Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

You do not have any knowledge as to how the police worked and how they might lie to get themselves out of a situation, and a small lie doesn't make them a rotten egg.It called self preservation

Let me give you an example before the days of radios, police officers on foot patrols were on fixed points on their beat and that meant quarter to the hour at the clock tower, quarter past the hour at the market square, and the sergeant would invariably from time to time wait at those points to meet the officer and to sign his pocket book as doing so.

Now lets say that the sergeant was there at the clock tower at quarter to the hour and there was no sign of the police officer because he was sitting having a cup of tea somewhere. So later the sergeant confronts him. He cant say he was sitting having a cup of tea. So he simply says I was checking two men at another location on his beat which took some time. Yes he is lying but that doesn't make him a rotten egg. This was common practice

As to Long we dont know whether he was where he says he was at the allotted time, he could have been sitting having a cup of tea somewhere, and I say again Halse and Long were in the same vicinity at almost the same time, a quiet street with no one else around, and neither saw or heard the other, now that I find strange. Long with his size 13 boots chomping about with his lantern lit. Halse supposedly being vigilant.

Police officers in those days were trained to stop and listen during the dead of night for the sounds of footsteps, or someone breaking in, or a disturbance.

It's a little ironic, Trevor, that you make that post immediately after Paul posting: "For some people the dividing line between would, could and did, gets blurred, especially when theorising, and that annoying little chap called evidence gets forgotten."

So you think that Long didn't just omit to check the passage, he omitted to walk his entire beat? Why not just go the whole hog and suggest he was off murdering Kate Eddowes? It's possible isn't it? Just missing a bit of evidence.

As for the Halse and Long overlap, why would Halse ever have mentioned seeing or hearing a beat constable as he walked through Goulston Street? He must have crossed a number of beats as he moved through the city but he's not going to identify each one is he? If Halse was in plain clothes, which I imagine he was as a city detective, Long - as a Met officer - wouldn't have known him from Adam would he? Even if he saw him, he would just have been a man walking along Goulston Street and I'm sure the streets were not completely deserted at that time.

And yes they both said they were at the spot at 2.20 but that doesn't actually mean they both were there at the precise second as you well know.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Jamb—

1. Architecture, Building Trades.

either of the vertical sides of a doorway, arch, window, or other opening.

Regards,

Simon

A "jamb" is only where a fixture is mounted, door/window, etc. (why do I have to repeat myself?)

Do you want to see what an arched doorway looks like?

[PaulB]

He had to much alcohol to drink and got drunk that`s the only interpretation !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The question was whether or not we can draw any conclusions about
PC Long's reliability and character from his dismissal for drunkeness, it having been suggested that this in fact redounds to his discredit. It is an interesting question, especially given what can be inferred from his military career, especially his conduct. In light of this your comment above looks pathetic, ignorant, and childish. Are you going to explain what primary sources has to do with primary evidence? Are you going to explain to me how you dealt with primary and secondary sources every day in your police career? Are you going to cite where I said or so much as suggested that we should believe what everyone says? Are you going to dodge this stuff again?

[Trevor Marriott]

It's a little ironic, Trevor, that you make that post immediately after Paul posting: "For some people the dividing line between would, could and did, gets blurred, especially when theorising, and that annoying little chap called evidence gets forgotten."

So you think that Long didn't just omit to check the passage, he omitted to walk his entire beat? Why not just go the whole hog and suggest he was off murdering Kate Eddowes? It's possible isn't it? Just missing a bit of evidence.

Will you pay attention, yet again you have failed to read the post correctly you really are something else, as to what I cant say for fear of being banned
It is a possibility that at 2.20am he was somewhere else on his beat and not in GS at 2.20am as he says he was. What is so difficult for you to consider that?

As for the Halse and Long overlap, why would Halse ever have mentioned seeing or hearing a beat constable as he walked through Goulston Street? He must have crossed a number of beats as he moved through the city but he's not going to identify each one is he? If Halse was in plain clothes, which I imagine he was as a city detective, Long - as a Met officer - wouldn't have known him from Adam would he? Even if he saw him, he would just have been a man walking along Goulston Street and I'm sure the streets were not completely deserted at that time.

But if Long had seen Halse walking along, then Halse could have told Long about the Mitre Sq murder, which in turn made him more vigilant than he had been before and then did check the recess. In any event if they did meet no one admitted to it, and if Long was as vigilant as you suggest he would have stopped and checked a man in plain clothes at that time of the morning.

And yes they both said they were at the spot at 2.20 but that doesn't actually mean they both were there at the precise second as you well know.

No it doesnt but given the quietness of the street as stated either one could have heard or seen the other long before coming together.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Thank goodness you had the patience to explain it to him. Don't expect him to understand though. I've explained it about forty times and he hasn't grasped it yet. Just for clarification, a newspaper report that records what was believed to have happened at the time (or close to when it happened) is a primary source. But an account that draws upon and is a distilation of multiple primary (and possibly secondary) sources is a secondary source. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is a primary source even though the authors didn't witness the events they described. A bad example, but....

Paul thank you for the kind words.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

The question was whether or not we can draw any conclusions about
PC Long's reliability and character from his dismissal for drunkeness, it having been suggested that this in fact redounds to his discredit. It is an interesting question, especially given what can be inferred from his military career, especially his conduct. In light of this your comment above looks pathetic, ignorant, and childish. Are you going to explain what primary sources has to do with primary evidence? Are you going to explain to me how you dealt with primary and secondary sources every day in your police career? Are you going to cite where I said or so much as suggested that we should believe what everyone says? Are you going to dodge this stuff again?

