Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Fisherman]

Long has a poor record, a record which affected his work to such a degree that he was dismissed. Halse, on the other hand, has an exemplary record.

Which Ripperologist do you prefer, John Pope Delocksley or Rob Clack? The one who hasn't a clue or John Pope? (Joking Rob....joking). Which one do you trust?

Monty

Iīd like to answer that one, if I may?

I would have gone with Halse, if he had said that the apron WAS there at 2.20.

I think we all would have.

But there is no such choice to be made, since NONE of the men said that the rag was there at the earlier stage. If anything, Halse offers some little corroboration of Long, since he said that though he would not necessarily have seen the apron, he did at least not notice it when passing Goulston Street.

So the comparison you offer is a dangerous and irrelevant one, Monty - the two did not offer testimony that was at odds with each other.

As for whether the comparison between De Pope Locksley/Clack and Halse/Long is relevant and fair, Iīll leave that to others to ponder. Itīs secondary.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

You know John Pope Delocksley then Christer?

Read his work yeah?

If no, how the hell can you dismiss it?

Monty

[Monty]

Well yes, Monty, but since the discovery time really doesn't matter to either of us, and graffiti may or may not have been there when Rob Clack and John Pope deLock-up-your-daughters both passed the Happy Days around 2.20 and failed to see any, but Pope saw some there later, I'm not sure it matters that we wouldn't trust the Popester to fart in the right direction. It wouldn't help us time the arrival of that graffiti, even if we wanted to, which we don't.

[I may have got some details muddled there. ]

Love,

Caz
X

So when John Pope says something, you believe it without doubt? Even if you've evidence that he has been unreliable in the past?

Monty

[Fisherman]

You know John Pope Delocksley then Christer?

Read his work yeah?

If no, how the hell can you dismiss it?

Monty

That was not the issue at hand, was it?

It was that we should not compare Pope de Locksley to Long and Rob Clack to Halse, since we will have differing magnitudes involved. But primarily, it was that there is no need for any such comparison at all, since there was never any question of Long and Halse disagreeing.

Your suggestion implied that we needed to take Halses word over Long. But it is the same word, as far as the rag business is concerned.

As for Locksley, hell and dismissals, I only dismiss the idea that Halse and Long should be put against each other in relation to the rag affair. None of them saw any apron in Goulston Street at 2.20. If it helps, I do know who De Locksley is, and I have read a piece of him that was put on the net some years ago.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Oh I get you Christer,

So let's adopt that philosophy.

Cross found Nichols in the street and sort help.

The use of the name Cross, instead of Lechmere, has no bearing on that fact.

Yeah, quite simple really.

Monty

[Fisherman]

Oh I get you Christer,

So let's adopt that philosophy.

Cross found Nichols in the street and sort help.

The use of the name Cross, instead of Lechmere, has no bearing on that fact.

Yeah, quite simple really.

Monty

Donīt be ridiculous, Monty. When you step in it, just say so.

Fisherman

[DRoy]

I mean we even have Cross character now being questioned because he apparently didnt see the graffiti first or at the same time or some nonsense like that. The man found the only clue in the whole case-talk about picking someone 125 years later and dragging his name in the mud.

and this is a thread about the time gap, which at least Lechmere as a suspect and his bolt hole at pickfords can explain. which is a hell of a lot more than most of air this thread has produced.

Abby,

If you'd read the posts then maybe you'd understand the purpose.

Let's be clear, I'm not dragging his name in the mud, I'm discussing his credibility as a witness which again if you'd read the inquest and my posts it is clear Long wasn't believed by those right there in front of him trying to investigate the murder. If you have evidence to counter it then provide it instead of just taking up space on the thread.

Cheers
DRoy

[Monty]

Donīt be ridiculous, Monty. When you step in it, just say so.

Fisherman

Ah, double standards.

Monty

[DRoy]

DRoy: If he's looking at the ground every time he planned on passing the spot, he's going to miss everything not on the ground. If he looked up or at a different spot on the ground other than the exact spot he did before he might find something he missed earlier (like the GSG).

Caz: I'm beginning to lose the will to live now... sorry.

Caz,

Regardless whether we agree or not on things, you are one of my favorite posters so please don't lose your will!!

I was actually trying to be a smart-ass and the comment was purposely tongue in cheek (no pun intended).

Cheers
DRoy

[Fisherman]

Ah, double standards.

Monty

Thatīs twice as good as no standards at all, mind you...

How about staying with the aim of the thread instead?

Fisherman

[Monty]

Thatīs twice as good as no standards at all, mind you...

How about staying with the aim of the thread instead?

Fisherman

Debatable.

I was. Question is, can manage to stay on course without mentioning Lechmere?

Monty

[Fisherman]

Debatable.

I was. Question is, can manage to stay on course without mentioning Lechmere?

Monty

You donīt have to, Monty. He is instrumental in explaining and understanding how and why the apron could have been missing in the Goulston Street doorway at 2.20 - and that issue IS the aim of the thread.

Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby,

If you'd read the posts then maybe you'd understand the purpose.

Let's be clear, I'm not dragging his name in the mud, I'm discussing his credibility as a witness which again if you'd read the inquest and my posts it is clear Long wasn't believed by those right there in front of him trying to investigate the murder. If you have evidence to counter it then provide it instead of just taking up space on the thread.

Cheers
DRoy

Long wasn't "believed by those right in front of him"? Really? You challenge me to produce evidence and you make a statement like that?
Ok well the evidence is that long found the only clue in the case. Now you show me the evidence that he wasn't believed.

His "credibility as a witness"? Well it's looked like Sherlock Holmes so far compared with what else I have seen.

[Bridewell]

Would it not have reflected very poorly on the 'A' Div commander if, when called upon to lend out officers to 'H' Div, at the height of the most sensational murder case in the short history of policing, he sent only those who couldn't be trusted to conduct proper searches of the killing zone?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I only say that, when told to supply a number of officers, he would have sent those officers he could most easily manage without. That's human nature. His responsibility was 'A' Division. It was on the effective policing of his Division that he would be judged.

[Bridewell]

To clarify, the photo I show is of the Police Orders dated 14 December 1888. Long was suspended for a day (from 13th December) and reduced in classification.

A constable moves up the classification scale, depending on his disciplinary record, every 12 months. However, as punishment, that can be differred, this is called Retardation. In Longs case, his retardation started in March 89, for 6 months, meaning he wasn't eligible to move up a class until September 89.

However his didn't make it until then, being dismissed in July 89. It seems Long didn't heed his final warning.


Monty

Thanks for adding some detail, Monty. Long's disciplinary record doesn't prove the issue of his reliability one way or the other, but I do think his evidence at the Eddowes inquest should be seen against that background.