Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[David Orsam]

All statements give by police officers should contain as much detail as possible. That detail is clearly sadly lacking in Longs statement. Had it all been in his statement, we may well have known what we can only speculate on now. How was he to not know that someone might be apprehended and charged with the murder or murders and the police would need all the information surrounding his movements tp prove their case.

Of course he may well have never made a full and detailed police statement as such. I did in an earlier post suggest that in the case of City Inquests, the coroner was only provided with a list of witnesses, and that their statements were taken down as depositions at the inquest. I am sure Monty will confirm or deny this which if correct enhances the doubts surrounding Long.

Trevor, you are confusing the issue with your careless use of language (posibly because the Sourcebook is not very clear).

Long did not provide a "statement". The deposition that you are referring to is no more than a summary of the answers he gave in response to questions asked of him at the inquest (written down in longhand by the coroner or another officer of the court).

Consequently it is not true to say that Long's statement/deposition should "contain as much detail as possible". It would only contain those parts of Long's oral testimony that the officer of the court sought fit to record in writing in summary form. If you want to know what Long actually said in court, you need to refer to the newspapers. The reporters for those newspapers used shorthand so were able to capture more of what Long said.

But to repeat, Long would only say in evidence what he was asked to say by the coroner. the jury or, in this case, the city solicitor. No more and no less.

[PaulB]

The most reliable evidence regarding these apron pieces come from Collards list of her possessions made at the time she was stripped, which reads "One piece of old white apron"

Not one old white apron with piece missing !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not one large white handkerchief which looked like an apron !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What's your point? Eddowes possessed an apron and a piece was missing from it. That's not in dispute (unless you are disputing it), so Collard was either refering to a different apron or it was the same apron and he failed to make note of the missing piece.

Given that we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron that morning, was wearing it when in the cells, was wearing it when released, and was wearing it in the mortuary, my guess is that Collard noted it but not the missing piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it isn't pointless to ask questions of the sources and to highlight ambiguities, but proposing possibilities, such as P.C. Long sitting on the stairs in the passageway, or drinking a cup of tea down the road, without any evidence that that is what happened, is totally pointless.

I am not proposing he was sitting on the stairs or drinking tea. What was suggested that he was perhaps not even in GS at 2.20am, or if he was he didnt look to see if the rag was there or not, and when he said it wasnt he was covering his back, knowing what Halse had said that at 2.20 he saw nothing either.

Halse also says he passed by as does Long, so you pays your money and you takes your choice as to whether you believe that Long made a thorough check at 2.20am. Personally I dont think he did but I cant prove that, as I cant disprove what he says, but when you weigh up the evidence surrounding the finding of the piece I think it tips the scales in favour of him not finding it when in fact it was there at 2.20am

I would expect that P.C. Long provided a detailed report to his superiors as soon after the event as was possible, as I understand was required, and also that he was very closely questioned by his superiors. As I said earlier, the policemen back then weren't idiots and I would anticipate that a lot of the questions that occur to use would have occurred to them, and that they were satisfied with whatever replies P.C. Long gave. I'm supposing that usual practice would have been followed, and if you look at the source material you'll probably find evidence that supports this (or not, as the case may be).

I dont think there is a record of any detailed report, or any record of questioning by his superiors on these issues, and to suggest so is mere conjecture on your part. His inquest testimony as recorded and signed by him is lacking in detail and very brief.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Secondary evidence ? its not in his official signed inquest testimony. unsafe !!!!!!!!!

You cant change the goalposts when it suits

www.trevormarriott.co.ukl

As far as the newspaper report cited by David is concerned, a newspaper, as it is becoming tiresome to repeat, is a primary source, not primary evidence. Primary and secondary sources are types of source used by people writing histories to distinguish between a source recording events at the time they happened (or as near as possible) and sources providing an account drawn from multiple of other sources. An 1888 newspaper report is therefore a primary source, whereas your book is a secondary source. Primary and Secondary evidence is a legal distinction applied to evidence presented in court.

[Trevor Marriott]

How much can be cut from an apron before it becomes only a piece of apron? And when does it stop being a piece of clothing and turn into a piece of a piece of clothing?

Well if you had a full apron and cut it into four, you will have 4 apron pieces will you not,or an apron cut into four pieces, and if you take two away, you will be left with two apron pieces that in no way resemble the original full apron because they are only pieces.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk