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 Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - by RockySullivan 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Joshua Rogan 7 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (50 posts)
Hutchinson, George: The Enigma That Is Richard Blake - (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 75 38.66%
NO 119 61.34%
Voters: 194. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1901  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:29 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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.

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.
But they cant all be right can they?

Somewhere is the correct version of testimony, and that in my opinion is the signed depositions. In this case it doesn't matter if reporters were present. It only shows that it was they that took it down wrong, or misconstrued what was being said, or added to it for whatever purpose.

Take the morning post report. No where was it ever mentioned about bloody finger marks on the GS piece. A clear example of part of a report which you seek to rely on being made up.

I keep saying, and will go on saying, that the depositions were taken down in court by the court recorder. They were either read back over to the witness or the witness read it over before signing. If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended. So that is why these must take preference over all else.

Its like Collards lists, notes made at the time primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-20-2017 at 02:36 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1902  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:44 PM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 136
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But they cant all be right can they?

Somewhere is the correct version of testimony, and that in my opinion is the signed depositions. In this case it doesn't matter if reporters were present. It only shows that it was they that took it down wrong, or misconstrued what was being said, or added to it for whatever purpose.

Take the morning post report. No where was it ever mentioned about bloody finger marks on the GS piece. A clear example of part of a report which you seek to rely on being made up.

I keep saying, and will go on saying, that the depositions were taken down in court by the court recorder. They were either read back over to the witness or the witness read it over before signing. If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended. So that is why these must take preference over all else.

Its like Collards lists, notes made at the time primary evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
But this is my point. These all refer to one witness. There were several others all of whom stated independently that Eddowes was wearing an apron. For me Collard's statement is the least open to interpretation when he stated:

No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1903  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:47 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But they cant all be right can they?
The truth lies somewhere in between, Trevor. The official records will pick up on some things but miss others, and the same is true of the newspapers. The official records, like the newspapers, will also be in error sometimes, because that's the nature of the world.

No single source is ever good enough on its own. We need to consider all the sources at our disposal, in order to draw the most pragmatic and sensible conclusions from them.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1904  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:50 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
You still do not appreciate the difference between secondary and primary historical sources.
Steve
Hi Steve.

Seeing as we are once again on this Primary/Secondary subject, can I ask you something just to settle my own curiosity.

We have a reporter present at the inquest, and his coverage provides verbatim accounts - this is a Primary Source, I'm sure we agree.
What if this reporter produces a paraphrase account?

As example, in one version we have Mr Crawford asking "Was your attention drawn to the apron?"
Dr Brown responds: "Yes".

In another version we have Dr Brown saying:
"My attention was drawn to the apron....".

Which is what he meant, but not exactly what was said.

So, is the former version a Primary Source, and the latter version a Secondary Source?
The reason I ask is due to the fact that in the sciences a true Secondary Source is one that analyzes, or interprets a Primary Source.
Well, surely, providing a paraphrase version is 'interpretation', isn't it?

Can you offer an opinion?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1905  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:54 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,939
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I keep saying, and will go on saying... If anything had been taken down wrongly or anything material left out it would have been noted and amended.
Don't go on saying that, because it's patently not the case. Court clerks, or whatever inky-fingered public servant was asked to jot down an inquest's testimony on a given day, were not superhuman and neither were they immune from error. Equally, it isn't necessarily true that a witness would be particularly bothered if a word or two had been missed by said inky-fingered public servant; indeed, it's by no means guaranteed that they'd even notice.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1906  
Old 09-20-2017, 02:58 PM
GUT GUT is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: I come from a land Down Under
Posts: 7,173
Default

No. In history they are both Primary Sources, in law there are no such things as primary and secondary sources.
__________________
G U T

There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1907  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:14 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

If I have to accept reports that she was wearing an apron at time of death,then I have to discount Collard's list of clothing and possessions of being wrong.Why should I do that?He was there as each piece of clothing was removed,and if he could identify a piece of apron among possessions,then he could have identified an apron piece had she been wearing one.
Brown's testimony was taken in the form of notes by coroner Langham.How accurate that was would be guesswork.Not a hundred per cent.So more of a statement of evidence than a record of evidence.Pity Brown's notes didn't survive,instead of Langham's.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1908  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:47 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Then you need to accept that Collards list must include the piece of apron he said she was wearing.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1909  
Old 09-20-2017, 06:59 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GUT View Post
No. In history they are both Primary Sources, in law there are no such things as primary and secondary sources.
Would you mind reading over this link..
http://library.noctrl.edu/subject/bu...ry_sources.pdf
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1910  
Old 09-20-2017, 09:34 PM
Robert St Devil Robert St Devil is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 754
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
On the contrary, I think exploring your theory has been most helpful in making the events of that night a little clearer.

It now seems to me that the murderer was intent on communicating with the authorities, and after all the hoax letters wanted to authenticate his communications. The apron was used for the GSG and the kidney for the Lusk letter. It shows a consistency of approach and might also explain why he committed a double murder that night when he couldn't get what he needed from poor Elizabeth Stride. It was a risky endeavour given the police presence and his knowledge that the first victim that night had been found.

By exploring a possible alternative explanation and being able to discount it, that has helped me to focus on what is known, make connections across the different aspects of that night's events and provide a reason for the second murder beyond the simple assumption he was satisfying a blood lust. It has helped cement, in my mind at least, that the GSG and Lusk letter are authentic.

Thank you, Trevor.
I can't make up my mind. If jack the ripper had gotten what he needed from apronless Liz, would there have even been "Goulston Street", would the grafitto have been written on the side of the IWEC... Or was Goulston Street part of his original plan ie. where he intended to go after murdering Liz Stride?
__________________
there,s nothing new, only the unexplored
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 03:01 AM.


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