Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Ambiguites like being questioned about how did he know the piece wasnt there at 2.20am.

Questions he should have been asked to clear up the ambiguities surrounding his testimony regarding his actions at 2.20

Did you simply walk past and glance in at 2.20? not stopping?
Did you physically stop and go inside at 2.20?
Did you have your lamp on when you went past at 2.20am?
If you went inside at 2.20 for what purpose?
If you did go inside at 2.20 how far inside did you go?
Was the piece visible from the footpath when you saw it at 2.55am or did you have to go inside.?
How far from the footpath was the piece found?
How far from the path was the graffiti ?
Was the graffiti directly above the piece?
Were you checking other similar buildings on your beat
When were you first made aware of a murder
How were you made aware of a murder
Who told you?
What murder were you told about
You mention another PC 190 where did he come from
Had you met any other police men on your beat during the times referred to
When you first saw the apon piece did you know what it was or was it just a screwed up piece of rag.
What made you examine it in more detail, if it was just another piece of screwed up rag someone had disposed of.
Was it common to see discarded pieces of material on the streets during the day and night on your beats.
At the time you found the rag were you aware of one or two murders?

etc etc

I am quite happy to do the same exercise in relation to other witness testimony to highlight the ambiguities in their testimony to show that this witness testimony given by some of these police witnesses in all the murders doe not stand up to close scrutiny by reason of the need to clear up these ambiguities

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I asked you was, and I quote: "Primary evidence? Like Longs words, you mean...?"

I posed that question since you stated that Collards words were primary evidence. Evidently, you think that means that we should rely on Collard (or, to be more succinct, on you).

What I want to know is why we should not treat ALL primary evidence from sources within the police with the same respect.

Itīs not that I donīt know the answer (Longs testimony does not sit well with you), but I find it a bit farcical when you end up entangled in your knickers like this time and again.

I also want to know why you produce an answer that has nothing at all to do with the question I asked. Frankly, I believe I know the answer to that question too...

Finally, since you ask how Long could know that the rag was not in place at 2.20, there can only be one answer: Because he checked. How he checked, how long he checked and what colour he had on his socks are secondary factors. He said "It was not there" when the coroner asked him if he was able to tell. He could only have answered the way he did if he had checked.

The fact that he MAY have lied about it is just as secondary. It can only be a second-hand possibility.

You see, no matter how you try, you only sink deeper in the quicksand pit you have dug out for yourself. My only hope is that the sand reaches your mouth sometime soon, so that we may enjoy a moment of silence.

[David Orsam]

There is no missing 5 minutes in my calculations.There is an extra 5 minutes,and my calculations are not based on guesswork,nor am I the originator of the means by which beats were laid out and timed.

There is no "extra 5 minutes", Harry, because you have not established that Long's beat at normal walking pace would have taken 30 minutes. Originally you claimed that Long said that his beat took about half an hour "at steady working pace" which was a false claim. Then you backtracked in #201 and said "It has been stated elsewhere that beats were about 30 minutes." To which you added, "Walking at a steady pace I presume" (a guess, in other words). Then it turned out (in #208) that your source was "the internet" but you confessed that "Night beats were shorter (than day beats)". Given that Long's beat was a night beat, and beats were not all the same length - and given that N.R.A. Bell states in 'Capturing Jack the Ripper' (p. 86) that night beats took around 15 minutes to walk - you simply have no idea how long it would have taken him to walk it so you don't know if 35 minutes would have allowed him to carry out searches of dwelling passages or not.

[David Orsam]

but to the best of my knowledge and information,entering and searching was not a normal and essential part of every pass.The security of premises were as now, the responsibility of the owners.Police intervened ,as Trevor has pointed out,on suspicion,request or direction from a superior.None of these three conditions were stated by Long,to have been present at 2.20.So what evidence is there that Long needed to search the premises at that time?

