Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[DRoy]

Colin,

Long knew what he wrote in his book so whether he had it present or not wouldn't had mattered. Even when he fetched his notebook, what did it prove? That there was still a dispute as to the spelling of 'Jews' and the placement of "not". Did Long know before the inquest that there was a dispute to the wording of the graffito?

You believe that makes him one of the most unreliable on the ground? You're saying if he was a great policeman but forgot his notebook he becomes one of the most unreliable on the ground? How do they even relate to each other? They don't. So yes, in my opinion there is nothing to substantiate that comment.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

DRoy,

If Bridewell as an ex policeman considers the absence of the note book as a major blunder on Long's part, then I for one believe him. Add to that the fact that Long was kicked out of the force shortly afterwards and I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that the the man was not one of the Met's finest.

Good police officers do not forget their pocket books when attending a trial or inquest.

The Metropolitan police force were/are not in the habit of sacking good officers.

So doesn't it follow that the likelihood is that Long was not a good officer?

MrB

[DRoy]

DRoy,

If Bridewell as an ex policeman considers the absence of the note book as a major blunder on Long's part, then I for one believe him. Add to that the fact that Long was kicked out of the force shortly afterwards and I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that the the man was not one of the Met's finest.

Good police officers do not forget their pocket books when attending a trial or inquest.

The Metropolitan police force were/are not in the habit of sacking good officers.

So doesn't it follow that the likelihood is that Long was not a good officer?

MrB

MrB

You said you felt Long was one of the most unreliable policemen on the ground. I've shown your reasons have nothing to do with him being one of the most unreliable on the ground. Period.

If he was horrible at paperwork, if his attendance was horrible, if he didn't speak well in inquests, etc, ...they have nothing to do with how he performed in the field. Nothing. If you and Colin choose to discredit Long then do so but to say he was one of the most unreliable on the ground then provide something related to how he performed on the ground.

Cheers
DRoy

[curious4]

Long

Hello all,

We don't (correct me if I'm wrong) know much about Long and how he performed before the murders. If modern-day policemen have a traumatic experience, they are helped and counselled. Back then then the most experienced and burly policeman may well have felt
some trepidation when patrolling dark areas, with a maniac killer on the loose. Poor Watkins seems to have lost it altogether on finding Kate's body. No Z-cars in those days, the policeman was on foot and alone. I feel sure that some of the policemen were more afraid of catching Jack than not. If they had come across him red-handed and stooping over a body, what could they have done? A truncheon against a knife-wielding Jack, who had proved himself very good with his weapon? So if some of the policemen took to drink, it was perhaps hardly surprising. It says a good deal for their courage in going out, night after night.

Best wishes,
C4

[DRoy]

Curious,

Great points. Long of course was 'lucky' to have not found a body or the killer but it did seem that finding the graffito and apron piece was enough to make him uncomfortable.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

None of these criticisms of PC Long have any bearing on his insistence that the apron was not there at 2:25 am.

[Paddy]

The Apron

Not sure how accurate this sketch was or if the apron actually was held up at the inquest. Suspect its from one of the newspapers but dont know which...

Pat.................................

[GUT]

G'Day Paddy

Thanks but doesn't really help with size much, because we just don't know how bunched up it is in his hand.

[DRoy]

Thanks but doesn't really help with size much, because we just don't know how bunched up it is in his hand.

GUT,

As mentioned, it was about half the apron. A picture was provided showing what aprons looked like so we have a pretty good idea what the size was.

Cheers
DRoy

[curious4]

Apron size

G'Day Paddy

Thanks but doesn't really help with size much, because we just don't know how bunched up it is in his hand.

Hello GUT,

Kate was tiny - I think a yard of material would have been enough for an apron, with a fabric width of 36". So about half a yard of material.

Best wishes,
C4

[Bridewell]

Colin,

Long knew what he wrote in his book so whether he had it present or not wouldn't had mattered.

Cheers
DRoy

The coroner didn't know what was in his pocket book, and was entitled to check. Long's failure to take the note-book when required to give evidence was a basic error.

You believe that makes him one of the most unreliable on the ground?

