Was Elizabeth Long A Reliable Witness?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of the three witnesses Elizabeth Long is perhaps the most contentious but,for me, we have less to go on? Did she actually see Annie and her killer? Was she mistaken? Did she lie? Did she get her time wrong? All are possibilities of course.


To recap: Long said that she’d heard the Brewer’s clock strike half-past just before she turned into Hanbury Street. The couple that she saw weren’t standing directly outside number 29 but a few yards nearer to Brick Lane which is the direction that Mrs Long was coming from. The man’s back was toward her but the woman was facing her. She later saw Annie in the Mortuary and was certain that she was the woman that she’d seen. She said that they were talking ‘pretty loudly’ and that the man had said “will you?” to which the woman replied “yes.” The Coroner asked her if they’d appeared sober to which she replied that she’d seen nothing that led her to believe that either of them were the worse for drink. She also said that she regularly saw people talking in the street at that time of day and that, after she’d passed them, she didn’t look back so she didn’t know where they went. Mrs Long said that she’d arrived at her destination (Spitalfield’s Market) ‘a few minutes after half past five.’

So we don’t have an exact time from Long for the sighting but I think it’s reasonable to suggest that it was between 5.30 and 5.35am.


Could She Have Lied?

Certainly, but I can see no reason apart from a desire for publicity of course.


Could She Have Been Mistaken?

To be honest there’s not much to go on here. She certainly could have been mistaken. The two people that she saw weren't doing anything to draw attention to themselves. They were average looking and seeing two people talking in the street at that time was nothing unusual for Annie. She didn’t know Annie but she saw her body at the mortuary.


Could She Have Been Wrong On Her Time?

This is the most contentious aspect of her testimony, not just because it goes against Phillips’ TOD estimation but because it also conflicts with Cadosch’s timing (and I find Cadosch a creditable witness) So could she have simply been wrong on the time that she saw the couple.

For her sighting to align with Cadosch’s she would have had to have heard the Brewery clock just before 5.15 instead of just before 5.30. The point that she was likely to have walked this route every day at around the same time is a strong one but it’s not at all impossible that, for whatever reason, she might have been a bit earlier on that particular day. The sound of the Brewery clock would have been a familiar one to her; perhaps so familiar that it might have become almost background noise. And so if she wasn’t particularly paying attention; with other things on her mind; and perhaps because nine times out of ten or more she was on that spot when the clock struck 5.30 she might have made an error. It’s certainly possible.

There is another way of course for her sighting to align with Cadosch’s and that would have been for both of them to have been around 7 or 8 minutes out with timings. The problem with this of course is that if correct she couldn’t have heard the Brewery clock at all while she was in Brick Lane.

Of course a third option is the Cadosch alone was wrong in his timing and that he got up 15 minutes later. This is a possibility that has to be considered in my opinion.


Conclusion.

Elizabeth Long is a difficult witness to evaluate. We have no reason to call her a liar but, like all witnesses, she might have been. She might have been mistaken in her sighting or mistaken in her timing. I go backward and forward on this one to be honest. We have little to go on. Those that feel that Cadosch was unreliable point to the fact that he was cautious about the word ‘no.’ Those that feel that Richardson was unreliable point to Chandler’s statement about the conversation in the passageway. With Long we have less to guide us.

For me though I don’t think we have to make any great leaps of faith to make Mrs Long’s sighting tie in with Cadosch as we know the difficulties of coming to accurate timings at a time when few owned watches or clocks. I see no reason to dismiss Elizabeth Long whilst at the same time accepting that there are no certainties.


* A note on option three. I’ll also include that both Long and Cadosch might have been in error with their timings.

[JeffHamm]

I've gone for option 3, as it seems to be closer to what I tend to think than what option 1 implies to me.

