Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,
Your post 957.
What we have however,and you missed that (I did?),is evidence that the rag was absent from Goulston Street at 2.20.

How come?

Mitre Square was about 10 minutes distance at the most.The Ripper could have made it easily.He could have been anywhere in that street,unobserved,even in the dwelling itself,still in possession of the apron piece when Long passed.So where is the evidence that it was absent at 2.20.
What did I miss?

Of course the killer may have been in Goulston Street while Long passed. We do however know that Long checked doorways as he walked his beat, so reasonably, the killer was not on one of them. Equally, Long checked the staircases of the Wentworth buildings, so it would seem the killer was not there either.
So for your suggestion to work, he would have been up some other staircase in the street, or inside one of the dwellings. And if he was, then he placed evidence on his own doorstep, which is not a very likely thing to have happened.
Thatīs not to say that it could not have happened. It could. And of course, what I was indicating in my post was that the probable thing is that since the rag was not in the doorway at 2.20, it was not in Goulston Street at all at that time. Meaning that the killer had either taken a detour or withdrawn to a bolthole before passing Goulston Street. That seems the probable thing.

I even got so enthusiastic about that suggestion that I forgot to add the possibility that the killer took the apron and headed for Goulston STreet immediately, and when he arrived there, he stayed put, let Long pass and THEN he sneaked out, put the rag in the doorway (in the midst of the police search) and left. Alternatively, he went to his dwellings in Goulston Street, waited almost an hour, whereupon he descended his stairs (in the midst of the police search), put the rag in the doorway and walked back up again.

Since I find both suggestions very unlikely and bordering on ridiculous, they will have slipped my mind. But I donīt mind - being equipped with a nonsense filter has itīs advantages.

You may not be aware of that, though.

[David Orsam]

Hi Observer,

I fear that the dado, dildo or dodo is extinct.

The GSG was wherever we want it to be, written upon whatever surface fits our theory, on as many lines as we think will fit on a jamb, on a dado which reached the ceiling, in a good schoolboy's hand, perhaps spelt Juwes, Jews, Jeuws or Jeuwes, but in sufficiently esoteric ways with double negatives to tax the brains of a huddle of cops who had not the collective wit to agree upon, let alone copy down accurately, what they were witnessing.

That's only because you, Simon, are the embodiment of perfection and never make mistakes - such as posting a false extract from Long's report on this forum - whereas the police in 1888 were mere mortals, unable to live up to your superhuman standards.

[David Orsam]

Yes. Amazing.
The officially taken down.. written..and signed inquest testimony. See page 238, The Ultimate JtR Sourcebook. It is not until AFTER his opening testimony, which included mentioning taking the piece of apron to Commercial Road (sic) Police station, that Mr. Crawford intervenes with questions. He had ample opportunity to talk freewillingly, of the additional sojourn to Leman Street. It is left out.

The Times of Friday 12th October, page 4 reports further on the inquest of the previous day (11th October).

Long makes no mention of Leman St. ( see the same book, above, page 260.) Neither does he mention Leman St upon being recalled..see pages 262-264.l

I've said to you twice now Phil that Long did not mention Leman Street at the inquest.

It was an inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Catherine Eddowes, not an inquiry into the movements of PC Long or even into the discovery of the piece of apron.

Long's visit to Leman Street is of little or no importance to anything, other than confirming the chain of evidence of the apron from Long to his inspector to Dr Phillips but no-one doubted that the piece of apron produced by Phillips at the inquest was the piece of apron found by Long. Only relevant evidence was produced at the inquest.

I can only imagine you keep banging on about Leman Street because you personally were unaware of Long's visit to that station until I told you about it, having failed to consult Long's 6th November report.

[David Orsam]

David Orsam,
You got it wrong again.When I made the remark about the lantern being on or off,I was referring to the 2.20 Passing.I'm sure he would have had to have had the lantern on inside the passage to see the writing,it was that dark.Really reinforces my opinion that from outside,a black cloth would have been hard to observe.Thank you.

You tell me that I've got it wrong, Harry, then in the breath you refer to "a black cloth"!!! Oh the irony.

The cloth was white Harry. Of course, you can rely on the memoirs of someone who wasn't there, written about fifty years later, or you can refer to the clear contemporary evidence that the piece of cloth was white.

I don't know what makes you think that PC Long would have turned on his lamp at 2.55 but not at 2.20, perhaps he just liked groping about in the dark, a bit like you really.....???

[Phil Carter]

I've said to you twice now Phil that Long did not mention Leman Street at the inquest.

It was an inquest into the circumstances surrounding the death of Catherine Eddowes, not an inquiry into the movements of PC Long or even into the discovery of the piece of apron.

Long's visit to Leman Street is of little or no importance to anything, other than confirming the chain of evidence of the apron from Long to his inspector to Dr Phillips but no-one doubted that the piece of apron produced by Phillips at the inquest was the piece of apron found by Long. Only relevant evidence was produced at the inquest.

I can only imagine you keep banging on about Leman Street because you personally were unaware of Long's visit to that station until I told you about it, having failed to consult Long's 6th November report.

Your imagination does you a disfavour David. I am well aware of the Nov 6th report.

