Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[PaulB]

No. It's a case of "hold the evidence and the character of the person giving it up to close scrutiny and compare what the implications are with the alternatives".

Which is wonderful, and especially so if you have some means of testing your alternative scenarios, but sadly in this case you don't. Otherwise it's just creating and developing a plausible scenario, which is perilously close to producing historical fiction. In fact it is producing historical fiction. It is always good and sensible to question the sources to see if, where, and possibly why one source jarrs with other sources. But it is ultimately meaningless without hard reasons for the suppositions one makes.

[David Orsam]

I don't know if it was hard to spot or not. I know that Long should have checked stairwells and the like in the normal course of his patrol.


Either that or because he had been less than diligent on a previous occasion


Based on what is known of his performance on other occasions I have advanced that as a possibility.

If he was failing to check such dark recesses he was not doing his job properly because that is what he is supposed to do.

Thanks Bridewell. I understand your responses to 2 and 3 but can I press you a little bit more on number 1 for clarification?

Are you saying that any dullard of a beat constable who did his normal duty would have spotted the apron and realised that it needed to be reported?

[David Orsam]

Isn't it just as likely that he took extra-care, was extra-alert and extra-vigilant?

This is an interesting question because one thing that often seems to be overlooked is that Long was specially drafted in to patrol this beat due to the murders. Therefore the one thing that he would surely have been careful to do is check any space on his beat where there could have been a dead body (or a hidden murderer). Forget pieces of material in the street, he would surely have known that if he missed a dead body lying somewhere along his beat within any space he should have checked he would have been in serious trouble. So it doesn't seem remarkable to me that he would have flashed his lantern in the dwelling passage way every time he passed.

[Pierre]

This is an interesting question because one thing that often seems to be overlooked is that Long was specially drafted in to patrol this beat due to the murders. Therefore the one thing that he would surely have been careful to do is check any space on his beat where there could have been a dead body (or a hidden murderer). Forget pieces of material in the street, he would surely have known that if he missed a dead body lying somewhere along his beat within any space he should have checked he would have been in serious trouble. So it doesn't seem remarkable to me that he would have flashed his lantern in the dwelling passage way every time he passed.

And would there have been any reason for the killer to wait before he went to Goulston Street, if he knew that there were specially drafted PC:s in the area?

[David Orsam]

And would there have been any reason for the killer to wait before he went to Goulston Street, if he knew that there were specially drafted PC:s in the area?

If? IF???? I thought that questions involving the word "if" were strictly verboten in Pierre World.

[Abby Normal]

This is an interesting question because one thing that often seems to be overlooked is that Long was specially drafted in to patrol this beat due to the murders. Therefore the one thing that he would surely have been careful to do is check any space on his beat where there could have been a dead body (or a hidden murderer). Forget pieces of material in the street, he would surely have known that if he missed a dead body lying somewhere along his beat within any space he should have checked he would have been in serious trouble. So it doesn't seem remarkable to me that he would have flashed his lantern in the dwelling passage way every time he passed.

great point.

also, wouldn't the best police be the ones drafted to the new ripper beats?

[Abby Normal]

I've given my reasons today and on previous occasions. If you are minded to think that Alfred Long's record suggests he was a diligent, capable and hard-working officer you are as entitled to that opinion as I am to disagree with it.

thanks for dodging the questions and my conclusion. and I said nothing about his record so not sure why you brought it up.

Paul and fish have done an excellent job responding and it will be interesting to see your response.

I'll just add I find it rather interesting that so may former police are so quick to disparage there own here. why is that?

[Pierre]

If? IF???? I thought that questions involving the word "if" were strictly verboten in Pierre World.

But I am discussing with you here, and you often write "if", so that is why the word is used: it is your word.

So:

And would there have been any reason for the killer to wait before he went to Goulston Street, if you think he knew that there were specially drafted PC:s in the area?

[Abby Normal]

Which is wonderful, and especially so if you have some means of testing your alternative scenarios, but sadly in this case you don't. Otherwise it's just creating and developing a plausible scenario, which is perilously close to producing historical fiction. In fact it is producing historical fiction. It is always good and sensible to question the sources to see if, where, and possibly why one source jarrs with other sources. But it is ultimately meaningless without hard reasons for the suppositions one makes.

exactly. which is why I asked Bridewell also-wheres the evidence he was lying or mistaken that night about the apron.

[Abby Normal]

Abby has every right to ask, Colin. You need evidence before you can accuse Long of any wrongdoing.

thanks Fish. and bingo. Unfortunately he evaded the questions.
I can only assume because there is none so the argument is weak.

[PaulB]

This is an interesting question because one thing that often seems to be overlooked is that Long was specially drafted in to patrol this beat due to the murders. Therefore the one thing that he would surely have been careful to do is check any space on his beat where there could have been a dead body (or a hidden murderer). Forget pieces of material in the street, he would surely have known that if he missed a dead body lying somewhere along his beat within any space he should have checked he would have been in serious trouble. So it doesn't seem remarkable to me that he would have flashed his lantern in the dwelling passage way every time he passed.

It doesn't seem remarkable to me either. He'd done 12 years in the 9th Lancers, got a Distinguished Conduct medal and a service medal for the Second Afghan War. His military service suggests that he would have been a reliable and dilligent individual for whom a beat on the East End/City border would have held little fear. There's his dismissal for drunkeness, of course, but it's difficult to know how to interpret that without knowing the circumstances.

[David Orsam]

But I am discussing with you here, and you often write "if", so that is why the word is used: it is your word.

So:

And would there have been any reason for the killer to wait before he went to Goulston Street, if you think he knew that there were specially drafted PC:s in the area?

I do use the word frequently Pierre, and in my view there is nothing wrong with doing so, but every time I've used it in a question addressed to you, you've complained and refused to answer.

As for your question, I don't really understand what you mean by "wait" nor do I know why it makes any difference about there being "specially drafted PC's in the area" but I can certainly think of a number of reasons why there might have been a delay between the murder of Eddowes and the killer entering Goulston Street. But those would all be purely speculative, I have no evidence at all, and I know how much you hate unsupported speculation (apart from when you do it, of course).

[PaulB]

exactly. which is why I asked Bridewell also-wheres the evidence he was lying or mistaken that night about the apron.

For some people the dividing line between would, could and did, gets blurred, especially when theorising, and that annoying little chap called evidence gets forgotten. How simple life would be without it.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is an interesting question because one thing that often seems to be overlooked is that Long was specially drafted in to patrol this beat due to the murders. Therefore the one thing that he would surely have been careful to do is check any space on his beat where there could have been a dead body (or a hidden murderer). Forget pieces of material in the street, he would surely have known that if he missed a dead body lying somewhere along his beat within any space he should have checked he would have been in serious trouble. So it doesn't seem remarkable to me that he would have flashed his lantern in the dwelling passage way every time he passed.

You do not have any knowledge as to how the police worked and how they might lie to get themselves out of a situation, and a small lie doesn't make them a rotten egg.It called self preservation

Let me give you an example before the days of radios, police officers on foot patrols were on fixed points on their beat and that meant quarter to the hour at the clock tower, quarter past the hour at the market square, and the sergeant would invariably from time to time wait at those points to meet the officer and to sign his pocket book as doing so.

Now lets say that the sergeant was there at the clock tower at quarter to the hour and there was no sign of the police officer because he was sitting having a cup of tea somewhere. So later the sergeant confronts him. He cant say he was sitting having a cup of tea. So he simply says I was checking two men at another location on his beat which took some time. Yes he is lying but that doesn't make him a rotten egg. This was common practice

As to Long we dont know whether he was where he says he was at the allotted time, he could have been sitting having a cup of tea somewhere, and I say again Halse and Long were in the same vicinity at almost the same time, a quiet street with no one else around, and neither saw or heard the other, now that I find strange. Long with his size 13 boots chomping about with his lantern lit. Halse supposedly being vigilant.

Police officers in those days were trained to stop and listen during the dead of night for the sounds of footsteps, or someone breaking in, or a disturbance.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't seem remarkable to me either. He'd done 12 years in the 9th Lancers, got a Distinguished Conduct medal and a service medal for the Second Afghan War. His military service suggests that he would have been a reliable and dilligent individual for whom a beat on the East End/City border would have held little fear. There's his dismissal for drunkeness, of course, but it's difficult to know how to interpret that without knowing the circumstances.

He had to much alcohol to drink and got drunk that`s the only interpretation !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk