Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

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 Eddowes´ apron was. For that matter, she may have changed to another apron when arriving back in London. Or she may not. It´s all - as Paul says - pointless speculation.

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

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How much can be cut from an apron before it becomes only a piece of apron? And when does it stop being a piece of clothing and turn into a piece of a piece of clothing?

[David Orsam]

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

You cant change the goalposts when it suits

Cripes, you sound like Pierre now.

As I've mentioned on many, many occasions, the depositions do not include the entirety of the evidence given by witnesses. So the fact that a court reporter has noted something not in the deposition does not mean that the evidence was not given in court. In any event, the apron was produced in court so everyone could see it was white. Further the Daily Telegraph report is a primary source.

Consequently, I have no idea what you mean when you refer to me changing the goalposts. I frequently refer to newspaper reports of inquest proceedings.

[Wickerman]

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So if I offer you a piece of pie, what do you expect to get?

[Abby Normal]

How white was the apron?
Was the black brick covered in smooth or shiny paint? Was the paint matte or eggshell?
Dildos and Dodos?!? (nice work there Simon!)

What a bunch of nonsense.

Yes let's continue to debate black rectangles, glazed bricks and longs drinking habits and other such sad and desperate crap to obfuscate the obvious. Like the evidence that the apron was not there at 2:20 from a police officer under oath.

Such a waste when a much more interesting debate could be going on based off the known evidence, like what are the implications of the apron NOT being there at 2:20?

Like the obvious question, why the killer took so long to get from mitre square to Goulston street? What was he doing? Was he hiding out? Was he trapped somewhere by the increased police presence? Was his bolt hole near, far? Did he live in the went worth buildings?

How about this question- how long would it take someone, to travel on foot away from mitre square, and allowing for approx. 5 minutes for bolt hole cleaning up and dropping off, and then to travel back to Goulston street by 2:20?

What would be the maximum distance radius one could reach?

I would posit that the killers bolt hole and or home must be within that radius.

Discuss, and please no glazed bricks or dildos in the discussion.

[PaulB]

But it isnt pointless to ask these questions regarding the ambiguities.

Of course it isn't pointless to ask questions of the sources and to highlight ambiguities, but proposing possibilities, such as P.C. Long sitting on the stairs in the passageway, or drinking a cup of tea down the road, without any evidence that that is what happened, is totally pointless.

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.

P.C. Long was asked if the apron was there at 2:20am and he said it wasn't. That's about as free of ambiguity as it is possible to get.You can speculate that the apron was there and that P.C. Long didn't see it, but that's as far as the sources allow you to go.

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.

P.C. Long was expected to answer the questions he was asked, which he did, and it wasn't his fault if he was asked insufficient questions or wasn't asked the proper questions to provide the evidence that might have been required in the future. You might wish that further evidence was elicited from the witness, but we have what we have and must make the best use of it we can.

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.

I would expect that P.C. Long provided a detailed report to his superiors as soon after the event as was possible, as I understand was required, and also that he was very closely questioned by his superiors. As I said earlier, the policemen back then weren't idiots and I would anticipate that a lot of the questions that occur to use would have occurred to them, and that they were satisfied with whatever replies P.C. Long gave. I'm supposing that usual practice would have been followed, and if you look at the source material you'll probably find evidence that supports this (or not, as the case may be).

[Trevor Marriott]

How much can be cut from an apron before it becomes only a piece of apron? And when does it stop being a piece of clothing and turn into a piece of a piece of clothing?

Well if you had a full apron and cut it into four, you will have 4 apron pieces will you not,or an apron cut into four pieces, and if you take two away, you will be left with two apron pieces that in no way resemble the original full apron because they are only pieces.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

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

You cant change the goalposts when it suits

www.trevormarriott.co.ukl

As far as the newspaper report cited by David is concerned, a newspaper, as it is becoming tiresome to repeat, is a primary source, not primary evidence. Primary and secondary sources are types of source used by people writing histories to distinguish between a source recording events at the time they happened (or as near as possible) and sources providing an account drawn from multiple of other sources. An 1888 newspaper report is therefore a primary source, whereas your book is a secondary source. Primary and Secondary evidence is a legal distinction applied to evidence presented in court.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it isn't pointless to ask questions of the sources and to highlight ambiguities, but proposing possibilities, such as P.C. Long sitting on the stairs in the passageway, or drinking a cup of tea down the road, without any evidence that that is what happened, is totally pointless.

I am not proposing he was sitting on the stairs or drinking tea. What was suggested that he was perhaps not even in GS at 2.20am, or if he was he didnt look to see if the rag was there or not, and when he said it wasnt he was covering his back, knowing what Halse had said that at 2.20 he saw nothing either.

Halse also says he passed by as does Long, so you pays your money and you takes your choice as to whether you believe that Long made a thorough check at 2.20am. Personally I dont think he did but I cant prove that, as I cant disprove what he says, but when you weigh up the evidence surrounding the finding of the piece I think it tips the scales in favour of him not finding it when in fact it was there at 2.20am

I would expect that P.C. Long provided a detailed report to his superiors as soon after the event as was possible, as I understand was required, and also that he was very closely questioned by his superiors. As I said earlier, the policemen back then weren't idiots and I would anticipate that a lot of the questions that occur to use would have occurred to them, and that they were satisfied with whatever replies P.C. Long gave. I'm supposing that usual practice would have been followed, and if you look at the source material you'll probably find evidence that supports this (or not, as the case may be).

I dont think there is a record of any detailed report, or any record of questioning by his superiors on these issues, and to suggest so is mere conjecture on your part. His inquest testimony as recorded and signed by him is lacking in detail and very brief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What's your point? Eddowes possessed an apron and a piece was missing from it. That's not in dispute (unless you are disputing it), so Collard was either refering to a different apron or it was the same apron and he failed to make note of the missing piece.

Given that we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron that morning, was wearing it when in the cells, was wearing it when released, and was wearing it in the mortuary, my guess is that Collard noted it but not the missing piece.

[David Orsam]

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.

Trevor, you are confusing the issue with your careless use of language (posibly because the Sourcebook is not very clear).

Long did not provide a "statement". The deposition that you are referring to is no more than a summary of the answers he gave in response to questions asked of him at the inquest (written down in longhand by the coroner or another officer of the court).

Consequently it is not true to say that Long's statement/deposition should "contain as much detail as possible". It would only contain those parts of Long's oral testimony that the officer of the court sought fit to record in writing in summary form. If you want to know what Long actually said in court, you need to refer to the newspapers. The reporters for those newspapers used shorthand so were able to capture more of what Long said.

But to repeat, Long would only say in evidence what he was asked to say by the coroner. the jury or, in this case, the city solicitor. No more and no less.

[Trevor Marriott]

As far as the newspaper report cited by David is concerned, a newspaper, as it is becoming tiresome to repeat, is a primary source, not primary evidence. Primary and secondary sources are types of source used by people writing histories to distinguish between a source recording events at the time they happened (or as near as possible) and sources providing an account drawn from multiple of other sources. An 1888 newspaper report is therefore a primary source, whereas your book is a secondary source. Primary and Secondary evidence is a legal distinction applied to evidence presented in court.

But are we not dealing with evidence, is it not our role to assess and evaluate the real evidence and not get false pic by referring to these sources as you refer to them as?

You cannot rely on primary sources as being accurate, and thats been the problem with ripperology to many people have been doing just that. For example with the Eddowes murder, the original signed depositions are still available, yet we have newspapers quoting different facts and comments from the same inquest testimony and researchers relying on them to prop up theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you are confusing the issue with your careless use of language (posibly because the Sourcebook is not very clear).

Long did not provide a "statement". The deposition that you are referring to is no more than a summary of the answers he gave in response to questions asked of him at the inquest (written down in longhand by the coroner or another officer of the court).

Consequently it is not true to say that Long's statement/deposition should "contain as much detail as possible". It would only contain those parts of Long's oral testimony that the officer of the court sought fit to record in writing in summary form. If you want to know what Long actually said in court, you need to refer to the newspapers. The reporters for those newspapers used shorthand so were able to capture more of what Long said.

But to repeat, Long would only say in evidence what he was asked to say by the coroner. the jury or, in this case, the city solicitor. No more and no less.

His statement does not indicate it was a summary. It reads as if it was given by him without being prompted. He was interrupted and asked a question but then continued with giving his evidence. This is what he then signed, anything reported thereafter may or may not be accurate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

What's your point? Eddowes possessed an apron and a piece was missing from it. That's not in dispute (unless you are disputing it), so Collard was either refering to a different apron or it was the same apron and he failed to make note of the missing piece.

Given that we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron that morning, was wearing it when in the cells, was wearing it when released, and was wearing it in the mortuary, my guess is that Collard noted it but not the missing piece.

Yes some of that is real good evidence

Pc Hutt 13 days after the event says he remembers her wearing an apron.What was so special about the apron for him to remember, after all white aprons were common with women. I wonder if he had been asked what color skirt or jacket was she wearing would he have remembered.

Then he refers to the GS piece which had been entered as evidence and says yes that was the one she was wearing how good is that, what was so identifiable about it to make him certain? and in any event the Gs piece was just that and not a full apron.

The we have Pc Robinson again 13 days after the event who says she was wearing an apron in the cells. He arrested her but no mention of an apron on arrest.Then when shown the GS piece he says that it was the apron she was wearing which is wrong it wasn't an apron.He could have been shown anything white and he would still have said it was what she was wearing.

Then we have Sgt Byfield the station sgt who booked her in and discharged her later mentions nothing about her wearing an apron.Now you would have expected him to have said one thing or the other bearing in mind he would have had her in his view for some time after arrest and before discharge why doesn't he corroborate the other two

So when analysing and assessing and evaluating this evidence, it is fair to say that is stinks and if it were ever put before a jury it would be laughed out of court.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Paul,

Not too bad here, all things considered thank you. ☺

I am calling into question the honesty of anyone involved in this debacle..and debacle it is..when one takes into account the diversity of the statements produced on two simple points of enquiry.
The position of the writing
The content of the writing

it is unthinkable to my mind that so many policemen can get the description so wrong or unclear..to top that those same policemen cant even place the writing in a definitive place. Then along comes Swanson and based on no known description from EVERY policeman there.. changes it again.

Now I can accept in the circumstances a certain degree of uncertainty and perhaps collective panic given the events of the night.
However, Warren seems to be either floundering at best, or lying at worst..(for reasons I cannot fathom).
But my main concern is a visibly poor collective investigation. Logically, it would have taken an hour, at most, for said writing to have been photographed.. and sll and sundry could have disappeared after that hour leaving no trace of said writing.
"..could/would be seen from the street".. covered or not.. is a very poor reason given..because there ia no doubt that this piece of evidence is of high importance.
And if we agree that...

Then how come so many people cant agree on exactly what it was they were looking at or where it was situated?

Either it is collective apathy or collective incompetence. Or collective deflection. Swanson very much included. Warren included.
No. I dont know which. But I do know that I trust the word of a man with a lamp in the dark over a man without a lamp in the dark when describing what was seen. I do not hold faith in Halse in the way others do. Sorry.


Phil