Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

I don't think it really matters much but here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "jamb":

Archit. Each of the side posts of a doorway, window, or chimney-piece, upon which rests the lintel; a cheek; esp., in popular use, (pl.) the stone sides or cheeks of a fire-place.

There are also some less common, rare or obsolete meanings, viz:

A projecting columnar part of a wall; a columnar mass or pillar in a quarry or mine.

Each of the two side-pieces or cheeks of anything. rare.

A projecting ‘wing’ of a building. Obs.

An angular turn or corner in a street or way. Obs.

[Wickerman]

I can't allow the claim to go unremarked that Long would have had "no reason to lie" if he had missed the apron piece. If he had missed it because he had failed to make the previous circuit he would have had every reason to lie as his livelihood would have been at stake.

I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, I've brought this up myself in the past, that is, that PC Long was not afraid of saying he wasn't sure.
When asked about the correct spelling of Jews he replied - "It may have been."

Then when the wording of his note was questioned, he said;
"It is possible, but I do not think that I have."

When asked if he thought the writing was recent, he said:
"I could not form an opinion."

When asked why the inspector wrote "Jews", he replied: "I cannot say."
Then when asked about a discrepancy he answered: "It would seem so."

Therefore, it would appear PC Long was not concerned about admitting when he was unsure, if that was indeed the case.

So when he was asked:
"Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?"

He could easily have said "I couldn't say", or "I am not sure", rather than lie.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Read the dictionary definition I posted.

"either of the vertical sides of a doorway, arch, window, or other opening."

" . . . or other opening."

I didn't suggest it was arched.

You did that all by yourself.

Regards,

Simon

Simon, a wall with a hole in it is not a jamb, you have to attach a jamb to the wall to hang a gate/ door/ window, etc.
The "jamb" is what is attached to the wall, its not the wall itself.
A wall with or without a hole, is still just a wall.

[Wickerman]

I don't think it really matters much but here is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "jamb":

[I]Archit. Each of the side posts of a doorway, window, or chimney-piece,

I can't quite visualize a chimney-piece jamb, unless they are referring to large 19th century fireplace, or a fireplace in an Abbey or Castle.

The sideposts of a doorway is correct, but it has to be a doorway (with a door), where the door is attached to something - this "something" is the jamb (that is where the hinge is fastened). A door frame is comprise of one lintel and two jambs (usually made of wood), which are fasted to the wall to hang the door.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Who to believe?

An architectural dictionary, or you?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Who to believe?

An architectural dictionary, or you?

Regards,

Simon

A dictionary doesn't help you understand what you read.

Here is a door jamb kit - it shows you what a jamb is.



The jamb is not the wall, the jamb is attached to the wall.

[harry]

The way it's going,it will soon be a dazzling white piece of cloth,lying on the pavement.

Long states,'The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase'.

There was a doorway,and beyond that a passageway.The apron piece was not in the doorway,it was stated to be in the passageway.How far beyond the doorway is not stated.Long should at least be credited as knowing the difference between a doorway and passageway.

Policemen like anyone else,do not always do as expected.I doubt Long walked the beat with his lamp always on,or that he turned it on everytime he passed an opening,or that he entered and inspected every opening,and nothing anyone has said of the entrance to Wentworth Building
leads me to believe it required special attention that night.So what w as he doing in there,and when w as he there inside.

He didn't see the cloth until he(long) was in the passageway.He states that.So if he had to be in the building before seeing the cloth,at 2.55,what chance would there be of seeing it at 2.20,from outside,when just passing by?

We do have a clear idea of conditions that night,from at least three witnesses,and all three attest to the darkness,and that with an open sky above. Well the passageway was enclosed,making it darker still.

[Wickerman]

The entrance was the passage, the door just led to more stairs - down I think.
When you walk from the street, you enter the passage, the stairs are to the right of the door.

[Abby Normal]

I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, I've brought this up myself in the past, that is, that PC Long was not afraid of saying he wasn't sure.
When asked about the correct spelling of Jews he replied - "It may have been."

Then when the wording of his note was questioned, he said;
"It is possible, but I do not think that I have."

When asked if he thought the writing was recent, he said:
"I could not form an opinion."

When asked why the inspector wrote "Jews", he replied: "I cannot say."
Then when asked about a discrepancy he answered: "It would seem so."

Therefore, it would appear PC Long was not concerned about admitting when he was unsure, if that was indeed the case.

So when he was asked:
"Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?"

He could easily have said "I couldn't say", or "I am not sure", rather than lie.

Another great point.
He obviously was not afraid to say if he wasn't sure about something or simply that he didn't know.

[Abby Normal]

The way it's going,it will soon be a dazzling white piece of cloth,lying on the pavement.

Long states,'The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase'.

There was a doorway,and beyond that a passageway.The apron piece was not in the doorway,it was stated to be in the passageway.How far beyond the doorway is not stated.Long should at least be credited as knowing the difference between a doorway and passageway.

