Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

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

It was an easy enough misunderstanding on your behalf, and we are all at fault every now and then!

[David Orsam]

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.

It wasn't a coincidence though, Simon.

As we discussed three months ago, the Permanent Under Secretary at the Home Office instructed the Commissioner on 5 November 1888 to provide the Home Secretary with a full report of all the circumstances surrounding the erasure of the writing on the wall in advance of parliament meeting on 6 November 1888. That explains why all these accounts were written on the same day.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But you have to remember that with regards to the inquests, much of the evidence put forward in statement form was never fully tested, and now we can see major flaws in some of these statements which had the evidence been tested maybe we would have much clearer picture.

Dont be to hasty to accept the evidence of police officers, just because they are police officers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Dont be to hasty to accept the evidence of police officers, just because they are police officers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yep! Know quite a few.

[Darryl Kenyon]

This is my very first post so please be gentle
Pc Long said that the apron was not in the doorway on Goulston st at 2.20 and noticed it half an hour later. If he is right, where had the killer been ? One possible explanation is he could have used the bolt hole on Butchers row [ a few minutes walk away from Mitre square ] described by Robert Sagar as where a suspect worked. Cleaned himself up got rid of the body parts [ what better place than a slaughterhouse ] in his haste, forgot about the apron in his pocket and discarded it on Goulston st.
Ps This is part of a piece i am writing on why Kosminski was suspected which i am hoping to post in the next few days, but thought this part might be appropriate to post here .

[GUT]

This is my very first post so please be gentle
Pc Long said that the apron was not in the doorway on Goulston st at 2.20 and noticed it half an hour later. If he is right, where had the killer been ? One possible explanation is he could have used the bolt hole on Butchers row [ a few minutes walk away from Mitre square ] described by Robert Sagar as where a suspect worked. Cleaned himself up got rid of the body parts [ what better place than a slaughterhouse ] in his haste, forgot about the apron in his pocket and discarded it on Goulston st.
Ps This is part of a piece i am writing on why Kosminski was suspected which i am hoping to post in the next few days, but thought this part might be appropriate to post here .

G'day Darryl and welcome to casebook, that is a common theory as to how it happened and not the worst idea you will hear when reading about our Jack.

[DJA]

This is my very first post so please be gentle
Pc Long said that the apron was not in the doorway on Goulston st at 2.20 and noticed it half an hour later. If he is right, where had the killer been?

My money is on 6 Mitre Street!

[Fisherman]

But you have to remember that with regards to the inquests, much of the evidence put forward in statement form was never fully tested, and now we can see major flaws in some of these statements which had the evidence been tested maybe we would have much clearer picture.

Dont be to hasty to accept the evidence of police officers, just because they are police officers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It does not matter what occupation he had, Trevor - he stated on oath that he was there at 2.20, and he emphatically claimed that the rag was not there at the time. That is the one and only thing that matters. If he was a fruit vendor, a sailor or a hawker would not matter, an observation was nevertheless claimed, and it involved a statement that there was no rag in the doorway at that stage.

Long could have lied, he could have misemembered, he may not have been there at 2.20 but these suggestions remain only that - suggestions. And they are not in line with the evidence, as given.

As I keep saying, there is no counterweight, stating that the rag WAS there. And there is no reason why it could not have been absent at 2.20. Therefore, on balance, the answer to the question about whether the rag was there at 2.20 must be a "No, it was in all probability not".

[Observer]

As I keep saying, there is no counterweight, stating that the rag WAS there. And there is no reason why it could not have been absent at 2.20. Therefore, on balance, the answer to the question about whether the rag was there at 2.20 must be a "No, it was in all probability not".

Hi Fisherman

Forgive me for creeping into the discussion. In my opinion Long upon hearing that a murder had been committed in the City was extra vigilant when he continued upon his beat. I believe he missed seeing the apron as he passed the entrance to The model Dwellings at 2:20 a.m.

Observer

[Abby Normal]

It does not matter what occupation he had, Trevor - he stated on oath that he was there at 2.20, and he emphatically claimed that the rag was not there at the time. That is the one and only thing that matters. If he was a fruit vendor, a sailor or a hawker would not matter, an observation was nevertheless claimed, and it involved a statement that there was no rag in the doorway at that stage.

Long could have lied, he could have misemembered, he may not have been there at 2.20 but these suggestions remain only that - suggestions. And they are not in line with the evidence, as given.

As I keep saying, there is no counterweight, stating that the rag WAS there. And there is no reason why it could not have been absent at 2.20. Therefore, on balance, the answer to the question about whether the rag was there at 2.20 must be a "No, it was in all probability not".

this is the right answer

[Abby Normal]

This is my very first post so please be gentle
Pc Long said that the apron was not in the doorway on Goulston st at 2.20 and noticed it half an hour later. If he is right, where had the killer been ? One possible explanation is he could have used the bolt hole on Butchers row [ a few minutes walk away from Mitre square ] described by Robert Sagar as where a suspect worked. Cleaned himself up got rid of the body parts [ what better place than a slaughterhouse ] in his haste, forgot about the apron in his pocket and discarded it on Goulston st.
Ps This is part of a piece i am writing on why Kosminski was suspected which i am hoping to post in the next few days, but thought this part might be appropriate to post here .

Hi Darryl and welcome
I would suggest that the ripper was pissed at being interrupted by a bunch of jews that night and after going to his bolt hole to drop of his trophies and knife, he grabbed a piece of chalk and headed back out to get back at said jews by leaving the apron and writing the GSG.

[Michael W Richards]

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

What he said about what he saw and when he saw it on that particular night is a matter of record Harry, whether you disbelieve him, based on the above, or not. Is drinking something we need to consider as a filter for the validity of any statements by any witness to any of these crimes? Surely we recognize that alcohol is a consistent theme among the vast majority of all the witnesses....citizen or public servant alike. Does that make all the statements by the lot of them untrustworthy?

The number of officers that might have imbibed on any given night is Im quite sure far greater than the number that is eventually punished for it.

[Harry D]

What he said about what he saw and when he saw it on that particular night is a matter of record Harry, whether you disbelieve him, based on the above, or not. Is drinking something we need to consider as a filter for the validity of any statements by any witness to any of these crimes? Surely we recognize that alcohol is a consistent theme among the vast majority of all the witnesses....citizen or public servant alike. Does that make all the statements by the lot of them untrustworthy?

The number of officers that might have imbibed on any given night is Im quite sure far greater than the number that is eventually punished for it.

It's one thing for a copper to have a tipple or two while on duty, it's another to be found drunk on duty.

You said that we've no need to speculate as to whether PC Long saw the rag at 2.20am because he testified to that. We only have his word for that as it's without corroboration. It's entirely possible that PC Long didn't check the stairwell because he was behind schedule, or that a piece of sodden rag wouldn't have necessarily grabbed his attention. Am I saying for a fact that the rag was there at 2.20am? Of course not, but I have serious doubts that the killer was hanging around all that time. That leads me to believe that he deposited the apron during his escape, and PC Long missed/ignored it first time around.

[Darryl Kenyon]

Whilst it is entirely possible that Pc Long did not perform his duties correctly that night, and tried covering the fact, i feel the point must be raised that if he lied about the apron why not lie about the graffiti as well ? In other words why not just say that the writing was not there either, instead of saying he wasn't sure. It was seen as an important clue and possibly written by the killer after all. One possible explanation is he thought it might be old and not fresh, but he doesn't say that in his inquest statement " I could not say whether they were recently written "

[Yabs]

I think you would need to know more about the nature of PC Long's patrol to arrive at a better guess.

Did he find out about the murder before he passed the entrance at 2:20 or did find out before he found the cloth at 2:55?

He would be more alert when he found out and it would explain how he missed it the first time.

Also, was it part of his patrol to check each passageway or is it just a case of him having to be generally observant to a fixed route?

There could of course be any number of explanations.
maybe he popped into wentworth for a wee the second time passing and spotted the cloth and didn't fancy reporting that part to the inquest.