Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Again, you need to read Colins post.

Monty

I have read it, Monty.

Maybe you should read mine instead?

Fisherman

[Cogidubnus]

Just to throw in another possible factor, Long was drafted from "A" Division to "H" Division to assist during the murders.

If you're in a division that's going to be left short-handed for the forseeable future, and in charge of deciding who's drafted, do you nobly send off your best men, or do you send off the slackers and shirkers?

Just a thought

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

But does the stairwell have any bearing on the issue?

Warren told us where the chalk writing was found..

"The writing was on the jamb of the open archway or doorway visible to anybody in the street..."

And PC Long had already said the writing was above the piece of apron..

"I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced........ Above it on the wall was written in chalk"

Putting both statements together we can determine the piece of apron was in a visible location, not hidden in the shadows.

If you transfer this argument to the Stride murder, we might assume the killer would go to ground after killing Stride, not stay on the streets when police are actively looking for a savage murderer.
Yet, some are quite willing to accept the killer not only stayed on the streets, but went looking for a second victim.

Therefore, is it reasonable to believe this killer was not afraid of being seen on the streets?

It is only Warren who says the writing was on the door jamb, implying that both it and the apron piece were openly visible. The other witnesses who mention the location at all, suggest that both were actually within the hallway of the building.

I think it's possible that by the time of writing his 6th November memo to the Home Office, Warren may've badly needed the writing to be more "visible" in order to justify his decison to have it erased...he'd already been interviewed by the Home Secretary on the subject, and perhaps could see which way the wind was blowing...

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Just to throw in another possible factor, Long was drafted from "A" Division to "H" Division to assist during the murders.

If you're in a division that's going to be left short-handed for the forseeable future, and in charge of deciding who's drafted, do you nobly send off your best men, or do you send off the slackers and shirkers?

Just a thought

All the best

Dave

More character assassination ...

It wonīt help, Dave - it will take you no other place than the rest of the same; it shows us that we need to be open to the possibility that Long was a lazy bastard. But that would have applied whether there was a special contingent of slackers and shirkers in the A division or not.

He may have been cruel to dogs too, people sometimes are. Letīs not forget that.

Fisherman

[Monty]

I have read it, Monty.

Maybe you should read mine instead?

Fisherman

I have, hence my suggestion.

Monty

[Monty]

Just to throw in another possible factor, Long was drafted from "A" Division to "H" Division to assist during the murders.

If you're in a division that's going to be left short-handed for the forseeable future, and in charge of deciding who's drafted, do you nobly send off your best men, or do you send off the slackers and shirkers?

Just a thought

All the best

Dave

Indeed Dave,

Whitehall was a significant division, as it policed Ministerial and Royal buildings, so the standard of constable required was quite significant.

The secondment to H was an apt opportunity to send the dross off their patch.

Monty

[Bridewell]

As an abstainer, well best I can, its good to see some common sense from someone who knows what they are talking about.

Great post Colin.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Thank-you kindly. The cheque is in the post!

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon
It is only Warren who says the writing was on the door jamb, implying that both it and the apron piece were openly visible. The other witnesses who mention the location at all, suggest that both were actually within the hallway of the building.

Hi Dave.
I think you'll find that the other witnesses only generalize, whereas Warren is very specific.
The archway to the hallway, is still the hallway. No one said, for instance, on the bottom step, or at the foot of the stairs, or in the darkest corner.

Warren was by nature very specific, a place for everything and everything in its place. This is the reason his opinion is so important, we know how picky he was, and a general statement would actually be out of character for Warren.

He had no need to impress anyone Dave, Warren was all about 'the truth'.

[Monty]

You have to note that Arnold kept the writing on the wall so Warren could view it in situ.

Plus, to expand on Jons assessment of Warren, it is worth remembering that the Metropolitan Commissioner was a noted surveyor whilst in the Army, location would have been fixed precisely by him.


Monty

[Bridewell]

Bridewell:

Iīm sorry, Colin, but prejudice DOES come into it the moment we extrapolate any of Longīs traits, be they good or bad, to have influenced his testimony at the inquest.
Fisherman

Why would I be prejudiced against Long? I assess his credibility as a witness, based on what is known of his character. That has nothing to do with prejudice. Long was suspended from duty shortly after this incident and dismissed in disgrace a few months after that. How can that not be relevant in assessing his credibility as a witness?

The prejudice lies in extrapolating chosen/imagined character traits in Long.

Nothing is extrapolated and certainly nothing is imagined. Long was suspended shortly after this incident and dismissed in the following year. These are historical facts. Suspension in the police service only follows an allegation of serious misconduct and dismissal is the severest sanction possible. I accuse him of nothing. What I do not do is accept, as fact, that the apron piece was not in situ at 2.20am, because there is reason to believe that it may not have been. I suggest only that Long's evidence should be treated with extreme caution because of what we know of his subsequent conduct. There is a reasonable basis for such a stance, rather more than for the Casebook canonisation as a conscientious police officer of an individual whose career ended in ignominy shortly after these events.

And letīs realize that Long was probably not any Moriarty - he was a copper that made a mistake and paid for it. He may have been top of the line otherwise.

Where did I say that he was a Moriarty? All I have done is suggest that he may have been less diligent than he claimed to be, that he may have made a mistake.

Thatīs exactly why we should not do so. We should take his statement on his own, no prejudice added, and accept that he probably was right, not least since he was very adamant about it.

And is that the approach you now propose to take with regard to the evidence of Charles Allen Lechmere?

What you do, basically, is to categorically state that Long was a bad man, and therefore we should accept that he lied about the rag. And then you add that prejudice does not enter your way of thinking ...?

