if anyone other than fisherman wants to connect an unsupported chain of beliefs that includes Pickfords,into unquestionable evidence to satisfy a court,feel free to do so.

[Wickerman]

The apron piece was produced by Long at a police station about three oçlock that morning.It was found missing from her body when the body was examined in Mitre square.Long claims to have found it at about 2.55AM in Wentworth buiding.It is only a belief that the killer took it,only a belief that Long found it where he said he did,and only fantasy that Lechmere/Cross took it to Pickfords.Now if anyone other than fisherman wants to connect an unsupported chain of beliefs that includes Pickfords,into unquestionable evidence to satisfy a court,feel free to do so.

Harry, I think you'll find that they only discovered she had been wearing an apron when the body was being stripped at the mortuary in Golden Lane.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell:

If Long's claim (that the apron piece was not at WMD at 2.20am) is accepted, how does said claim constitute evidence that it was in the possession of Charles Allen Lechmere?

You quoted me saying that Lechmere fits the missing rag scenario, Colin. And the evidence from that night, as per Long, tells us that the rag was not in place at 2.20. And Lechmere would - as per the theory I ascribe to - deposit his trophies at Pickfords. Ergo, the evidence about the absence of the rag at 2.20 fits with this theory.
Surely, Colin, you would not believe that I would state that there is evidence that Lechmere was in posession of the rag? Or do you?

Why is it that these reoccurring misunderstanding, misinterpretations etcetera always surface the moment the word "Lechmere" hits the boards? I have a theory of my own, but I´d like to hear your take on it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The apron piece was produced by Long at a police station about three oçlock that morning.It was found missing from her body when the body was examined in Mitre square.Long claims to have found it at about 2.55AM in Wentworth buiding.It is only a belief that the killer took it,only a belief that Long found it where he said he did,and only fantasy that Lechmere/Cross took it to Pickfords.Now if anyone other than fisherman wants to connect an unsupported chain of beliefs that includes Pickfords,into unquestionable evidence to satisfy a court,feel free to do so.

I would not agree with myself if I had claimed that there was unquestionable evidence for such a chain, Harry. The evidence about the rag fits the theory about Lechmere, end of story.

You should read my answer to Colin, by the way. It applies to more than him, apparently.

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Kudos to PC Long

And if the writing was there for all eyes to see by 2.20, doesn't that make Halse (and every other passer-by for that matter) every bit as blind as Long?

Not "blind", Caz - merely human. Given that Halse testified that "it was easily overlooked" as it was "in the building", it seems probable that any passer-by could have missed it on the first pass; or the second/third for that matter.

Come to think of it... Unaware as he was (at the time) of the possible significance of a mere discarded piece of cloth, it is perhaps to Long's credit that he noticed it at all.

[Sam Flynn]

And Lechmere would - as per the theory I ascribe to - deposit his trophies at Pickfords. Ergo, the evidence about the absence of the rag at 2.20 fits with this theory.

It's not much of an "ergo", though, is it, Fish? Never mind Pickford's; the rag could have been anywhere in the East End between Eddowes' death and Long's finally seeing it. And it needn't have been "missing" for any great length of time. It could easily have been dropped there at 2:23.

[Fisherman]

It's not much of an "ergo", though, is it, Fish? Never mind Pickford's; the rag could have been anywhere in the East End between Eddowes' death and Long's finally seeing it. And it needn't have been "missing" for any great length of time. It could easily have been dropped there at 2:23.

Absolutely and undoubtedly true, Gareth! My ergo was directed to Colin, who completely misinterpreted what I wrote so as to accuse me of having claimed that there was evidence that Lechmere had had the apron in his possesion.

A huge percentage of the posts out here are written to clear up misconceptions. As if the case in itself was not shrouded in fog!

All I am saying, all I am arguing and ergoing, if you will, is that IF Lechmere was the killer, and IF he went to Pickfords with chosen bits and pieces of Eddowes, then that would give us a possible explanation to why the apron was not in Goulston Street at 2.20.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

As if the case in itself was not shrouded in fog!

Nice one

[Fisherman]

Nice one

Mille grazie, signore!

Pescatore

[Fisherman]

... Halse testified that "it was easily overlooked" ...

There it is again!

Did Halse really say this, Gareth? If so, where? I am not contesting that he did, I just cannot remember it IF he did, and it actually has some bearing on where the rag was. To my mind, at least.

Could you help me out?

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Halse's testimony

"At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron."

Monty

[Sam Flynn]

Did Halse really say this, Gareth? If so, where? I am not contesting that he did, I just cannot remember it IF he did, and it actually has some bearing on where the rag was. To my mind, at least.

My bad, Fish - I realise that I've got my wires crossed with Dr Brown's comments on the kidney ("It is easily overlooked. It is covered by a membrane".) I won't do it again!

Halse is reported as saying that he would not necessarily have seen it, which is tantamount to saying that it was easily overlooked anyway. Halse also states that the apron was inside the building, which supports the conclusion that it was indeed easily overlooked.