Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

Iīm supposed to believe that Mizen was never sloppy at all, that Long was sloppy (but I must lie about it and claim that he was not, or it will reflect badly on Mizen somehow; donīt ask me how that works) and that the overall force was reoccurringly sloppy, so I think I can agree to some extent.
Weīll see what Harry D says about it, I donīt know - heīs awfully picky.

As far as much of the police evidence throughout these murders is concerned it is unsafe. Especially from the constables out on the streets.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

As far as much of the police evidence throughout these murders is concerned it is unsafe. Especially from the constables out on the streets.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Actually, while I agree that it may be risky to take the words of the police for granted, I would not attack the constables out on the streets. They were individuals and individuals will differ, so trying to impose any general rule that they were unreliable is not gonna find me applauding the suggestion.

Are you saying that we should treat them all as epidemically unreliable, Trevor? And is that just another effort to try and diminish Longīs credibility?
Just like Paul Begg told you, before we may question any individual PC, we must have a good reason to do so. Of course, if you could lay down as a rule that all PC:s were incompetent, corrupt and up to no good as a general rule, that obstacle would be removed.

Together with our self-respect.

[Fisherman]

I would also say that much as you yourself may hade waded waist-high in corrupt colleagues through your policing carreer, Trevor, that could never be transferred to apply for the victorian police. Unless you can produce statistics about how they were just as generally corrupt and useless, it will be a question we are unable to answer. As such, we may therefore want to extend some little respect for them and the conditions they worked under.

[harry]

Fisherman,
Once again.My posting,w ord for word,came from the book,'The jack the ripper A toZ.I am not the author of that book.I did not make anything up,I have not mislead anyone.The words are there for anyone to read.What is your source?

A juryman at the inquest.'It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the building'. Why should he be surprised?

Of course we only have Longs words,to go by.Why did he remove potential evidence?He need not have.One might think his training would forbid it.

Long's words.Thats all we have.That he found the cloth in that building.That it was beneath the writing.Claims that cannot be proven.

Why do I believe he wouldn't have seen an apron piece.Experience and experiment.

Now I have answered your questions.Find anything in this post that is lies and misleading,or have you ran out of the need to insult.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would also say that much as you yourself may hade waded waist-high in corrupt colleagues through your policing carreer, Trevor, that could never be transferred to apply for the victorian police. Unless you can produce statistics about how they were just as generally corrupt and useless, it will be a question we are unable to answer. As such, we may therefore want to extend some little respect for them and the conditions they worked under.

I am not saying they were corrupt at all. I am saying that the evidence some of them seek to rely on is unsafe, because there evidence raises so many ambiguities which should have been cleared up back then but weren't. So now we are left to not readily accept it as the gospel truth but to asses and evaluate the evidence and the truth fullness and accuracy of those officers based on what we now know, some of which may not have been known in 1888.

i.e The Mizen issue
Longs movements
Halse`s movements
The inquest testimony where officers were shown a piece of old white
apron and said yes it was the apron Eddowes was wearing earlier in the
day
The conflicting descriptions of the apron piece
The conflicts surrounding was she or was she not wearing an apron
Dr Brown ambiguous statement surrounding Kellys heart

All of the above have been readily accepted but the evidence was never tested back then. no doubt they felt the sparce questions or statments that were asked of these officers.doctors were sufficient but now we know they weren't

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Another issue with Long is why did he decide to pick up that piece at that time, when given the fact that there was a market nearby and there would likely to be other forms of litter, rubbish, rags lying around.

It does not seem logical to suddenly see a discarded piece of material and decide to examine it more closely.

It would have been logical for Long to check it out if the rag was not there on his last sweep of the area, as he stated.

[MysterySinger]

Hi All,

Of course, what would be helpful is if the policemen investigating the Mitre Square murder had managed to get their stories straight.

This is part of Inspector James McWilliam's 27th October 1888 report.

[ATTACH]17791[/ATTACH]

Regards,

Simon

There is no contradiction, though brackets would have made it a bit clearer. Open after "passed through Goulston Street", close after "subsequently found".

[Trevor Marriott]

It would have been logical for Long to check it out if the rag was not there on his last sweep of the area, as he stated.

I disagree totally, as has been said at the time he found the apron piece he was not apparently aware of any murder. So why out of all the other rubbish lying about the streets and alleyways etc did he suddenly decide to pick up what was clearly a discarded piece of rag and examine it more closely.

Even if it wasnt there at 2.20 what was so special about it at 2.55am?. He would have to have either bent down to examine it or picked it up. So I would suggest until he did either he could not have seen any blood on that dirty apron piece, and when he did see some, what a feeble explanation regarding his belief and his actions after, which brought criticisms against him at the inquest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

I disagree totally, as has been said at the time he found the apron piece he was not apparently aware of any murder.

He had heard of the murder.
When Long set off to Commercial Street P.S. with the rag it was common knowledge that two murders had been committed.

So why out of all the other rubbish lying about the streets and alleyways etc did he suddenly decide to pick up what was clearly a discarded piece of rag and examine it more closely.

Because it wasn`t there a few minutes earlier, and he had heard of the murders.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
Once again.My posting,w ord for word,came from the book,'The jack the ripper A toZ.I am not the author of that book.I did not make anything up,I have not mislead anyone.The words are there for anyone to read.What is your source?

Dew himself. He wrote in his book that Eddowes had been wearing a black apron on the murder night. And I have quoted it multiple times. So you are faced with the daunting task of digging up the source Begg, Fido and Skinner used, or to accept that they misquoted Dew.

A juryman at the inquest.'It seems surprising that a policeman should have found the piece of apron in the passage of the building'. Why should he be surprised?

