Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Michael W Richards]

To be honest, Fish, you do have - shall we say - a vested interest in the coppers being true to their word.

I have no such interest myself Harry, just a desire to base my opinion on witness testimony by the way in which its delivered. This was unambiguous.

[Harry D]

Unless there is any reason on record to misbelieve a PC, I work from the assumption that they were truthful. There is the odd exception, like Thain, who wriggled a bit about the cape, but all in all, there is little we can do but to trust them otherwise.
Would you rather have it that we bent their words and misbelieved them to make things jibe with what we think ourselves? Of course you wouldnīt!

Not at all, Fish, but policemen are fallible human beings. They make mistakes and bend the truth just like the rest of us. PC Long, himself, is proof of that with his dismissal in 1889.

Either PC Long was telling the truth and killer returned to the vicinity of the crime after 35 mins carrying a bloody rag, when the area was on high alert, or he was mistaken/dishonest and the killer left it during his original escape. I tend to favour the latter as a more plausible scenario.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Not at all, Fish, but policemen are fallible human beings. They make mistakes and bend the truth just like the rest of us. PC Long, himself, is proof of that with his dismissal in 1889.

That has no influence at all over the fact that when most people say "It was not there at the time", they are telling the truth.
Itīs touching that should try and teach me on the fallability of policemen as if I did not know myself that this may be the case, Harry. In fact, I have dealt with policemen who were not truthful, so I am quite aware of this. But the bulk of them are truthful, capable and honest, and that means (as you may have heard me saying a number of times now) that the better guess must be that Long was correct.

Either PC Long was telling the truth and killer returned to the vicinity of the crime after 35 mins carrying a bloody rag, when the area was on high alert, or he was mistaken/dishonest and the killer left it during his original escape. I tend to favour the latter as a more plausible scenario.

It does not matter what scenario you favour, Harry, since the better guess will always be that Long was correct. Thatīs why I am saying that you should not bend evidence to fit you own ideas unless there is a reason to believe that you must be correct. And there is no such reason at all.

My own guess (yes, guess) is that the killer cut his hand and used the rag as a makeshift bandage in order not to give himself away by dripping blood. And I think he went to Broad Street and Pickfords to deposit the innards. In such a case, he would be reluctant to discard of the rag until it stopped bleeding.
But it is just a suggestion. It is, however, a suggestion that works together with what Long said, and it is therefore a better suggestion than any suggestion that is in conflict with his testimony.

[Abby Normal]

Harry D: Not at all, Fish, but policemen are fallible human beings. They make mistakes and bend the truth just like the rest of us. PC Long, himself, is proof of that with his dismissal in 1889.

That has no influence at all over the fact that when most people say "It was not there at the time", they are telling the truth.
Itīs touching that should try and teach me on the fallability of policemen as if I did not know myself that this may be the case, Harry. In fact, I have dealt with policemen who were not truthful, so I am quite aware of this. But the bulk of them are truthful, capable and honest, and that means (as you may have heard me saying a number of times now) that the better guess must be that Long was correct.

Either PC Long was telling the truth and killer returned to the vicinity of the crime after 35 mins carrying a bloody rag, when the area was on high alert, or he was mistaken/dishonest and the killer left it during his original escape. I tend to favour the latter as a more plausible scenario.

It does not matter what scenario you favour, Harry, since the better guess will always be that Long was correct. Thatīs why I am saying that you should not bend evidence to fit you own ideas unless there is a reason to believe that you must be correct. And there is no such reason at all.

My own guess (yes, guess) is that the killer cut his hand and used the rag as a makeshift bandage in order not to give himself away by dripping blood. And I think he went to Broad Street and Pickfords to deposit the innards. In such a case, he would be reluctant to discard of the rag until it stopped bleeding.
But it is just a suggestion. It is, however, a suggestion that works together with what Long said, and it is therefore a better suggestion than any suggestion that is in conflict with his testimony.

as you know fish, One of my biggest problems with lech as ripper is killing on his way to work and or using pickfords as his bolt hole.

Have you or Edward had any luck finding out if the family cats meat shop was in business 88-89 and where? I think THAT would be the perfect bolt hole.

[Fisherman]

as you know fish, One of my biggest problems with lech as ripper is killing on his way to work and or using pickfords as his bolt hole.

Have you or Edward had any luck finding out if the family cats meat shop was in business 88-89 and where? I think THAT would be the perfect bolt hole.

