Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[c.d.]

I have to say that I have never understood this thread or why it absolutely refuses to die or the passionate arguments that accompany it.

It seems to me that we can't be absolutely certain that Long simply didn't miss seeing the apron. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that he is correct what does that tell us? Even if we can therefore conclude that the message was written by the killer where does that get us?

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is anti-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is pro-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was not a Jew? No

Does anyone (other than the one who wrote it) have the faintest idea as to what it means? Maybe. But it is still just a guess.

I appreciate the passion and the time spent on this thread but to me it seems like much ado about nothing. Maybe someone can show me the error of my ways on this.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

More speculation. More suggestions about what Long cudda/shudda/wudda have done. Just as useless as the other speculations.

Of course it is not established what he did and how he did it. But that does not matter in the least. He COULD have been less than thorough and he COULD have been the most thorough PC ever. That is what follows from a lack of knowledge. What does emphatically NOT follow is that he MUST have been either. It is an unwritten leaf and it will stay unwritten.

If other policemen in history have acted as complete morons, that has no bearing on what Long said and did. The same applies for all the phenomenally diligent policemen in history - their presence does not mean that Long must have been on the money. This information does not apply - either way! Capisce?

Once more and hopefully for the last time: We donīt know. We canīt know. And it therefore applies that ALL we have is Longīs adamant "It was not there". In the total absense of any other implications or testimonies, this means that we are left with a much larger probability that the rag was NOT there at 2.20.

Anybody who wants to believe that the rag WAS there at 2.20 is faced with the onus of proof - such an assumption will need to be fortified with evidence pointing clearly in the direction of the rag having been in place at 2.20. And if that evidence is to take precedence, it must be stronger than Longs words.

So, in conclusion, put up or shut up. Show me the evidence, or learn to live with things as they are.

Evidence, anybody? Huh? No?
Lord, am I SURPRISED!!!

[Fisherman]

c.d. :I have to say that I have never understood this thread or why it absolutely refuses to die or the passionate arguments that accompany it.

The thread should have been stone dead, yes. It is completely onesided, on account of a total lack of evidence for the more vociferous side.

It seems to me that we can't be absolutely certain that Long simply didn't miss seeing the apron.

Of course we cannot be sure.

But even if we assume for the sake of argument that he is correct what does that tell us? Even if we can therefore conclude that the message was written by the killer where does that get us?

In any of a thousand directions, c.d. But that is not the point I am making. I am making the point that evidence counts. It MUST count. Here, the evidence is ruled out in favour of an idea with no evidence behind it at all. Which is absolute, total and utter bonkers.

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is anti-Jewish? No

No, we canīt.

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is pro-Jewish? No

Amen to that!

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was Jewish? No

Never was a truer word spoken.

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was not a Jew? No

Seconded!

Does anyone (other than the one who wrote it) have the faintest idea as to what it means? Maybe. But it is still just a guess.

All very true.

I appreciate the passion and the time spent on this thread but to me it seems like much ado about nothing. Maybe someone can show me the error of my ways on this.

That would depend. If we think we may reach answers to the questions you raise, then it is an exercise in futility.

If we can teach people to recognize the difference between case evidence and homemade guesswork, then there is all the reason in the world to proceed.
If all other threads had been incrediby productive, with no wasting of time, I would have been even more prone to agree with you, c.d. But I think we both know that this is not so.

[Wickerman]

It seems to me that we can't be absolutely certain that Long simply didn't miss seeing the apron. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that he is correct what does that tell us?

We can be reasonably certain that PC Long was convinced the rag was not there, whether he was mistaken or not is the question.
What we have in support of Long's conviction is only Long's statement, however there is nothing to support the suggestion that he was mistaken.

Even if we can therefore conclude that the message was written by the killer where does that get us?

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is anti-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is pro-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was not a Jew? No

Does anyone (other than the one who wrote it) have the faintest idea as to what it means? Maybe. But it is still just a guess.

I appreciate the passion and the time spent on this thread but to me it seems like much ado about nothing. Maybe someone can show me the error of my ways on this.

c.d.

Agreed, and the ambiguity of the wording plus the minuscule size of the writing are facts that hardly lend themselves to be interpreted as a clearly defined and noticeable message.
If the meaning is not clear and the writing noticeable, then why write it?

[John Wheat]

I have to say that I have never understood this thread or why it absolutely refuses to die or the passionate arguments that accompany it.

It seems to me that we can't be absolutely certain that Long simply didn't miss seeing the apron. But even if we assume for the sake of argument that he is correct what does that tell us? Even if we can therefore conclude that the message was written by the killer where does that get us?

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is anti-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the message is pro-Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was Jewish? No

Can we conclude beyond a doubt that the killer was not a Jew? No

Does anyone (other than the one who wrote it) have the faintest idea as to what it means? Maybe. But it is still just a guess.

I appreciate the passion and the time spent on this thread but to me it seems like much ado about nothing. Maybe someone can show me the error of my ways on this.

c.d.

I agree 100% c.d. even if the message was written by the killer and I'm not certain it was. I'm sure there were loads of these sorts of messages written on walls in Whitechapel. It tells us nothing of use.

Cheers John

[Trevor Marriott]

More speculation. More suggestions about what Long cudda/shudda/wudda have done. Just as useless as the other speculations.

Of course it is not established what he did and how he did it. But that does not matter in the least. He COULD have been less than thorough and he COULD have been the most thorough PC ever. That is what follows from a lack of knowledge. What does emphatically NOT follow is that he MUST have been either. It is an unwritten leaf and it will stay unwritten.

If other policemen in history have acted as complete morons, that has no bearing on what Long said and did. The same applies for all the phenomenally diligent policemen in history - their presence does not mean that Long must have been on the money. This information does not apply - either way! Capisce?

Once more and hopefully for the last time: We donīt know. We canīt know. And it therefore applies that ALL we have is Longīs adamant "It was not there". In the total absense of any other implications or testimonies, this means that we are left with a much larger probability that the rag was NOT there at 2.20.

Anybody who wants to believe that the rag WAS there at 2.20 is faced with the onus of proof - such an assumption will need to be fortified with evidence pointing clearly in the direction of the rag having been in place at 2.20. And if that evidence is to take precedence, it must be stronger than Longs words.

So, in conclusion, put up or shut up. Show me the evidence, or learn to live with things as they are.

Evidence, anybody? Huh? No?
Lord, am I SURPRISED!!!

No we dont know, and wont know now, but his words "I passed the spot" need closer scrutiny those words dont indicate he stopped and looked inside the dark recess, and I would suggest that by merely passing by in the street he could not have seen the rag even if it had been there at 2.20am in any event

So that is why the issue should have been expanded on at the inquest. It was not, so we are left to draw conclusions from what was said, and in my opinion it should not be taken as factually correct that he made a sufficient examination at 2.20am to show it was there despite saying so at the inquest

As to evidence which you keeping shouting about, the best evidence is that to which there is corroboration. There is neither to prove this issue one way or the other.

So you can carry on shouting the odds in your inimitable fashion but is not going to change things. There has to be a doubt about his actions that night and a question mark over his credibility as a witness on this issue.

It has also been mentioned that both he and Halse by reason of their evidence timings were in the same street at roughly the same time, yet neither apparently saw or heard the other. There is no evidence that the street was thronging with people and it seems by both Long and Halse that neither encountered any other person. Ye we have a police officer in the street with No 9 boots on walking along waving his lamp and Halse doesn't see or hear him, and Halse also himself being vigilant, looking for suspects and listening for noises no doubt

As to Halse he also must have passed the location of the rag and says that was also about 2.20am. He went by Middlesex St and into Wentworth St then back along Goulston Street, then making his way back to Mitre Square. We dont know which route he took back. Looking at the map he could have walked the length of Goulston Street and gone back the long route via Aldgate. If he took this route why did he not see Pc Long. Or he could have gone back via New Goulston street and criss crossed his way back to the square. But neither he nor long give any indication about seeing or checking any other members of the public at that time, other that the two Halse checked in Wentworth Street.

So again important questions which should have been put to the officers but were not.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Spot on Trevor.
It is not a question of evidence,as you write.I am more inclined to believe as Halse states,it was a situation w here the apron could have been there,but not noticed in the second or two it took to pass the doorway.
Does it make a difference.Only in so much as it might be helpful in coming to an opinion as to the time the Killer delayed returning to his residence.That again would be opinion,not provenence.

