Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 17 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by rjpalmer 25 minutes ago.
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - by Tecs 31 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: good riddance-have fun in Hell - by barnflatwyngarde 39 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 50 minutes ago.
Shades of Whitechapel: good riddance-have fun in Hell - by Abby Normal 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (53 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (9 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (7 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Only one suspect can be shown to have carried a knife. - (6 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: good riddance-have fun in Hell - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > Goulston Street Graffito

View Poll Results: Did Jack write the GSG?
YES 74 38.34%
NO 119 61.66%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #2131  
Old 09-24-2017, 04:09 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,581
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Let me tell you there are people who have been here since time immemorial who still dont know what they are talking about.
That's very honest and commendable of you, Trevor.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2132  
Old 09-24-2017, 05:45 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
Default

Now some of you may think,that the AtoZ is inferior to your sources,but it is also,as far as I know the only source that claims Long asked for,and was given,permission to read from his notebook.He made notes at some time,so was not entirely speaking from memory.He would have refreshed his memory,so I Have no doubt whatsoever that when he replied to the juror he had no knowledge of the Eddowes murder when finding the cloth,He was speaking the truth.
So,it was not Long,nor evidence of a crime,that sent everyone who did so,scurrying to Goulsten Street that morning,but Long's entry in his notebook of the writing on the wall.Why,if it at the time,Long could find no evidence of a crime,did the writing arouse his interest,and that of others.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2133  
Old 09-24-2017, 07:01 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Now some of you may think,that the AtoZ is inferior to your sources,but it is also,as far as I know the only source that claims Long asked for,and was given,permission to read from his notebook.He made notes at some time,so was not entirely speaking from memory.He would have refreshed his memory,so I Have no doubt whatsoever that when he replied to the juror he had no knowledge of the Eddowes murder when finding the cloth,He was speaking the truth.
So,it was not Long,nor evidence of a crime,that sent everyone who did so,scurrying to Goulsten Street that morning,but Long's entry in his notebook of the writing on the wall.Why,if it at the time,Long could find no evidence of a crime,did the writing arouse his interest,and that of others.
I'm not sure where the A to Z gets it's info, but it's pretty clear from the press reports that Long said he had heard of the murder.

Times;
"Before proceeding to the station he had heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre-square"

Morning Advertiser;
"I had heard before proceeding to the station that a murder had been committed in Mitre square"

Daily Telegraph;
"Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes.
It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."

Daily News;
"Before proceeding to the station, had you heard of any murder having been committed? - Yes.
It is common knowledge that two murders were committed that morning, which had you heard of? - Of the one in Mitre square"

They also mention that he had not brought his notebook to the inquest, and was sent to fetch it from Westminster so the wording of the graffito could be checked.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2134  
Old 09-24-2017, 07:28 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

There is a bit of a footnote to this query by Harry.

Some months ago we had a bit of a debate over why PC Long did not bring his pocketbook to court, an experienced officer would have known to do that. This was just another criticism made against Long, but as I read through the various press reports of his testimony I noticed something I had not seen before.

It appears PC Long copied the notes from his pocketbook into a report for him to bring as evidence to the inquest. Which is why he had no need to also bring his pocketbook.
The Coroner was questioning whether he had copied the graffiti accurately from his pocketbook into the report.

In the court version we actually do read: "I copied the words from the wall into my report".
(Which must have meant "from the pocketbook into my report")

Long also added: "I wrote down into my book and the Inspector noticed that Jews was spelt Juews".

In the Daily Telegraph we also read the Coroner asked if he had made a note of the graffiti at the time, to which Long replied: "Yes, in my pocket-book."

After this exchange the Coroner asked if Long could go get his pocketbook.
On Long's return, the Coroner asked him: "Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly?"

"Both here, and in your inspectors report".
We are looking at two sources. The report he had to make for the inspector, presumably after his duty that night, and his original notes made at the scene in his pocketbook.
This was the reason he did not bring his pocketbook to court, he had a copy of the graffiti made in his report which he brought to the inquest.

PC Long is justified once again.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2135  
Old 09-24-2017, 07:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,786
Default

And, just for the sake of argument....

The above is also consistent with Collards "list of possessions" made in his pocketbook, which he would also transfer to a report at the station. These foolscap pages are what we have in evidence today. Copies of his notes, but not his original notes which were made in his pocketbook.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2136  
Old 09-24-2017, 08:00 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
"Both here, and in your inspectors report".
We are looking at two sources. The report he had to make for the inspector, presumably after his duty that night, and his original notes made at the scene in his pocketbook.
This was the reason he did not bring his pocketbook to court, he had a copy of the graffiti made in his report which he brought to the inquest.

PC Long is justified once again.
Many thanks Jon, I'd not picked up on that detail before. It makes a bit more sense now.
I'm still not clear if the "inspectors report" was Long's report for the (un-named?) inspector, or the inspector's own report on the GSG.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2137  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:15 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
So suddenly you are an expert, having been here for only a couple of months.

Let me tell you there are people who have been here since time immemorial who still dont know what they are talking about. People who have no concept as to how to assess and evaluate evidence, or for that matter what the term evidence means.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
How totally insulting. The arrogance in the post and others is truly astonishing.
Only certain people with certain backgrounds can understand the case. Indeed in one post recently it was said that such a view is at least (that means more) valid than the views of those there in 1888 including the police,


Steve

Fortunately we have courts, judges and juries to decide on Evidence, not the police who are only human and make mistakes.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2138  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:25 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,459
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
I'm not sure where the A to Z gets it's info, but it's pretty clear from the press reports that Long said he had heard of the murder.

Times;
"Before proceeding to the station he had heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre-square"

Morning Advertiser;
"I had heard before proceeding to the station that a murder had been committed in Mitre square"

Daily Telegraph;
"Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes.
It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."

Daily News;
"Before proceeding to the station, had you heard of any murder having been committed? - Yes.
It is common knowledge that two murders were committed that morning, which had you heard of? - Of the one in Mitre square"

They also mention that he had not brought his notebook to the inquest, and was sent to fetch it from Westminster so the wording of the graffito could be checked.
He had not heard of the murder before searching the stairs and landings, but had heard of the murder before he took the piece of apron to the police station. He was questioned bout this, saying that he thought he would find someone injured, not that he thought he would come across a murderer. It is not known who told him about the murder, but the only person he is known to have soken to was the policeman he left to watch the building.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2139  
Old 09-25-2017, 01:42 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,646
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
I have re-read my post and see why it annoyed you. My apologies, Mr Marriott - I chose my words poorly.
Dear Etenguy


"I think it is time to accept that we are not going to convince Mr Marriott that his theory is insufficiently substantiated to convince anyone with more than superficial knowledge of the murders."



Trevor theories ARE insufficiently substantiated, many have NO SUPPORT AT ALL.

And they ARE indeed unlikely to convince any with more than a basic background in the subject.

Which words are you apologising for ?
You said NOTHING which was rude or inaccurate


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #2140  
Old 09-25-2017, 02:54 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,681
Default

These newspaper reports we hear so much about.How did they receive their information. Was it a one to one interview with Long.One might think so after reading some of the posts.
Long was asked a question by a juror as to his knowledge of the Eddowes murder,and he answered,under oath,in the negative.Information to that effect also survives.It cannot be changed.So are cetain posters claiming he(Long) lied under oath.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.