Do you not appreciate the illogicality of what you are saying? Long found the apron at 2.55 so you need to explain why he found it at 2.55 and not 2.20. There was no "suspicion, request or direction from a superior" to cause him to search the Goulston Street dwelling passage at 2.55. There might have been another reason, namely that he had become aware of one or both of the murders and was more diligent in searching passages on his beat at 2.55 but, while that is perfectly possible, it is still speculation. He might well have been equally diligent at 2.20. But what you can't say is that Long didn't have time to search the dwelling passage at 2.20 which is what you were attempting to do in #191 but thankfully you now seem to have abandoned that argument.

[David Orsam]

W hat is my point.It is that we should not,as Fisherman stated,begin with a presumption that Long told the truth,and the apron was not at the premises in Goulstan Street at 2.20.(or words to that effect).

That may be your point now but it wasn't the point you were making in #191 to which I have at all times been responding and the fact that you have changed your point proves my contention that the argument you did make in #191 is in tatters.

[David Orsam]

Questions he should have been asked to clear up the ambiguities surrounding his testimony regarding his actions at 2.20

I have to challenge the claim that the questions you list "should" have been asked of Long at the inquest. They may be questions that a modern Jack the Ripper researcher, obsessed by the notion of a conspiracy, might wish had been asked but virtually none of them "should" have been asked at an inquest at which Long was not actually being cross-examined and which was concerned with establishing the circumstances surrounding the death of Eddowes.

Let me deal with them. The first five all relate to what happened at 2.20.

Did you simply walk past and glance in at 2.20? not stopping?
Did you physically stop and go inside at 2.20?
Did you have your lamp on when you went past at 2.20am?
If you went inside at 2.20 for what purpose?
If you did go inside at 2.20 how far inside did you go?

The witness stated in evidence that the apron was not there at 20 minutes past two. All he needs to be asked by way of clarification is how he can be certain it was not there. These specific questions are unnecessary.

Was the piece visible from the footpath when you saw it at 2.55am or did you have to go inside.?

There's nothing wrong with this question, and it could reasonably have been asked, although I fail to see what difference the answer will make to anything either way.

How far from the footpath was the piece found?

What possible relevance is this?

How far from the path was the graffiti ?

Many officers saw the graffiti including Halse so it's not specifically a question for Long nor is there any obvious relevance in the precise distance.

Was the graffiti directly above the piece?

Long's testimony was "Above it on the wall was written in chalk..." What does "directly" add here?

Were you checking other similar buildings on your beat

Ridiculous cross-examination type, conspiracy inspired, question that can only be designed to suggest that there was something improper about the way Long found the apron. There is no way that this question "should" have been asked.

When were you first made aware of a murder
How were you made aware of a murder
Who told you?
What murder were you told about

The only significance that I can see about his knowledge of the murder is whether it affected his diligence in searching at 2.55 as compared with 2.20 but we've already asked him how he could be certain the apron wasn't there at 2.20 so that's covered. It simply does not matter who told him about the murder nor how he was made aware of it nor which murder he was told about. That information is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The jury at the time were only interested in his failure to conduct an immediate search of the Goulston Street dwelling and he explained this.

You mention another PC 190 where did he come from

Ludicrous and poorly worded question. What do you mean, where did PC 190 "come from"? And what does it matter? Totally irrelevant.

Had you met any other police men on your beat during the times referred to

Just ridiculous and a waste of the court's time.

When you first saw the apon piece did you know what it was or was it just a screwed up piece of rag.

Why does it matter what he thought it was? Who cares what he thought?

What made you examine it in more detail, if it was just another piece of screwed up rag someone had disposed of.

A question not based on the evidence. Where does he say he examined the rag in "more detail"? And it clearly was not "just another piece of screwed up rag" because he testified that there were "recent stains of blood on it",

Was it common to see discarded pieces of material on the streets during the day and night on your beats.

Another utterly pointless cross-examination question based on the notion that there was something odd about Long drawing the bloodstained material to the attention of a superior officer when he's actually explained why he did that. No way "should" such a question have been asked of Long at the inquest.

At the time you found the rag were you aware of one or two murders?

This is a repeat of a question you've already asked above and what possible difference can it make to anything how many murders he was aware of?

[Kattrup]

Ambiguites like being questioned about how did he know the piece wasnt there at 2.20am.