I don't think she outright lied, and do think she genuinely saw two people. Given she did identify Annie's body as the woman she's seen, without anything to back up the claim she's mistaken on that identification, that points towards a genuine sighting of Annie. As outlined above, though, if every aspect of her statement is held constant, the time she gives conflicts with Cadosche, who looked at the Spitalfield's clock at 1:32 on his way to the market, which would mean he left his house around the time Long is supposed to have seen the couple, and Cadosche did not see anybody at that time.

Something has to give, and depending upon what gives, we either end up with Long being genuinely mistaken in her identification of Annie (she saw two other people) and her sighting occurs a bit before or just after Cadosch heads out to work.

Or, she's genuinely mistaken in her time, which she based upon hearing the chimes of the clock - more specifically she's based upon her memory of what chimes she heard. And if she's misremembered the chimes, and her sighting was at 5:15, everything else she describes and her identification of Chapman, falls into place with the other witnesses so well (and such misrecollections are common and happen all the time with memory) that it points towards a genuine sighting with one error of detail in her recollection of events.

That, however, has to compete with the fact we know identification of the body is also not fool proof. We know that Stride, for example, was misidentified and it took quite a bit to finally confirm her identity as a result. We also know from the Martha Tabram case, that both Peraly Poll, and the police constible, mis-identified various soldiers. Misidentifications also are a common error.

So Long could very well have seen two other people, and misidentified Annie as the woman she saw. Cadosch, heading out to work is not guarenteed to have seen or take note of people in the street next door, away from the direction he's going. And if Long's sighting is at 1:31 or 1:29 (she heard the chimes about the time of the sighting, not exactly at the same time), even that small amount of time would allow for Cadosch to have missed them.

On the whole, what we have points to a genuine sighting and, I think, a fair argument that she misrecalls the 5:15 chime as the 5:30 chrime. However, if we had the luxury of re-questioning and gathering new information, I would want more from her, and would be very concerned about the possibility of the "misidentification" possibility as well.

To me, option 1, by including she lied, means all of her statement should be thrown out, but the genuinely mistaken half means only some of it should be considered inaccurate, but that could be genuinely mistaken about the time or the identification, and which of those errors occurred has a major impact upon the rest of her information with respect to the case.

Option 3, which covers the timing error, corresponds to one possible hypothesis, but I think it is still in competition with "option not specified", which would be "she saw a couple but was genuinely mistaken in her identification of Annie as the woman".

I would be hard pressed to choose between those two.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

HI HS
correct on her sighting, perhaps a bit out on timing

[Fiver]

For my vote - I think that Mrs Long was mistaken, not lying. I am very doubtful that the Ripper would be talking ‘pretty loudly’, to his victim, and think that this was an unrelated couple. Long would have been observing a stranger for a few moments in poor lighting, so mistaken identity seems the most likely explanation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I've gone for option 3, as it seems to be closer to what I tend to think than what option 1 implies to me.

I don't think she outright lied, and do think she genuinely saw two people. Given she did identify Annie's body as the woman she's seen, without anything to back up the claim she's mistaken on that identification, that points towards a genuine sighting of Annie. As outlined above, though, if every aspect of her statement is held constant, the time she gives conflicts with Cadosche, who looked at the Spitalfield's clock at 1:32 on his way to the market, which would mean he left his house around the time Long is supposed to have seen the couple, and Cadosche did not see anybody at that time.

Something has to give, and depending upon what gives, we either end up with Long being genuinely mistaken in her identification of Annie (she saw two other people) and her sighting occurs a bit before or just after Cadosch heads out to work.

Or, she's genuinely mistaken in her time, which she based upon hearing the chimes of the clock - more specifically she's based upon her memory of what chimes she heard. And if she's misremembered the chimes, and her sighting was at 5:15, everything else she describes and her identification of Chapman, falls into place with the other witnesses so well (and such misrecollections are common and happen all the time with memory) that it points towards a genuine sighting with one error of detail in her recollection of events.

