Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Harry D: 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.

Yes, thatīs true. Then again, the coroner did not ask for corroboration, did he? He was probably aware that the PC:s did their beats in solitude at the removes in time we are speaking about, and so he realized that the best he could get was Longs words for what had happened and what he had seen. And indeed, we are not asking corroboration for what Watkins saw, for what Harvey saw, for what Lamb saw etcetera - we simply accept that they were in all probability both correct and truthful, and we apply what they said to the case when we look at it.
But NOT Long - he is not to be believed.
That is of course total balderdash. We have no choice but to accept that what he said was the probable truth, just as we believe the other PC:s, unless there is reason to doubt them on record.
There is no such reason to doubt Long. There is nobody saying that the rag was there at 2.20, and there is no reason to think that the rag must have been present at 2.20. So there we are - we either accept the evidence as given, or we start tampering with it. There are no other options.

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.

Yes, it is. And nobody is contesting this. But the fact of the matter is that Long admantly said that the rag was not there at 2.20. That does not mean that he was unsure, or that he had not loked. Instead, the i plications are quite clear - to be able to adamantly state that it was not there, he MUST have checked.
So itīs either that, or he lied. And he had no reason at all to lie, since it was not the duty of a PC to note every rag or piece of paper in every doorway; it would have been entirely allowed for him to say that he did not know.

Am I saying for a fact that the rag was there at 2.20am?

I would stay away from that if I were you. It is easy enough to get called a liar on these boards. as you may have noted. And in this case, it would carry relevance.

Of course not, but I have serious doubts that the killer was hanging around all that time.

Where would "around" be, Harry? And what makes you think that the killer would hesitate to stay out and about after having killed Eddowes, when he had no qualms about it after having killed Stride? My take on things is that he had a bolthole, and it would be every bit as secure to go there as it would be to walk the streets, as far as I can tell..

That leads me to believe that he deposited the apron during his escape, and PC Long missed/ignored it first time around.

I know. But the evidence is against you.

[Fisherman]

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.

Yes. But it remains a fancyful suggestion and nothing else. It could also be thrown forward that Long may have taken a shine to the particular doorway in which the rag lay, and felt that he needed to search it exhaustively whenever passing it.
That too would be nothing but a fanciful - but possible - suggestion.

At the end of the day, when the fancyful suggestions have been sifted away, we are left with a testifying PC who unhesitatingly claims that the rag was not in place at 2.20. Nothing more, nothing less. That is all we have, and that is what we must work from.

[Yabs]

It's also worth mentioning that Detective Constable Halse was in Goulston St at 2:20 according to his report whist actively looking for the killer and he didn't see the cloth or PC long.

[Fisherman]

It's also worth mentioning that Detective Constable Halse was in Goulston St at 2:20 according to his report whist actively looking for the killer and he didn't see the cloth or PC long.

Yep, but he says something like "I should not necessarily have seen it", meaning that we can bank on him making no search of the doorway. He was hurrying along at that stage, and his focus will not have been on rags. "Around" 2.20 does not mean that he must have seen Long, there may have been many a minute between the two, and they could still be more or less correct on the times. If Halse hurried down the street at 2.18 and Long turned into the street at 2.22, they would not see each other.

[Monty]

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

Indeed.

Long carried out the "Whitechapel again" instruction to a tee.

Monty
😄

[jerryd]

Indeed.

Long carried out the "Whitechapel again" instruction to a tee.

Monty
��

Catch you while you are here, Monty! Was Long's beat similar to Andrews beat in 1889 for Castle Alley? Just wondering if he caught Goulston Street in both directions? Maybe the apron location was easy to see walking one direction but harder coming from the other? Especially if it were up against the wall.

[Monty]

Catch you while you are here, Monty! Was Long's beat similar to Andrews beat in 1889 for Castle Alley? Just wondering if he caught Goulston Street in both directions? Maybe the apron location was easy to see walking one direction but harder coming from the other? Especially if it were up against the wall.

Well I cover that very point in my book Jerry,

We only have H divs 1930s beat book to look at, but if the beats in those books ran true for 1888, then yes, Long covered Goulston St in stages as you suggest.

Monty
😄

[Yabs]

Yep, but he says something like "I should not necessarily have seen it", meaning that we can bank on him making no search of the doorway. He was hurrying along at that stage, and his focus will not have been on rags. "Around" 2.20 does not mean that he must have seen Long, there may have been many a minute between the two, and they could still be more or less correct on the times. If Halse hurried down the street at 2.18 and Long turned into the street at 2.22, they would not see each other.

To be honest with you Fish I do agree with you.
It's just something I've wondered about and something i'm interested to hear opinions on.