Well, we HAVE found out (we meaning Edward) that Maria Louisa and her Joseph was not living in Cable Street at the time of the Stride murder - she was instead living in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time, a stoneīs throw from Berner Street. When the Pinchin Street torso was found, however, the move to 147 Cable Street had been undertaken.

That is the kind of stuff that has Kosminski-ites opening the champagne bottles, but Lechmereians normally avoid doing that, since we are not supposed to. And personally, I prefer a nice Italian claret.

As you know, I always thought that Cable Street was out of the way to be a good bolthole during the double event night. Mary Ann Street is another thing altogether, but it would normally have been occupied by his mother, his second stepdad and his daughter. Arriving there with the odd kidney and uterus may not have been a good idea.

As for the catīs meat business, there is still no telling when it commenced (as far as I know). But I donīt think that Lechmere (or should we speak of "the killer" instead?) learnt anatomy mainly or solely from that source. It would, however, be a place to learn knife skills, although such things can be aquired in other ways too.

[Abby Normal]

Well, we HAVE found out (we meaning Edward) that Maria Louisa and her Joseph was not living in Cable Street at the time of the Stride murder - she was instead living in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time, a stoneīs throw from Berner Street. When the Pinchin Street torso was found, however, the move to 147 Cable Street had been undertaken.

That is the kind of stuff that has Kosminski-ites opening the champagne bottles, but Lechmereians normally avoid doing that, since we are not supposed to. And personally, I prefer a nice Italian claret.

As for the catīs meat business, there is still no telling when it commenced (as far as I know). But I donīt think that Lechmere (or should we speak of "the killer" instead?) learnt anatomy mainly from that source. It would, however, be a place to learn knife skills, although such things can be aquired in other ways too.

HI Fish

Well, we HAVE found out (we meaning Edward) that Maria Louisa and her Joseph was not living in Cable Street at the time of the Stride murder - she was instead living in 1 Mary Ann Street at the time, a stoneīs throw from Berner Street. When the Pinchin Street torso was found, however, the move to 147 Cable Street had been undertaken.

well that's interesting!

As for the catīs meat business, there is still no telling when it commenced (as far as I know). But I donīt think that Lechmere (or should we speak of "the killer" instead?) learnt anatomy mainly from that source. It would, however, be a place to learn knife skills, although such things can be aquired in other ways too.

[/QUOTE]

could you refresh my memory on the lechs cat meat business? do you know where it was located and what dates you know it was operating??
Thanks in advance!

[Fisherman]

HI Fish



well that's interesting!

could you refresh my memory on the lechs cat meat business? do you know where it was located and what dates you know it was operating??
Thanks in advance![/QUOTE]

I donīt think there are any established dates. The first time the catīs meat surfaces would be in the 1891 census when Maria Louisa is listed as a cats meat dealer (horseflesh). We also know that Lechmereīs kids took up the business, and I believe they took over a stand at Broadway Market that used to be Charlesī, but that is later in time.

[Abby Normal]

could you refresh my memory on the lechs cat meat business? do you know where it was located and what dates you know it was operating??
Thanks in advance!

I donīt think there are any established dates. The first time the catīs meat surfaces would be in the 1891 census when Maria Louisa is listed as a cats meat dealer (horseflesh). We also know that Lechmereīs kids took up the business, and I believe they took over a stand at Broadway Market that used to be Charlesī, but that is later in time.[/QUOTE]

thanks!!

[John Wheat]

as you know fish, One of my biggest problems with lech as ripper is killing on his way to work and or using pickfords as his bolt hole.

Have you or Edward had any luck finding out if the family cats meat shop was in business 88-89 and where? I think THAT would be the perfect bolt hole.

My biggest problem with Lech being the Ripper is the complete lack of anything whatsoever to indicate he's even in the running.

Cheers John

[c.d.]

My biggest problem with Lech being the Ripper is the complete lack of anything whatsoever to indicate he's even in the running.

Cheers John

When has that ever stopped anybody from trumpeting their favorite candidate?

c.d.

[harry]

Long could only answer the question put to him,if he had made,at about 2.20,a visual inspection of the area where the apron lay.Did he? He doesn't say so.His reply was that it was not there at that time.H e gives no additional information,such as Halse did. Was Long hurrying?Was his attention focused on the doorway and interior?.Was his lamp lit and focused?. W e do not know,he(long) didn't say.For a ll we know he might just have been ambling along,thinking of anything but objects in doorways,and it would have been no more than a second,two paces,in almost total darkness,before he cleared the doorway's entrance. Think about it. It needs more than (it wasn't there) to be persuavive.

