Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Tell you what, Harry, why don't we ask PC Long if his lantern was on?

"He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time." (Evidence of Long at the inquest as reported in the Times, 12 October 1888)

So there we are. His lantern WAS on. Problem solved.

Naaaah. How do we know that Long was telling the truth? He was kicked out of the force for drinking some time later. And he did not bring his notebook to the inquest.
The lamp could just as well have been dark and unlit.

See?

[Joshua Rogan]

Hello Joshua,

Well surely the lighting conditions in the street don't enter into it IF Halse had trouble seeing the words when he copied it down..As the very same lighting conditions would have applied at all times.
"It was dark..I had no light" - Halse


Phil

As I said, Phil, I think it would be a lot more difficult to read in the dark than to write.
Having said that....Halse, by his own evidence, was there when the message was erased. Which was after Warren arrived (when it was 'just getting light') so even if he copied it when it was fully dark, he still had as much light to read it by as anyone else, and correct any errors if he thought he might have made any earlier.

[Phil Carter]

The answer to your baffling question is contained in the quotation you have reproduced. The spot where the apron was found was pointed out to him.



I think you will find he did Phil, if you consult his report of 6 November 1888:

"The inspector at once proceeded to Goulston Street and inspected the writing. From there we proceeded to Leman St, and the apron was handed by the Inspector to a gentlemen whom I have since learnt is Dr Phillips".

Page 238. The Ultimate Sourcebook. Long's inquest quotes.
No mention of Leman St


And you have avoided the obvious.
Long WITH a lamp opines the writing cannot be ascertained as being recent.
Halse WITHOUT a lamp opines the writing to be "recent".
Ipso facto. Reliability of Halse's statement?
Homer Simpson moment. Duh!!

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Joshua,

Then he would not have needed to say that it was dark when he copied it down..or qualified it by saying that he checked it when it was lighter. No?


Phil

[David Orsam]

Naaaah. How do we know that Long was telling the truth? He was kicked out of the force for drinking some time later. And he did not bring his notebook to the inquest.
The lamp could just as well have been dark and unlit.

See?

I wouldn't mind were it not likely that someone probably will make that suggestion!

[Fisherman]

I wouldn't mind were it not likely that someone probably will make that suggestion!

It´s merely a matter if time, David. I make it around seven, eight hours at most.

[David Orsam]

Page 238. The Ultimate Sourcebook. Long's inquest quotes.
No mention of Leman St

No, because the question of him going to Leman Street didn't arise at the inquest. But we know that he did go there because this fact is included in his report.

And you have avoided the obvious.
Long WITH a lamp opines the writing cannot be ascertained as being recent.
Halse WITHOUT a lamp opines the writing to be "recent".
Ipso facto. Reliability of Halse's statement?
Homer Simpson moment. Duh!!

Far from avoiding "the obvious", I dealt with the point. It's got nothing to do with who could see the writing better. It's all about the fact that Halse devised a theory that the writing was recent because it wasn't smudged and he thought it probably would have been smudged if it had been there for some time. If that thought didn't occur to Long, and there is no reason why it should have done, he would sensibly have stated that he couldn't say whether it was recent or not.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I can speak for the people who just messaged me, asking what in heavens name you were wittering on about.

Here's what I wrote in response to PaulB—

"I hardly think the cops would have covered up the message with a sheet of paper held in place by strips of Doctor Horace Day’s adhesive bandage and just left it there to be easily removed by passers-by.

"Surely there would have been burly policemen standing either side of the covered message until the photographer arrived."

We all know that the message was not covered up. The burly policemen did not happen. The message was was erased. A photographer did not turn up.

Yet you expect me to answer a question based on the covering up actually having taken place.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I can speak for the people who just messaged me, asking what in heavens name you were wittering on about.

Here's what I wrote in response to PaulB—

"I hardly think the cops would have covered up the message with a sheet of paper held in place by strips of Doctor Horace Day’s adhesive bandage and just left it there to be easily removed by passers-by.

"Surely there would have been burly policemen standing either side of the covered message until the photographer arrived."

We all know that the message was not covered up. It did not happen. It was erased. A photographer did not turn up. Yet you expect me to answer a question based on the covering up actually having taken place.

