Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Some newspaper accounts have Long replying simply "yes" to the first question, and the coroner then saying "It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?". Which makes a lot more sense.

Some more sense, yes - apart from the fact that the coroner seemingly assumes that Long could only have heard of one murder. Then again, maybe the coroner was informed about it beforehand.

[Kattrup]

He was a met officer and therefore I would have expected him to know of the Stride murder as that was on Met territory but he says he knows of the city murder and then found out that there might have been another.

Me thinks he is confused and not a very good witness, and his testimony is therefore unsafe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wow.

Yes, let's disregard a firsthand account of the events because of what we expect would have happened, and what we feel would make more sense.

Long noticed the rag, and stated unequivocally that it was not there earlier.

Extrapolating: he knew murder had been committed; he noticed a bloody rag which he knew had not been there thirty minutes earlier; he therefore thought it could be an important clue since bloody rags do not appear out of the blue; he therefore searched the staircase for further clues/whoever left it there; he then proceeded to inform his superiors after securing surveillance of the place.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Generally accepted by whom? How could he have found out he doesn't say that he ever met anyone else before findning the rag.

He does however say that there were rumours (plural) about a second murder, and he would not have picked that out of thin air. Consequentially, he did speak to somebody about it, and as I said, there was lots of time to do so.

He doesn't say how he knew in advance about any murder, and you are right the answer is odd, and leads me to think that he was speaking in the present tense and not in the past tense as you might expect "Yes it was common knowledge that two murders had been perpetrated"

Joshua Rogan presented the probable solution to this in his post.

He was a met officer and therefore I would have expected him to know of the Stride murder as that was on Met territory but he says he knows of the city murder and then found out that there might have been another.

He was much closer in space to the City murder, so anyone he encountered was more likely to tell him about that strike.

Me thinks he is confused and not a very good witness, and his testimony is therefore unsafe.

There is absolutely nothing to conclude that Long was anything but a completely valid witness, speaking the truth. The rest is entirely speculation on your behalf.

[Abby Normal]

Wow.

Yes, let's disregard a firsthand account of the events because of what we expect would have happened, and what we feel would make more sense.

Long noticed the rag, and stated unequivocally that it was not there earlier.

Extrapolating: he knew murder had been committed; he noticed a bloody rag which he knew had not been there thirty minutes earlier; he therefore thought it could be an important clue since bloody rags do not appear out of the blue; he therefore searched the staircase for further clues/whoever left it there; he then proceeded to inform his superiors after securing surveillance of the place.

cmon Kattrup. We all know a serial killer would never do anything out of the ordinary!

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

PC Long wrote on 6th November 1888—

"I arrived at the Station [Commercial Street] about five or ten minutes past three, and reported to the Inspector on duty finding the apron and writing.

"The Inspector at once proceeded to Goulston Street and inspected the writing.

"From there we proceeded to Leman St., and the apron was handed by the Inspector to a gentleman I have since learnt is Dr. Phillips.

"I then returned back on duty to Goulston Street at about 5."

That statement, Simon, directly contradicts your account in #138 in which, after telling me to put myself in the position of PC Long in Goulston Street, you said, "From there you go onto Leman Street police station, where you hand your treasured scrap of bloodstained material to Dr. Phillips, who eventually hands it to Dr. Brown, who, lo and behold, matches it to Eddowes' apron."

As Long's 6 November account makes clear, it was the inspector who handed the apron to Dr Phillips at Leman Street not Long himself, because Long had obviously already handed it over to the inspector.

And Long didn't get to Leman Street until after Eddowes' apron was discovered to have a piece missing at the mortuary, so I don't know how it relates in any way to your "rocket science" post of #136 which was clearly based on Long's "remarkable perspicacity" prior to this discovery.

Thankfully I did not believe the story you told in #138 therefore I can decline your kind offer to purchase a bridge from you.

[David Orsam]

Simon is right to raise these points Longs actions and his testimony are less than clear.

...

Technically he cant say it was a portion of the woman's apron because he didn't match it and only found out later it was. So any reference he made to the rag as an apron piece and the victim would be hearsay.

Is that really the issue that's troubling Simon? That the constable was speaking with hindsight at the inquest when he referred to it as a piece of an "apron"?

It's a complete non-point because the portion of the apron was produced in court as soon as Long entered the witness box. It was visible to the jury and Long confirmed that it was what he had found so it didn't matter what he called it. He could quite correctly have called it "Exhibit A" even though he hadn't thought of it as "Exhibit A" at the time he found it. Further Dr Brown had already given evidence that the portion of apron found by Long fitted the remaining portion of the apron which Eddowes was wearing. Further, as you mention, the normal rules of evidence didn’t even apply at an inquest.

Long's testimony may be "less than clear" but Simon was describing something as not being "rocket science". I still have no idea what he meant by that and if that's how you interpret his post then I'm not sure you do either Trevor.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I didn't say Long reached Leman Street police station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing.

I said he reached Commercial Street police station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing.

Long and the anonymous Inspector next visited Goulston Street to view the chalked message.

Long and the Inspector next went to Leman Street police station.

It doesn't really matter who handed over the piece of apron "to a gentleman I have since learnt is Dr. Phillips," as both Long and the Inspector were present at the handing-over ceremony.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

I didn't say Long reached Leman Street police station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing.

I said he reached Commercial Street police station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing.

Long and the anonymous Inspector next visited Goulston Street to view the chalked message.

Long and the Inspector next went to Leman Street police station.

It doesn't really matter who handed over the piece of apron "to a gentleman I have since learnt is Dr. Phillips," as both Long and the Inspector were present at the handing-over ceremony.

If it doesn't matter who handed over the apron why did you mention the handing over of the apron in #138? What is the significance of it?

And what, I might also ask, is the significance of Long reaching Commercial Street station before Eddowes' apron was found to have a piece missing? I'm failing to understand the science which you tell us is not rocket science.

[harry]

Fisherman,
For all your long rambings in try ing to justify Long's statement,you have not answered the e ss entail question I posed.How did Long know the apron was not there at 1.20.Let me reverse that and say how he would know.He w ould know if there was light sufficient to illuminate the area.He would know if he used his lantern to illuminate the area.He would know if he stopped and searched the area. We have no information that any of those situations prevailed.Long did not enlighten us.Therefor,as you have now admitted,there is a possibility that Long's statement w as untruthfull.Good,that is what I believe.What others believe.So why your animosity?

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

You fail to understand everything.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Fisherman,
For all your long rambings in try ing to justify Long's statement,you have not answered the e ss entail question I posed.How did Long know the apron was not there at 1.20.Let me reverse that and say how he would know.He w ould know if there was light sufficient to illuminate the area.He would know if he used his lantern to illuminate the area.He would know if he stopped and searched the area. We have no information that any of those situations prevailed.Long did not enlighten us.Therefor,as you have now admitted,there is a possibility that Long's statement w as untruthfull.Good,that is what I believe.What others believe.So why your animosity?

You have it spot on ! Thats what we have been trying to explain to Fish.

I have said many times on here that when discussing the many issues surrounding witness testimony, that much of it was never fully tested and expanded on. This is just another example where a few simple questions put to the witness at the time would have cleared up these ambiguities which we are faced with.

So to bring this debate to a close we can say that it is not certain that the apron piece was not there at 2.20am and he either missed it, or didnt look hard enough, or he wasnt even at the location at 2.20am.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

harry

Fisherman,
For all your long rambings in try ing to justify Long's statement...

"Trying to justify"?? There is no need whatsoever for any justification" of Longs testimony, Harry. You make it sound as if it had been established that Long was violating justice, and that is of course totally bonkers.
I never tried to justify what Long said, since there was never any need for it. It is instead a question of you trying to vilify it.

...you have not answered the e ss entail question I posed. How did Long know the apron was not there at 1.20.

Oh yes, I did - he checked. I have said it a thousand times, but I donīt mind saying it a thousand and one times: To be able to tell that the rag was not there, Long must have checked. So you have had your answer, and donīt try to mislead about it.

Let me reverse that and say how he would know. He w ould know if there was light sufficient to illuminate the area. He would know if he used his lantern to illuminate the area.He would know if he stopped and searched the area. We have no information that any of those situations prevailed.Long did not enlighten us.Therefor,as you have now admitted,there is a possibility that Long's statement w as untruthfull.Good,that is what I believe.What others believe.So why your animosity?

I can tell you that to be able to know, he must have checked. I cannot tell you exactly HOW he checked, what light conditions prevailed, from what angle he saw the rag etcetera, for the simple reason that this information is lacking. And this is the information you try to infer would clinch things.
But as I have said earlier, I do not for a second believe you when you claim this. If Long had said "I walked into the recess and there it was", I do not believe that you would trust him anyway. If you do not trust him when saying "Yes, I can answer the question whether the rag was there or not at 2.20, and it was not", then why on earth would him saying "Yes, I stepped into the recess, but the rag was not there" make you a believer?

The mere suggestion is beyond silly. You have made your mind up, Harry, havenīt you noticed that yourself? And to be frank, no matter how Long worded himself, he COULD have lied. He could have given the position of the rag in millimeters, he could have spoken of exactly when he lit his lamp, he could have stated in which exact minute he stepped into the doorway and when he came out - and he could nevertheless have lied about it. No matter how exact he was and no matter how adamant he was, since we have no person corroborating that he did what he said he did, we cannot rule out that he lied. Nor have I ever said so - I have always left that possibility open.

