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 Abby Normal 8 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 8 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 12 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 17 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 32 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by jerryd 47 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (57 posts)
Non-Fiction: Scholes of the Yard: The Casebook of a Scotland Yard Detective 1888 to 1924 - (3 posts)
Martha Tabram: Probibility of Martha Tabram Being a JtR Victim - (1 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Bucks Row Project - (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
  #1941  
Old 09-21-2017, 07:58 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
So the two pieces had originally been sown together at some time in the past and had been now been detached along the stitching where they had been joined. How lucky would that have been for the killer to be able to take hold of an apron in haste she was wearing, in almost total darkness, and just happen to be able cut or tear along the same line where they had been sown together
Easy. There was a natural weakness or fault-line where the patch had been sewn on. Indeed, bearing this in mind, it's eminently possible that the killer didn't need to cut it off at all; it might simply have torn off like a sheet of toilet paper. Quite appropriate, really.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1942  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:03 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I think you should also look what Dr Brown stated "I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding"

Notice he uses the term piece, not as you might expect just "apron"

So the two pieces had originally been sown together at some time in the past and had been now been detached along the stitching where they had been joined. How lucky would that have been for the killer to be able to take hold of an apron in haste she was wearing, in almost total darkness, and just happen to be able cut or tear along the same line where they had been sown together.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk


It "apparently" happened, luck or not!

However closer reading again demonstrates faulty interpretation .
A patch had at some stage been added, we have no knowledge of the position of said patch or it's size, or if it held the other parts to together Or merely covered a hole?

Therefore there is no reason to suspect that the cut was along any existing cut or tear, just that the patch was intersected at some point.

Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item.
The use of "piece" merely says that neither portion fitted was a complete apron on its own.
Therefore I would not expect him to use Apron when refering to either portion.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1943  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:22 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is online now
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Easy. There was a natural weakness or fault-line where the patch had been sewn on. Indeed, bearing this in mind, it's eminently possible that the killer didn't need to cut it off at all; it might simply have torn off like a sheet of toilet paper. Quite appropriate, really.
The way it reads to me is that the cut/tear that divided the apron went through the patched area, but didn't divide the patch itself - this stayed intact attached to the Goulston Street piece, but tore through the stitching which originally fixed it to the other portion.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1944  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:35 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,634
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
The way it reads to me is that the cut/tear that divided the apron went through the patched area, but didn't divide the patch itself - this stayed intact attached to the Goulston Street piece, but tore through the stitching which originally fixed it to the other portion.
You could well be right, Josh.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1945  
Old 09-21-2017, 08:46 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,766
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
It "apparently" happened, luck or not!

However closer reading again demonstrates faulty interpretation .
A patch had at some stage been added, we have no knowledge of the position of said patch or it's size, or if it held the other parts to together Or merely covered a hole?

Therefore there is no reason to suspect that the cut was along any existing cut or tear, just that the patch was intersected at some point.

Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item.
The use of "piece" merely says that neither portion fitted was a complete apron on its own.
Therefore I would not expect him to use Apron when refering to either portion.

Steve
I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1946  
Old 09-21-2017, 09:44 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron

Read what I wrote Trevor, not what you think I wrote.


"Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item. "

Neither portion/piece/bit was a whole apron. Together they are!

The fact that you "APPARENTLY" do not understand what is very clear, makes your continual misinterpretations understandable.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1947  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:35 AM
etenguy etenguy is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But the killer was never a signature killer. If you are suggesting GS shows a signature then you have to look at that closely. Why leave a signature at a location some distance from the crime scene, at a location, and in circumstances where the graffiti and the apron piece may never have been found and never ever connected to the murder.

The simplest way would to have sent the apron piece to the police in an envelope or one of the organs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Your argument is sound and would make perfect sense if he was thinking straight. And indeed is possibly what he did with the Lusk letter.

I can envisage someone in a rage, perhaps because he was disturbed with Liz Stride, just wanting to vent immediately, hence the GSG. I don't strongly believe that to be the case, there is insufficient evidence either way. There are other perhaps more convincing reasons, but again all based on logical reasoning and insufficient evidence to come to a definitive conclusion.

If we favour the argument that he discarded it along the way, or later came out to discard it (why come back out - unless to leave a message?), then it does point to perhaps to the direction he was living.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1948  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:53 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430025

Quote:
Why leave a signature at a location some distance from the crime scene,
To avoid leaving personal evidence in the form of personal handwriting at the murder site. Goulston Street was not a murder site.

And as we can see, it was successful. The police could not know if the writing was done by the killer. And ripperologists could never know if the writing was done by him or if the apron was left there by him.

You are debating it and people have been doing so since the murders on 30th September 1888.

The killer wanted and expected that sort of debate and that uncertainty.
Quote:
at a location, and in circumstances where the graffiti and the apron piece may never have been found and never ever connected to the murder.
And the killer knew the consequences of these circumstances and expected the debates and the uncertainty.

Quote:
The simplest way would to have sent the apron piece to the police in an envelope or one of the organs.
The killer never wanted to send his apron piece or any organs to the police. That is why that was not done.

It is actually easy, Trevor. Some things happened. They are just historically well established facts now.

Even the debate and the uncertainty.

Cheers, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 09-21-2017 at 10:56 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1949  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:58 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430025



To avoid leaving personal evidence in the form of personal handwriting at the murder site. Goulston Street was not a murder site.

And as we can see, it was successful. The police could not know if the writing was done by the killer. And ripperologists could never know if the writing was done by him or if the apron was left there by him.

You are debating it and people have been doing so since the murders on 30th September 1888.

The killer wanted and expected that sort of debate and that uncertainty.


And the killer knew the consequences of these circumstances and expected the debates and the uncertainty.



The killer never wanted to send his apron piece or any organs to the police. That is why that was not done.

Cheers, Pierre
And, of course, you haven't a shred of evidence to support this argument. But then many contributors to this subject don't think they need anything as banal as actual evidence to support their arguments.

Oh dear, oh dear.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1950  
Old 09-21-2017, 10:59 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron
It doesn´t matter what the two pieces made up. What matters is what the killer did.

Is there any evidence that Feigenbaum had anything to do with the so called double event?

Since there is not, it should not be so important to discuss some pieces of apron.

Also, Trevor, you should remember the victim found in the police building.

How was that event constructed in relation to Stride and Eddowes?

Pierre
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 11:46 AM.


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