Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Simon Wood]

Hi DJA,

What purpose?

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

To silence her and take one of her kidneys.

[Fisherman]

The statements given to the police by all the witnesses are provided to the Coroner for him to read to enable him to select suitable witnesses for the inquest.
The Coroner is selecting the best witnesses to enable the Jury to determine the whom (identity), the when, where & by what means the victim met his/her death.

So yes, the Coroner does know in advance what each witness saw, heard and did.

Some confuse the inquest with a trial, the witnesses called at a trial are selected for different reason's.

Then I would propose that Langham would have known how Long was able to claim that the rag was not there at 2.20 - he would have read it in the statement Long had made to his colleagues, and where he would have gone into more detail on how he searched the grounds.

[Fisherman]

Hi DJA,

Do you not think that Victorian propiety would have demanded that the police afford her a modicum of dignity in death by straightening out her clothing before placing her onto the ambulance?

Regards,

Simon

Once more revisiting my old Rumbelow book, he actually states that it was when Eddowesī body was undressed at the morgue that it was discovered that a piece of her apron had been cut away.
I donīt know what basis he has for stating this, but he nevertheless does.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then I would propose that Langham would have known how Long was able to claim that the rag was not there at 2.20 - he would have read it in the statement Long had made to his colleagues, and where he would have gone into more detail on how he searched the grounds.

Not necessarily, If Long made a statement in advance, it may not have contained anything more than he said at the inquest. If so then that is why I suggest it is ambiguous and unsafe.

If it is was as you suggest, then the coroner would have no doubt prompted Long to clear up those ambiguities.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Not necessarily, If Long made a statement in advance, it may not have contained anything more than he said at the inquest. If so then that is why I suggest it is ambiguous and unsafe.

If it is was as you suggest, then the coroner would have no doubt prompted Long to clear up those ambiguities.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There were no ambiguities. Long was solid and adamant. The only reason the coroner could have had for further enquiry would have been if he felt that Long had no reason to be certain. What we learn from how Langham never did this, is that he knew how Long reached his certainty. So itīs game over as far as Iīm concerned.

[Trevor Marriott]

There were no ambiguities. Long was solid and adamant. The only reason the coroner could have had for further enquiry would have been if he felt that Long had no reason to be certain. What we learn from how Langham never did this, is that he knew how Long reached his certainty. So itīs game over as far as Iīm concerned.

Of course there are, but you wont or dont want to recognise them, they have been highlighted on here many times.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Of course there are, but you wont or dont want to recognise them, they have been highlighted on here many times.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Letīs take this step by step, Trevor. Now itīs my turn to ask the yes or no questions!

1. Do you believe that the police would have asked Long about whether he was able to say if the rag was there at 2.20 or not?

2. If Long said "yes", would the police have asked him how he could be certain?

Take your time, Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Letīs take this step by step, Trevor. Now itīs my turn to ask the yes or no questions!

1. Do you beleive that the police would have asked Long about whether he was able to say if the rag was there at 2.20 or not?

2. If Long said "yes", would the police have asked him how he could be certain?

Take your time, Trevor.

Your questions are rheterorical

Long did say it wasn't there, so why would they question him. However, If he had have been asked then further clarification as to how he could say it wasnt there for certain and how he was sure it couldn't have been there might have been added to his statement, to clear up any ambiguites.

As it is, we must assume he wasn't asked to clarify and when he said he simply passed by was enough for them, but 128 years later not enough for us to readily accept his evidence in the light of other plausible explanations suggesting he was mistaken.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You attention is once again drawn to the sketches of the scene,particularly of Eddowes.
The remainder of the "old white apron" is hidden by skirts and a petticoat.

and that begs the question, as to how the killer managed to cut a piece of her apron when her clothes were thrown up around her waist. Which meant that had she been wearing an apron, it would have been the furthest piece of her clothing from the killer, making it much more difficult to get at and the nearest piece of clothing to her body. If the killer wanted to cut a piece of clothing for whatever purpose the rest of her clothing was more accessible.

Which having regards to the fact that all her other clothing was cut around the waist area and blood stained, and the fact that the apron piece listed amongst her possessions which some say is the apron she was wearing, but shows no signs of cuts or bloodstains and was described as a piece of old white apron

And of course if the killer was disturbed by Pc Harvey and made good his escape at a rapid rate of knots he wouldn't have had time to cut any clothing.

"PRICELESS"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: Your questions are rheterorical

"Rhethorical" - is that it? If so, "rhethorical" means that they answer themselves. To a large extent, I agree.

Long did say it wasn't there, so why would they question him.

So you are predisposing that Long did not tell the police about the state of affairs at 2.20 - and furthermore that his colleagues did not question him about it?

Right! In such a case, we must work from the presumption that the coroner himself was the first one to pose the question. One must therefore make the assumption that the coroner saw the relevance of the question, something your esteemed colleagues missed out on.
Now, when Langham asked Long about it, and Long adamantly stated that the rag was not there at 2.20 - why is it that Langham accepts this, no questions asked? If he realized the importance of the question, then surely he must have realized that it took some clarification too? But amazingly, he never asks...?

No, Trevor, what happened was that the police interviewed Long at depth, they asked him about his 2.20 stop at Goulston Street, Long clarified exactly how he searched the area, and explained that he was certain that the rag was not there since he had searched the doorway and found it empty. This, then, is what Langham ensures is taken into the inquest report: it has been established that the rag was not in the doorway at 2.20. He needs not clarify how this was established, since it is in the police interview material.

However, If he had have been asked then further clarification as to how he could say it wasnt there for certain and how he was sure it couldn't have been there might have been added to his statement, to clear up any ambiguites.

There were no ambiguities. The coroner knew exactly what had happened, and he had satisfied himself that no further questioning on the errand was necessary. It was all cleared up before Long took the stand.

As it is, we must assume he wasn't asked to clarify and when he said he simply passed by was enough for them, but 128 years later not enough for us to readily accept his evidence in the light of other plausible explanations suggesting he was mistaken.

Is that how you used to do your job, Trevor? By not asking about important matters, and by accepting that they never are sorted out? I see.
We must not assume that no clarification was presented. We can clearly see that either the exact opposite prevailed, or the police and coroner were incompetent.

[Fisherman]

It must be understood that the rag was the one and only piece of evidence the police had that could be tied directly to the killer. We should therefore accept that the police regarded it as an object of very great importance, and we may rest assured that it was scrutinized from every angle and that all information that could be gathered from it was collected by the police.

Accordingly, they most certainly will have asked Long about anything he had to offer on itīs whereabouts at 2.20.

[Trevor Marriott]

It must be understood that the rag was the one and only piece of evidence the police had that could be tied directly to the killer. We should therefore accept that the police regarded it as an object of very great importance, and we may rest assured that it was scrutinized from every angle and that all information that could be gathered from it was collected by the police.

You dont know that, thats what you want to belive.

Accordingly, they most certainly will have asked Long about anything he had to offer on itīs whereabouts at 2.20.

You dont know that either again that what you want to believe. He made a statement that it wasnt there. Why should they dispute that at the time?. But as I keep saying he may have been mistaken

So why wasn't Long questioned by the coroner as to how certain he was that the rag wasn't there at 2.20am. This was a public inquest irrespective of whether or not the answers were already known that should have formed part of the inquest testimony and been made public. It is the term "passed by" that makes his testimony questionable and open to other interpretations. Halse says he also passed by, which of the terms "passed by" shows a thorough examination at 2.20am. I would suggest neither.

You just dont understand how the police system works do you. If an officer attends an incident, he will simply write a statement, which will then form part of the investigation. Sometimes officers will make additional statements to clear up any ambiguities, and all are referred to when or if the matter comes to court. The ambiguities are not cleared up verbally as you suggest.

In this case none of the ambiguities were ever cleared up, and there is no evidence to show they were, other than you blustering on about what you believe to have happened, or what should have happened, or what did happen, the latter being something you cannot prove.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott: You dont know that either again that what you want to believe.

Eh - itīs the other way around, if you please: I am accepting the evidence as given, while YOU want to believe that the evidence is wrong.

He made a statement that it wasnt there. Why should they dispute that at the time?

That statement was given at the inquest. And if there was no ground for it, they should not dispute it, but they SHOULD establish the surrounding circumstances.
The fact of the matter, though, is that we may safely rely on Long haven given the surrounding information before the inquest.
Unless the police and the coroner were incompetent. Is that what you are suggesting?

So why wasn't Long questioned by the coroner as to how certain he was that the rag wasn't there at 2.20am.

Because the coroner already had his answers. They were before him, on his desk, signed the Metropolitan police.

This was a public inquest irrespective of whether or not the answers were already known that should have formed part of the inquest testimony and been made public. It is the term "passed by" that makes his testimony questionable and open to other interpretations. Halse says he also passed by, which of the terms "passed by" shows a thorough examination at 2.20am. I would suggest neither.

That point of yours is bonkers, Trevor. Long said he passed the spot at 2.20, but he does not say he passed without checking. In fact, when he answers the coroners question, he effectively says that he DID check. Otherwise, he would not be able to say that the rag was not there. You CAN see the logic of that argument, can you not?
You seem to believe that somebody who says that he passes by is not able to do any checks, but that is plain wrong. "The pope passed Berlin on his way to Paris" does not mean that he flew over Berlin - he may just as well have stopped and met people. John F Kennedy passed Dealey Plaza in Dallas - but that was not all, was it? Have you heard the expression "I passed by Marks & Spencers today and picked up a pair of trousers"? Does that mean that you passed - or stopped - at Marks & Spencer?
You really - REALLY - need to get a grip on that language of yours, Trevor.

You just dont understand how the police system works do you.

Let me see: They forget to ask vital questions? Is that it?

If an officer attends an incident, he will simply write a statement, which will then form part of the investigation.

Yes, a so called report.

Sometimes officers will make additional statements to clear up any ambiguities, and all are referred to when or if the matter comes to court. The ambiguities are not cleared up verbally as you suggest.

Only I never suggested it. I suggested that Long was interviewed by his colleagues about his finding the rag in Goulston Street, that what was said was taken down in a report, and that this report belonged to the material the coroner had at hand when choosing which witnesses to call to the inquest and what to ask them.

In this case none of the ambiguities were ever cleared up, and there is no evidence to show they were, other than you blustering on about what you believe to have happened, or what should have happened, or what did happen, the latter being something you cannot prove.

I can prove that it is common procedure. And you can cling on to the fact that common procedure did not apply here. And why wouldnīt you - after all, it is common procedure for you to get it assways.

[Mr Lucky]

Thatīs an interesting question. Maybe somebody out there has the answer to hand?
Hereīs another one that Iīve been pondering: How "rehearsed" is an inquest? To what, if any, extent is the coroner aware about which answers he is going to get?
Specifically, in this context, I would like to know if coroner Langham would have been aware of the answer Long would give to his question about whether the PC was able to say if the rag had been in place at 2.20 or not. Would Langham have been thoroughly read up on what the police had been able to extract from the witnesses who were set to take the stage?

In other words, would Alfred Long have told his colleagues exactly what he did in Goulston Street at 2.20, and how he did it - and would that information have been at the coroners disposal before Long took the stand?

I would say that the coroner would be aware of roughly what each witness's testimony was, before they took the stand (Baxter knew Robert Paul's testimony better than he did for a start), with the exception of those who turned up spontaneously...

Specifically regarding Long's testimony regarding the apron – yes Long's testimony was guided by Langham and Crawford, the timing aspect was very important at the inquest and would have been of enormous value to any future attempt to prosecute, hence the importance of Long being clear at the inquest - it was not there previously, no ambiguity at all.

At the time the message had no real value as evidence, unlike now where it is believed by some to contain cryptic information which holds the key to the mystery. However in 1888 the apron was considered to be far more significant, see the letter from Warren to Fraser (IIRC) about the possible transit of the apron by any other means than the killer.

Of course , ripperology has always had a problem with the apron/message.

The apron has no function other than as a marker for the message – to validate that it was written by the killer, but the message contains no useful information , so why does the killer take the risk involved in validating the message when it contains nothing worth validating?