Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Joshua Rogan]

Maybe the wrong victim, but wasn't there a story about a policeman stating he had just missed a man who had washed his bloody hands in a trough?
I thought this was near the Model buildings? (might be wrong though)
Pat.....

I believe you're thinking of Major Henry Smith, who mentioned this is his memoirs. Although he seems confused about the location...or is leaping ahead in time.

"The assassin had evidently wiped his hands with the piece of apron. In Dorset Street, with extraordinary audacity, he washed them at a sink up a close, not more than six yards from the street. I arrived there in time to see the blood-stained water."

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

You fail to understand everything.

Well Simon I certainly have difficulty understanding a lot of your posts. Perhaps that is because you always seem very keen to tell us what did NOT happen in 1888 but far less keen to say what DID happen.

And I've read your 565 page book, in which you tell your readers that Jack the Ripper did not exist but don't manage to say who murdered all those women, and I don't find any explanation of Long's actions in there. It's funny how, despite telling us that it "ain't rocket science", you don't appear to be able to explain what you think was actually going on that night in Goulston Street.

By contrast, I understood Kattrap's post #152 in this thread (to take one example) perfectly well.

[Paddy]

Thank you Joshua, I was beginning to think I had signed into a war zone.
I will have to see if his memoirs are on here anywhere, sounds interesting

Pat............

[David Orsam]

So if he hadnt been tasked with looking there was no reason for him to look in the recess was there. So if he didn't look at 2.20am he was not able to say if it were there or not.

As Simon Wood says "Its not rocket science"

When Simon Wood said "It ain't rocket science", he wasn't talking about what happened at 2.20am. He was talking about what happened at 2.55am. But I don't think anyone knows or understands what he believes happened at 2.55am and, despite it apparently not being rocket science, I'm not convinced he knows what he believes either. If he did I assume he would have told us by now.

[Fisherman]

Thank you Joshua, I was beginning to think I had signed into a war zone.
Pat............

I only fire at enemy forces. And enemy forces are not people who disagree with me but instead people who tell me that I regard those who disagree with me as enemy forces.

If that makes sense?

[Joshua Rogan]

Thank you Joshua, I was beginning to think I had signed into a war zone.
I will have to see if his memoirs are on here anywhere, sounds interesting

Pat............

Yes, it's under his bio, chapter 16 of "From Constable to Commissioner"

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.constable.html

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

I'm sorry you didn't understand my book. This surprises me, as I have had emails from lots of people who did. They understood it completely and are interested to learn more.

C'est la vie.

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Comprehension Fail

Hi David,

I'm sorry you didn't understand my book. This surprises me, as I have had emails from lots of people who did. They understood it completely and are interested to learn more.

C'est la vie.

Hi Simon,

I never said that I didn't understand your book or anything like it. What I said about your book was that you "don't manage to say who murdered all those women, and I don't find any explanation of Long's actions in there." That's all I said. It's a shame you didn't understand my post.

[Varqm]

You can believe Long all you want, it's easy to think people think like you or as/were sharp as you or a/were truthful as you, analyzing it from the desk with a bag of chips.But the court system is tried and tested. If a witness cannot be cross-examined - detailed if warranted - that witness is not good and his/her statements is to be disregarded as the truth because some people can/had retract/ed their statements partly or wholly.

[David Orsam]

If a witness cannot be cross-examined - detailed if warranted - that witness is not good and his/her statements is to be disregarded as the truth because some people can/had retract/ed their statements partly or wholly.

Not sure who you are addressing with your post but are you saying that all the evidence given on oath at all the inquests should be disregarded because the witnesses were not cross-examined?

And the reason for this is that some witnesses have been known to retract their testimony???

[harry]

Trevor,like myself and others,have explained clearly,the reasons Long's statement might have been untruthful.Long doesn't explain it and the Coroner doesn't question it.Being adamant means nothimg.It is said the beat took about half an hour at steady walking pace to complete.That's how long,Long states it took him(Long).No time then to check doors,windows,and empty spaces,which tasks in reality were the responsibility of the owners of such premises,and became the duty of a beat constable only if suspicion was aroused,or if instructions had been issued.Or if an owner slipped the constable a couple of quid? Joking? Not really.
So that's all I can add.If anyone feels unclear about anything I have written on this thread,spell it out,and I'll try to do better.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The possibility remains that Pc long could have missed the bloodied rag, but i feel that if we disregard completely the chance that what he says about it not being there at 2.20 is true we could be missing an important clue. IE that he could know Mitre Sq and the surrounding area very well and that he had some kind of residence/bolthole in the vicinity what he could use to hide/clean himself up before heading home.
Also with it being his first night on a new street/beat would that not make him extra vigilant IE checking places he would not normally bother with until he got used to the area or monotony sets in. He could have been checking inside the entrance/stairs looking to see if it was used by prostitutes and their clients for instance, don't forget Martha Tabram was murdered on the stairwell of a building. Again i have to say i do not think he was lying. Why lie about the apron [ if he had bunked off ] and not say the same about the graffiti which was easier to spot.
One final point we do not know the circumstances surrounding his dismissal other than he was drunk on duty, perhaps he was having personal problems. I know it can call into question his character but at the same time it does not prove he was an ardent liar.

[DJA]

6 Mitre Street sorta screams out!

Anyone wanna do a search for me? Gotta reside in England.

You request the form,fill it in with a cheque and await the result.
I'll prepay via PayPal.

Reckon it was Jack's uncle's place,once upon a time.

[David Orsam]

It is said the beat took about half an hour at steady walking pace to complete.That's how long,Long states it took him(Long).No time then to check doors,windows,and empty spaces

If, as you say, Long stated that it took "about half an hour" at steady walking pace to complete his beat (and, by this, he wasn't including any time to check doors, windows and empty spaces) then he might have meant it took him 28 minutes to complete his beat might he not?

Whereas we know from the timings he gave that it took him 35 minutes to complete the beat in question (i.e. from 2.20 to 2.55).

So you haven't really made your point good have you?

[Fisherman]

Being adamant means nothing.

IŽll let that stand for itself, for everyone to see and ponder.