Questions he should have been asked to clear up the ambiguities surrounding his testimony regarding his actions at 2.20

There's absolutely no ambiguity: Long stated categorically that the apron piece was not there at 2:20.

How is that in any way ambiguous? Oh, he must have lied. He must have been mistaken. He must have been drunk. He was never really questioned about it.

Meanwhile Collard's hasty list is taken as gospel because it does not specify that Eddowes was wearing the apron (even though other sources make this abundantly clear).

It's silly. Eddowes was wearing the apron when murdered, the apron was cut in half while she was wearing it, someone moved the apron piece from the murder site to Goulston Street, where it was deposited sometime after ca. 2:20, and where Long noticed it at 2:55.

If one wants to claim that the killer "would not" have stayed on the streets, however one wants to justify such a position, it would make more sense to claim that a stray dog must have carried the apron along, thus accounting for its appearance, than to argue directly against firsthand accounts.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have to challenge the claim that the questions you list "should" have been asked of Long at the inquest. They may be questions that a modern Jack the Ripper researcher, obsessed by the notion of a conspiracy, might wish had been asked but virtually none of them "should" have been asked at an inquest at which Long was not actually being cross-examined and which was concerned with establishing the circumstances surrounding the death of Eddowes.

Let me deal with them. The first five all relate to what happened at 2.20.

Did you simply walk past and glance in at 2.20? not stopping?
Did you physically stop and go inside at 2.20?
Did you have your lamp on when you went past at 2.20am?
If you went inside at 2.20 for what purpose?
If you did go inside at 2.20 how far inside did you go?

The witness stated in evidence that the apron was not there at 20 minutes past two. All he needs to be asked by way of clarification is how he can be certain it was not there. These specific questions are unnecessary.

That is your opinion

Was the piece visible from the footpath when you saw it at 2.55am or did you have to go inside.?

There's nothing wrong with this question, and it could reasonably have been asked, although I fail to see what difference the answer will make to anything either way.

Again your opinion but the question is still valid and relevant

How far from the footpath was the piece found?

What possible relevance is this?

How far from the path was the graffiti ?

Many officers saw the graffiti including Halse so it's not specifically a question for Long nor is there any obvious relevance in the precise distance.

There is every relevance to this question because if you look at the attached photo you will see that there is at least a three feet distance from the foot path to the archway, thus making it more difficult if not impossible to see inside the recess at that time of the night and as Long states he passed by

Was the graffiti directly above the piece?

Long's testimony was "Above it on the wall was written in chalk..." What does "directly" add here?

Were you checking other similar buildings on your beat

Ridiculous cross-examination type, conspiracy inspired, question that can only be designed to suggest that there was something improper about the way Long found the apron. There is no way that this question "should" have been asked.

There is nothing improper, but this type of building is not one that an officer on the beat would have cause to check it is an entrance to a block of flats not a shop, not a warehouse not a workshop. The police didnt go around checking ever single door and window on their beat.

When were you first made aware of a murder
How were you made aware of a murder
Who told you?
What murder were you told about

The only significance that I can see about his knowledge of the murder is whether it affected his diligence in searching at 2.55 as compared with 2.20 but we've already asked him how he could be certain the apron wasn't there at 2.20 so that's covered. It simply does not matter who told him about the murder nor how he was made aware of it nor which murder he was told about. That information is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The jury at the time were only interested in his failure to conduct an immediate search of the Goulston Street dwelling and he explained this.

Again your ignorance of police matters shows through. If he had been told about a murder after 2.20am and not before, it may have forced him to be for vigilant on the rest of his beat hence him findning the apron piece.

You mention another PC 190 where did he come from

Ludicrous and poorly worded question. What do you mean, where did PC 190 "come from"? And what does it matter? Totally irrelevant.

No question is totally irrelevant, it may have thrown some light onto how he came to know about the murder and its certainly of interest to know where this PC came from

Had you met any other police men on your beat during the times referred to

Just ridiculous and a waste of the court's time.

That would be for the court to determine

When you first saw the apon piece did you know what it was or was it just a screwed up piece of rag.

Why does it matter what he thought it was? Who cares what he thought?