That's not what I said (although someone else did). I challenged the claim that there was nothing to substantiate the claim that Long was 'one of the most unreliable'. You may think it insufficient and, on its own, I'd be inclined to agree, but his failure does suggest unreliability and cannot be dismissed as nothing.

You're saying if he was a great policeman but forgot his notebook he becomes one of the most unreliable on the ground?

No I'm not. I am taking issue with the claim of there being nothing to substantiate the claim that Long was unreliable.

[Bridewell]

If he was horrible at paperwork, if his attendance was horrible, if he didn't speak well in inquests, etc, ...they have nothing to do with how he performed in the field. Nothing. If you and Colin choose to discredit Long then do so but to say he was one of the most unreliable on the ground then provide something related to how he performed on the ground.

Oh come now. P.c. Long, as a beat patrol officer, was one of the police officers working 'on the ground', as opposed to in an office at Scotland Yard.

We know little of P.c. Long other than that he was an 'A' Division officer seconded to 'H' Division. We know what he said in evidence and we know that, when he gave that evidence, he had not brought the relevant pocket book to the inquest as he should have done. It's not a lot to go on, but the incident does not redound to his credit.

Long told the coroner that the apron piece wasn't there at 2.20am. Perhaps he was right. Perhaps he was mistaken. Perhaps he was diligent. Perhaps he was lazy. He was dismissed for being drunk on duty less than nine months after the inquest -sacked; there is no perhaps about that. On balance I think it more likely that Long was mistaken than that the killer stayed around on the street within a quarter of a mile of the murder site or ventured back out in possession of incriminating evidence. I see nothing wrong with holding Long and his evidence up to scrutiny. I think that far more prudent than concluding (as some do) that the apron piece definitely wasn't in the stairwell at the earlier time just because he says it wasn't. There has to be a possibility of mistake. Looking at his credibility as a police officer is one way to assess the likelihood of that possibility.

[MrBarnett]

Long forgot to bring his notebook to an inquest. The notebook is a primary record that is given considerable significance in a court of law. He screwed up badly by not bringing it.

Long was fired from the Met shortly afterwards for drunkenness. I very much doubt that this was an isolated incident. Your average Victorian PC was not averse to the occasional pint while doing his rounds. To have been fired rather than just given a bollocking by the sergeant suggests he was a serial offender, and that his drinking affected his efficiency.

What else do we know about Long that gives us any idea of how good a police officer he was? Nothing.

So why is it unreasonable to infer that he may well have been less than diligent in his inspection of the Goulston Street stairwell?

MrB

[DRoy]

Colin & MrB,

I stated that him forgetting or even purposely not bringing his notebook had nothing to do with him being one of the most unreliable officers on the ground. As mentioned, what was in his notebook that The Coroner or Jury gained? Nothing. Did Long remember what he had written in his notebook? Yes. The relevance then of the notebook? There isn't any.

Nor do I see how him being kicked off the force for being drunk has anything to do with him being one of the most unreliable on the ground. How many times was he disciplined for being drunk? Nobody knows. When did he begin getting drunk while on duty? Nobody knows but could it have been after September 30, 1888? Of course. Was he drunk the night he found the apron? Nobody knows but probably not since he visited two different stations that early morning. He was with the force for 5 years so if he was so bad then he wouldn't have lasted that long (pun intended) and why would they have transferred an incapable and unreliable officer who was constantly drunk to help find The Ripper?

Of course Colin and MrB, there is a possibility that he missed the apron. I just don't think it is because of the reasons you're choosing to discredit him for nor do I think he should be classified as one of the most unreliable officers on the ground.

That sort of reasoning reminds me how some people think prostitutes are not good witnesses because of their profession or how a former convict can't possibly be telling the truth about what he witnessed because he had in the past been convicted of drug dealing.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

The relevance then of the notebook? There isn't any.

This question can be best answered by any serving or ex police officers on the boards.

We have already heard from Bridewell that in his experience it was unprecedented for a police officer to fail to produce his notebook when giving evidence in court. Why? Because that's what they were expected to do, I would think. Because the record in the notebook had a significance that a recollection did not. If so, long was negligent in forgetting it.

MrB