Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Hi Yom and Thanks,

Dr. Phillips felt the two murders were by a different hand. His assistant, Dr. Percy Clark also felt only 3 of the 5 canonicals were by the same hand. Superintendent Arnold felt "Miss Kelly" was by a different hand than the others. There really isn't a 100% agreement by anyone on anything.

As far as probability of another killer? There was another killer at the same time frame. The Torso killer. So statistics of another serial killer being unlikely means little, really.

The Ripper and the torso killer seems to me to have been one and the same man, Jerry. But there are other examples, more close in time, of multiple killers in the same town.

[Michael W Richards]

I believe he saw the apron and paid it no mind, or he just missed it.

Fortunately we dont need to speculate about it Harry, he said "It was not there" when he passed by around 2:20am. Seems he felt comfortable taking a stand on the matter even if you or others aren't.

[Fisherman]

Fortunately we dont need to speculate about it Harry, he said "It was not there" when he passed by around 2:20am. Seems he felt comfortable taking a stand on the matter even if you or others aren't.

It´s even been suggested that Long may have said "It was not there" in a hesitating voice...

[Harry D]

Fortunately we dont need to speculate about it Harry, he said "It was not there" when he passed by around 2:20am. Seems he felt comfortable taking a stand on the matter even if you or others aren't.

And he was fired less than a year later for being drunk on duty. Is this an officer we can trust?

[Fisherman]

And he was fired less than a year later for being drunk on duty. Is this an officer we can trust?

It is an officer we must trust until anything surfaces to contradict him. It is that simple. There was never any counterweight in this errand, all we have is Long emphatically denying that the rag was there at 2.20, and so that sets the agenda.

Anybody who wants to work from the presumption that the rag was there at 2.20 will do so in conflict with the evidence. For whatever reason.

[YomRippur]

Hi Yom and Thanks,

Dr. Phillips felt the two murders were by a different hand. His assistant, Dr. Percy Clark also felt only 3 of the 5 canonicals were by the same hand. Superintendent Arnold felt "Miss Kelly" was by a different hand than the others. There really isn't a 100% agreement by anyone on anything.

As far as probability of another killer? There was another killer at the same time frame. The Torso killer. So statistics of another serial killer being unlikely means little, really.

But behavioral science have given us better understanding about these killings than the people had a century ago. Specifically, the canonical five victims (except Stride) all showed a common "ritualistic" aspect of the killer. A "ritual" is something the killer *must* do to gain fulfillment. And that was the mutilation, which was missing in the torso murders. A serial killer may change his modus operandi and/or may improve on his techniques, but the "ritual" must be done. For the killer to commit the torso murders and the Ripper murders in the same period, it would mean he would have to drastically change his ritual back and forth. From behavioral science's standpoint, that's unlikely. My point about probability was rather that it would not be probable for two killers to have the same ritualistic need and roughly the same modus operandi given the low murder rate at the time.

[spyglass]

It is an officer we must trust until anything surfaces to contradict him. It is that simple. There was never any counterweight in this errand, all we have is Long emphatically denying that the rag was there at 2.20, and so that sets the agenda.

Anybody who wants to work from the presumption that the rag was there at 2.20 will do so in conflict with the evidence. For whatever reason.

Hi,
Am I correct in thinking that bizarrely, he didn't takes notes until about three weeks later, rather than on the actual night.?

Regards

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi,
Am I correct in thinking that bizarrely, he didn't takes notes until about three weeks later, rather than on the actual night.?

Regards

Three weeks isn't possible, as he gave evidence on 11 Oct. Are you suggesting he wrote his notes when he went to fetch his notebook that he had 'forgotten' to bring to the inquest?

[spyglass]

Three weeks isn't possible, as he gave evidence on 11 Oct. Are you suggesting he wrote his notes when he went to fetch his notebook that he had 'forgotten' to bring to the inquest?

Hi,
Not me. I just remember Simon Wood bringing it to our attention a few years back.
I don't think he was the only policeman either that night as I r ember it.

Regards.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
Not me. I just remember Simon Wood bringing it to our attention a few years back.
I don't think he was the only policeman either that night as I r ember it.

Regards.

From the inquest into Eddowes´death, debating the GSG:

Coroner: Did you make an entry of the words at the time?

PC Long: Yes, in my pocket-book.

So Long clearly stated that he took notes on the night, as he was supposed to do.

[spyglass]

From the inquest into Eddowes´death, debating the GSG:

Coroner: Did you make an entry of the words at the time?

PC Long: Yes, in my pocket-book.

So Long clearly stated that he took notes on the night, as he was supposed to do.

Hi,
I can't ague with that, and I did say " correct me if I'm wrong".
However all I remember is that Simon had a different view on it, possibly one of his theory's, or he had other information.
Just wish my memory was better these days.

regards

[Harry D]

It is an officer we must trust until anything surfaces to contradict him. It is that simple. There was never any counterweight in this errand, all we have is Long emphatically denying that the rag was there at 2.20, and so that sets the agenda.

Anybody who wants to work from the presumption that the rag was there at 2.20 will do so in conflict with the evidence. For whatever reason.

It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

On 11th October 1888, Alfred Long PC 254A had not thought it necessary to bring his notebook, in which he had written down the purport of the GSG, to Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

Long did not write his official report upon this pivotal piece of evidence until five weeks after the event.

He wrote it on 6th November 1888, coincidentally the same day Chief Inspector Swanson, Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren wrote their accounts of the Goulston Street fiasco.

Events must have been fresh in their memories.

Were they all sitting around the same table at the time?

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

It's by no means a fact that the rag wasn't there when PC Long passed at 2.20. We only have one man's testimony, and one whose professionalism is subject to doubt.

You are hitting the head on the nail, Harry - we only have one man´s testimony. You see, that is the deciding factor here.

I don´t know why you press the point that it is not a fact that the rag was not in place at 2.20, since nobody is saying that it IS a fact. It makes your point kind of redundant.

Whether Longs professionalism is in doubt or not is of secondary interest. If there had been another source that said that the rag WAS there at 2.20, then any lacking professionalism on behalf of Long would have been of a more primary interest. But as it stands, just like you say, we have only one statement about whether the rag was there or not at 2.20, and that statement says emphatically that it was not. And not a soul is gainsaying it. There is no counterweight. Nor is there anything that suggests that the rag must/would have been in place at 2.20, since we have not a clue what the killer did after the strike.

Much as it is no establshed fact thatb the rag was not there (although some people would say that Longs certainty makes it look like a fact), it nevertheless makes it by far the best guess. The probability that it was missing at 2.20 is larger than the probability that it was there.

That is all we can say. The rest is idle semantics, trying to swing it one way or another.

[spyglass]

Hi All,

On 11th October 1888, Alfred Long PC 254A had not thought it necessary to bring his notebook, in which he had written down the purport of the GSG, to Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

Long did not write his official report upon this pivotal piece of evidence until five weeks after the event.

He wrote it on 6th November 1888, coincidentally the same day Chief Inspector Swanson, Superintendent Arnold and Commissioner Warren wrote their accounts of the Goulston Street fiasco.

Events must have been fresh in their memories.

Were they all sitting around the same table at the time?

Regards,

Simon

Hi,
Pheeeew!
Thanks Simon for letting me climb out of a hole I felt I was digging myself.
Regards