I care, and would want to know why he decided to look closely at a screwed up piece of old rag which had clearly been discarded

What made you examine it in more detail, if it was just another piece of screwed up rag someone had disposed of.

A question not based on the evidence. Where does he say he examined the rag in "more detail"? And it clearly was not "just another piece of screwed up rag" because he testified that there were "recent stains of blood on it",

He must have examined the rag in more detail to be able to see it was wet, spotted with blood and had traces of faecal matter on it.He couldnt see those unless he had a close look

Was it common to see discarded pieces of material on the streets during the day and night on your beats.

Another utterly pointless cross-examination question based on the notion that there was something odd about Long drawing the bloodstained material to the attention of a superior officer when he's actually explained why he did that. No way "should" such a question have been asked of Long at the inquest.

Perhaps not, but still an important question to establish why he decided to look at this specific screwed up piece of rag

At the time you found the rag were you aware of one or two murders?

This is a repeat of a question you've already asked above and what possible difference can it make to anything how many murders he was aware of?

Because it would tell us at what point if any he started to be more vigilant on his beat. If as it seems he was only ever aware of the Mitre Sq murder then that perhaps tells us that unless he was told of that murder before 2.20am then he was not being vigilant and missed the apron piece and his evidence cannot be accepted as set in stone. There is plenty of facts which tend to show that the apron piece could have been there at 2.20am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Did you simply walk past and glance in at 2.20? not stopping?
Did you physically stop and go inside at 2.20?
Did you have your lamp on when you went past at 2.20am?
If you went inside at 2.20 for what purpose?
If you did go inside at 2.20 how far inside did you go?

The witness stated in evidence that the apron was not there at 20 minutes past two. All he needs to be asked by way of clarification is how he can be certain it was not there. These specific questions are unnecessary.

That is your opinion

Well of course it is my opinion and it's clearly correct.

Was the piece visible from the footpath when you saw it at 2.55am or did you have to go inside.?

There's nothing wrong with this question, and it could reasonably have been asked, although I fail to see what difference the answer will make to anything either way.

Again your opinion but the question is still valid and relevant

Well you haven't explained what difference the answer would have made to anything either way so I'm forced to conclude that, as I thought, it would have made no difference to anything.

How far from the footpath was the piece found?

What possible relevance is this?

No answer noted.

How far from the path was the graffiti ?

Many officers saw the graffiti including Halse so it's not specifically a question for Long nor is there any obvious relevance in the precise distance.

There is every relevance to this question because if you look at the attached photo you will see that there is at least a three feet distance from the foot path to the archway, thus making it more difficult if not impossible to see inside the recess at that time of the night and as Long states he passed by

Your answer demonstrates that there is no relevance to the question. What you are attempting to suggest is that there was something odd about Long's discovery of the apron but this was something he explained to the satisfaction of the court in October 1888 (saying that he used his lamp to see it) and there was absolutely no need for any further questions on the subject.

Was the graffiti directly above the piece?

Long's testimony was "Above it on the wall was written in chalk..." What does "directly" add here?

No answer noted.

Were you checking other similar buildings on your beat

Ridiculous cross-examination type, conspiracy inspired, question that can only be designed to suggest that there was something improper about the way Long found the apron. There is no way that this question "should" have been asked.

There is nothing improper, but this type of building is not one that an officer on the beat would have cause to check it is an entrance to a block of flats not a shop, not a warehouse not a workshop. The police didnt go around checking ever single door and window on their beat.

Again you are attempting to cast doubt on Long's discovery of the apron by way of cross-examination which was not appropriate for the inquest and Long explained his discovery to the satisfaction of the court. Further I have absolutely no idea why you mention the need to check every "door and window on their beat" considering that Long said nothing about checking any door or window when discovering the apron.

When were you first made aware of a murder
How were you made aware of a murder
Who told you?
What murder were you told about

The only significance that I can see about his knowledge of the murder is whether it affected his diligence in searching at 2.55 as compared with 2.20 but we've already asked him how he could be certain the apron wasn't there at 2.20 so that's covered. It simply does not matter who told him about the murder nor how he was made aware of it nor which murder he was told about. That information is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever. The jury at the time were only interested in his failure to conduct an immediate search of the Goulston Street dwelling and he explained this.