You tell me; I can find no reason at all.

Of course we only have Longs words,to go by.Why did he remove potential evidence?He need not have.One might think his training would forbid it.

Can you hear any of the jurymen or the coroner protesting? This was a time when the evidence was collected and the body whisked away double quick. Long probably acted textbook style.

Long's words.Thats all we have.That he found the cloth in that building.That it was beneath the writing.Claims that cannot be proven.

But must be relies upon until OTHERWISE proven. Paul Begg put it very succinctly: Until we have a good reason to doubt, we believe.

Why do I believe he wouldn't have seen an apron piece.Experience and experiment.

I have very little own experience of searching for rags in doorways, I must admit. But even if I had been top of the line in the rag detection department, I would not know how much light there was, where the rag was etctera, so I would never propose to be able to reproduce the drama. I would be a liar if I claimed I could.

Now I have answered your questions.Find anything in this post that is lies and misleading,or have you ran out of the need to insult.

Okay. Dew said that the apron was black, not that it was so dirty it looked black.
Itīs up to you to disprove that. And the A-Z wonīt help - you need the original source. Maybe it will put you in the clear, who knows?

[Fisherman]

I am not saying they were corrupt at all. I am saying that the evidence some of them seek to rely on is unsafe, because there evidence raises so many ambiguities which should have been cleared up back then but weren't. So now we are left to not readily accept it as the gospel truth but to asses and evaluate the evidence and the truth fullness and accuracy of those officers based on what we now know, some of which may not have been known in 1888.

i.e The Mizen issue
Longs movements
Halse`s movements
The inquest testimony where officers were shown a piece of old white
apron and said yes it was the apron Eddowes was wearing earlier in the
day
The conflicting descriptions of the apron piece
The conflicts surrounding was she or was she not wearing an apron
Dr Brown ambiguous statement surrounding Kellys heart

All of the above have been readily accepted but the evidence was never tested back then. no doubt they felt the sparce questions or statments that were asked of these officers.doctors were sufficient but now we know they weren't

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Itīs like listening to the same broken record over and over again...

[PaulB]

He had heard of the murder.
When Long set off to Commercial Street P.S. with the rag it was common knowledge that two murders had been committed.



Because it wasn`t there a few minutes earlier, and he had heard of the murders.

Hello Jon,
I'm sorry to have to make this point, but whilst there is a degree of ambiguity about what PC Long did and why he did it, what is pretty certain is that when he found the apron piece he did not know that a murder had been committed. He was closely examined about his actions subsequent to the discovery of the apron, and he made it clear that he did not know about the murder, but thought that he would find a victime on the stairs or landings. He heard about the murder in Mitre Square before taking the apron piece to the police station. Who he heard it from has been the subject of some speculation, but as far as we know the only person he talked to subsequent to finding the apron was the PC he summoned from an adjoining beat, PC Bettles.

Paul

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,
I'm sorry to have to make this point, but whilst there is a degree of ambiguity about what PC Long did and why he did it, what is pretty certain is that when he found the apron piece he did not know that a murder had been committed. He was closely examined about his actions subsequent to the discovery of the apron, and he made it clear that he did not know about the murder, but thought that he would find a victime on the stairs or landings. He heard about the murder in Mitre Square before taking the apron piece to the police station. Who he heard it from has been the subject of some speculation, but as far as we know the only person he talked to subsequent to finding the apron was the PC he summoned from an adjoining beat, PC Bettles.

Hi Paul

I`m glad you made the point and I`m happy to be corrected.
Having read you making this point earlier in the thread (but after I posted my opinion of the matter) I have been furiously checking the inquest reports to see what I have missed.
I am still at a loss as to where it states he did not know about the murder when he found the apron ?

[PaulB]

I disagree totally, as has been said at the time he found the apron piece he was not apparently aware of any murder. So why out of all the other rubbish lying about the streets and alleyways etc did he suddenly decide to pick up what was clearly a discarded piece of rag and examine it more closely.

Even if it wasnt there at 2.20 what was so special about it at 2.55am?. He would have to have either bent down to examine it or picked it up. So I would suggest until he did either he could not have seen any blood on that dirty apron piece, and when he did see some, what a feeble explanation regarding his belief and his actions after, which brought criticisms against him at the inquest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

His attention was drawn to the apron because it appeared to be marked with blood - I assume, but don't know, that it was the saturated corner he saw. His account of his actions after the discovery was not in the least bit feeble. He thought he would find a victim on the landings and stairs, which is why he searched them, and I would suggest that it is highly probable that he had the discovery of Martha Tabram in mind. Anyway, he was a lone policeman on a beat with which he was utterly unfamiliar, so he searched the stairs and landings, satisfied that there was nobody in immediate need of his help, then left PC Bettles to watch the entrance while he took the apron to his superiors at the police station. Further, you should be careful about saying that PC Long was criticised by an inquest juror. He wasn't. The juror in question specifically stated that he intended no criticism, the other jurors cheered, and it was agreed that Long had aquitted himself very well.

A conclusion seemingly reached by the police at the time, was that the murderer had gone into and cleaned up in a common lodging house in the area, investigations apparently confirming that he could have done this without arousing suspicion. Donald Rumbelow also drew attention to this possibility in his book. It would therefore seem that it was accepted that the apron was not there at 2:20am, from which it seems likely that PC Long was closely questioned by his superiors.

[spyglass]

His attention was drawn to the apron because it appeared to be marked with blood - I assume, but don't know, that it was the saturated corner he saw. His account of his actions

Hi,
The only problem I have with this part of events is that I doubt very much if blood or dampness of a dark colour would be seen in a dark place.
Even under a lamp ....Red doesn't stand out in the dark.

Regards