But I accept that the bulk of what the policemen in this case (and generally speaking all cases) testified about at the inquest was the truth, and therefore I am saying that what Long said was more probably than not ALSO true.

And this is the only way we can treat it. I am correct on this score, you see, Harry, and you are wrong. Mind you, I am NOT saying that I am right about the rag not being there at 2.20 - I am saying that the better guess must be that it was not. But you will not accept it. And to boot, you speak about how there would be justification needed and you mislead about what I have said.

If you think you can detect animosity in my answers, then maybe that is where you should seek the reason.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You have it spot on !

No, Trevor, he has not.

So to bring this debate to a close we can say that it is not certain that the apron piece was not there at 2.20am and the connecting evidence goes some way to support this belief ?

We CAN say that there can be no certainty that the apron was not there at 2.20, and that is something I have said from the outset.

We can however not state that the connecting evidence goes some way to support that belief, since the only connecting evidence there is very much supports the idea that the rag was not there at 2.20. And that evidence is Longs adamant statement that the rag was missing at 2.20.

There is not a shread of evidence speaking against Longs statement.

What you are trying to elevate to evidence here is your own belief that the killer fled the scene and made for home immediately after the strike. But you cannot elevate that to evidence, for the exact reason that it is nothing but a personal belief. And that personal belief is de facto IN TOTAL AND DIRECT CONFLICT with the evidence.

So no, Trevor, neither Harry nor you have it "spot on". Itīs more a question of "spit on" - and NOW we are talking about the evidence.

[Fisherman]

Hereīs the thing:

If we make the assumption that there are only two political fractions in Britain by the time of the next election, Tories and Labour, and if we further make the assumption that Labour wins the election by 51-49 - are we then to regard any person who says he voted Tories as a probable liar?

And does that person become a greater liar if Labour wins 60-40?

I would like to stress that every voter is an individual. The same goes for every serial murder - it is unique. No perceived idea that criminals run for home after their crimes can possibly apply universally. I donīt think that there are any available statistics to begin with, and I believe that there will be large differences inbetween different types of crimes.
The idea therefore has no application in this errand.

The evidence, however, does.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott: You have it spot on !

No, Trevor, he has not.

So to bring this debate to a close we can say that it is not certain that the apron piece was not there at 2.20am and the connecting evidence goes some way to support this belief ?

We CAN say that there can be no certainty that the apron was not there at 2.20, and that is something I have said from the outset.

We can however not state that the connecting evidence goes some way to support that belief, since the only connecting evidence there is very much supports the idea that the rag was not there at 2.20. And that evidence is Longs adamant statement that the rag was missing at 2.20.

There is not a shread of evidence speaking against Longs statement.

What you are trying to elevate to evidence here is your own belief that the killer fled the scene and made for home immediately after the strike. But you cannot elevate that to evidence, for the exact reason that it is nothing but a personal belief. And that personal belief is de facto IN TOTAL AND DIRECT CONFLICT with the evidence.

So no, Trevor, neither Harry nor you have it "spot on". Itīs more a question of "spit on" - and NOW we are talking about the evidence.

The only evidence you rely on to suggest it was not there is what he said and that cannot be corroborated as you have been told. The evidence and inferences, which can be drawn from his evidence far outweigh the credibilty of his evidence and lead to the suggestions that

He didnt see it at 2.20am because he didn't look inside the recess

When he "passed by" at 2.20am he could not have seen it from the street.

He used the term passed by, as does Halse, that indicates they didnt physically look inside and shone torches around, which Long would have had to have done at 2.55am in order to be able to see and examine the rag.

In relation to Halse why was he not doing what you say the police were supposed to do checking property and be able to say it was not here, he hedges his bets and says he didn't specifically look

Long knew what Halse was going to say so he tailored his evidence to fit with what Halse was saying, both could hardly say they passed by and neither of them saw anything, hardly diligent police officers.

Long was not even where he should have been. Both he and Halse were on the quiet street at almost the same time yet neither admits to seeing or hearing the other. One or both may be less than truthful.

The other question that you cannot answer with any certainty is why would a killer still be wandering the streets an hour or so after committing the murder still carrying incriminating evidence?, and why would he discard this piece in a location off the street where it was never likely to be found, or if it was would anyone link it to a murder by reason of its description. In any event anyone finding it would hardly take any notice of a discarded piece of rag.

But lo and behold it is found by a policeman, thats either uncanny or diligent and excellent police work, who then decides to examine more closely this discarded rag and not knowing it would be important takes it to the police station. I wonder if he had been examining other discarded rags on his beat that night or on any other night?

I also wonder at what point did the rag become a piece of apron ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk