Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

Hi All,

At the Eddowes' inquest the Coroner suggested the operative word was spelt J-U-W-E-S.

PC Long, returning with his notebook, said it was spelt J-E-W-S.

The Coroner asked, "Both here and in your inspector's report the word "J-E-W-S" is spelt correctly?"

"Yes," replied PC Long, "but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "J-U-W-E-S."

The Coroner asked, "Why did you write 'J-E-W-S' then?

PC Long replied, "I made my entry before the inspector made the remark."

Five weeks later, in his 6th November report, PC Long spelled it J-U-E-W-S.

I fear you are confused again Simon. The words you attribute to the Coroner were surely spoken by the City Solicitor, Mr Crawford. But, hey, everyone can make mistakes.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

It is you who is confused.

Check the The Daily Telegraph transcript, October 12, 1888, Page 2.

Yes, we can all make mistakes.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Because it's essentially the same thing.

Let me repeat what I already wrote:

"If we followed the logic of your argument to its extreme conclusion we might say that it would it would be impossible for a well-known Ripperologist to be unable to correctly spell the surname of another well known Ripperologist."

So when you made you post and wrote your book either you couldn't spell "Wescott" or you were referring to a different individual called Tom Westcott.

You are nit picking Juwes is not a surname so no relevance to whether Tom Wescotts surname is right or wrong. If the graffiti read Westcott is not to be blamed, then we could argue who the right Westcott was or is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I fear you are confused again Simon. The words you attribute to the Coroner were surely spoken by the City Solicitor, Mr Crawford. But, hey, everyone can make mistakes.

Another example as to why Pc Long should not be totally believed

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

It is you who is confused.

Check the The Daily Telegraph transcript, October 12, 1888, Page 2.

Yes, we can all make mistakes.

I fear the mistake is yours Simon.

From the Daily Telegraph:

"Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.

Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been

.....

At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.

Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."

Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.

But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say."

Until you can provide some evidence of the Coroner speaking the words attributed by the Daily Telegraph to Mr Crawford then I think we can safely say you have confused the two men.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Back in Post 593, you said that at 2:20am PC Long would not have made a thorough search because he was not at that time aware that a murder had been committed. I observed that he was not aware of a murder having been committed at 2:55am either. If I am correct then David’s observation that you were making an assumption based on no evidence would appear to be correct - namely that the way PC Long patrolled this beat would have been no different at 2:55am than it was at 2:20am. On the face of it, this suggests that you actually know very little about PC Long’s actions. Would you care to comment?

I know that based on what we do know his evidence cannot be totally relied on.

And does anybody know the truth behind Pc Long and his movements and actions that night? He also mentions another PC 190 I believe, but no mention of where he came from or what he did other than stand guard after Long left for the police station with his found rag.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;395087]

I agree with you. It wasn´t misspelt.

And there is no point in hypothesizing that the apron being placed in front of the writing was some sort of coincidence.

We are dealing with a very rare serial killer, not some average criminal.

Rare criminals do rare things.

Actually, there are many things people can not understand in the case of this serial killer. That is also the reason for the general confusion and speculations.

It is easier to understand a serial killer like John Wayne Gacy.

Are you arguing that rare serial killers have a propensity to write non-existent words? What's your source for this proposition?

[David Orsam]

You are nit picking Juwes is not a surname so no relevance to whether Tom Wescotts surname is right or wrong. If the graffiti read Westcott is not to be blamed, then we could argue who the right Westcott was or is.

I'm not nit picking Trevor, it's the same point. It doesn't matter if it's a name or a word. It seems that couldn't spell "Wescott" and the author of the CGS couldn't spell "Jews".

[David Orsam]

Another example as to why Pc Long should not be totally believed

Are you saying that Simon's confusion between Mr Crawford and the coroner is a reason not to believe PC Long?

[John G]

I fear the mistake is yours Simon.

From the Daily Telegraph:

"Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.

Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been

.....

At this point Constable Long returned, and produced the pocket-book containing the entry which he made at the time concerning the discovery of the writing on the wall.

Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."

Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.

But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say."

Until you can provide some evidence of the Coroner speaking the words attributed by the Daily Telegraph to Mr Crawford then I think we can safely say you have confused the two men.

I'm slightly confused. Is PC Long stating that he thought the operative word was spelt "Jews", but amended the spelling after consulting with the the inspector?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
Back in Post 593, you said that at 2:20am PC Long would not have made a thorough search because he was not at that time aware that a murder had been committed. I observed that he was not aware of a murder having been committed at 2:55am either. If I am correct then David’s observation that you were making an assumption based on no evidence would appear to be correct - namely that the way PC Long patrolled this beat would have been no different at 2:55am than it was at 2:20am. On the face of it, this suggests that you actually know very little about PC Long’s actions. Would you care to comment?

I know that based on what we do know his evidence cannot be totally relied on.

And does anybody know the truth behind Pc Long and his movements and actions that night? He also mentions another PC 190 I believe, but no mention of where he came from or what he did other than stand guard after Long left for the police station with his found rag.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Wescott is a surname someone identifiable. Jews are an ethnic group !

It has been established what the spelling was, JUWES. So why continue to argue the issue. The only issue is whether it was supposed to refer to the Jews, or the writer wanted to include a word, which he was not sure how to spell and wrote it as it perhaps it sounded to him. Whats so difficult to comprehend that?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Mea culpa.

I will have to blame those nice people on Casebook who, in Official Documents, mis-transcribed the Daily Telegraph of 12th October 1888.

Now back to the plot.

Why was PC Long such a dimwit for not reporting on 6th November what he'd written in his notebook on 30th September?

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Are you saying that Simon's confusion between Mr Crawford and the coroner is a reason not to believe PC Long?

No these posts have got mixed up

[John G]

I know that based on what we do know his evidence cannot be totally relied on.

And does anybody know the truth behind Pc Long and his movements and actions that night? He also mentions another PC 190 I believe, but no mention of where he came from or what he did other than stand guard after Long left for the police station with his found rag.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But Wescott is a surname someone identifiable. Jews are an ethnic group !

It has been established what the spelling was, JUWES. So why continue to argue the issue. The only issue is whether it was supposed to refer to the Jews, or the writer wanted to include a word, which he was not sure how to spell and wrote it as it perhaps it sounded to him. Whats so difficult to comprehend that?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On what basis do you argue that it's been "established" that the spelling was "Juwes"? PC Long seemed to think it was "Jews", then amended that to "Juews" after speaking to the inspector.

[David Orsam]

Hi David,

Mea culpa.

I will have to blame those nice people on Casebook who, in Official Documents, mis-transcribed the Daily Telegraph of 12th October 1888.

Now back to the plot.

Why was PC Long such a dimwit for not reporting on 6th November what he'd written in his notebook on 30th September?

Always a good strategy to blame someone else Simon. We are, perhaps, starting to see how Long could have got confused under questioning by the City Solicitor.

To answer your question. It would have been a little strange if Long had reported on 6th November what he had written in his notebook on 30th September because he had admitted under oath on 11 October that the word "Jews" may in fact have been "Juwes" and, further, that his inspector told him (after he had written "Jews" in his notebook) that it was "Juwes".

As for the apparent discrepancy in his report between "Juewes" and "Juwes", while I appreciate that the word in Long's report has been transcribed in the Ultimate JTR Sourcebook as "Juewes", I would respectfully disagree with this transcription. I think it is "Juwes". For that reason I hope you don't mind me posting an extract from Long's report which you posted a while back in the forum to demonstrate this.