Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Mr Lucky]

I may be wrong, but it seems to have been kicking around for as long as I can remember. I think I'm right in saying that it had significance for Paul Feldman, who believed (on the basis of geographic profiling) that the murderer had a bolt hole in Wentworth Street.

Ok thanks, so Feldman was the first to use the apparent timing discepancy between the apron's discovery compared with the time needed to walk the distance directly to support the notion of the killer using a bolt-hole.

[Mr Lucky]

I don't know if he was the first to say it but from memory the first time I was aware of this belief was from reading Donald Rumbelow's 1984 edition of 'The Complete Jack the Ripper' (and it may have been in the 1976 edition). I seem to recall it was based on Long's record of drunkenness but I wasn't terribly impressed with the argument bearing in mind that Long did find the apron and the graffiti at 2:55 so he couldn't have been too sloshed that particular night!

Thanks, thats very interesting. The arguments put forward as an attempt to discredit Long are utterly desperate, if we couldn't accept a man's testimony because he was found drunk at some later date there would be precious little left of English case law for a start.

[Mr Lucky]

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 it´s whereabouts at 2.20.

I heartily agree, Fish.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott:

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?

There is a difference between passing by and stopping to check, or going inside. Long does not say he did either, so if he didn't do either how can we rely on his truthfulness?. The missing evidence is how did he know it wasn't there

I would say that unless he physically stopped and looked inside, or went inside at 2.20am it would be impossible to have seen the rag from the street, and so all we have is he passed by, on that basis we have a right to say the rag may not have been there at 2.20am


You really - REALLY - need to get a grip on that language of yours, Trevor.

No, you need to get a grip of how to understand things in a way that differs from what you want to believe

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.

No a report is different from a statement

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.

Again you have no proof of that you are making it up !!!!!!!!!!!

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 wouldn´t you - after all, it is common procedure for you to get it assways.

The only thing remotely connected to a rear end on this thread is you !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

So it was not all written in stone in 1888 that the killer was responsible for taking and depositing the apron piece. If the police were so sure why the need to ask this question?

Doubts then doubts 128 years later.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

I would say that unless he physically stopped and looked inside, or went inside at 2.20am it would be impossible to have seen the rag from the street

Impossible to have seen the rag from the street ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Impossible to have seen the rag from the street ?

Yes dark recess, with the railings out front, restricting how far he could see into the dark recess from the footpath

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Thanks, thats very interesting. The arguments put forward as an attempt to discredit Long are utterly desperate, if we couldn't accept a man's testimony because he was found drunk at some later date there would be precious little left of English case law for a start.

Completely agree. It's ridiculous.

There's absolutely no ambiguity, and no use in muddying the waters by wishful thinking "oh but they should have asked him something Else! They didn't ask if he was sure so maybe he wasn't! They only asked him once they should have asked three times!"

If we want to know if the apron piece was there at 2:20, we have two sources at our disposal: Halse's and Long's testimony. Halsey says he does not know; Long was there, we were not, and he unambiguously states the apron piece was not there at 2:20.

[Jon Guy]

Yes dark recess, with the railings out front, restricting how far he could see into the dark recess from the footpath

It was lying in the passageway leading to the stairs, clearly visible from the pavement.

The GSG was above it, and that was on the dado on the entrance.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

DC Halse: "I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre Square [from the mortuary], when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street." [Daily Telegraph, 12th October 1888].

How could anyone have known it was a piece of apron?

At that moment, Halse was the only person who knew that a piece was missing from Eddowes' apron.

Regards,

Simon

[Jon Guy]

Hi All,

"I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre Square [from the mortuary], when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street." [Daily Telegraph, 12th October 1888].

How could anyone have known it was a piece of apron?

At that moment, Halse was the only person who knew that a piece was missing from Eddowes' apron.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon

I believe he was referring to it as an apron because he was speaking retrospectively.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Okay.

What might he have heard in Mitre Square that made him rush off to Leman Street police station?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

It was lying in the passageway leading to the stairs, clearly visible from the pavement.

The GSG was above it, and that was on the dado on the entrance.

were you there that night ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Hi Jon,

Okay.

What might he have heard in Mitre Square that made him rush off to Leman Street police station?

Regards,

Simon

Odd, the answer is in the sentence previous to the one you quoted:

I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street.

He was at the mortuary. He noticed a piece of her apron was missing. He goes to Mitre Square. When he hears a piece of apron has been found, he goes to Leman Station to inspect it.

How is any of this difficult? Long found the apron piece - the police of course realized that it was an important clue, since it came from a murder victim.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

DC Halse: "I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre Square [from the mortuary], when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street." [Daily Telegraph, 12th October 1888].

How could anyone have known it was a piece of apron?

At that moment, Halse was the only person who knew that a piece was missing from Eddowes' apron.

Do you seriously have a problem understanding this Simon? It seems a wholly unremarkable sequence of events to me.

Halse notices a missing piece of apron at the mortuary, returns to Mitre Square and mentions to the officers there that a piece of apron is missing from the victim, presumably to establish if it was still at the crime scene. He is then told that an officer has found something that looks like a piece of an apron in Goulston Street which has been taken to Leman Street.

It's so mundane that I can hardly believe I have to spell it out. Having typed this I see that Kattrup has no difficulty with it. I mean, it ain't rocket science.