Who cares for one second what your friends, sucking up to you behind the scenes, not reading my posts properly and seemingly unable to put their names to such comments, think?

Yes, I read what you wrote to Paul. You suggested that what surely would have happened had the writing on the wall not been erased is that burly officers would have covered the message until the photographer arrived.

In that hypothetical scenario that you created, I asked you what would have happened when the photographer arrived and the writing was uncovered and was thus visible to residents of the dwelling.

You seem to have had a problem with the question for you sure haven't answered it despite the fact that, as they say, it ain't rocket science.

[Abby Normal]

Who cares for one second what your friends, sucking up to you behind the scenes, not reading my posts properly and seemingly unable to put their names to such comments, think?

Yes, I read what you wrote to Paul. You suggested that what surely would have happened had the writing on the wall not been erased is that burly officers would have covered the message until the photographer arrived.

In that hypothetical scenario that you created, I asked you what would have happened when the photographer arrived and the writing was uncovered and was thus visible to residents of the dwelling.

You seem to have had a problem with the question for you sure haven't answered it despite the fact that, as they say, it ain't rocket science.

LOL!
appears the It Aint Rocket Science Club has to meet behind the scenes in committee to see how to deal with responding to their adversaries.
HAHAHA. what a joke.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Nobody ever reads your posts properly?

I rather think they do, and have recognised you for the scornful know-it-all you continually prove yourself to be.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

LOL!
appears the It Aint Rocket Science Club has to meet behind the scenes in committee to see how to deal with responding to their adversaries.
HAHAHA. what a joke.

Yes it is rather amusing Abby. And like most committees they seem to have produced some rather junk conclusions, with Simon being the poor chap elected as the front man/fall guy to express them in public.

[David Orsam]

Nobody ever reads your posts properly?

The cracks are showing Simon. I didn't say "Nobody ever" reads my posts properly. I was talking only about your little group of cowardly, anonymous friends who can't possibly have read my recent posts in this thread properly if they didn't understand them, as you claim.

[Phil Carter]

No, because the question of him going to Leman Street didn't arise at the inquest. But we know that he did go there because this fact is included in his report.



Far from avoiding "the obvious", I dealt with the point. It's got nothing to do with who could see the writing better. It's all about the fact that Halse devised a theory that the writing was recent because it wasn't smudged and he thought it probably would have been smudged if it had been there for some time. If that thought didn't occur to Long, and there is no reason why it should have done, he would sensibly have stated that he couldn't say whether it was recent or not.

Hello David,

I see. So Long accidently "left out" part of his important movements when under oath at the inquest. I see.
And of course..not hearing that evidence, the Coroner saw no need to enquire further. Nor the jury. I see.

Have you proof that Halse put together this concocted theory you claim he put together? For I have never seen such an explanation. Do quote where he says it..and when. Thank you.

As to the theory itself..we wander off to Swanson stating the writing was blurred. .same report.. Nov 6th.

Now dear fellow..we simply cannot have it all ways.

Warren saw it "clearly" from the Street when it was "starting to get light". 3/4" high letters. (Max)
Halse saw it with difficulty in the dark.and calls it "recent"..to back up a supposed theory that we have never seen.
Long saw it with a lamp." Not recent" No theory.
Swanson didn't even see it. It was "blurred".Nov 6th report.

So let me get this right. Swanson states that Warren must have clearly seen a blurred piece of writing from the street in fading darkness, that Halse theorised was "cleanly written" enough to determine it "recently written" whilst looking at it in the dark without a lamp, and P C.Long who saw it with a lamp saw no blurred writing and determined it to not be of "recent" origin.

Edit* all this on top of the fact that it was seen in a variety of different positions at the same location and containing 7 different versions..all registered by differing policemen.in both darkness and approaching light.

Its a Condor moment.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes it is rather amusing Abby. And like most committees they seem to have produced some rather junk conclusions, with Simon being the poor chap elected as the front man/fall guy to express them in public.

I think you will find that just on here alone there are as many people who do not agree with you and the deluded Abby and Fisherman as there are those who concur with the three of you

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk