Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Michael W Richards]

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."

I believe that in the 10 years or so here Ive agreed the vast majority of the time with what Stewart has written on this subject, but the above for me is merely taking a position on the matter and not intended to be the final word on the subject. I italicized the sentence I feel best conveys that.

What is recorded by Long is a matter of record, his honesty or intentions cannot be presumed.

[harry]

What Halse testified to is also a matter of record.Halse was a more experienced officer than Long,but he was commenting on something he experienced,in the same conditions,at the same time.Fisherman states there is no evidence on which to base assuptions.So nothing to indicate that Long was following instructions or rules.Nothing that says he even glanced through the doorway as he passed.
Well Fisherman,I would accept Trevor's e xperience in such matters as far superior to yours.

[Fisherman]

What Halse testified to is also a matter of record.Halse was a more experienced officer than Long,but he was commenting on something he experienced,in the same conditions,at the same time.Fisherman states there is no evidence on which to base assuptions.So nothing to indicate that Long was following instructions or rules.Nothing that says he even glanced through the doorway as he passed.
Well Fisherman,I would accept Trevor's e xperience in such matters as far superior to yours.

The post preceding yours was a very good one. In it, Michael worded everything that has to be worded:

"What is recorded by Long is a matter of record, his honesty or intentions cannot be presumed."

When all the wriggling is done, and all the smoke has cleared, that is what remains. It was said in the first posts on this thread, and it has not changed. Nor will it do so.

[Bridewell]

I hadn't seen Stewart's Ripperologist article before reading it on this thread, so many thanks for posting. I note that Trevor Marriott also sees reason to accept the possibility that Long just might have been claiming the apron piece wasn't there at 2.20am in order to cover a less than diligent performance earlier in the evening. Police officers are no different from anyone else inasmuch as some are conscientious while others are negligent. We have Long's own account of his performance on the evening in question. The only other occasion where we can assess his qualities are his performance at the inquest when he omitted to take the pocket notebook covering the relevant date and had to be sent away to fetch it. This is such a basic error that it would embarrass a first year probationary constable. We know, too, that he was an 'A' Division officer drafted in, with others, to assist 'H' Division. It may be that the 'A' Division commander, when told to supply men to assist, sent his best officers and kept the second-raters back to cover his own area - but, if he did so, he is probably unique in the history of policing. We also know that Long was later dismissed; we don't know why but it seems to safe to assume that it was for being something less than an outstanding police officer. It would be perverse to conclude otherwise. We cannot know with certainty what exactly transpired on Long's patrol on the night of Eddowes' death. What we should definitely not be doing IMHO is accepting his word at face value, without also taking into account what else we know about his police career and the likelihood of his having been at all times diligent and truthful. My view is a matter of record. I think it more likely that the apron piece was in situ before 2am and that Long, for whatever reason, didn't see it, than that the killer either loitered in or returned to the area half and hour or more after making good his escape.

[Fisherman]

I hadn't seen Stewart's Ripperologist article before reading it on this thread, so many thanks for posting. I note that Trevor Marriott also sees reason to accept the possibility that Long just might have been claiming the apron piece wasn't there at 2.20am in order to cover a less than diligent performance earlier in the evening. Police officers are no different from anyone else inasmuch as some are conscientious while others are negligent. We have Long's own account of his performance on the evening in question. The only other occasion where we can assess his qualities are his performance at the inquest when he omitted to take the pocket notebook covering the relevant date and had to be sent away to fetch it. This is such a basic error that it would embarrass a first year probationary constable. We know, too, that he was an 'A' Division officer drafted in, with others, to assist 'H' Division. It may be that the 'A' Division commander, when told to supply men to assist, sent his best officers and kept the second-raters back to cover his own area - but, if he did so, he is probably unique in the history of policing. We also know that Long was later dismissed; we don't know why but it seems to safe to assume that it was for being something less than an outstanding police officer. It would be perverse to conclude otherwise. We cannot know with certainty what exactly transpired on Long's patrol on the night of Eddowes' death. What we should definitely not be doing IMHO is accepting his word at face value, without also taking into account what else we know about his police career and the likelihood of his having been at all times diligent and truthful. My view is a matter of record. I think it more likely that the apron piece was in situ before 2am and that Long, for whatever reason, didn't see it, than that the killer either loitered in or returned to the area half and hour or more after making good his escape.

I don´t think anybody would deny that there is a possibility that Long was wrong, so I don´t see why you make that point.
As has been stated before, it matters not that Long was dismissed for drinking, nor does it matter that he did not bring his notebook to the inquest. They are separate matters. Long had passed the necessary training and exams, and that is a counterweight to your reasoning.
However, neither his bad nor his good sides are of interest here. We cannot superimpose either trait on what he said at the inquest and try to bend it.

The rag was probably not there. That stands. No evidence gainsays it, and there is nothing telling us that the rag must have been in place. End of story.

[Bridewell]

I don´t think anybody would deny that there is a possibility that Long was wrong, so I don´t see why you make that point.

I make it because others are accepting that the rag wasn't there just because Long says that it wasn't.

As has been stated before, it matters not that Long was dismissed for drinking,

I wasn't aware that Long was dismissed for drinking. Do you have a source for that?

nor does it matter that he did not bring his notebook to the inquest. They are separate matters.

Of course it matters! It is an incident which occurred shortly after the Eddowes murder when he made an error which casts doubt on his basic competence as a police officer. As I said before, this was a mistake which would have embarrassed a probationer.

Long had passed the necessary training and exams, and that is a counterweight to your reasoning.

No it isn't. Many police officers have passed successfully through the selection process only to be found wanting at a later date.

However, neither his bad nor his good sides are of interest here. We cannot superimpose either trait on what he said at the inquest and try to bend it.

I'll take Long's evidence at face value when you do the same with Lechmere's.

The rag was probably not there. That stands. No evidence gainsays it, and there is nothing telling us that the rag must have been in place. End of story.

Long says it was. He may or may not have been mistaken. He may or may not have been truthful. Your own use of the word "probably" means that it is not, and never can be "End of story".

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: I make it because others are accepting that the rag wasn't there just because Long says that it wasn't.

Who would that be? I only see people saying that the more likely thing must be that the rag was not there, since the evidence points in that direction. That is not accepting that the rag was there - it is saying that it is the more probable thing, based on the evidence.

I wasn't aware that Long was dismissed for drinking. Do you have a source for that?

He was dismissed in July 1889. It´s in most books and on many threads out here.

Of course it matters! It is an incident which occurred shortly after the Eddowes murder when he made an error which casts doubt on his basic competence as a police officer. As I said before, this was a mistake which would have embarrassed a probationer.

Once more, no, it does not matter. As I said, it matters that he was able to pass the exams and do the education. It matters that he found the rag. It matters that he searched the staircases. It matters that he ordered another PC to guard the Wentworth Model Buildings as he left himself. These are all good things Long did.
We are all the sum of our advantges and our disadvantages. We are all fallible. But what you try to infer is that Long was always more likely to fail than to succeed, and that won´t wash.
The one and only thing that matters is that we have him on record as adamantly stating that the rag was not there at 2.20. If we add our knowledge that he may not have been up to scratch in every instance of his working carreer, and use that knowledge to make the assumption that his saying that the rag was not there at 2.20 actually should read that it probably WAS, then we have failed very much more than Long did by n ot bringing his notebook to the inquest.
His testimony means that we have somebody claiming to be able to settle the question whether the rag was there or not at 2.20, and he unhesitatingly says that it was not. That, I´m afraid, is what we work from, since not a soul said that it WAS there.


No it isn't. Many police officers have passed successfully through the selection process only to be found wanting at a later date.

Do you realize that this means that we cannot say from one day to another whether a PC is useful or not? If so, please draw the inevitable conlusion.

I'll take Long's evidence at face value when you do the same with Lechmere's.

Oh, so you are som badly up against the wall now that you bring Lechmere in? I believe Lechmere was a killer, and I know that he was not truthful about his name. That tells me to be careful with his evidence.
Why would I be careful about Longs ditto? Do we know he lied? Do we know he was a worthless police, who was more likely to be wrong than right? Or is that just something you are inferring to no avail?
By the way, why don´t you take Cadosches words at face value...? Shall we play that game?

Long says it was.

Yes, he does. And nobody contradicted him.

He may or may not have been mistaken.

Yes.

He may or may not have been truthful.

Yes.

Your own use of the word "probably" means that it is not, and never can be, "End of story".

It is end of story as far as probabilities are concerned. After that, you can gab as much as you like about how YOU think it is more likely that the rag was there - and I will disagree with you, cause I think it is every bit as likely that it was not. And you can go on all you want about Longs capacity, and that won´t alter the evidence he gave. Until you can prove that it is a better idea to distrust him, or until you can produce evidence that the rag was there, you will be left to chase farts with a butterfly net. The sooner you undrstand that, the better.
Incidentally, there is nothing wrong about believing that it would be more logical to suppose that the rag was in place. It´s just that once you take that stance, you must realize that you do so in the face of evidence.

[Abby Normal]

I hadn't seen Stewart's Ripperologist article before reading it on this thread, so many thanks for posting. I note that Trevor Marriott also sees reason to accept the possibility that Long just might have been claiming the apron piece wasn't there at 2.20am in order to cover a less than diligent performance earlier in the evening. Police officers are no different from anyone else inasmuch as some are conscientious while others are negligent. We have Long's own account of his performance on the evening in question. The only other occasion where we can assess his qualities are his performance at the inquest when he omitted to take the pocket notebook covering the relevant date and had to be sent away to fetch it. This is such a basic error that it would embarrass a first year probationary constable. We know, too, that he was an 'A' Division officer drafted in, with others, to assist 'H' Division. It may be that the 'A' Division commander, when told to supply men to assist, sent his best officers and kept the second-raters back to cover his own area - but, if he did so, he is probably unique in the history of policing. We also know that Long was later dismissed; we don't know why but it seems to safe to assume that it was for being something less than an outstanding police officer. It would be perverse to conclude otherwise. We cannot know with certainty what exactly transpired on Long's patrol on the night of Eddowes' death. What we should definitely not be doing IMHO is accepting his word at face value, without also taking into account what else we know about his police career and the likelihood of his having been at all times diligent and truthful. My view is a matter of record. I think it more likely that the apron piece was in situ before 2am and that Long, for whatever reason, didn't see it, than that the killer either loitered in or returned to the area half and hour or more after making good his escape.

well then your going against the evidence, solely based on your own opinion (of what a serial killer would or would not do, no less!?!)

[Bridewell]

He was dismissed in July 1889. It´s in most books and on many threads out here.

That he was dismissed is in most books and various threads but that is not answer to the question I asked, which was if you had a source for your claim that he was dismissed for drinking?

That, I´m afraid, is what we work from, since not a soul said that it WAS there.

Nobody saw it, therefore it wasn't there. Really? How many people do you imagine were rummaging around in that stairwell in the small hours of the morning to see it. You are perfectly entitled to conclude that, because a witness says something it has to be true. Similarly, I am just as entitled to look at what we know of Long and to consider the likelihood that the killer was still loitering with incriminating evidence in his possession less than quarter of a mile from the murder scene more than half an hour after the body was discovered and to make my own judgement.

You have yourself looked at extraneous matters and concluded that another witness was telling lies. I have looked at Long's testimony against a background of what we know of his behaviour on other occasions and have concluded that he may have been doing the same. We either accept witness testimony entirely at face value or we don't.

[Bridewell]

well then your going against the evidence, solely based on your own opinion (of what a serial killer would or would not do, no less!?!)

I'm considering the possibility that a witness may have been mistaken and/or lying, based on what is known of his character and his performance on the only other occasion of which we have any knowledge. If Long had 20 commendations for outstanding policework I would place a great deal more weight upon his evidence. He doesn't - and he was dismissed 9 months after this incident. I base my opinion also, on my experience of what criminals do, and don't do, after leaving the scene.

[Fisherman]

Bridewell: That he was dismissed is in most books and various threads but that is not answer to the question I asked, which was if you had a source for your claim that he was dismissed for drinking?

