Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Abby Normal]

No I dont see what you are saying. Stride was never the victim of the same person who killed Eddowes. Everything about her murder is different to the rest.The police conclusions were clearly wrong.

Based on the timings from witnesses to Mitre Sq there is every likelihood that the killer was disturbed there. So therefore if that were the case the killer would want to distance himself as soon as possible from the crime scene, and in doing so dispose of any incriminating evidence he may have been in possession of, and if he were bloodstained he would want to avoid coming in contact with anyone in particular a police officer. Hiding and then coming out a short time later would be dangerous for him, as more police would be in the vicinity. I have known cases where criminals did hide after committing a crime, but most would wait till daylight until more people were on the streets before coming out of hiding.

On another connected point If the killer was disturbed, when did he have the time to cut or tear the apron in any event. The position of the victims clothes at the time she was found suggest that he could not have cut or torn it at the point of leaving if he were disturbed.

The weak suggestions that the killer cut or tore the apron piece for wiping his hands or his knife again do not stand up to close scrutiny for the reasons stated above. The carrying away of the organs in the apron piece has completely been blown out of the water, so what is left to even suggest the killer deposited the apron piece, and why deposit it at a location away from the crime scene in a dark recess where there was every likelihood that it would never be found by the authorities.

But it just happens to be found by a police officer, how good is that? out of all the buildings and doorways the killer must have passed between Mitre Square and Goulston street he picks that one with a dark recess, and even more strange is that the police officer decides to pay close attention to this dark recess and this screwed up piece of discarded rag.

While on the subject of Long it is unclear as to at what point and by whom he was told of the Mitre Sq murder, for him to take the action that he took thereafter. It would seem that from his evidence he only found out after he found the apron piece. It also seem he was never told of the Stride murder either which took place 2 hours earlier. This sequence events and his actions are puzzling to say the least

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Stride was never the victim of the same person who killed Eddowes. Everything about her murder is different to the rest.The police conclusions were clearly wrong.

LOL. that all that statement deserves. LOL.

Based on the timings from witnesses to Mitre Sq there is every likelihood that the killer was disturbed there.

what?!? Out of all the killings the eddowes murder indicates he WAS NOT disturbed. Extensive mutilations, organ removal, no one heard or saw anyone, facial mutilation including careful nicks to the eyelids, cutting away an apron portion.

On another connected point If the killer was disturbed, when did he have the time to cut or tear the apron in any event. The position of the victims clothes at the time she was found suggest that he could not have cut or torn it at the point of leaving if he were disturbed.

Again-what evidence is there he was disturbed? WHO DISTURBED HIM?

and why deposit it at a location away from the crime scene in a dark recess where there was every likelihood that it would never be found by the authorities.

except for the fact that it was found by authorities!!

But it just happens to be found by a police officer, how good is that?

you should have been on OJ's defense team!

[Trevor Marriott]

LOL. that all that statement deserves. LOL.



what?!? Out of all the killings the eddowes murder indicates he WAS NOT disturbed. Extensive mutilations, organ removal, no one heard or saw anyone, facial mutilation including careful nicks to the eyelids, cutting away an apron portion.



Again-what evidence is there he was disturbed? WHO DISTURBED HIM?


except for the fact that it was found by authorities!!




you should have been on OJ's defense team!

Maybe your brain and its capability to understand would work better if you spent less time sitting on it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Well, there we are - the "debate" has ended up where it always ends up with Trevor involved.

Time to call it a day.

[Abby Normal]

Maybe your brain and its capability to understand would work better if you spent less time sitting on it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

nice one Trev.

[Abby Normal]

Well, there we are - the "debate" has ended up where it always ends up with Trevor involved.

Time to call it a day.

that's for sure

[harry]

If the killer wasn't disturbed in Mitre Square,there was no need to panic and hide.Nor if he was in my opinion. Aside from that,it would not have taken much intelligence to understand there would have been a period of perhaps 15 minutes for an organised search of the neighbourhood to begin,a time to cover at least a mile of ground,and always ahead of the police.Did the killer live that far away?
What seems to be overlooked is that there were two witnesses reporting on the same situation.Halse and Long.Long makes a statement without supporting information.Halse,a more senior and efficient officer,leaves room for doubt.

[Robert St Devil]

why deposit it at a location away from the crime scene in a dark recess where there was every likelihood that it would never be found by the authorities.

A thought, Trevor.

Maybe Goulston is where he met and meant to kill Catherine. In the dark recess. For her murder to be seen by the Jewish market crowds. May have settled for MSq instead.

[Fisherman]

What seems to be overlooked is that there were two witnesses reporting on the same situation.Halse and Long.Long makes a statement without supporting information.Halse,a more senior and efficient officer,leaves room for doubt.

...but Long doesnīt.
Halse, having hurried along Goulston Street in search of people nearby, said that he should not necessarily have seen the rag, even if it was there. That in itself simply means that he says "It may have been there, and it may not have been there, I did not check specifically for it and so I donīt know".

Thatīs what his seniority offers. As for the superior efficiency he offered, it clearly had other tasks to fulfil that night than to look for rags in the doorways of Goulston Street.

Anyhow, Halse leaves the matter completely open. He does not say that the rag was probaly there or that it was probably not. He states that he should not necessarily have seen it even if it was there. So he offers no answer to the question, and he offers no weighed probability. It means that he could just as well have declined to answer the question, and we would be just as informed about whether the rag was there or not.

Long, however, who was NOT hurrying along in search of people, stated that the rag was there when he looked at the spot at 2.55. At the inquest, he was asked by the coroner whether or not he could tell if the rag had also been there at 2.20, and he answered in the negative: "It was not".

Now you bring up Halse, you point out that he was more senior and you suggest that you know the degrees of efficiency the two men represented, claiming that Halse was superior in this regard.
And everybody who reads what you are saying will think "Aha! So the much better man Halse contradicted Long!!"
But he of course did no such thing at all. If he was to answer the same question the coroner asked Long, whether or not he could say if the rag was there at 2.20, Halse would have to say "No, Sir, I am not able to tell".

If anything, we can state with absolute certainty that Halse said that he passed over the spot, and that he did not notice the rag as he did so. That is as much as we can tell, and it is anything but in conflict with what Long said. So can we stop the Halse charade now, Harry?

[Trevor Marriott]

..

If anything, we can state with absolute certainty that Halse said that he passed over the spot, and that he did not notice the rag as he did so. That is as much as we can tell, and it is anything but in conflict with what Long said. So can we stop the Halse charade now, Harry?

How can you differentiate ?

Halse "passed over the spot"
Long "passed by"

You say Halse may not have seen it, yet you say we should accept what Long says, when they in effect both say the same thing. Clearly for what ever means you really want that rag to not be there at 2.20am

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

How can you differentiate ?

Halse "passed over the spot"
Long "passed by"

You say Halse may not have seen it, yet you say we should accept what Long says, when they in effect both say the same thing. Clearly for what ever means you really want that rag to not be there at 2.20am

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What I supposedly "want" is neither here nor there. As I have said before, Long and Halse both DID pass the spot. That, however, is not equal to them both stating that they passed without making any checks. The spot belonged to Longs beat, and so he was dutybound to make checks and take a look at entrances and windows etcetera.

If I say "I passed through X Street today" - does that to your mind mean that I cannot possibly have stopped to buy an icecream there? Would that be equal to me NOT having passed through X Street?

Time to sober up, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

What I supposedly "want" is neither here nor there. As I have said before, Long and Halse both DID pass the spot. That, however, is not equal to them both stating that they passed without making any checks. The spot belonged to Longs beat, and so he was dutybound to make checks and take a look at entrances and windows etcetera.

If I say "I passed through X Street today" - does that to your mind mean that I cannot possibly have stopped to buy an icecream there? Would that be equal to me NOT having passed through X Street?

Time to sober up, Trevor.

What he was duty bound to do, and what he actually did, are matters that cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now time for you take of those rose tinted spectacles. You cannot seem to come to terms with looking at many aspects of this ripper mystery in an unbiased fashion.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Monty]

Actually he wasn't duty bound to check inside the stairwell on a normal beat run.

Only if he suspected that a crime had, or was about to, take place, then he was permitted to break away from the Queen' Highways and Byways.

So if the rag was inside the stairwell, and Long wasn't aware of a murder, he had no need to look inside. However, if he had been informed of the murder (as he states he was), then he is obliged to.

As I stated earlier, which has gone ignored, 'Whitechapel Again' clears this matter up, but hey, why say in 1 post when y'all can run around in circles in a 1000 or so?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Actually he wasn't duty bound to check inside the stairwell on a normal beat run.

Only if he suspected that a crime had, or was about to, take place, then he was permitted to break away from the Queen' Highways and Byways.

So if the rag was inside the stairwell, and Long wasn't aware of a murder, he had no need to look inside. However, if he had been informed of the murder (as he states he was), then he is obliged to.

As I stated earlier, which has gone ignored, 'Whitechapel Again' clears this matter up, but hey, why say in 1 post when y'all can run around in circles in a 1000 or so?

Monty

This has been explained by not only me but Stewart Evans and also your good self but some will not accept it, and thats sad isnt it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Actually he wasn't duty bound to check inside the stairwell on a normal beat run.

Only if he suspected that a crime had, or was about to, take place, then he was permitted to break away from the Queen' Highways and Byways.

So if the rag was inside the stairwell, and Long wasn't aware of a murder, he had no need to look inside. However, if he had been informed of the murder (as he states he was), then he is obliged to.

As I stated earlier, which has gone ignored, 'Whitechapel Again' clears this matter up, but hey, why say in 1 post when y'all can run around in circles in a 1000 or so?

Monty

I take it you are suggesting that Long had become aware of the murder after 2.20, and so he became a lot more diligent as a result of that? And you draw the conclusion that he at 2.55 may have checked a stairwell he did not check at 2.20, is that it?

"Whitechapel Again", when was that invented again? Was that not in 1889? Of course, I donīt think for a second that there needed to be anything more than the knowledge of a murder to heighten the attention of a patrolling PC. Regardless if there were regulations on print saying that one may need to focus more sharply in combination with a murder, I would have thought that such a thing went without saying.

In the end, no matter which rules were in play on the night of the double event, we are still left with Alfred Long answering the coroners questions whether or not he was able to tell if the rag had been there at 2.20 with a clear and concise "It was not".

As I have said before, if Long had not checked, then he was lying when he said that the rag was not there.
In this context, after having taken part of your information, two things spring to mind:
1. If Long was not acting under the "Whitechapel Again" guidelines at 2.20, then he was not obliged to check the stairwells, as per you. If so, he was not obliged to know the answer to the coroners question, and could easily have offered the answer "I do not know, since I made no thorough inspection of the stairwell in question". He would have absolutely no reason to lie about it. Would that be correct?
2. Conversely, if we make the assumption that he was acting under the "Whitechapel Again" guidelines, then he WAS obliged to make a thorough check, and that would explain how he would be able to tell that the rag was not there.

To put the rag in place at 2.20, we must assume that Long lied about it, and the one situation where such a thing would be a logical thing to do would be if he was aware about the "Whitechapel again" guidelines having come into action already at 2.20 (that is to say that Long must have been aware of the murder at this stage), and if he violated the rules by NOT checking the stairwell at 2.20. In such a case, he would know that an admittance that he did not perform that duty would put him in a very poor light.
The problems with this scenario are three:
1. Did Long know about the murder at 2.20?
2. Were the "Whitechapel again" regulations in place in September of 1888?
3. Are there any indicators at all that Long lied about being able to tell that the rag was not there?

In spite of your dislike of the growing length of this debate, it seems we may not be through with it yet... I fail to see how the "Whitechapel again" rules "clears this matter up" at all. At most, it offers one possibility amongst others.

[Michael W Richards]

1. If Long was not acting under the "Whitechapel Again" guidelines at 2.20, then he was not obliged to check the stairwells, as per you. If so, he was not obliged to know the answer to the coroners question, and could easily have offered the answer "I do not know, since I made no thorough inspection of the stairwell in question". He would have absolutely no reason to lie about it. Would that be correct?
2. Conversely, if we make the assumption that he was acting under the "Whitechapel Again" guidelines, then he WAS obliged to make a thorough check, and that would explain how he would be able to tell that the rag was not there.

I like the above logic Fisherman, and it almost surely suggests that he was indeed tasked with looking into those areas because, as we have repeated ad infinitum, his statement is in no way unclear about this matter.

Cheers