[John Wheat]

When has that ever stopped anybody from trumpeting their favorite candidate?

c.d.

Unfortunately c.d. never.

Cheers John

[Fisherman]

harry: Long could only answer the question put to him,if he had made,at about 2.20,a visual inspection of the area where the apron lay.

Yes, exactly so. That was the one and only thing that would enable him to know the state of affairs. You are absolutely correct, Harry!

Did he?

Very obviously, yes, since he WAS able to tell tat the rag was not there. You said so yourself a few words back.

He doesn't say so.

Correction: By saying that the the rag was not there at the time, he implicitely ALSO says that he DID check.

His reply was that it was not there at that time.

Yes, clear and simple: the rag was not there in the doorway at 2.20.

H e gives no additional information,such as Halse did.

He gives lots of additional information, Harry, so that is just wrong.

Was Long hurrying?

We can only surmise that he kept to the pace of walking that was recommended within the force.

Was his attention focused on the doorway and interior?.

It quite obviously was, since he was able to tell that there was no rag in it at 2.20. If he had not focused on the doorway, he would not be able to be sure about it.

Was his lamp lit and focused?

Did it even have to be? It is quite possible that the rag was visible from the street, with no lamp aid added.
Conversely, if it took a lamp to see the rag, then we can bank on him having used his lamp, and do you know why, Harry? Exactly: because he WAS able to tell that the rag was not there at 2.20. If that could not be done without the lamp, then he used the lamp. If it could be done wothout the lamp, then he did not necessarily use the lamp.

W e do not know,he(long) didn't say.

We donīt need to know, Harry. It would be interesting as such, of course, but it is superfluous information as it stands. All we need to know is that he was able to tell that the rag was not in the doorway at 2.20. Why would we gab on about the lamp, for example, when we do not even know the ambient lighting conditions and the exact position of the rag, let alone what the rag looked like, how large it was, the exact color of it, if it lay in a recess, if it lay in a shallow pit etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.... Regardless of all of these parameters, Alfred Long claimed that he was able to decide whether the rag was in place or not at 2.20, and it was not, according to the PC.
It is a very simple matter, therefore: We either accept his word for it, or we invent other scenarios that we are totally unable to substantiate: "I think it lay in a spot where it was hard to see", "I think Long was drunk", "I think Long was a habitual liar", "I think he was ashamed not to have checked"... The suggestions are endless and they all have the same problem: They are in conflict with the evidence.

For a ll we know he might just have been ambling along,thinking of anything but objects in doorways,and it would have been no more than a second,two paces,in almost total darkness,before he cleared the doorway's entrance. Think about it.

There you go, Harry - that is exactly the kind of unsubstantiable suggestion, made up out of thin air, I am talking about!

It needs more than (it wasn't there) to be persuavive.

No, it does emphatically not. That is something you just try to make up, and it fails miserably.
Coroner: Are you able to tell whether the rag was there at that stage?
Long: It was not.
It cannot get any more persuasive than that. Long leaves absolutely no room for any alternative suggestions - the thing was NOT in the doorway at 2.20.

To demand more "substantiation" is bonkers. If Long had said "I walked slowly at that stage, and checked very carefully, and I used my lamp so I would not miss anything, and I even walked into the space and crept on the floor, feeling the ground with my fingers", it would NOT stop people like you from trying to dissolve his view. You would just go "Nobody would do that, heīs exaggerating and lying" or "He may have made that up. He probably stood around the corner, drinking" or "He may have misremembered which doorway he checked".

You are fooling absolutely nobody in this context, Harry; no matter what it said in the inquest files, you would certaily be able to try and bend and twist the meaning of it, and to try and insert doubt.

But what you are left with is the simple matter that Long stated that the rag was not in place at 2.20, that there is nobody saying anything to cast doubt upon it, that there is no reason at all why the rag must have been there at 2.20 and that the more credible thing therefore is that Long was correct.
A fair treatment of the evidence cannot result in any other verdict, and it is high time you accepted that so we may move on to other matters. The Long and rag business is overwith.

[Trevor Marriott]

harry: Long could only answer the question put to him,if he had made,at about 2.20,a visual inspection of the area where the apron lay.

Yes, exactly so. That was the one and only thing that would enable him to know the state of affairs. You are absolutely correct, Harry!

Did he?

Very obviously, yes, since he WAS able to tell tat the rag was not there. You said so yourself a few words back.

He doesn't say so.

Correction: By saying that the the rag was not there at the time, he implicitely ALSO says that he DID check.

His reply was that it was not there at that time.

Yes, clear and simple: the rag was not there in the doorway at 2.20.

H e gives no additional information,such as Halse did.

He gives lots of additional information, Harry, so that is just wrong.

Was Long hurrying?

We can only surmise that he kept to the pace of walking that was recommended within the force.

Was his attention focused on the doorway and interior?.

It quite obviously was, since he was able to tell that there was no rag in it at 2.20. If he had not focused on the doorway, he would not be able to be sure about it.

Was his lamp lit and focused?

Did it even have to be? It is quite possible that the rag was visible from the street, with no lamp aid added.
Conversely, if it took a lamp to see the rag, then we can bank on him having used his lamp, and do you know why, Harry? Exactly: because he WAS able to tell that the rag was not there at 2.20. If that could not be done without the lamp, then he used the lamp. If it could be done wothout the lamp, then he did not necessarily use the lamp.

W e do not know,he(long) didn't say.

We donīt need to know, Harry. It would be interesting as such, of course, but it is superfluous information as it stands. All we need to know is that he was able to tell that the rag was not in the doorway at 2.20. Why would we gab on about the lamp, for example, when we do not even know the ambient lighting conditions and the exact position of the rag, let alone what the rag looked like, how large it was, the exact color of it, if it lay in a recess, if it lay in a shallow pit etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.... Regardless of all of these parameters, Alfred Long claimed that he was able to decide whether the rag was in place or not at 2.20, and it was not, according to the PC.
It is a very simple matter, therefore: We either accept his word for it, or we invent other scenarios that we are totally unable to substantiate: "I think it lay in a spot where it was hard to see", "I think Long was drunk", "I think Long was a habitual liar", "I think he was ashamed not to have checked"... The suggestions are endless and they all have the same problem: They are in conflict with the evidence.

For a ll we know he might just have been ambling along,thinking of anything but objects in doorways,and it would have been no more than a second,two paces,in almost total darkness,before he cleared the doorway's entrance. Think about it.

There you go, Harry - that is exactly the kind of unsubstantiable suggestion, made up out of thin air, I am talking about!

It needs more than (it wasn't there) to be persuavive.

No, it does emphatically not. That is something you just try to make up, and it fails miserably.
Coroner: Are you able to tell whether the rag was there at that stage?
Long: It was not.
It cannot get any more persuasive than that. Long leaves absolutely no room for any alternative suggestions - the thing was NOT in the doorway at 2.20.

To demand more "substantiation" is bonkers. If Long had said "I walked slowly at that stage, and checked very carefully, and I used my lamp so I would not miss anything, and I even walked into the space and crept on the floor, feeling the ground with my fingers", it would NOT stop people like you from trying to dissolve his view. You would just go "Nobody would do that, heīs exaggerating and lying" or "He may have made that up. He probably stood around the corner, drinking" or "He may have misremembered which doorway he checked".

You are fooling absolutely nobody in this context, Harry; no matter what it said in the inquest files, you would certaily be able to try and bend and twist the meaning of it, and to try and insert doubt.

But what you are left with is the simple matter that Long stated that the rag was not in place at 2.20, that there is nobody saying anything to cast doubt upon it, that there is no reason at all why the rag must have been there at 2.20 and that the more credible thing therefore is that Long was correct.
A fair treatment of the evidence cannot result in any other verdict, and it is high time you accepted that so we may move on to other matters. The Long and rag business is overwith.

But what we dont know are what were his actions for him to be able categorically say it was not there at 2.20am. He doesn't say he went into the archway does he? He doesn't say he shone his light. He says he simply passed the spot.

If he simply passed the spot and did not enter then I would suggest he could not have seen the apron piece in the darkness of the building, and besides given the location, and the fact that no doubt the streets were filled with litter would he have even specifically noticed a screwed up piece of rag in a specific building when likely as not there might have been many other similar items discarded in all sorts of places on his beat, and he ceratinly hadnt been given instruction to keep a lookout for discarded pieces of rag

I note he was never asked in detail about the graffiti either, was that there at 2.20am, both became important factors, if he didn't see the apron piece did he see or not see the graffiti as both appeared to be in the same part of the building he was never asked it seems.

So it is not as clear cut as you suggest I have said many times before the evidence of police officers at these inquests was never fully tested, releavant questions on their evidence in chief should have been examined more closely at the time.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

The wonders of a detailed cross-examination.