Tweet
DRoy:
The point was he didn't see it in the first place. This is white chalk on black facia that many seemed quite paranoid about so it obviously could be seen relatively easily. Why didn't he see it before? The question isn't any more difficult than that.
Luckily, the answer could be just as easy. Imagine that he went into the doorway, and that it was very dark. He can make out that there is something lying on the floor, and he turns on his lamp, and sees the rag. The beam of light is directed towards the floor at this stage.
He then realizes that he is looking at fresh blood, and so he lifts the lamp to give the surroundings a sweep of it - and lo and behold ...
I had no doubt you'd see it that way. The Coroner 'calls him out' by making the comment that Long didn't share the spelling of Jews might have been Juwes. The Coroner nor Crawford gave it to Halse because Halse unlike Long was sure of the details and admitted when he wasn't. They obviously believed Hulse which is why he wasn't questioned the same way.
Maybe you should read the Morning Advertiser. It goes like this:
Mr. Crawford - Was not what was written above the apron "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?" - The words were as I have stated.
Is it not possible you put the "not" in the wrong place? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
Was the word spelt, not "Jews" but "Juwes"? - It may have been.
So not much of hesitation on Longīs behalf there. In contrast to the reports on how certain Long was, this issue actually does differ a lot.
Most likely because he was?
That is a very premature guess. They are too frequent in this errand.
You've got the perfect answer for everything!
No - recorded history does.
My point in all of this part was to show his confidence dwindle, mistakes he made, the way he was treated (almost like a hostile witness), etc. You make him sound like a hero that just happened to miss out on a bunch of important things going on around him except for the fact he was certain the apron piece wasn't there at 2:20. Okay Fish!
As you have been shown, Long does not admit to having missed out on anything. He recognizes that since somebody MUST be wrong, it would be daft on his behalf to claim that the only one who could not be potentially wrong was him.
No, he got questioned pretty hard by Crawford and Langham. I believe by the first two questions Langham asks Long it appears he's asking Long is he really sure because the timing doesn't make much sense. Crawford and Langham follow those two questions with calling him out about the GSG...in other words they both believed Long was wrong about that too. It is apparent they believed Halse's version.
Which was that he didnīt notice the apron at 2.20. And please observe that the Halse version of the GSG was NOT the one that went down in history as the correct one. That would owe to what was believed back then to a significant degree methinks.
Regarding the Juror, there is 'A Juror' and 'The Juror'. I would suggest this was two different Jurors so one still gave it to him including commenting at the end of Hulse's testimony.
True - one juror had a random remark about how he thought that the house in itīs entirety should have been searched, but he also commanded Long and the police for their overall performance, whereupon the rest of the jurors went "Hear, hear!".
That should tell us a lot.
Not one of the witnesses got as 'harshly' questioned as Long did at the inquest. They must have had a reason for that. Whether he was being purposely or unintentionally misleading, I'm not sure how anyone can read Long's testimony and see it any other way than those that questioned him didn't believe or trust portions of his testimony.
They spoke to Long before Halse about the GSG, and they wondered about the discrepancies. They knew that somebody had gotten it wrong, so they had to establish exactly how Long had recorded it. He gave his version verbally, and his notebook confirmed it later on.
Then they listened to Halse:
"By Mr. Crawford - Before the writing on the wall was rubbed out I took a note of it. The exact words I wrote down are, "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
He apparently had his book with him, and said that the EXACT words he had written down were "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
What did you expect the jurymen to do at that stage? Yell "Liar"? Arguably not - they were given two contradictory wordings, and when the fog lifted, the version that was accepted had traits of both menīs wordings. "Juwes" was bought from Halse, and a "not" was removed, as per Long.
It takes a very suspicious mind to read a decapitation of Long into this. Personally, I wonīt go there.
If Long is to believed because his testimony is in evidence then what he said is correct until proven otherwise.
I think it is wiser worded that his version is the one we must rely upon until proven otherwise. But by and large, you are correct: whn a serving PC, witnessing at an inquest, tells us in no uncertain terms that he is sure that the apron was not there at 2.20, then we must work from the presumption that the information is correct.
Now ask yourself how many of the things he said can be either disputed or proven wrong by conflicting evidence? Based on my review, the only things not proven incorrect are the things where nobody else is present and therefore not possible to provide any conflicting evidence. Everything else that can be disputed is!
What an odd way to argue! Halse could be disputed on the GSG too. As soon as there are two versions, we know that one - at least - must be wrong. But how does this knowledge tell us that the one that must have been wrong was Long? It is one hell of a way away from being "proven wrong", at any rate!
And what other issues were there, where Long could be "disputed or proven wrong"? Surely you have realized that I do not share your suspicions against Longs veracity? So itīs all in the eye of the beholder, and look what happens. Mountains out of molehills - and the moles are on vacation!
The best,
Fisherman
The point was he didn't see it in the first place. This is white chalk on black facia that many seemed quite paranoid about so it obviously could be seen relatively easily. Why didn't he see it before? The question isn't any more difficult than that.