[Harry D]

Fish, it's not a matter of principle. We can't assume that people are telling the truth most of the time. We have to judge the veracity of each testimony on its own merits. There's enough room for doubt when it comes to PC Long's version of events to suspect that he may have missed it. It honestly make no odds to me either way if the rag was there at 2.20am or not, it's not like I have a suspect that hinges on it, but I don't think that the killer would've gone to Goulston St. just to deposit the apron (and write the graffiti) some 35 mins after committing the murder.

It seems that this belief was one shared by Stewart Evans, in Issue #100 of Ripperologist:

"The mere nature of practical police work and patrolling meant that a patrolling constable was largely unsupervised whilst at work and the senior officers had to rely on the conscientiousness of the individual officer to carry out his patrol-work diligently trusting him not to be lazy or to avoid his duty. Human nature being what it is not every officer could be relied upon to remain on the alert on his beat, to check all the premises that needing checking and to regularly cover all areas of his beat throughout the night. . . .

"It is for the foregoing reasons that I have always thought PC 254A Alfred Long’s evidence at the inquest on Catherine Eddowes of finding the soiled piece of apron and chalked wall message in Goulston Street a bit dubious. Long claimed in his evidence that he had passed the doorway entrance to nos. 108-119 Model Dwellings about 2.20 a.m. on the morning of Sunday, 30 September 1888. He stated that the piece of apron was not there then. He further stated that about 35 minutes later, about 2.55 a.m., he was again at the doorway where he discovered the piece of bloodstained apron, and the message on the wall. This of course leads to the very improbable conclusion that the murderer fled from Mitre Square at the latest at 1.44 a.m. but did not deposit the incriminating piece of apron in the doorway until after 2.20 a.m. As the doorway is only a matter of a few minutes from Mitre Square, we have to ask what on earth would the killer have been doing hanging around the area amid the hue and cry, for at least a full 36 minutes? This, surely, throws a huge question mark over Long’s testimony. I have always believed that the piece of apron was deposited in the entranceway before 2.00 a.m. as the killer made good his escape. . . .

"It is very likely that at the time Long’s patrol took him past the doorway at 2.20 a.m. he simply failed to properly check the doorway, if indeed he did so at all. However, he could not admit to such negligence. Such an admission could have resulted in a charge of neglect of duty and possible dismissal. . . . And don’t for a minute think that a policeman wouldn’t lie when his very job (thus his livelihood) was at stake. The grave nature of the Ripper murders, and the importance of carrying out patrol duties correctly, meant that Long simply could not have admitted to failing properly to check the doorways in Goulston Street."

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: No we dont know, and wont know now, but his words "I passed the spot" need closer scrutiny those words dont indicate he stopped and looked inside the dark recess, and I would suggest that by merely passing by in the street he could not have seen the rag even if it had been there at 2.20am in any event.

The words that DO indicate that he stopped and looked are these:
"It was not there".

Those are the words that tell us that he looked. If he did not look, he would not be able to tell. Surely that is not too hard an exercise in constructive thinking for you to take on board.

He was a patrolling PC on a beat. That means that he passed ALL spots on his beat. The fact that he assed all spots on his beat is not equivalent to him not having stopped a single time, and it is not equivalent to him having been less diligent than he was supposed to be. At 2.20, he walked through Goulston Street, but not witn a blindfold on. He PASSED through the street (sic!) whilst performing his duties, that is to say that he checked for anything that was not as it was supposed to be.

Whether he had to look into "the dark recess" to see the rag is written in the stars, but if he had to, then he did, as witnessed about by his ability to say that the rag was not there.

[Fisherman]

Spot on Trevor.
It is not a question of evidence,as you write.I am more inclined to believe as Halse states,it was a situation w here the apron could have been there,but not noticed in the second or two it took to pass the doorway.
Does it make a difference.Only in so much as it might be helpful in coming to an opinion as to the time the Killer delayed returning to his residence.That again would be opinion,not provenence.

No, Harry, Trevor is extremely rarely spot on. Nor is he so this time. Spot off, Iīd say.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: Fish, it's not a matter of principle.

That is not for you to decide. To me, it is very much a matter of priciple, but I can see why you dislike that.

We can't assume that people are telling the truth most of the time.