Again your ignorance of police matters shows through. If he had been told about a murder after 2.20am and not before, it may have forced him to be for vigilant on the rest of his beat hence him findning the apron piece.

Far form my "ignorance of police matters" showing through, if you care to read my post #243 from earlier this evening you will see that I said to Harry: "There might have been another reason [for Long discovering the apron at 2:55 but not at 2:20], namely that he had become aware of one or both of the murders and was more diligent in searching passages on his beat at 2.55 but, while that is perfectly possible, it is still speculation." That is exactly what you are saying to me. But you have missed the fact that I already agreed that Long could have been asked to clarify how he could be so sure that the apron was not there at 2:20. If he had said "Because I carried out exactly the same search at 2:20 as at 2:55" that would have answered the point.

You mention another PC 190 where did he come from

Ludicrous and poorly worded question. What do you mean, where did PC 190 "come from"? And what does it matter? Totally irrelevant.

No question is totally irrelevant, it may have thrown some light onto how he came to know about the murder and its certainly of interest to know where this PC came from

You said these questions "should" have been asked, now it's just a question of curiosity regarding an issue of no significance whatsoever. We don't need to know how Long came to know about the murder and it's obvious you only ask the question because you seem to doubt it due to some kind of conspiracy theory. It is really of no interest where this other PC come from. There were constables patrolling the streets throughout Whitechapel and I wonder where you think he came from.

Had you met any other police men on your beat during the times referred to

Just ridiculous and a waste of the court's time.

That would be for the court to determine

Well indeed and the court didn't ask the question so the court must have determined it would be a waste of its time to ask it.

When you first saw the apon piece did you know what it was or was it just a screwed up piece of rag.

Why does it matter what he thought it was? Who cares what he thought?

I care, and would want to know why he decided to look closely at a screwed up piece of old rag which had clearly been discarded

Trevor, there is an obvious answer, and one which he gave to the court, namely that the "old rag" (which was actually part of a female's white apron, recently worn) was blood stained. Even if he hadn't heard of a murder that evening he knew the Ripper was at large. The apron was also found below some suspicious graffiti. What's not to understand?

What made you examine it in more detail, if it was just another piece of screwed up rag someone had disposed of.

A question not based on the evidence. Where does he say he examined the rag in "more detail"? And it clearly was not "just another piece of screwed up rag" because he testified that there were "recent stains of blood on it",

He must have examined the rag in more detail to be able to see it was wet, spotted with blood and had traces of faecal matter on it.He couldnt see those unless he had a close look

What he said was that "he noticed the piece of apron" and "there was blood on it". So that explains why he picked it up. Honestly Trevor, what more reason do you think he can give you?

Was it common to see discarded pieces of material on the streets during the day and night on your beats.

Another utterly pointless cross-examination question based on the notion that there was something odd about Long drawing the bloodstained material to the attention of a superior officer when he's actually explained why he did that. No way "should" such a question have been asked of Long at the inquest.

Perhaps not, but still an important question to establish why he decided to look at this specific screwed up piece of rag

No, it's not important at all Trevor. It wasn't important to the coroner or to the jury or to the City Solicitor in October 1888. It only seems to be important to a few modern conspiracy theorists who seem to have an irrational problem with an officer spotting a bloodstained white apron on his beat. Everyone else understood it in 1888 and virtually everyone else understands it today.

At the time you found the rag were you aware of one or two murders?

This is a repeat of a question you've already asked above and what possible difference can it make to anything how many murders he was aware of?

Because it would tell us at what point if any he started to be more vigilant on his beat. If as it seems he was only ever aware of the Mitre Sq murder then that perhaps tells us that unless he was told of that murder before 2.20am then he was not being vigilant and missed the apron piece and his evidence cannot be accepted as set in stone. There is plenty of facts which tend to show that the apron piece could have been there at 2.20am.

Yes, I have already said that it's possible that he could have become more vigilant at 2:55 but we should have established this by the first question that I said it would have been fair to ask namely how certain he was that the apron was not there at 2:20. Once he explained this we could have made a judgement about whether he might have missed it at 2:20 but the evidence we have, whether one believes it or not, is unambiguous because he that he said it wasn't there.

[harry]

I have changed nothing.I h ave only claimed one point,that refering to Fisherman. It must have been there,has never been my claim.I will repeat,it is my opinion the piece of apron w as there at 2.20.Only one person is claiming otherwise. Nothing is in tatters.Only one person claims it is.Nothing for me to be alarmed about.

Police policy towards safety is pretty much the same today.Do police check premises on a regular basis.Several times a night?.I don't think so.Ivé never had my premises checked.Glanced at maybe,as would have happened in 1888,in Goulston St
Long perhaps would have glanced at Wentworth Building as he passed,but e ntered and searched? No e vidence of the latter.Nothing that states his duties demanded he did so.

As for,beats length's and timings, I have said,the information did not originate from me.Ivé merely passed it on,but two miles in half an hour I can accept,and it closely corresponds to what Long says it tok him on the pass in question.. Now I do not think the basic formula of two miles and half an hour was meant to mean it would always be that.Factor in such things as inclement weather,natural body functions,the need for occassionl rests,etc,and a five minute difference is not worth questioning.

[Fisherman]

Harry, you may need to take a rest. Right now, your efforts look at lot more like masochism than like any insight at all.
We all get it wrong every now and then. Happens to all of us. But when it does, it does not help to repeat what we got wrong ad infinitum as if it would make it right.
Long said the rag was not there at 2.20.
You say it is more likely to have been there at 2.20.
Regardless of the veracity of your statement (and the degree of that veracity cannot be established), you are in conflict with the evidence given.

The one and only conclusion that can be drawn is that the rag MAY have been there at 2.20, but based on the evidence, the more accurately formed guess is that it was not.

Presenting it the other way around, that the rag was probably there, but it MAY not have been, can never be the more accurately formed guess.

That is what is on offer: An outside possibility that you are correct in guessing that the rag was there at 2.20. Nothing else. Take it or leave it.

[David Orsam]

I have changed nothing

Here's what you posted in #191 Harry:

"It is said the beat took about half an hour at steady walking pace to complete.That's how long,Long states it took him(Long).No time then to check doors,windows,and empty spaces."

Are you saying you stand by this?

Thus: (1) Is it true that Long statement his beat took him half an hour at steady walking pace? and (2) Is it true that there was no time for Long to check doors, windows and empty spaces on his beat?

If you do stand by this, please (1) identify when and where Long stated that his beat took him half an hour at steady walking pace to complete and (2) state how it is possible for you to say that there was no time for Long to check doors, windows and empty spaces on his beat.

If you can't do this - and I know for a fact you can't - then isn't it about time for you to admit to your error?

[Abby Normal]

One thing this site has proven to me is how hard it is for grown men to admit there wrong. Probably why there have been so many wars.

C'mon people. Admit when your wrong. It's not the end of the world. It part of the learning process!

[Trevor Marriott]

One thing this site has proven to me is how hard it is for grown men to admit there wrong. Probably why there have been so many wars.

C'mon people. Admit when your wrong. It's not the end of the world. It part of the learning process!

When a person is right, there is no need to admit they are wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Thus: (1) Is it true that Long statement his beat took him half an hour at steady walking pace? and (2) Is it true that there was no time for Long to check doors, windows and empty spaces on his beat?

Correction:

(1) Is it true that Long stated his beat took him half an hour at steady walking pace? and (2) Is it true that there was no time for Long to check doors, windows and empty spaces on his beat?

[John G]

One thing this site has proven to me is how hard it is for grown men to admit there wrong. Probably why there have been so many wars.

C'mon people. Admit when your wrong. It's not the end of the world. It part of the learning process!

This is a very good point, at least as applied to Donald Trump, for instance! Anyway, I think difficulties occur when posters take entrenched positions, at which point objectivity goes out of the window. And, yes, I've been guilty of that myself on occasion, but in the end I feel I've always been prepared to alter my opinion in the long term if confronted with a persuasive argument!

Maybe some posters, particularly those who write books, feel they simply have too much to lose.