Nowhere have I said that Long was a bad man or that he lied about the rag. I have suggested, based on what we know of his subsequent conduct, that he may have been less than diligent. It would be unfair to accuse him of lying or or being a bad man but I haven't done so. It would also be unfair to state as a fact that he was less than diligent, but I haven't done that either. I have simply suggested, based on what is known of his character, that this is a possibility. Do you not accept this as a possibility? Are you convinced that Long was as conscientious as he made himself out to be, or is there just the possibility of doubt in your mind?

[Bridewell]

Some say it probably WAS, and that the reason for believing this is a conviction that Long cannot be trusted.

If this is aimed at me, can I point out that I have no conviction that Long cannot be trusted. What I have is a belief that his evidence should be viewed in the context of what is known of his character.

The argument goes that since Long was let go for having been drunk on his post in 1889, he would more probably than not have lied about the apron the year before...!

This is your distortion of what has been suggested, which is that Long's credibility as a witness should be assessed in the context of what we know about his conduct on other occasions. I haven't accused Long of lying or of anything else. I have suggested as a possibility , no more, that he may not have been as diligent as he claimed.

[Fisherman]

I have, hence my suggestion.

Monty

Good - then weīve both read, and we agree on the definition of what prejudice is.

Happy days.

Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Just to throw in another possible factor, Long was drafted from "A" Division to "H" Division to assist during the murders.

If you're in a division that's going to be left short-handed for the forseeable future, and in charge of deciding who's drafted, do you nobly send off your best men, or do you send off the slackers and shirkers?

Just a thought

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave,

The 'A' Division commander was responsible for the efficient policing of that division. If he was sensible he sent those officers whose absence would have the least impact upon that efficiency. That is what would have happened in my time and I see no reason to suppose that it was any different in the 1880's.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Colin...exactly...and I guess he'd trust his sergeants to identify which was what?

All the best

Dave

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: Why would I be prejudiced against Long? I assess his credibility as a witness, based on what is known of his character. That has nothing to do with prejudice. Long was suspended from duty shortly after this incident and dismissed in disgrace a few months after that. How can that not be relevant in assessing his credibility as a witness?

Have you ever done something wrong, Colin?

Are you a reliable witness?

Far from saying that the matter of his suspension and dismissal is of no interest to the overall picture of Long, I am of the meaning that we should treat the rag issue neutrally nevertheless. What you do, is to single out one or two (the may well relate to drinking on both scores) details, and then you use them to lower the credibility of Long.
Has it occurred to you that drinking does not turn you into a liar? A person with a drinking problem can be more (or less) truthful than a person without it. Maybe you need to weigh that in, instead of generalizing on no basis at all.

Winston Churchill had a drinking problem. Was he regarded as a habitual liar and less trustworthy because of it?


Nothing is extrapolated and certainly nothing is imagined.

So you are NOT saying that the drinking problem that led to his dismissal should make us regard Long as less trustworthy? You see, that is where you extrapolate.

Long was suspended shortly after this incident and dismissed in the following year. These are historical facts. Suspension in the police service only follows an allegation of serious misconduct and dismissal is the severest sanction possible. I accuse him of nothing.

Yes, you do - you accuse him of being more prone to lie than the average person. Or donīt you?

What I do not do is accept, as fact, that the apron piece was not in situ at 2.20am, because there is reason to believe that it may not have been.

Two things:

It cannot be a fact that the rag was there at 2.20. It can only be the best suggestion.

The reason to believe that it was not there - that you donīt see - is that a PC named Alfred Long adamantly stated that it was not. That is an almighty reason to believe that it may not have been there!!!

I suggest only that Long's evidence should be treated with extreme caution because of what we know of his subsequent conduct.

Ridiculous. Iīm sorry, but I find it absolutely ridiculous. And more than a tad desperate.

Where did I say that he was a Moriarty?

You didnīt - it was I that slightly sarcastically pointed out that he was NO Moriarty.

All I have done is suggest that he may have been less diligent than he claimed to be, that he may have made a mistake.

... and that he should be treated with "extreme" caution. Sigh.

And is that the approach you now propose to take with regard to the evidence of Charles Allen Lechmere?

Yes. And with everybody else. The difference is that Lechmere passes the test as a suspect.

Nowhere have I said that Long was a bad man...

No, you only pointed out that it was only the worst of the worst that were subjected to what happened to Long. In this post, actually.

I have suggested, based on what we know of his subsequent conduct, that he may have been less than diligent. It would be unfair to accuse him of lying or or being a bad man but I haven't done so. It would also be unfair to state as a fact that he was less than diligent, but I haven't done that either. I have simply suggested, based on what is known of his character, that this is a possibility. Do you not accept this as a possibility?

Read again, Colin, what I have said. Do I really have to repeat myself? OF COURSE IT IS A POSSIBILITY!

Are you convinced that Long was as conscientious as he made himself out to be, or is there just the possibility of doubt in your mind?

You do not see what I say, do you? You donīt comprehend it. It would be naive in the extreme not to recognize that Long may have been skiving, lying, drunk, a bad man, vicious, stupid and lazy.

All of these things he MAY have been on that evening.

The trouble, however, is that we canīt PROVE that he was, just as we canīt prove that he was a very commandable cop (although we come closer on that score since he DID find the rag at 2.55!).
And when we canīt prove it, we have to leave it as a neutral point. And that includes not extrapolating an offence that came AFTER the event, into being something that had governed his doings on the murder evening.
Not that it would have mattered if it came before either!

Now, Iīm outta here for the night.

Fisherman