Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Bridewell]

The only evidence we have that Long was telling the truth is Long's. That is an argument from self. Long does not become truthful simply because he says he was. He either told the truth or he didn't. Sadly he would not be the first police officer to lie on oath and there is a need to assess his credibility in the round. You then "pays your money and you takes your choice" as the saying goes.

I can't allow the claim to go unremarked that Long would have had "no reason to lie" if he had missed the apron piece. If he had missed it because he had failed to make the previous circuit he would have had every reason to lie as his livelihood would have been at stake. Long was an 'A' Division officer seconded to 'H' Division. For a policeman patrolling alone the first shift on an unfamiliar area is truly frightening - you don't know the terrain, the local criminals, who can be trusted and who can't. The temptation to keep a low profile while you find your feet is strong. Others will form their own opinions but I see nothing in Long's history which marks him out as unusually capable, courageous or diligent - the opposite if anything. His failure to take his notebook to the inquest was inept and the reason for his eventual dismissal redounds greatly to his discredit.

Either the killer of Eddowes loitered within a radius of a few hundred yards of the crime scene for upwards of half an hour before off-loading incriminating evidence

or he reached safety and then ventured back out again to dispose of a trophy he had taken enormous risks in securing

or Long was lying

or he was mistaken.

It is a point hammered home by defence lawyers time and again that a witness can be certain (as Long said he was) and yet still be mistaken.

As it says in the Turnbull Guidelines:-

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/turnbull-guidelines/

"a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken".

I endorse Trevor's comment in an earlier post that a police officer's evidence should not be accepted at face value on the sole basis that he (or she) is a police officer.

[David Orsam]

I see nothing in Long's history which marks him out as unusually capable, courageous or diligent - the opposite if anything.

So am I right in thinking that you would say that Long's finding of the apron (and the graffiti) was nothing special because pretty much any dullard of a constable walking that beat would have seen it?

[Abby Normal]

The only evidence we have that Long was telling the truth is Long's. That is an argument from self. Long does not become truthful simply because he says he was. He either told the truth or he didn't. Sadly he would not be the first police officer to lie on oath and there is a need to assess his credibility in the round. You then "pays your money and you takes your choice" as the saying goes.

I can't allow the claim to go unremarked that Long would have had "no reason to lie" if he had missed the apron piece. If he had missed it because he had failed to make the previous circuit he would have had every reason to lie as his livelihood would have been at stake. Long was an 'A' Division officer seconded to 'H' Division. For a policeman patrolling alone the first shift on an unfamiliar area is truly frightening - you don't know the terrain, the local criminals, who can be trusted and who can't. The temptation to keep a low profile while you find your feet is strong. Others will form their own opinions but I see nothing in Long's history which marks him out as unusually capable, courageous or diligent - the opposite if anything. His failure to take his notebook to the inquest was inept and the reason for his eventual dismissal redounds greatly to his discredit.

Either the killer of Eddowes loitered within a radius of a few hundred yards of the crime scene for upwards of half an hour before off-loading incriminating evidence

or he reached safety and then ventured back out again to dispose of a trophy he had taken enormous risks in securing

or Long was lying

or he was mistaken.

It is a point hammered home by defence lawyers time and again that a witness can be certain (as Long said he was) and yet still be mistaken.

As it says in the Turnbull Guidelines:-

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/turnbull-guidelines/

"a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken".

I endorse Trevor's comment in an earlier post that a police officer's evidence should not be accepted at face value on the sole basis that he (or she) is a police officer.

where is there any evidence of Long lying?
where is there any evidence he was mistaken?

If you cant show any than your basing your argument on what your own opinion is of what you think somebody would or wouldn't do.

and that's a weak argument.

[Fisherman]

The only evidence we have that Long was telling the truth is Long's. That is an argument from self. Long does not become truthful simply because he says he was. He either told the truth or he didn't. Sadly he would not be the first police officer to lie on oath and there is a need to assess his credibility in the round. You then "pays your money and you takes your choice" as the saying goes.

I can't allow the claim to go unremarked that Long would have had "no reason to lie" if he had missed the apron piece. If he had missed it because he had failed to make the previous circuit he would have had every reason to lie as his livelihood would have been at stake. Long was an 'A' Division officer seconded to 'H' Division. For a policeman patrolling alone the first shift on an unfamiliar area is truly frightening - you don't know the terrain, the local criminals, who can be trusted and who can't. The temptation to keep a low profile while you find your feet is strong. Others will form their own opinions but I see nothing in Long's history which marks him out as unusually capable, courageous or diligent - the opposite if anything. His failure to take his notebook to the inquest was inept and the reason for his eventual dismissal redounds greatly to his discredit.

Either the killer of Eddowes loitered within a radius of a few hundred yards of the crime scene for upwards of half an hour before off-loading incriminating evidence

or he reached safety and then ventured back out again to dispose of a trophy he had taken enormous risks in securing

or Long was lying

or he was mistaken.

It is a point hammered home by defence lawyers time and again that a witness can be certain (as Long said he was) and yet still be mistaken.

As it says in the Turnbull Guidelines:-

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/court-proceedings/turnbull-guidelines/

"a mistaken witness can be a convincing one and a number of such witnesses can all be mistaken".

I endorse Trevor's comment in an earlier post that a police officer's evidence should not be accepted at face value on the sole basis that he (or she) is a police officer.

Basically, Colin, what you are trying your hand at, is establishing a degree of clumsyness, rottenness and incapability on Longs behalf that trumps whatever positive character traits he may have had.

Once you have decided that the scales tip over in favour of Long being a bad egg, your work is done, and you have convinced yourself that the better suggestion is that the rag was in place at 2.20.

And there is nothing Long can do about it. His certainty was faked, the coroners acceptance was a poor choice and the evidence existing in the hole affair is most unfortunate.

In other words, itīs another case of "Screw the evidence - I donīt like it".

PS. As an aside, you should hear warning bells ringing when you are aligning yourself with Trevor.

[Bridewell]

So am I right in thinking that you would say that Long's finding of the apron (and the graffiti) was nothing special because pretty much any dullard of a constable walking that beat would have seen it?

Once he was aware that a murder had been committed a few hundred yards away? Yes - he would have been particularly vigilant on his next circuit (especially if he'd missed the previous one) and it was part of the job to check such dark recesses in the normal course of duty.

[Monty]

Do you mean me, Neil? Or is DJA called Debs too? We share initials but not DNA!-I'm myself on all boards!.Someone else asked me about this the other day..

Apologies to both you Debs, and Dave.

I did indeed assume the latter was you Debs

Sorry.

Monty
🙂

[Bridewell]

In other words, itīs another case of "Screw the evidence - I donīt like it".

No. It's a case of "hold the evidence and the character of the person giving it up to close scrutiny and compare what the implications are with the alternatives".

PS. As an aside, you should hear warning bells ringing when you are aligning yourself with Trevor.

Trevor and I are not the only retired police officers to have doubts about Long's evidence.

[David Orsam]

Once he was aware that a murder had been committed a few hundred yards away? Yes - he would have been particularly vigilant on his next circuit (especially if he'd missed the previous one) and it was part of the job to check such dark recesses in the normal course of duty.

So there are three important elements to your argument I think.

1. The apron was hard to spot.

2. Long only spotted it because he became more vigilant having learnt of a murder elsewhere.

3. Until he learnt of the murder, Long was not doing his job properly because he was failing to check the dark recesses along his beat.

Have I summarised that fairly?

[Bridewell]

where is there any evidence of Long lying?

where is there any evidence he was mistaken?

If you cant show any than your basing your argument on what your own opinion is of what you think somebody would or wouldn't do.

and that's a weak argument.

I've given my reasons today and on previous occasions. If you are minded to think that Alfred Long's record suggests he was a diligent, capable and hard-working officer you are as entitled to that opinion as I am to disagree with it.

[Fisherman]

No. It's a case of "hold the evidence and the character of the person giving it up to close scrutiny and compare what the implications are with the alternatives".


Trevor and I are not the only retired police officers to have doubts about Long's evidence.

Letīs be frank, Colin: when you speak about how policemen are to a degree rotten eggs, willing to perjure themselves and lie, it is of interest to know to what an extent you think this applies. Are more than half of the policemen rotten eggs? Or are we speaking of only a fraction of them? One out of ten? One out of twenty? Fifty?

You see, it is not until we reach over the fifty per cent mark you can use this argument to accuse Long of being a rotten egg. If statistics tells us that most policemen are good, ambitious, honest people, then consequentially, we must accept that the statistically superior suggestion is that Long belonged to the good guy group.

Once we make the opposite call, it is imperative that we have hard evidence that he lied or got it wrong before we make such accusations.

On the other hand, if you are of the meaning that the police on the whole is made up of more liars and rotten eggs than good, honest people, you have a good point - today. Itīs another thing when it comes to the victorian police, since I do not think that your personal experience has anything at all to do with the police force of 1888. You cannot possibly transfer your experience to those men, as if what applies today must have applied then.