Oh yes, we can. Otherwise, it would be folly to have a legal system at all, and every trial would be a fifty-fifty chancetaking. Of all the things that are said in evidence in a court of law, you may rest assured that the absolute bulk of it is true.

We have to judge the veracity of each testimony on its own merits.

Yes, but that is another matter altogether. It has nothing at all to do with the assumption that what peoole say in a court of law or at an inquest is normally true. It touches on the small majority of testimony that is instead false. False testimonies are not uncommon as such, and it is important that we keep an eye open for them.
However, in this case, there is no indication whatsoever that the testimony would be false. Nobody gainsays it, and there is nothing telling us that the rag could not have been missing at 2.20, just as Long said. That is why I say that until you produce the evidence to disprove Long - or make him less credible - the more likely thing is that he was correct.

There's enough room for doubt when it comes to PC Long's version of events to suspect that he may have missed it.

Is there? Where did that room come from? What suggests that he was wrong? Strictly speaking, there are only two alternatives:
1. The rag was there at 2.20
2. The rag was not there at 2.20

Long, a serving PC, educated to notice these things and a witness who was in the street at the time, was asked by the coroner if he could say whether or not the rag was there at 2.30, and answered "It was not".

That is the evidence for the rag having not been there at 2.20.

What is your evidence for the rag having been there at 2.20?

Donīt be shy now, Harry - blow me away with your superior knowledge!

It honestly make no odds to me either way if the rag was there at 2.20am or not, it's not like I have a suspect that hinges on it, but I don't think that the killer would've gone to Goulston St. just to deposit the apron (and write the graffiti) some 35 mins after committing the murder.

And I think he bolted off to Broad Street, where he washed up and hid the innards, before he set out for Doveton Street (which, incidentally, was reached via Goulston Street).

What makes your - or my - guess the better one? Let me tell you: nothing. They are equally impossible to prove, and they are equally trustworthy. That means that they cancel each other out - and we are left with the one piece of evidence existing.

It seems that this belief was one shared by Stewart Evans, in Issue #100 of Ripperologist:

"The mere nature of practical police work and patrolling meant that a patrolling constable was largely unsupervised whilst at work and the senior officers had to rely on the conscientiousness of the individual officer to carry out his patrol-work diligently trusting him not to be lazy or to avoid his duty. Human nature being what it is not every officer could be relied upon to remain on the alert on his beat, to check all the premises that needing checking and to regularly cover all areas of his beat throughout the night. . . .

"It is for the foregoing reasons that I have always thought PC 254A Alfred Long’s evidence at the inquest on Catherine Eddowes of finding the soiled piece of apron and chalked wall message in Goulston Street a bit dubious. Long claimed in his evidence that he had passed the doorway entrance to nos. 108-119 Model Dwellings about 2.20 a.m. on the morning of Sunday, 30 September 1888. He stated that the piece of apron was not there then. He further stated that about 35 minutes later, about 2.55 a.m., he was again at the doorway where he discovered the piece of bloodstained apron, and the message on the wall. This of course leads to the very improbable conclusion that the murderer fled from Mitre Square at the latest at 1.44 a.m. but did not deposit the incriminating piece of apron in the doorway until after 2.20 a.m. As the doorway is only a matter of a few minutes from Mitre Square, we have to ask what on earth would the killer have been doing hanging around the area amid the hue and cry, for at least a full 36 minutes? This, surely, throws a huge question mark over Long’s testimony. I have always believed that the piece of apron was deposited in the entranceway before 2.00 a.m. as the killer made good his escape. . . .

"It is very likely that at the time Long’s patrol took him past the doorway at 2.20 a.m. he simply failed to properly check the doorway, if indeed he did so at all. However, he could not admit to such negligence. Such an admission could have resulted in a charge of neglect of duty and possible dismissal. . . . And don’t for a minute think that a policeman wouldn’t lie when his very job (thus his livelihood) was at stake. The grave nature of the Ripper murders, and the importance of carrying out patrol duties correctly, meant that Long simply could not have admitted to failing properly to check the doorways in Goulston Street."

Aha. Well, others disagree, and Stewart Evans does not have the final say in this or any other matter of the Ripper case. Even if I was to bow in awe faced with his thoughts, I still have to weigh in that you agree with him.

There goes that veracity.

Jon Smythe (Wickerman) agrees with me. The only difference between you and me is that I am not dumb enough to promote that as any pointer of me being correct. All Jon does is to recognize the weight of evidence there is, nothing else.
It takes disregard for the actual evidence to claim as the better proposal that ther rag was there at 2.20. In that respect, I would not commend either you or Stewart Evans. Although Stewart Evans does not comment on the weight of the evidence from a legal point of view.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: No we dont know, and wont know now, but his words "I passed the spot" need closer scrutiny those words dont indicate he stopped and looked inside the dark recess, and I would suggest that by merely passing by in the street he could not have seen the rag even if it had been there at 2.20am in any event.

The words that DO indicate that he stopped and looked are these:
"It was not there".

Those are the words that tell us that he looked. If he did not look, he would not be able to tell. Surely that is not too hard an exercise in constructive thinking for you to take on board.

He was a patrolling PC on a beat. That means that he passed ALL spots on his beat. The fact that he assed all spots on his beat is not equivalent to him not having stopped a single time, and it is not equivalent to him having been less diligent than he was supposed to be. At 2.20, he walked through Goulston Street, but not witn a blindfold on. He PASSED through the street (sic!) whilst performing his duties, that is to say that he checked for anything that was not as it was supposed to be.

Whether he had to look into "the dark recess" to see the rag is written in the stars, but if he had to, then he did, as witnessed about by his ability to say that the rag was not there.

How could he have been in a position from the street to see into the dark recess from simply passing the spot? Here is a pic taken in daylight you cannot see into the recess. Take the blinkers off for once and start looking at these murders in an unbiased fashion.

[Wickerman]

Dear Trevor.
Disregard the dimensions on this pic, but can you see that door just inside the entry?



A beat constable's duty was to try all doors and windows on his beat to be sure they were secure. This as you can imagine will entail him stepping inside the entryway.
Of course you can argue that he never said he did this, but why does he have to say he did, it was expected of him.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dear Trevor.
Disregard the dimensions on this pic, but can you see that door just inside the entry?



A beat constable's duty was to try all doors and windows on his beat to be sure they were secure. This as you can imagine will entail him stepping inside the entryway.
Of course you can argue that he never said he did this, but why does he have to say he did, it was expected of him.

Well if he did pass by there at 2.20 and saw it, and because it was a screwed up piece of rag why should he notice it, just another piece of discarded rubbish. But later when it became important perhaps to retain credibility he could hardly say yes i saw it but took no notice of it until 35 mins later when he heard about the murder and decided to take a closer look at these type of buildings.

He doesn't say that, he says he passed by the spot. He doesnt say he stepped in. He doesn't even say anything about the graffitti

Where did you get the details of a beat constable from. I dont think you are entirely correct that an officer had to try every door and window I think it was up to the individual based on the following from Police Codes

"Police must constantly observe in what manner felonious access to premises is most likely to be attempted, and pay particular attention to those points in going their rounds, and call the attention of owners to any carelessness, such as leaving doors and windows open, or ladders about, likely to tempt a thief"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Well if he did pass by there at 2.20 and saw it, and because it was a screwed up piece of rag why should he notice it, just another piece of discarded rubbish.

A typical observation by a member of today's throwaway society.
The East End of the nineteenth century was not a throwaway society, everything had a use and a value. Scrap rope, sticks, paper, rags, and even manure was picked up off the streets, and even from down the sewers - yes, what an easy life we have today.

Where did you get the details of a beat constable from. I dont think you are entirely correct that an officer had to try every door and window I think it was up to the individual based on the following from Police Codes

"Police must constantly observe in what manner felonious access to premises is most likely to be attempted, and pay particular attention to those points in going their rounds, and call the attention of owners to any carelessness, such as leaving doors and windows open, or ladders about, likely to tempt a thief"

Police Code 1889, pp 28/9:
Beats, sec. 3 (g), to see that doors, windows, gratings, cellar-flaps, fan-lights, and places through which a thief might enter, or obtain access, are not left open.

Hmm, no mention of "all", or "every", or "occasionally", or "when you feel like it", or "if you're not too busy", - one might wonder how they decided?
Well, you might, I don't.

How do you suppose he determined if a door was left open?
Go-on, take a wild guess, I dare you....