Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 6 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 18 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 36 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by Elamarna 53 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Debra A 1 hour and 5 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - by Mayerling 1 hour and 10 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (38 posts)
Maybrick, James: 25 YEARS OF THE DIARY OF JACK THE RIPPER: THE TRUE FACTS by Robert Smith - (20 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (8 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Was Jack caught by London underworld? - (7 posts)
Non-Ripper Books by Ripper Authors: Mob Town by John Bennett - (3 posts)
General Discussion: Jack's early inspiration? - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Letters and Communications > Goulston Street Graffito

View Poll Results: Did Jack write the GSG?
YES 74 38.34%
NO 119 61.66%
Voters: 193. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1871  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:07 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But with depositions taken at court as is the case, they are written down, then either read over to the witness, or the witness reads them before signing them so they have to be correct do they not?
They need not be complete in every detail. It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a degree of sense that the inquest statements in question are not verbatim transcripts, but extremely terse summaries. Some details are clearly missing and, in point of fact, they are not always infallible, either.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1872  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:22 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
I was not referring so much to the evidence given,but to Brown's notes.Do they survive? Is any information, in writing,available in relation to Long's evidence.Notebook entries for example.Were any produced at the inquest,or was evidence given from memory?
The only evidence given at the inquest,as far as I am aware,and supported by written information,was the list of clothing and possessions of Eddowes,taken at the time her body was derobed.If any evidence can be taken at face value it is surely that,and it does not include her as wearing an apron or apron piece.

Harry
The issue there is that to reach that conclusion, that she was not wearing an apron, one must discount the witness statements given by Hurt and Robinson.

Trevor is happy to do that, I and many others it seems are not.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1873  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:27 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
They need not be complete in every detail. It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a degree of sense that the inquest statements in question are not verbatim transcripts, but extremely terse summaries. Some details are clearly missing and, in point of fact, they are not always infallible, either.
But the issue you seek to dispute is clear, and concise, in the deposition, and he signed it. If when reading it through before signing he found errors they would have been put right.

You cant go through all the contentious issues in the ripper mystery cherry picking, which ones are best suited to prop up a particular theory. We see this time and time again on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1874  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:34 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But with depositions taken at court as is the case, they are written down, then either read over to the witness, or the witness reads them before signing them so they have to be correct do they not?

and you cannot keep relying on newspaper reports that conflict with the official testimony and signed depositions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
However Trevor it does not conflict. It merely adds words which may have been missed from the official report. Or are you seriously suggesting the official report missed not a single word or made a no mistakes?

If the official report explicitly said the Apron was not attached to the body and was signed off as such you would have a case. It does not however say that and your argument therefore is incorrect.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1875  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:44 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But the issue you seek to dispute is clear, and concise, in the deposition, and he signed it. If when reading it through before signing he found errors they would have been put right.

You cant go through all the contentious issues in the ripper mystery cherry picking, which ones are best suited to prop up a particular theory. We see this time and time again on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
It is not clear and concise . It does not make mention of if the Apron was attached or not.
It's your Personal interpretation Trevor!


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1876  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:56 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,648
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You cant go through all the contentious issues in the ripper mystery cherry picking, which ones are best suited to prop up a particular theory. We see this time and time again on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Trevor

It is not Gareth who is "Cherry Picking" .

You are using one source, which incidentally does not actually say What you suggest it does.



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1877  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:33 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor

It is not Gareth who is "Cherry Picking" .

You are using one source, which incidentally does not actually say What you suggest it does.

Steve
Of course it does its never been clearer, and that one source is the original source, it has to be as has been explained. You wanted your sources now you have one and still you question it. What is wrong with you?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1878  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:40 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
It is not clear and concise . It does not make mention of if the Apron was attached or not.
It's your Personal interpretation Trevor!
Steve
The point of the exercise is to negate the newspaper report, which states it was attached to the body with the strings, thereby giving you and others ammunition for suggesting she was wearing an apron. In investigative terms its called proving or disproving the facts.

You clearly dont want to accept what is primary evidence in this case. However, This is one part though where you Sam and others would appear to be in great difficulty.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1879  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:41 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,752
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
However Trevor it does not conflict. It merely adds words which may have been missed from the official report. Or are you seriously suggesting the official report missed not a single word or made a no mistakes?

If the official report explicitly said the Apron was not attached to the body and was signed off as such you would have a case. It does not however say that and your argument therefore is incorrect.

Steve
Important words are they not? Its easy to say what you said but Brown signed it and read it over so it takes precedence over your suggestion as to what might have been said or not said. You cant believe all that you read in the papers, and that`s still the case today.

Take time out and sit quiet in a dark room !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-20-2017 at 06:45 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1880  
Old 09-20-2017, 07:12 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Important words are they not? Its easy to say what you said but Brown signed it and read it over
And it missed stuff out that the papers picked up on. It was a long statement, and it's not surprising if stuff got missed out by the clerk. It may have been correct in what it said, but it needn't have been complete in every detail, and I doubt that Brown was going to get too fussy if "with strings attached" should really have said "attached to the body with strings". It wasn't going to affect the findings of the inquest in any way, and it wasn't going to bring Catherine Eddowes back either. I shouldn't be surprised that a busy man like Dr Brown only gave it a cursory once-over anyway; it's not as if his livelihood was going to be ruined by a tiny clerical omission.

Besides, is it any more likely that a court clerk got everything down verbatim, but a Daily Telegraph journalist got stuff drastically wrong? We're not talking about a cheap sensationalist rag, here, not that there's anything "sensational" in recording the fact that an apron was attached to a body with strings. It's what apron strings do, for heaven's sake.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.