Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Maybe my last post on this thread,but a fe w things first.It is clear you are subjective in your views.Cross/Lechmere was the killer.He had a bolt hole,where he could,kill,mutilate,and dismember at will.(because he was also the torso killer),and came and went without anyone being the wiser.Yet he was cautious of taking Eddowes there(a previous post of yours) because he might be seen by persons peering out of windows.Need I say anymore?

I will accept a tempory,occasional halt,after leaving Mitre square,but we know,that despite the knowledge of a killer on the loose,and increase in manpower,it was still one out,over an approximate half hours of beat(Longs testimony) .Conditions were in favour of the killer,once he cleared Mitre Square,and Goulston Street in reach before 2.20.

Long was sacked for drunkenness.It is and was rare for a single occurance of that nature to merit dismissal.So my belief,like others,is that it was not a single breaking of rules,but a succession of breakages over a preceeding period of time.Maybe as far back as the Ripper killings.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Maybe my last post on this thread,but a fe w things first.It is clear you are subjective in your views.Cross/Lechmere was the killer.He had a bolt hole,where he could,kill,mutilate,and dismember at will.(because he was also the torso killer),and came and went without anyone being the wiser.Yet he was cautious of taking Eddowes there(a previous post of yours) because he might be seen by persons peering out of windows.Need I say anymore?

I will accept a tempory,occasional halt,after leaving Mitre square,but we know,that despite the knowledge of a killer on the loose,and increase in manpower,it was still one out,over an approximate half hours of beat(Longs testimony) .Conditions were in favour of the killer,once he cleared Mitre Square,and Goulston Street in reach before 2.20.

Long was sacked for drunkenness.It is and was rare for a single occurance of that nature to merit dismissal.So my belief,like others,is that it was not a single breaking of rules,but a succession of breakages over a preceeding period of time.Maybe as far back as the Ripper killings.

Arguing that Lechmere is the single person who has the most evidence speaking for guilt is not being subjective, it is being realistic. And right.
Conversely, saying the same thing about f ex Hutchinson - now THAT would be subjective. And wrong.

However, yes, you are absolutely correct in saying that I believe that Lechmere was the killer. But if you think that my arguing that Long is more likely to be right than wrong will have any bearing on Lechmere´s potential guilt, then you are simply mistaken. Lechmere could have gone home from Mitre Square, passing Goulston Street, and he could have gone home from Broad Street, passing Goulston Street. So trying any "subjective" mumbo-jumbo will not work for you. Either.
Nothing seems to work for you, does it?

You hang on to your idea that "conditions were in favour of the killer" if he took off directly after the murder. Well, Harry, maybe they were - but Alfred Long tells us that we must accept that he probably never did that.
You see, Harry, this does not change. We cannot in retrospect make the rag appear in Goulston Street at 2.20. All we can do is to say "To hell with the evidence, I want it my way!"

And, sure enough, that is all you have achieved so far. So I don´t even have to wish you good luck in your future endeavours to solve the case - you make your own luck. If somebody said "yes", make it "no" if it fits better. If it was night, say it was daytime if it helps. If it is white, call it black.

And if a patrolling PC says that he is certain that an object X was not present on his beat at a time Y, call him a worthless drunkenbolt who must have been wrong, if it helps your case. And then you can tutor others on how not to be subjective...

Goodbye, Harry.

[Mr Lucky]

The proposal – that prior to 2.20, the cloth had already been placed at the Goulston st location where it was eventually found by Long is clearly a modern belief, but where and with whom did the idea originate?

[Fisherman]

The proposal – that prior to 2.20, the cloth had already been placed at the Goulston st location where it was eventually found by Long is clearly a modern belief, but where and with whom did the idea originate?

That´s an interesting question. Maybe somebody out there has the answer to hand?
Here´s another one that I´ve been pondering: How "rehearsed" is an inquest? To what, if any, extent is the coroner aware about which answers he is going to get?
Specifically, in this context, I would like to know if coroner Langham would have been aware of the answer Long would give to his question about whether the PC was able to say if the rag had been in place at 2.20 or not. Would Langham have been thoroughly read up on what the police had been able to extract from the witnesses who were set to take the stage?

In other words, would Alfred Long have told his colleagues exactly what he did in Goulston Street at 2.20, and how he did it - and would that information have been at the coroners disposal before Long took the stand?

[PaulB]

The proposal – that prior to 2.20, the cloth had already been placed at the Goulston st location where it was eventually found by Long is clearly a modern belief, but where and with whom did the idea originate?

I may be wrong, but it seems to have been kicking around for as long as I can remember. I think I'm right in saying that it had significance for Paul Feldman, who believed (on the basis of geographic profiling) that the murderer had a bolt hole in Wentworth Street.

[David Orsam]

The proposal – that prior to 2.20, the cloth had already been placed at the Goulston st location where it was eventually found by Long is clearly a modern belief, but where and with whom did the idea originate?