That, however, has to compete with the fact we know identification of the body is also not fool proof. We know that Stride, for example, was misidentified and it took quite a bit to finally confirm her identity as a result. We also know from the Martha Tabram case, that both Peraly Poll, and the police constible, mis-identified various soldiers. Misidentifications also are a common error.

So Long could very well have seen two other people, and misidentified Annie as the woman she saw. Cadosch, heading out to work is not guarenteed to have seen or take note of people in the street next door, away from the direction he's going. And if Long's sighting is at 1:31 or 1:29 (she heard the chimes about the time of the sighting, not exactly at the same time), even that small amount of time would allow for Cadosch to have missed them.

On the whole, what we have points to a genuine sighting and, I think, a fair argument that she misrecalls the 5:15 chime as the 5:30 chrime. However, if we had the luxury of re-questioning and gathering new information, I would want more from her, and would be very concerned about the possibility of the "misidentification" possibility as well.

To me, option 1, by including she lied, means all of her statement should be thrown out, but the genuinely mistaken half means only some of it should be considered inaccurate, but that could be genuinely mistaken about the time or the identification, and which of those errors occurred has a major impact upon the rest of her information with respect to the case.

Option 3, which covers the timing error, corresponds to one possible hypothesis, but I think it is still in competition with "option not specified", which would be "she saw a couple but was genuinely mistaken in her identification of Annie as the woman".

I would be hard pressed to choose between those two.

- Jeff

Couldn’t argue with that summing up Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

For my vote - I think that Mrs Long was mistaken, not lying. I am very doubtful that the Ripper would be talking ‘pretty loudly’, to his victim, and think that this was an unrelated couple. Long would have been observing a stranger for a few moments in poor lighting, so mistaken identity seems the most likely explanation.

That’s a good point Fiver and one that I’ve raised myself in regard to Hutchinson and BS Man although Mrs Long didn’t actually see his face.

[Michael W Richards]

Someone, or people, were in the neighboring yard to Cadosches at 5:15, its inconceivable that this was not Annie and her killer. The mutilations done, and the discovery time, make that timing dictated, not guesswork.

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Herlock,

Nice job on the witness trilogy, certainly got folks talking. I imagine much of the same arguments will be repeated for Long as were for the other two.
What I find interesting, is that to really support any of the three, you do need to at least acknowledge the other two. For example, you state that you find Cadosch reliable. Neither statement by Richardson or Long contradicts this, it just needs some reconciliation regarding timings. So any theory you may hold isn't derailed by any particular witness, any of three can be used to support a broad range of possible situations, which is exactly what we all go about doing. Likewise, if I were to support Cadosch but believe Long mistaken, it would not impact on my interpretation of the events. If I support Long, it doesn't take much to tally her statement with the others.
Richardson is disputed, but it doesn't discount Cadosch. Long initially seems to contradict Cadosch, but she still puts Annie's body in the yard at half five.
It's only if you accept the Phillips TOD that you need to discredit all three at the same time. Perhaps this goes towards why there is much debate about these three, and why the most virulent debate comes from the Royal/Surgeon etc side of the argument.
Regardless of the reliability of any of the three, what little history left us is interchangeable and different scenarios can be structured from them, based on minor time differences and mistaken identity.
But to believe in Phillips, who stated he might not be spot on, means ruling out all three, totally, at once.
Can't help but feel the balance comes down on the side of the three.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Nice job on the witness trilogy, certainly got folks talking. I imagine much of the same arguments will be repeated for Long as were for the other two.
What I find interesting, is that to really support any of the three, you do need to at least acknowledge the other two. For example, you state that you find Cadosch reliable. Neither statement by Richardson or Long contradicts this, it just needs some reconciliation regarding timings. So any theory you may hold isn't derailed by any particular witness, any of three can be used to support a broad range of possible situations, which is exactly what we all go about doing. Likewise, if I were to support Cadosch but believe Long mistaken, it would not impact on my interpretation of the events. If I support Long, it doesn't take much to tally her statement with the others.
Richardson is disputed, but it doesn't discount Cadosch. Long initially seems to contradict Cadosch, but she still puts Annie's body in the yard at half five.
It's only if you accept the Phillips TOD that you need to discredit all three at the same time. Perhaps this goes towards why there is much debate about these three, and why the most virulent debate comes from the Royal/Surgeon etc side of the argument.
Regardless of the reliability of any of the three, what little history left us is interchangeable and different scenarios can be structured from them, based on minor time differences and mistaken identity.
But to believe in Phillips, who stated he might not be spot on, means ruling out all three, totally, at once.
Can't help but feel the balance comes down on the side of the three.