Luckily, the answer could be just as easy. Imagine that he went into the doorway, and that it was very dark. He can make out that there is something lying on the floor, and he turns on his lamp, and sees the rag. The beam of light is directed towards the floor at this stage.
He then realizes that he is looking at fresh blood, and so he lifts the lamp to give the surroundings a sweep of it - and lo and behold ...
I had no doubt you'd see it that way. The Coroner 'calls him out' by making the comment that Long didn't share the spelling of Jews might have been Juwes. The Coroner nor Crawford gave it to Halse because Halse unlike Long was sure of the details and admitted when he wasn't. They obviously believed Hulse which is why he wasn't questioned the same way.
Maybe you should read the Morning Advertiser. It goes like this:
Mr. Crawford - Was not what was written above the apron "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing?" - The words were as I have stated.
Is it not possible you put the "not" in the wrong place? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
Was the word spelt, not "Jews" but "Juwes"? - It may have been.
So not much of hesitation on Longīs behalf there. In contrast to the reports on how certain Long was, this issue actually does differ a lot.
Most likely because he was?
That is a very premature guess. They are too frequent in this errand.
You've got the perfect answer for everything!
No - recorded history does.
My point in all of this part was to show his confidence dwindle, mistakes he made, the way he was treated (almost like a hostile witness), etc. You make him sound like a hero that just happened to miss out on a bunch of important things going on around him except for the fact he was certain the apron piece wasn't there at 2:20. Okay Fish!
As you have been shown, Long does not admit to having missed out on anything. He recognizes that since somebody MUST be wrong, it would be daft on his behalf to claim that the only one who could not be potentially wrong was him.
No, he got questioned pretty hard by Crawford and Langham. I believe by the first two questions Langham asks Long it appears he's asking Long is he really sure because the timing doesn't make much sense. Crawford and Langham follow those two questions with calling him out about the GSG...in other words they both believed Long was wrong about that too. It is apparent they believed Halse's version.
Which was that he didnīt notice the apron at 2.20. And please observe that the Halse version of the GSG was NOT the one that went down in history as the correct one. That would owe to what was believed back then to a significant degree methinks.
Regarding the Juror, there is 'A Juror' and 'The Juror'. I would suggest this was two different Jurors so one still gave it to him including commenting at the end of Hulse's testimony.
True - one juror had a random remark about how he thought that the house in itīs entirety should have been searched, but he also commanded Long and the police for their overall performance, whereupon the rest of the jurors went "Hear, hear!".
That should tell us a lot.
Not one of the witnesses got as 'harshly' questioned as Long did at the inquest. They must have had a reason for that. Whether he was being purposely or unintentionally misleading, I'm not sure how anyone can read Long's testimony and see it any other way than those that questioned him didn't believe or trust portions of his testimony.
They spoke to Long before Halse about the GSG, and they wondered about the discrepancies. They knew that somebody had gotten it wrong, so they had to establish exactly how Long had recorded it. He gave his version verbally, and his notebook confirmed it later on.
Then they listened to Halse:
"By Mr. Crawford - Before the writing on the wall was rubbed out I took a note of it. The exact words I wrote down are, "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
He apparently had his book with him, and said that the EXACT words he had written down were "The Juwes are not the men that will be blamed for nothing."
What did you expect the jurymen to do at that stage? Yell "Liar"? Arguably not - they were given two contradictory wordings, and when the fog lifted, the version that was accepted had traits of both menīs wordings. "Juwes" was bought from Halse, and a "not" was removed, as per Long.
It takes a very suspicious mind to read a decapitation of Long into this. Personally, I wonīt go there.
If Long is to believed because his testimony is in evidence then what he said is correct until proven otherwise.
I think it is wiser worded that his version is the one we must rely upon until proven otherwise. But by and large, you are correct: whn a serving PC, witnessing at an inquest, tells us in no uncertain terms that he is sure that the apron was not there at 2.20, then we must work from the presumption that the information is correct.
Now ask yourself how many of the things he said can be either disputed or proven wrong by conflicting evidence? Based on my review, the only things not proven incorrect are the things where nobody else is present and therefore not possible to provide any conflicting evidence. Everything else that can be disputed is!
What an odd way to argue! Halse could be disputed on the GSG too. As soon as there are two versions, we know that one - at least - must be wrong. But how does this knowledge tell us that the one that must have been wrong was Long? It is one hell of a way away from being "proven wrong", at any rate!
And what other issues were there, where Long could be "disputed or proven wrong"? Surely you have realized that I do not share your suspicions against Longs veracity? So itīs all in the eye of the beholder, and look what happens. Mountains out of molehills - and the moles are on vacation!
The best,
Fisherman
Sink the Bismark
Besides, Long wasn't aware of the apron either, nor apparently of the latest murder, but he found it easily enough at 2.55. Yet he is now the one 'in the dock' for his pains so to speak. Seems a little harsh, when there were only 35 minutes in it, and no evidence that it was anywhere to be seen at the earlier time.
Comment