Policemen like anyone else,do not always do as expected.I doubt Long walked the beat with his lamp always on,or that he turned it on everytime he passed an opening,or that he entered and inspected every opening,and nothing anyone has said of the entrance to Wentworth Building
leads me to believe it required special attention that night.So what w as he doing in there,and when w as he there inside.

He didn't see the cloth until he(long) was in the passageway.He states that.So if he had to be in the building before seeing the cloth,at 2.55,what chance would there be of seeing it at 2.20,from outside,when just passing by?

We do have a clear idea of conditions that night,from at least three witnesses,and all three attest to the darkness,and that with an open sky above. Well the passageway was enclosed,making it darker still.

Actually the way it's going Harry, you will soon be an honorary member of the Rocket Science Club.

You can hold your breath and stand on your head in a corner until your head turns purple or stamp your feet up and down and scream and cry like a baby but it doesn't change the FACT that the EVIDENCE says it wasnt there at 2:20.

Now if you can produce evidence that it was there at 2:20 or that there is evidence that long was mistaken or lying than produce it, if not you should quit while your ahead, or more accurately quit while you behind.

[Robert St Devil]

Inquest testimony taken from Daily Telegraph Oct 5 & 12.

Glancingly, there is reason to be suspicious of PC Long, and evidence arrives in the fact that he had no ally at the Oct 11th inquest, least if all being the City Solicitor and the jury. They are the men who directly harangue him on his ineptitude, and the division between City and Metro is obvious. City may still be heated that evidence was destroyed, and they want Metro on the hook for it.

At the beginning of the 1st day of the inquest, Mr. Crawford, the City Solicitor, asks the coroner if he can interview the witnesses on behalf of City Police AFTER the coroner has completed his questioning. I have been naively reading the inquest as tho Mr. Crawford is only asking a question now and again, not realizing that he is asking all the final questions of the witness. In the DT, you,ll recognize this because they will post Foreman: or Coroner: whenever they take over the questioning. Up until that point, all the questions following Mr. Crawford: are him asking on behalf of the City Police. Reading the inquest focusing on Mr. Crawford, I attempted to glean what City Police were ,after,.

The 1st day of the inquest may seem that City suspicion was set on John Kelly because it is Mr. Crawford who trips him up with the date of the pawning. John claims that they had 6d Friday night, but pawning the boots means they had 2s 6d Friday night. That,s when Kelly,s mind gets muddled, remembering an apparent drunkeness bought with what money, i dunno... And Mr. Crawford further inquires of Kelly,s movements from the lodging deputy. Who knows? Maybe City thinks Jack is dissappearing out into the hop fields between murders, and the arrival of Kelly and Eddowes times nicely with the postmark date of Dear Boss... Which raises my questions,

1. Did John have shoes in time for the inquest?
2. What type of instrument is used for picking hops?

It,s Mr. Crawford who trips up PC Long at the Oct. 11th inquest. He knows what was written on the wall because he probably knows what,s in Halse,s notebook. Now he,s calling out PC Long (directly) and Metro (indirectly), and he has a loaded jury supporting him. It,s almost as if sending PC Long for his notebook is a charade because, in the end, Mr. Crawford already knows what,s in the investigators report. He calls it a discrepancy.
I,d suspect that they copied off of one another at a later time from someone,s memory.

[Monty]

It's an inquest.

Crawford would have seen all the documentation related to it as part of the process.

Monty
🙂

[Monty]

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.

Initially Long was suspended and warned prior to dismissal. It would seem it wasn't his first 'offence' relating to drink.

Monty
🙂

[PaulB]

So I am pathetic, ignorant, and childish according to you. Then I am spending to long listening to you with your supercilious, arrogant know it all attitude.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The trouble is that you are not listening. If you were listening you would have seen and understood that I did not say that you are pathetic, ignorant and childish. I carefully and specifically said that your flippant comment was. And I told you why I thought so. If you think differently, say why.

As for me being arrogant, maybe with you I am, but with you it is difficult not to be. You don't discuss, you state what you believe and keep stating it over an over, and if people disagree with you you are rude to them or you insult them. The question of primary and secondary sources is a perfect example. It is clear that you don't kow what they are, it's obvious that you think they are the same as primary and secondary evidence, yet you can't be bothered to do a search on the internet and find out. The same applies to so much else you come out with. Actually stat listening and things could change.






Your arrogance gets in the way. Want an example? You think you know what primary and secondary sources are. So you argue. You tell people that newspapers are secondary sources. You imply that there are unrealiable. In so doing you mislead people. You are told you are wrong, but instead of going away and checking your facts, you carry on with your own erroneous beliefs.

[John G]

The issue of primary and secondary sources can be complex. For instance, historians traditionally regard newspaper accounts as primary sources, however, an account based upon, say, a press release, where the first-hand account has been rewritten, would be regarded as a secondary source.