Cheers Al.

The subject certainly tends to raise the hackles with those who, for whatever reason, have a greater level of confidence in Phillips than the authorities on the subject point us toward. For me Phillips has to be considered neutral (despite his own level of confidence) and I think that the idea that Annie was killed elsewhere is a non-starter and can be dismissed. He could have been right or wrong. The criteria certainly existed for him to have been mistaken. Is there anything else that points to Phillips being correct? It seems that all that can be proposed is that some think it unlikely that the killer would have killed at that time especially when comparing it to the times of the other murders. This isn’t much of a ringing endorsement for an earlier TOD imo. Lined up against a Phillips TOD we have three witnesses. All of these had to have lied or been mistaken and I just can’t see it. Personally I can’t see a single thing that casts doubt on Cadosch. Even discounting Long (and I don’t) Richardson and Cadosch point the TOD overwhelmingly closer to a 5.30 TOD for me.

[etenguy]

That, however, has to compete with the fact we know identification of the body is also not fool proof. We know that Stride, for example, was misidentified and it took quite a bit to finally confirm her identity as a result. We also know from the Martha Tabram case, that both Peraly Poll, and the police constible, mis-identified various soldiers. Misidentifications also are a common error. - Jeff

Indeed Jeff. Add to that she stated she took little notice of the couple and it was four days after the event that she identified the victim as the woman she saw, and I have to think that her evidence is not the most reliable. If it were not for Cadosch and Richardson, I think I could place little or no reliance in her statement. Their evidence tends to suggest there was a good chance that Long saw Annie and her murderer.

[Abby Normal]

I think we go down a slippery slope (which seems lately like rabbit holes lately) when we start dismissing witnesses (who saw suspects with victims, or police who are material witnesses to this and other evidence ie. Long and the GSG, Mizen etc.)IMHO there has to be MAJOR issues with there story to start to doubt there credibility. We have examples where we KNOW when witnesses lied and were dismissed by police-Packer and Violenia. The only other witnesses who IMHO we have major issues with there story is hutch and maxwell, and to a lesser extent Lechmere.

all others, unless something new comes up there is basically zero evidence they lied or just completely so mistaken we should discount there evidence.

other than Long being off on her timing by a few minutes, there is absolutely nothing to discount her. Her story is innocuous, with no hint of "15 minutes of fame", she IDed the body of chapman, other witnesses corroborate her story, and her suspect sighting matches the description of most of the other witnesses. and theres also the chance cadosch might have been off on his time (although I agree with Jeffs assessment that she probably just heard the earlier bells).

Timings are notoriously off with witnesses, and its such a minor thing with Long, considering all the other circs which point to her credibility.
There really is no good reason to doubt her-she more than likely saw chapman with the ripper

[JeffHamm]

Indeed Jeff. Add to that she stated she took little notice of the couple and it was four days after the event that she identified the victim as the woman she saw, and I have to think that her evidence is not the most reliable. If it were not for Cadosch and Richardson, I think I could place little or no reliance in her statement. Their evidence tends to suggest there was a good chance that Long saw Annie and her murderer.