I don't know if he was the first to say it but from memory the first time I was aware of this belief was from reading Donald Rumbelow's 1984 edition of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' (and it may have been in the 1976 edition). I seem to recall it was based on Long's record of drunkenness but I wasn't terribly impressed with the argument bearing in mind that Long did find the apron and the graffiti at 2:55 so he couldn't have been too sloshed that particular night!

[Fisherman]

I don't know if he was the first to say it but from memory the first time I was aware of this belief was from reading Donald Rumbelow's 1984 edition of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' (and it may have been in the 1976 edition). I seem to recall it was based on Long's record of drunkenness but I wasn't terribly impressed with the argument bearing in mind that Long did find the apron and the graffiti at 2:55 so he couldn't have been too sloshed that particular night!

The Swedish translation of that title was my first Ripper book. I will have to dig it out and see what Rumbelow said.

[Fisherman]

Well, in my copy of Rumbelow (copyrighted in 1975 and printed in -78), there is no mentioning of the time issue with the rag, at least not in the chapter concerning Stride and Eddowes. Maybe it´s hidden somewhere else in the book, or perhaps it was - as suggested - added in a later edition.
What I did notice and had forgotten, is how Rumbelow actually believed that Eddowes had been killed inside one of the houses surrounding Mitre Square, and subsequently dragged out and mutilated. What I also noted is that I seem to have been studying the case for nearly forty years now.

It was about time I saw the solution...

[Michael W Richards]

Just for accuracy on a small point, there are 3 Jews who factored into the Double Event night, and they were the 3 wiseman who believe they saw Kate outside Mitre Square.

There is no evidence Israel Schwartz was on the street at the time he said and no evidence supporting his claim of what he saw. There is however evidence that the street was empty around that time. There is no evidence at all that Liz's killer was interrupted, and no evidence that Louis's arrival took place when Liz was being killed. There is however evidence that suggests she was killed sometime between 12:46 and 12:56.

[David Orsam]

Well, in my copy of Rumbelow (copyrighted in 1975 and printed in -78), there is no mentioning of the time issue with the rag, at least not in the chapter concerning Stride and Eddowes. Maybe it´s hidden somewhere else in the book, or perhaps it was - as suggested - added in a later edition.
What I did notice and had forgotten, is how Rumbelow actually believed that Eddowes had been killed inside one of the houses surrounding Mitre Square, and subsequently dragged out and mutilated. What I also noted is that I seem to have been studying the case for nearly forty years now.

It was about time I saw the solution...

I'm going entirely from memory but it's a fairly strong one. It may well be that between his 1976 and 1984 editions some discoveries were made about Long's police record which prompted his observation in 1984. It's possible that what he said related to the writing on the wall rather than, or as much as, the apron. Maybe someone who has access to the 1984 book can confirm.

If it's not in the 1984 edition then perhaps the one after that?

[Fisherman]

I'm going entirely from memory but it's a fairly strong one. It may well be that between his 1976 and 1984 editions some discoveries were made about Long's police record which prompted his observation in 1984. It's possible that what he said related to the writing on the wall rather than, or as much as, the apron. Maybe someone who has access to the 1984 book can confirm.

If it's not in the 1984 edition then perhaps the one after that?

That may well be - I believe Rumbelow made fairly extensive changes inbetween the editions. It would seem, however, that if Rumbelows book was the starting shot, then the "Long must have been wrong" idea will have surfaced in the mid 80:s, at the earliest. Meaning that it took a hundred years before Long was kicked in the teeth. Strangely, the idea has gathered very many followers since then, many of them with quite a good reputation as discerning ripperologists.

[DJA]

Yet nobody in Mitre Square noticed that part of Eddowes' apron had been sliced off.

Regards,

Simon

You attention is once again drawn to the sketches of the scene,particularly of Eddowes.
The remainder of the "old white apron" is hidden by skirts and a petticoat.

[Wickerman]

That´s an interesting question. Maybe somebody out there has the answer to hand?
Here´s another one that I´ve been pondering: How "rehearsed" is an inquest? To what, if any, extent is the coroner aware about which answers he is going to get?
Specifically, in this context, I would like to know if coroner Langham would have been aware of the answer Long would give to his question about whether the PC was able to say if the rag had been in place at 2.20 or not. Would Langham have been thoroughly read up on what the police had been able to extract from the witnesses who were set to take the stage?

In other words, would Alfred Long have told his colleagues exactly what he did in Goulston Street at 2.20, and how he did it - and would that information have been at the coroners disposal before Long took the stand?

The statements given to the police by all the witnesses are provided to the Coroner for him to read to enable him to select suitable witnesses for the inquest.
The Coroner is selecting the best witnesses to enable the Jury to determine the whom (identity), the when, where & by what means the victim met his/her death.

So yes, the Coroner does know in advance what each witness saw, heard and did.

Some confuse the inquest with a trial, the witnesses called at a trial are selected for different reason's.

[Simon Wood]

Hi DJA,

Do you not think that Victorian propiety would have demanded that the police afford her a modicum of dignity in death by straightening out her clothing before placing her onto the ambulance?

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

Simon,

Simply look at the sketch.

The fact that the apron was cut before the "mutilations" implies that Jack had purpose in mind.