As you may be well aware..it is common practice..even today.. for later reports to tie up as many holes as possible in the earlier submitted reports given in. It is called covering the collective rear when passing info gained up the chain.

I am amazed at your distinct lack of knowledge in day to day collating techniques of evidence for presentation.

Good we are both amazed.


Phil

[PaulB]

Hello Paul,

Thank you for your reply. I trust you and your family are well.

You do not have to be afraid of not "understanding my argument." There are some arguments of yours. .and others, that I find baffling. ☺

I am trying, perhaps poorly, to put the following points forward.

You said that Warren's comments re the clarity of the message from the street has not been questioned.
I question it on the basis of the many examples of WHERE it was.. (that affects the line of vision from the street)
Also in what condition the writing was (clean, blurred etc)
Also size of letters from such a distance from the street would also affect the clarity of vision from that spot.
Also whether Warren referred to the "clarity" when standing still or when moving. Depending on the position of the writing..these factors need to be considered..especially given the size of the writing itself.Angles and height too.

This brings in more problems. Because if in view of the light available when Warren saw it it was "clear" then if..at that distance (from the street) it was so clear then there is nothing stopping any policeman seeing the writing close up and all getting a uniform answer as to where it was and the exact wording in said light. Yet this did not happen.

So therefore..it shows that a totally logical reason for a greater uniformity of answer to be missing. That in turn refocuses attention onto the veracity of Warrens words.

If Warren was..infact..making up the reason..or the comment. . For whatever reason (I don't know)..then the focus goes back onto his comments..and their veracity.
If not..then focus must be applied to the statement of the policemen.

Swanson said it was blurred. No other policeman stated this yet..say it he did.he didnt see it..but said it. He picked it up from someone..but that cannot be true..Because no policeman there that commented upon it said it was blurred
This puts the veracity of Swansons comment in doubt.. if he was writing from memory...that is possible..then more doubt occurs.

Totally logically..it contrasts the Warren words of clarity.
It contrasts Longs testimony WITH a lamp. .who saw no blurring. It contrasts Halses version which was so clear it was "recent" without a lamp.
If Halse was looking at blurred writing..he cannot assume its age. For it is not possible to say when chalk writing has been brushed against. That is sheer guesswork.

But if Halse is correct. Swanson isnt. As Swanson gives no reference to his claim, do we accept it to be true? If we do..then again the clarity of 3/4" wording perhaps at a right angle to the street leaves Warrens comments in doubt.

They all cannot be correct. Especially given that all known comments show a variety of wording and a variety of position.

That is my point. There is no more reason to believe Halse over Long. Warren over Long. Etc etc.


Phil

Phil,
All are well, thank you. I hope you are too. I still don't follow what you are saying. I don't see what bearig the clarity of the writing has on anything I have said. Warren did not say the writing was clearly visible from the street, he said it would be clearly visible from the street, and he said that a passer-by could easily have removed any covering, and as people would soon be on the streets for the famous Sunday morning Petticoat Lane market, he gave instructions for the writing to be erased. The clarity of the writing when Warren saw it is therefore irrelevant. What is important is that the writing could be seen from the street and was so close to the street that a covering could be torn away. Warren is important because he clearly indicates the location of both the apron and the writing. So, I am confused. I don;t see how the clarity of the writing comes into it.

Paul



Phil,
I don't think the clarity of the writing has any bearing on wht Warren said, unless one is calling his honesty into question.

[ChrisGeorge]

Phil,
All are well, thank you. I hope you are too. I still don't follow what you are saying. I don't see what bearig the clarity of the writing has on anything I have said. Warren did not say the writing was clearly visible from the street, he said it would be clearly visible from the street, and he said that a passer-by could easily have removed any covering, and as people would soon be on the streets for the famous Sunday morning Petticoat Lane market, he gave instructions for the writing to be erased. The clarity of the writing when Warren saw it is therefore irrelevant. What is important is that the writing could be seen from the street and was so close to the street that a covering could be torn away. Warren is important because he clearly indicates the location of both the apron and the writing. So, I am confused. I don;t see how the clarity of the writing comes into it.

Paul



Phil,
I don't think the clarity of the writing has any bearing on wht Warren said, unless one is calling his honesty into question.

Thanks, Paul. Additionally, Phil, whether the writing could be seen from the street or not, people in the area would have been very aware of the police activity in the area. They may even have heard rumors that some writing had been found at that location. So there would have been a "buzz" in the neighborhood, which could boil up to a mob situation if it was known the writing implicated the Jews. And that's what Warren wanted to avoid.

Best regards

Chris

[David Orsam]

Your imagination does you a disfavour David. I am well aware of the Nov 6th report.

As you may be well aware..it is common practice..even today.. for later reports to tie up as many holes as possible in the earlier submitted reports given in. It is called covering the collective rear when passing info gained up the chain.

I am amazed at your distinct lack of knowledge in day to day collating techniques of evidence for presentation.

Good we are both amazed.

You appear to be labouring under a misapprehension Phil. Perhaps you imagined me saying that you were not aware of the Nov 6th report. Of course, I said no such thing. I said you that you had failed to consult that report when considering Long's movements.