For example The Complete Jack the Ripper (Begg, Fido, Skinner, John Blake Publishing 2010, page 306): "Dismissed, July 1889, for being drunk on duty".
If you are aquainted with the book, of if you have it yourself, you may have noticed that the worthless, stupid Alfred Long was awarded the Distinguished Conduct Medal in 1880, while serving with the 9th Lancers, four years before he joined the Met. I suppose that does not sit well with your picture, but you can take comfort in how alcohol can hollow many a good soul.


Nobody saw it, therefore it wasn't there. Really?

No, Colin, don´t try to get simplistic here. You WILL be revealed.
Nobody testified to the contrary of what Long said, that is all I am saying. And that is important, since it means that the evidence remains onesided.

How many people do you imagine were rummaging around in that stairwell in the small hours of the morning to see it. You are perfectly entitled to conclude that, because a witness says something it has to be true.

Aaaand there is the next effort - and it didn´t work this time either. I am not saying that what a witness says has to be true - I am saying that as long as it is not gainsaid, it remains the better guess.

Similarly, I am just as entitled to look at what we know of Long and to consider the likelihood that the killer was still loitering with incriminating evidence in his possession less than quarter of a mile from the murder scene more than half an hour after the body was discovered and to make my own judgement.

Aaaand the next bid - once more failing. Nobody is saying that you are NOT entitled to put your money on the less able horse, Colin. Just remember to weigh in the Distinguised Conduct Medal when you do it. And keep in mind that there is absolutely no need for the killer to have been "loitering" in the vicinity of the murder spot. We don´t know where he was, remember? Or what he did, remember? And others disagree with you, remember?

You have yourself looked at extraneous matters and concluded that another witness was telling lies.

Nope. I have established that he WAS not being truthful about his name, and I have stated that the evidence is in line with him having lied about the extra PC. So that is another matter altogether. And you have to remember that I am not saying that it is a done deal that Lechmere lied, I am saying that it is by far the better gess to my mind, so please don´t misrepresent me.

I have looked at Long's testimony against a background of what we know of his behaviour on other occasions and have concluded that he may have been doing the same. We either accept witness testimony entirely at face value or we don't.

If you wan´t to dump the evidence when it suits you, you are entitled to do so. And no, looking at evidence is not either black or white. And how it should be looked upon changes from case to case, depending on the circumstances.

You need to sleep on this, I believe. I sincerely hope it helps.

[Fisherman]

I base my opinion also, on my experience of what criminals do, and don't do, after leaving the scene.

That is extremely wise! If we know that criminals normally flee the scene, heading for home then we should apply the view that the Ripper in all statistical probability did that too.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary. I think that is where you keep getting derailed. Goodnight now.

[harry]

'It was true that the morale of the force had to be kept up,but there were blackguards in every walk of life,in every profession,and there were in the police force'

A statement made in a case involving two police officers. Date,October 2,1913.

As regards Long's award,the only British person to win two V.C.,was later stripped of the awards for his later indescretions.So winning an award is no evidence of blameless livelihood in after years.

[Kattrup]

As regards Long's award,the only British person to win two V.C.,was later stripped of the awards for his later indescretions.So winning an award is no evidence of blameless livelihood in after years.

I think you may be mistaken, as only three people so far have won two VCs and none have been stripped of their reward.

While VCs could be forfeited, since the 1920s the view has been that it in practice cannot.

[Fisherman]

'It was true that the morale of the force had to be kept up,but there were blackguards in every walk of life,in every profession,and there were in the police force'

A statement made in a case involving two police officers. Date,October 2,1913.

As regards Long's award,the only British person to win two V.C.,was later stripped of the awards for his later indescretions.So winning an award is no evidence of blameless livelihood in after years.

Good Lord! The quality of the arguments out here is beyond depressing.

Of course an award for distinguished conduct is no guarantee that you will live blamelessly ever after.

But you may have noticed how it is said that we cannot trust Long since he did not bring his notebook to the inquest?

If we are to try and apply Longs shortcomings to our view on whether he would have been correct about the rag or not, don´t you think that it would be fair to apply his virtues and successes too? No?

Of course, as I keep saying, NEITHER applies to the issue as such - it is a matter of it being on record that a serving PC adamantly denied that the rag was in place at 2.20, and nothing else.