Without Richardson and Cadosch, we would have Long's identification of Annie and a rough time of 5:30, outside the front of #29. If we believed her identification, that would still put the murder roughly in the vicinity of the same time as we get from Cadosch and Richardson, although a bit later. That would make her similar to Lawende, who identified (tentatively) Eddowes very close to where she too was found murdered shortly after. Lawende's identification of Eddowes is even more open to the misidentification possibility as he didn't see Eddowes' face and just identified her clothes. The similarities, though, in that if both are genuine sightings, reveal that JtR was not concerned if he was spotted with his victim, but then, given the locations of the murders, JtR doesn't seem bothered by much of anything risk wise.

Anyway, my point before digressing is just that I think Long, without the others, would have left us in a situation similar to Lawende's sighting, but we would have to place greater confidence in Long than Lawende - noting that greater confidence than Lawende doesn't mean we have to have high confidence in Long, just more than we have for Lawende's sighting. I think one would have to consider how they view that situation as well.

But, I'm risking going off topic here and don't want to divert to other cases, was just using it for comparison.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I think we go down a slippery slope (which seems lately like rabbit holes lately) when we start dismissing witnesses (who saw suspects with victims, or police who are material witnesses to this and other evidence ie. Long and the GSG, Mizen etc.)IMHO there has to be MAJOR issues with there story to start to doubt there credibility. We have examples where we KNOW when witnesses lied and were dismissed by police-Packer and Violenia. The only other witnesses who IMHO we have major issues with there story is hutch and maxwell, and to a lesser extent Lechmere.

all others, unless something new comes up there is basically zero evidence they lied or just completely so mistaken we should discount there evidence.

other than Long being off on her timing by a few minutes, there is absolutely nothing to discount her. Her story is innocuous, with no hint of "15 minutes of fame", she IDed the body of chapman, other witnesses corroborate her story, and her suspect sighting matches the description of most of the other witnesses. and theres also the chance cadosch might have been off on his time (although I agree with Jeffs assessment that she probably just heard the earlier bells).

Timings are notoriously off with witnesses, and its such a minor thing with Long, considering all the other circs which point to her credibility.
There really is no good reason to doubt her-she more than likely saw chapman with the ripper

Yes. There's a tendency to dismiss what we have simply because it's not perfect. Of course we would want to interview witnesses more, probe various aspects of their statements, get more details of their activities to help assess things, but we can't. We're left with what we have, and too often people throw out entire witnesses simply because one detail is suspect. I think the whole point of considering the evidence isn't to throw out entire witness statements, but to try and weed out the errors of detail. Entire witnesses should only get tossed when their testimony changes in substance. Packer, for example, shifts the time by an hour, contradicts his initial statement to the police that he saw nothing, tells the press no police have talked to him despite the fact they had, and so forth. Those are substantial problems. Misrecalling which chime you heard is just detail (important one of course, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of her statement).

- Jeff

[harry]

There were two instances of what I would expect Long to be sure of.The time she left home,and the time she arrived at Spittafield's market.Taken that there is no admission that her walk to w ork that morning was anything but normal,I can not imagine her timing to be out by more than a minute or two.,and not the fifteen minutes that would ensue, by being wrong about what the church chime s indicated.I believe her evidence can be considered factual.She saw the Chapman and her killer.

[JeffHamm]

There were two instances of what I would expect Long to be sure of.The time she left home,and the time she arrived at Spittafield's market.Taken that there is no admission that her walk to w ork that morning was anything but normal,I can not imagine her timing to be out by more than a minute or two.,and not the fifteen minutes that would ensue, by being wrong about what the church chime s indicated.I believe her evidence can be considered factual.She saw the Chapman and her killer.

Was Long going to work at the market? Was just looking at her testimony in "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" and it just says she was going to the market. If she was going shopping and not to work her awareness of the time would be quite different. It could be the information is found elsewhere and she was going to work (I don't know), so just wondering where it might be found?

- Jeff