The reason I said this is because you told me categorically in #1002 that "Long did not go to Leman Street Police Station". You did not mention Long's report. As you were not at Leman St station on 30 September 1888, I fail to see how you could possibly make such a statement.

Your point about "arse covering" is so ridiculous it's hardly worth me bothering to respond to. Long said he went to Leman Street with his inspector. It was the inspector who handed the apron to Dr Phillips at Leman Street. Unless you think that Long, his inspector and Dr Phillips were all involved in some sort of crazy and unnecessary conspiracy to create a false account of how the piece of apron was transferred from Long to Dr Phillips, or that Long was prepared to fabricate a story on his own for the Commissioner, knowing that it would immediately be contradicted by his own inspector, it is perfectly obvious that Long's account is true.

The only person who seems to be covering up the collective rear is you.

[Trevor Marriott]

You tell me that I've got it wrong, Harry, then in the breath you refer to "a black cloth"!!! Oh the irony.

The cloth was white Harry. Of course, you can rely on the memoirs of someone who wasn't there, written about fifty years later, or you can refer to the clear contemporary evidence that the piece of cloth was white.

Does Long mention initially finding a piece of white apron? No he doesn't, he mentions a portion of an apron, which it would seem in any event was a retrospective statement made after he later found out what it really was.

If she had been wearing an apron then the question of how dirty it was can perhaps be answered by the fact that Eddowes had just returned from hop picking and therefore had she been wearing an apron it would likely as not be dirty and stained, and certainly not as white as you would seem to suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Does Long mention initially finding a piece of white apron? No he doesn't, he mentions a portion of an apron, which it would seem in any event was a retrospective statement made after he later found out what it really was.

If she had been wearing an apron then the question of how dirty it was can perhaps be answered by the fact that Eddowes had just returned from hop picking and therefore had she been wearing an apron it would likely as not be dirty and stained, and certainly not as white as you would seem to suggest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I donīt think anybody is suggesting any establshed degree of whiteness. What is said is that the apron was a white apron, meaning it was made of white cloth. Just how white it appeared is something nobody can establish.

[PaulB]

Fisherman,
Your post 957.
What we have however,and you missed that (I did?),is evidence that the rag was absent from Goulston Street at 2.20.

How come?

Mitre Square was about 10 minutes distance at the most.The Ripper could have made it easily.He could have been anywhere in that street,unobserved,even in the dwelling itself,still in possession of the apron piece when Long passed.So where is the evidence that it was absent at 2.20.
What did I miss?

PaulB,
You wrote,unless I know to the countrary,long could have been doing anything.
Exactly,and that anything could be what I suggested.He could have been eating a bacon sandwitch,but w here could he have fried the bacon? I can be frivolous too.

Harry,
My point wasn't frivolous. I was trying to point out that you can argue anything, but without evidence it is simply fiction. We can speculate that P.C. Long was inside the passage siting on the stairs, or was down the street having a cup of tea, or doing anything one can imagine, but if there is no evidence that he was doing it, it's pointless speculation.

[Fisherman]

Trevor!

I just had a look at the word combination "hop picking" on Google pictures. What I find is a lot of immaculate white shirts and aprons. It seems it was not a very dirty business after all.

Not that it matters at all. It does not help us establish how white Eddowesī apron was. For that matter, she may have changed to another apron when arriving back in London. Or she may not. Itīs all - as Paul says - pointless speculation.

The ones who saw the apron described it as a white apron with stains on it. Thatīs the long and the short of things.

[David Orsam]

Does Long mention initially finding a piece of white apron? No he doesn't

Yes he does.

"about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron'" (Daily Telegraph, 12 October 1888).

[Trevor Marriott]

Harry,
My point wasn't frivolous. I was trying to point out that you can argue anything, but without evidence it is simply fiction. We can speculate that P.C. Long was inside the passage siting on the stairs, or was down the street having a cup of tea, or doing anything one can imagine, but if there is no evidence that he was doing it, it's pointless speculation.

But it isnt pointless to ask these questions regarding the ambiguities. What we have left are unanswered questions regarding Longs movements and as to how he came to say the apron piece was not there at 2.20am.

All statements give by police officers should contain as much detail as possible. That detail is clearly sadly lacking in Longs statement. Had it all been in his statement, we may well have known what we can only speculate on now. How was he to not know that someone might be apprehended and charged with the murder or murders and the police would need all the information surrounding his movements tp prove their case.

Of course he may well have never made a full and detailed police statement as such. I did in an earlier post suggest that in the case of City Inquests, the coroner was only provided with a list of witnesses, and that their statements were taken down as depositions at the inquest. I am sure Monty will confirm or deny this which if correct enhances the doubts surrounding Long.

We know he had a pocket book, but we dont know when he wrote that up. From other police statements I have seen it would seem that in some cases several weeks elapsed between events and statement being made.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes he does.

"about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron'" (Daily Telegraph, 12 October 1888).

Secondary evidence ? its not in his official signed inquest testimony. unsafe !!!!!!!!!

You cant change the goalposts when it suits

https://www.trevormarriott.co.ukl