Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Lechmere]

Clearly witnesses at inquests were cross examined and for a variety of reasons, as the coroner or jurymen saw fit.
I should have thought that any policeman attending any sort of hearing to give evidence based upon his duty would, as a matter of course, take his note book with him Not doing so would be negligent as it would waste the court's time if it had to be sent for.

[DRoy]

Colin,

If by mandatory you mean a legal requirement, I think not (although it would become mandatory once the coroner ordered its production) but best practise most definitely.

Thank you for clearing it up. So Long shouldn't be ripped apart for being negligent or be considered one of the most unreliable policeman on the ground.

The only note a witness can refer to is the original. If an officer anticipates the possibility of needing to refer to his notes, he ensures that he has them with him.

Why would Long anticipate he'd be questioned on it? He knew the words. He said them exactly as written in his notebook. If he said at the inquest he didn't remember what the words were then I can see your point. He only referred to his notebook when questioned about the wording which he didn't know was a dispute. Who did know? Crawford and the Coroner.

Cheers
DRoy

[Monty]

To muddy murky waters even more...

The same Police Code, Notes.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

What if you were caught urinating in the Aldgate Pump?

[DRoy]

Thanks again Monty!

In my search through Old Bailey cases, I found a few cases (I believe the latest being from 1912) where policemen did not bring their notebook. The one I'm thinking of the officer specifically said that if he brought his notebook he'd be able to confirm some of the details. I was surprised that there was not any mention from anyone in the trial that his not bringing his notebook was a major oversight on his part.

The majority of the cases found however clearly stated that the notebook was 'produced' which is what should be expected in a criminal trial.

Cheers
DRoy

[Wickerman]

The Police Code is a constables bible, the book he refers to for guidance, and covers all aspects of his job.

Testimony is testimony, be that written, laid at inquest or court. There is no distinction between trial, hearing and inquest testimony, no reliable nor unreliable testimony, just testimony, and due to the swearing in process, must be taken as the truth, whole truth and so on.

Cross examination does exists, albeit in a neutral form, and usually provided by the coroner or juror. We saw this with Long.

Monty

Thanks for that Monty.

At the Inquest the Coroner & any Juror's pose questions for clarification, though this is not cross-examination. The questions they pose are not intended to contest the witness's story, just clarify what was meant.
The exchange between Langham/Crawford and Long is borderline, they were at the same time contesting the words, but also clarifying the meaning.

What I am getting at with the comment on being 'sworn' is that this procedure is no guarantee that what follows is the truth. No different than what any witness provides to a reporter on the street.

Unless the story given by the witness is challenged (under cross-exam.) then what they say is usually taken verbatim and believed to be true.
Under cross-examination the witness can be proven mistaken or considered to be lying. Weaknesses in their story are left undiscovered and untested at an Inquest, but are often thoroughly tested at a trial.

[Monty]

Thanks for that Monty.

At the Inquest the Coroner & any Juror's pose questions for clarification, though this is not cross-examination. The questions they pose are not intended to contest the witness's story, just clarify what was meant.
The exchange between Langham/Crawford and Long is borderline, they were at the same time contesting the words, but also clarifying the meaning.

Hey Jon,

Not all cross examination is about trying to discredit a story, hence my use of the words 'neutral form', it is, as you state, also about clarifying. And this is exactly what happend in the exchange betwee City police solicitor Crawford, Coroner Langham and PC Long, after the latter had laid his testimony about the discovery of the wall writying.

Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"?
Long - I believe the words were as I have stated.

[Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?"
Long- It may have been.

[Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place?

Long- It is possible, but I do not think that I have.

What I am getting at with the comment on being 'sworn' is that this procedure is no guarantee that what follows is the truth. No different than what any witness provides to a reporter on the street.

Unless the story given by the witness is challenged (under cross-exam.) then what they say is usually taken verbatim and believed to be true.
Under cross-examination the witness can be proven mistaken or considered to be lying. Weaknesses in their story are left undiscovered and untested at an Inquest, but are often thoroughly tested at a trial.

Well there is a difference, and that is perjury, for which there is a custodian sentence of a few years, cant recall the exact amount.

I do see you point mind, and yes, unless a false testimony can be shaken, it is possible it can pass through the system, and yes, testimonies are more vigourously tested at trial, most often by a council whose job it is to get their man freed, than at inquest where no one is on trial.

Monty

[DRoy]

Jon & Monty

Thanks very much to both. Very interesting & informative. I had never seen or heard of any of this stuff before.

I think Jon brought up an important point when he said "Sworn it may be, reliable it is not" when talking about inquest testimony. Yes we can assume it is the closest we can get to the truth but we should also consider that what was said was not necessarily the gospel.

Cheers
DRoy

[Michael W Richards]

Why would Long anticipate he'd be questioned on it? He knew the words. He said them exactly as written in his notebook. If he said at the inquest he didn't remember what the words were then I can see your point. He only referred to his notebook when questioned about the wording which he didn't know was a dispute. Who did know? Crawford and the Coroner.

Cheers
DRoy

I agree with the above line of questioning, how is the log's absence any kind of misstep by the Constable when he refers to his notes by memory correctly. The question of how the phrase was specifically worded casts shame upon them all, ...there is no excuse for them having multiple versions of this graffito.

To the issue of the time gap again....if as Long states it was not there at 2:20pm, then it stands to reason it would not have been left there by the killer as he continued to flee the scene. It also would indicate that he had somewhere to go indoors that was not more than a 15 minute walk East or West of Mitre Square. So...it would not address the issue of his probable location or residence, as it is assumed by many to do.

Why then, if its not on his way directly home, and may in fact be in the opposite direction of where he resides, does he then take the cloth to the location off Goulston.... and leave no message? Would he do that without leaving some indication why in writing...even after the fact, like in a letter to the police?

Surely that act would substantiate the idea that both items were a part of the same message by the Mitre Square murderer.

And I can see the message referring to both crimes now, the apron to Mitre Square and the blameless Jews to Berner Street. Doesnt mean he committed both by "commenting" on both, perhaps only that he was aware of the earlier murder and the clubs ethnicity and reputation.

Cheers

[GUT]

G'day all

Jon earlier bought up the point that inquest testimony is sworn but not tested and thus not as reliable.

A point with which I agreed, wholeheartedly.

However I need to clarify that cross-examination doesn't necessarily mean that the testimony is any more reliable.

[DRoy]

Hi all,

Okay so now that we got that whole argument about Long out of the way, where does that leave us?

If Long was right and the apron wasn't there then we have a major time problem with infinite possibilities. Or, if Mr Stewart is right and the apron was there, it sure makes things easy because the time is not that off at all. As much as I'd like to believe Long, sometimes the easy answer is the correct one. Are some of us making things difficult by believing Long?

I believe Long believed the apron wasn't there at 2:20. I don't think there was anything sinister or purposely misleading meant by him...but he most likely was wrong.

There would be no time-gap, no reason to add the infinite possibilities about a stash house, Jack's abode, dogs carrying the piece of apron, etc.

I really don't want to just settle on the easy answer because it's easy but I must admit I'm leaning that way.

Cheers
DRoy

[Hunter]

I agree with your assessment, DRoy.

In the recent past, any discussion regarding this subject quickly degenerated into a debate about Eddowes leaving the apron piece there beforehand, or even an inference that DC Halse may have placed it there, neutering any rational discussion about the more probable possibilities. Its a positive note that this time the discussion proceeded on a reasonable and rational course.

[Abby Normal]

Hi all,

Okay so now that we got that whole argument about Long out of the way, where does that leave us?

If Long was right and the apron wasn't there then we have a major time problem with infinite possibilities. Or, if Mr Stewart is right and the apron was there, it sure makes things easy because the time is not that off at all. As much as I'd like to believe Long, sometimes the easy answer is the correct one. Are some of us making things difficult by believing Long?

I believe Long believed the apron wasn't there at 2:20. I don't think there was anything sinister or purposely misleading meant by him...but he most likely was wrong.

There would be no time-gap, no reason to add the infinite possibilities about a stash house, Jack's abode, dogs carrying the piece of apron, etc.

I really don't want to just settle on the easy answer because it's easy but I must admit I'm leaning that way.

Cheers
DRoy

Hi Droy
I think we start playing a dangerous game when we start discounting witnesses statements just because their statement seem to complicate things and we have no other solid reason to discount their Story- because where does it end?

Someone was telling the truth, some witnesses must have been correct, etc. etc
If not the whole thing is a house of cards and there is no purpose in trying to discover the truth.

We are talking about a very strange individual here. A serial killer who murders and mutilates women in public right under the noses of potential witnesses and makes off with internal organs. A person who constantly takes unbelievable risks and will murder another victim just minutes away from another murder crime scene.

Plus it's not just the apron it's the graffito as well. Graffito that just happens to implicate Jews that just happen to be major witnesses that night. And unless you think the ripper carried around chalk with him he would have had to go and get some somewhere, which would explain the time interval.


Plus, for those who think that long just missed it the first time around-if he was so unobservant to miss it the first time why would he see it the second time around?

That he even noticed it and discovered the blood and the graffiti at all (and all the while unaware of the recent murders) demonstrate that he was observant, diligent and not just blowing off what many would just ignore as meaningless garbage.

[DRoy]

Abby,

Thank you for the retort, I assumed one was coming!

I think we start playing a dangerous game when we start discounting witnesses statements just because their statement seem to complicate things and we have no other solid reason to discount their Story- because where does it end?

You'll notice by my many posts that I've stuck up for Long in many different ways. I don't believe I have discounted him as a witness in my post.

Plus it's not just the apron it's the graffito as well.

Yes the graffito. We don't know when it was written so to be honest I didn't think this played much in the time-gap other than the murder happened and at 2:55 he spots the graffito. If not for the apron being found, he very well could have missed the graffito a hundred times in passing.

Plus, for those who think that long just missed it the first time around-if he was so unobservant to miss it the first time why would he see it the second time around? That he even noticed it and discovered the blood and the graffiti at all (and all the while unaware of the recent murders) demonstrate that he was observant, diligent and not just blowing off what many would just ignore as meaningless garbage.

I argued the same things already Abby and I still would. The thing to consider though is the entire picture. Simple and basic story if Long was mistaken, or, endless possibilities or theories (all supposition) because they can't be proven to not have occurred? (yes my double negative was on purpose to sound similar to the graffito)

Cheers
DRoy

[DRoy]

Its a positive note that this time the discussion proceeded on a reasonable and rational course.

Wow, first time for everything I guess! I promise though to not do it again! Thanks Hunter

Cheers
DRoy