On the other hand, I suspect most people believe that the bulk of the policemen are good, honest working men - and that the exact same applied in 1888.

Maybe you differ on that score, though. If so, it would be interesting to hear how you justify that take on things.

PS. How you manage to "closely scrutinize the character" of Alfred Long is more than I can understand. I cannot come even close to managing that myself.

[Bridewell]

So there are three important elements to your argument I think.

1. The apron was hard to spot.

I don't know if it was hard to spot or not. I know that Long should have checked stairwells and the like in the normal course of his patrol.

2. Long only spotted it because he became more vigilant having learnt of a murder elsewhere.

Either that or because he had been less than diligent on a previous occasion

3. Until he learnt of the murder, Long was not doing his job properly

Based on what is known of his performance on other occasions I have advanced that as a possibility.

because he was failing to check the dark recesses along his beat.

If he was failing to check such dark recesses he was not doing his job properly because that is what he is supposed to do.

[Bridewell]

Letīs be frank, Colin: when you speak about how policemen are to a degree rotten eggs, willing to perjure themselves and lie, it is of interest to know to what an extent you think this applies. Are more than half of the policemen rotten eggs? Or are we speaking of only a fraction of them? One out of ten? One out of twenty? Fifty?

You see, it is not until we reach over the fifty per cent mark you can use this argument to accuse Long of being a rotten egg. If statistics tells us that most policemen are good, ambitious, honest people, then consequentially, we must accept that the statistically superior suggestion is that Long belonged to the good guy group.

Once we make the opposite call, it is imperative that we have hard evidence that he lied or got it wrong before we make such accusations.

On the other hand, if you are of the meaning that the police on the whole is made up of more liars and rotten eggs than good, honest people, you have a good point - today. Itīs another thing when it comes to the victorian police, since I do not think that your personal experience has anything at all to do with the police force of 1888. You cannot possibly transfer your experience to those men, as if what applies today must have applied then.

On the other hand, I suspect most people believe that the bulk of the policemen are good, honest working men - and that the exact same applied in 1888.

Maybe you differ on that score, though. If so, it would be interesting to hear how you justify that take on things.

PS. How you manage to "closely scrutinize the character" of Alfred Long is more than I can understand. I cannot come even close to managing that myself.

I've said what I think and why I think it. Percentages of rotten eggs have nothing to do with it. We are looking at the credibility of one police witness, not all of them.

[Fisherman]

I've given my reasons today and on previous occasions. If you are minded to think that Alfred Long's record suggests he was a diligent, capable and hard-working officer you are as entitled to that opinion as I am to disagree with it.

Abby has every right to ask, Colin. You need evidence before you can accuse Long of any wrongdoing.

[PaulB]

I endorse Trevor's comment in an earlier post that a police officer's evidence should not be accepted at face value on the sole basis that he (or she) is a police officer.

I do too. But nobody's evidence should be accepted at face value. One should be fully acquainted with all the sources and evaluate all the evidence. That's 101.

As you say, Long doesn't become truthful just because he says he was. By the same token he doesn't become a liar simply because he could have been a liar, and he doesn't become mistaken simply because he could have been mistaken. There have to be non-speculative reasons for thinking that he was either of those things.

We can always think of reasons why someone could have done something and it is perfectly plausible that PC Long kept a low profile on his first beat in a new and strange and dangerous district. But did he? Is there anything he did that night to support such an idea? Isn't it just as likely that he took extra-care, was extra-alert and extra-vigilant? There's no evidence that he was any of that either.

Dismissal for being drunk on duty was a common cause of dismissal and perhaps shouldn't be seen as reflecting greatly to his discredit, especially as we don't know the circumstances. But even allowing that it does redound to his discredit, it should surely be balanced against his 12 years military service and Distinguished Conduct Medal.

[Fisherman]

I've said what I think and why I think it. Percentages of rotten eggs have nothing to do with it. We are looking at the credibility of one police witness, not all of them.

As long as you have no evidence showing that Alfred Long lied or was mistaken, statistics has EVERYTHING to do with it. In such a case, we can only base our suggestions on general information about the behavior of the police. And since you brought up the issue of rotten eggs within the police force, you are basing your reasoning on generalized thinking: if a policeman can be a rotten egg, then so could Long. That, Colin, is using the kind of generalized suggestions that normally goes by the name of statistics.