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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by MysterySinger 1 hour and 9 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (17 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (7 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (3 posts)
Levy, Jacob: Jacob Levy - (2 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 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1891  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:55 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Elamarna;429960

Quote:
There is no evidence other than written sources and therefore it is an historical investigation.
Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1892  
Old 09-20-2017, 12:57 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
Trevor has a point in saying that the written evidence is not as clear as it could be sometimes. At least when focusing on one piece at a time. However, as others have said, there is a body of evidence and taken as a whole, we can say without fear of contradiction (except possibly by Mr Marriott) that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.
I agree often things are not clear from a single source.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1893  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:00 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=Elamarna;429960



Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre
My dear Pierre.

I prefer Ripper studies myself.

If studying/investigating a particular event or period it is customary to refer to it by a title.

Steve

Last edited by Elamarna : 09-20-2017 at 01:05 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1894  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:01 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnflatwyngarde View Post
And your point is caller?
The point is that there were portions of apron.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1895  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:04 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
My dear Pierre.

I prefer Ripper studies myself.

Steve
"Ripper studies" is another concept. You tend to do that to get away from what I say sometimes, Steve. You start using other concepts.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1896  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:08 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
"Ripper studies" is another concept. You tend to do that to get away from what I say sometimes, Steve. You start using other concepts.
So how would you suggest one refers to the area of study?

The 1888 Whitechapel murders?

Or ?

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1897  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:28 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
So how would you suggest one refers to the area of study?

The 1888 Whitechapel murders?

Or ?

Steve
That depends on the sources and the definitions for time and place. If you research 1888 and 1889 you have to use that definition (for example).

There is not always just simple concepts like "The Whitechapel Murders" or "Jack the Ripper".

As you said yourself, you do historical investigation.

That means the area of study is always depending on the sources and specific definitions.

Cheers, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 09-20-2017 at 01:31 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1898  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:43 PM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=Elamarna;429960



Indeed. And therefore Steve, stop calling historical investigations "ripperology". And also stop calling historical persons "suspects".

Pierre
Are you suggesting the word "suspects" should be removed from the dictionary? Why? What on earth do you mean by "historical persons", considering that what happened ten seconds ago is "historical"?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1899  
Old 09-20-2017, 01:44 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
Trevor has a point in saying that the written evidence is not as clear as it could be sometimes. At least when focusing on one piece at a time. However, as others have said, there is a body of evidence and taken as a whole, we can say without fear of contradiction (except possibly by Mr Marriott) that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.
This is precisely why collating the various sources, court record with the more prominent press coverage, is paramount to gaining a clearer picture of what was said at the inquest.
Trevor falls into the old trap of selecting one source and dismissing the rest. Except when it comes to an issue that has no official source, then Trevor has no qualms about quoting his preferred press source - all of a sudden the press are reliable. Funny that....
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1900  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:10 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,892
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The point of the exercise is to negate the newspaper report, which states it was attached to the body with the strings,....
It was not a single report though, at least three different newspapers mentioned it.

I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.
Daily Telegraph.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.
Daily News.

There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body.
Morning Post.

The Court record makes no mention of whether Dr Browns piece was still on the body or not. So, there is no contradiction, what we have via the three press versions, is clarification.


Quote:
You clearly dont want to accept what is primary evidence in this case.
The Court recorder, was present, right?
The press reporter, was present, right?
Both sources are therefore of equal status. There is no hearsay. There is no secondary account - both are primary sources.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 05:16 PM.


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