[Trevor Marriott]

To be honest with you Fish I do agree with you.
It's just something I've wondered about and something i'm interested to hear opinions on.

Hi Yabs
Opinions count for nothing on here. Ripperology has been awash with them since 1888.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Catch you while you are here, Monty! Was Long's beat similar to Andrews beat in 1889 for Castle Alley? Just wondering if he caught Goulston Street in both directions? Maybe the apron location was easy to see walking one direction but harder coming from the other? Especially if it were up against the wall.

That is an entirely legitimate assumption, of course - the rag could well have been in a position that made it eaasier to see from one side than from the other. However, that does not change the fact that Long was very clear in answering the coroner:
Coroner: Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?
Long: It was not.
In this exchange, we may note that the coroner actually asks about the very thing you are speaking about: the visibility of the rag, and whether Long was able to say whether the rag was in place or not at 2.20. Long is asked whether he had been in a position that enabled him to decide the matter, and in answering "It was not", he also offers an answer to the question actually asked: Were the surrounding circumstances such as to allow for Long to make a definite call? And he answers that question with an implicit "Yes, they were".

So much as the rag can have been placed in a manner that made it harder to see from one angle than from another, this potential hindrance for Long to decide the matter, is effectively dissolved by the coroners question and Longs answer.

Nota bene, that is not to say that Long must have been correct. It is not even to say that Long was actually there at 2.20. We cannot be 100 per cent sure of either. But we CAN be 100 per cent sure that Long answered the coroners question in a manner that does not allow for any other interpretations than the one that he HAD been able to decide if the rag was there or not, and that it had not been so. This was Longs claim, and it leaves absolutely no room for any doubt on his behalf.

Once more, it is perfectly legitimate to reason that Long may have missed the rag nevertheless, but it remains in conflict with the evidence given, and therefore it can never be the better suggestion. In this respect, the case is as clear-cut as a case can be.

[harry]

I note that Long did not answer the question put by the Coroner with a simple yes or no.It can only be guessed at,by his reply ,that he could have been in a position at 2.20 to see the aprn,but to a defence,there would be room for doubt.

[Fisherman]

I note that Long did not answer the question put by the Coroner with a simple yes or no.It can only be guessed at,by his reply ,that he could have been in a position at 2.20 to see the aprn,but to a defence,there would be room for doubt.

Any doubt involves the supposition that Long was talking out of his behind. People do that all the time, as you will be aware. But we remained fixed at the only position there is:
The coroner asked Long was able to say if the apron was there or not. Long - thankfully - did not answer with a simple yes or no. If he had answered "yes", it could be taken as an admittance that he was able to tell if the rag was there or not at 2.20, and in such a case, the following answer could be either yes or no - "Yes, I can tell, and yes it was there" or "Yes, I can tell, and no it was not there".
To offer such a choice to ripperologists is suicidal, so I am thrilled it never happened.
As it stands, Long answered "It was not", meaning that YES, he was able to tell, and NO, the rag was not there at 2.20.

The rest is fluffy speculation, and my is there a lot of it!

[Michael W Richards]

Had Long chosen to say that "I did not see it", or "I did not notice anything", or " I did not glance there", or "I dont recall seeing it", one would have some grounds to wonder whether in fact it was there or not. As it stands, based solely on what words were used to answer a direct question, he stated that "it was not there", just as Fisherman pointed out.

There was no ambiguity in his words. Nor should there be in any in the interpretation of his words, the message is clear by the definitive nature of the chosen grammar.

[Harry D]

Any doubt involves the supposition that Long was talking out of his behind. People do that all the time, as you will be aware. But we remained fixed at the only position there is:
The coroner asked Long was able to say if the apron was there or not. Long - thankfully - did not answer with a simple yes or no. If he had answered "yes", it could be taken as an admittance that he was able to tell if the rag was there or not at 2.20, and in such a case, the following answer could be either yes or no - "Yes, I can tell, and yes it was there" or "Yes, I can tell, and no it was not there".
To offer such a choice to ripperologists is suicidal, so I am thrilled it never happened.
As it stands, Long answered "It was not", meaning that YES, he was able to tell, and NO, the rag was not there at 2.20.

The rest is fluffy speculation, and my is there a lot of it!

To be honest, Fish, you do have - shall we say - a vested interest in the coppers being true to their word.

[Fisherman]

To be honest, Fish, you do have - shall we say - a vested interest in the coppers being true to their word.

Unless there is any reason on record to misbelieve a PC, I work from the assumption that they were truthful. There is the odd exception, like Thain, who wriggled a bit about the cape, but all in all, there is little we can do but to trust them otherwise.
Would you rather have it that we bent their words and misbelieved them to make things jibe with what we think ourselves? Of course you wouldnīt!