So I am pathetic, ignorant, and childish according to you. Then I am spending to long listening to you with your supercilious, arrogant know it all attitude.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[David Orsam]

Will you pay attention, yet again you have failed to read the post correctly you really are something else, as to what I cant say for fear of being banned
It is a possibility that at 2.20am he was somewhere else on his beat and not in GS at 2.20am as he says he was. What is so difficult for you to consider that?

I don't know why you think I didn't understand you. I actually repeated what you said and commented that the problem is that there is no evidence to support it. So it was you not paying attention and failing to read my post properly.

But if Long had seen Halse walking along, then Halse could have told Long about the Mitre Sq murder, which in turn made him more vigilant than he had been before and then did check the recess. In any event if they did meet no one admitted to it, and if Long was as vigilant as you suggest he would have stopped and checked a man in plain clothes at that time of the morning.

Your lack of focus is amazing Trevor. On the one hand, you are telling me that Long was nowhere near Goulston Street at 2.20, on the other hand, he is in Goulston Street at 2.20 speaking to Halse!!!

No it doesnt but given the quietness of the street as stated either one could have heard or seen the other long before coming together.

And maybe they did but we'd never know about it if it happened because no-one asked them.

[Wickerman]

It was recorded as a white handkerchief with blood stains as that, because thats what it was, thats what it says from the list taken down at the time, and you and others cant see that. No matter what you say that is prime evidence, and I accept that there is an ambiguity with Collards testimony whereby he uses the term "apparently wearing"

The list of possessions shows an old piece of white apron, not old white apron with piece missing. The term old might also go some way to prove that the apron was dirty.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Of course it was dirty, it doesn't matter how grey, brown or black it was in places, or bloodstained, the base colour of the apron was "white" (it was calico, so off-white).
The last item described as, "1 piece of old white apron" means it was not a complete apron, it was a piece of an apron.

Oddly, but happily at least one press source got it right - the Times:
"...a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

When every other source described the piece around her neck as, "a large white handkerchief round the neck.", we know which piece was found on her body.
Check Collard's list and the item which reads "1 large white handkerchief, blood stained", is the piece that was around her neck.

It's really that simple, Trevor.

[Wickerman]

Thanks for that. It shows where the writing and the apron were probably - almost certainly - located.

Thankyou Paul, yes, and I never cease to be amazed by the number of people who just do not seem to get it.

I observed sometime earlier on this thread that wherever the apron and writing were located, they had to be clearly visible from the street and that any form of covering could easily be torn down by anyone passing in the street. Had that not been the case, Warren's reason for erasing the writing would have made no sense at all.

Exactly, and the fact that Warren used the word "jamb", to my mind is, he was attempting to be precise. If he had said "wall", like Halse or Long, the location would be debatable, the wall goes all the way around the inside to the stairs.
Warren was being precise in using the word "jamb", even though strictly speaking it wasn't a jamb, it was where a jamb would be - which definitely locates the writing/apron precisely.

[Abby Normal]

For some people the dividing line between would, could and did, gets blurred, especially when theorising, and that annoying little chap called evidence gets forgotten. How simple life would be without it.

Hi Paul
Thanks. I have a question for you. Does Long being transferred to another division to help out patrolling the ripper beat speak at all to his performance as a police officer? Wouldn't they transfer only the best, or at least good, to help out?

[Wickerman]

Well it was not my suggestion ever that the organs were taken away in it and I have now proved that that came for Wickerman many years ago.

Finally, you got something right Trevor!
Funny you never thought to ask me, I'd have confirmed it for you.

[Wickerman]

Totally agree. I'll add my own view (which I concede you may not share) that this is why Schwartz was not called to the Stride inquest. He could not identify the victim and does not help with the time and place of any fatal attack. His evidence would have been valuable to one side or the other in the event of a trial but not at the inquest.

I don't recall anyone suggesting Schwartz may not have been able to identify Stride, that's a good point. His attention could have been focused more on the attacker than the victim.

[Wickerman]

So, Jon, if we combine the accounts of Halse and Warren as follows:

"The writing was in a good round hand on the jamb of the open archway or doorway, upon the black dado of the passage wall, visible to anybody in the street"

is it fair to say that there is no obvious internal contradiction within that sentence?

David, the "jamb" is a specific section of the wall, so no there is no internal contradiction, in my view.
Some have assumed "the wall" only applies to the internal portion of the passage, I don't think that is true because the bricks that form the jamb are a continuation of the wall - there is no separate architectural feature that is a true jamb.

[David Orsam]

David, the "jamb" is a specific section of the wall, so no there is no internal contradiction, in my view.
Some have assumed "the wall" only applies to the internal portion of the passage, I don't think that is true because the bricks that form the jamb are a continuation of the wall - there is no separate architectural feature that is a true jamb.

Thanks for clarifying Jon. I always thought it was utterly implausible that a City detective and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, having both personally seen the graffiti, would each describe having seen it at two "very different places". Indeed, the very idea is preposterous. So what you say makes perfect sense.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

Read the dictionary definition I posted.

"either of the vertical sides of a doorway, arch, window, or other opening."

" . . . or other opening."

I didn't suggest it was arched.

You did that all by yourself.

Regards,

Simon