The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by harry

Sourced from th A to Z book.
He(Long)was mildly criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the buildings.,but reasonably replied that he did not know of the Eddowes murder.

Well, as is often the case, the court version is limited as to detail. It is in the press versions where we find clarification.
In the Daily Telegraph, we read:
"I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."
So there had been rumors of the Berner street murder, but just before he left Goulston street he had been told of the Mitre Square murder, quite possibly by PC 190, who had just arrived on scene.

He conducted a search of the staircases and landings,because he(Long),on discovering the apron piece,thought a victim of crime,and not a criminal was inside.

Correct, he thought there may have been a crime at that location but, he was aware of rumors of the Berner street murder.
Having satisfied himself that there was no crime at that location, BUT the cloth was bloodstained, AND rumors of a recent murder, PLUS just learning of a second murder, he thought it wise to take the cloth to his superiors at the station.

He did the right thing.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

I think it is now right to say that the GS piece was not matched to the mortuary piece whilst that piece was still on the body, and any such reference or statements to that effect should be disregarded as being incorrect.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There never were any statements which say it was matched while still on the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

There never were any statements which say it was matched while still on the body.

I think you have a short memory!

Daily Telegraph
Inquest testimony of Dr Brown,

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Just goes to show how wrong some of these press report are, and how some can be sucked into believing what they say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Robert St Devil

Hi Jon. I find it interesting that the report in the September 30th edition of Lloyd's dismisses the rumour that a part similar to Annie Chapman's was taken away by Kate's murderer.

Hello Robert.
Yes, this may have been intentional because we have a report that Supt. Foster of the City Police initially denied any organs had been removed from the Mitre Sq. murder.

A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded.
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

The denial cannot have been too successful, and only lasted a matter of hours until the results of the post mortem became known.
Normally, the City police were quite accomodating to the press, unlike the Met.

I blv the reporter may have been Thos. Catling, editor of Lloyd's newspaper. In his autobiography My Life's Pilgrimage [online, pg. 184], Catling writes of his experience the morning of Kate's murder. He was summoned to the murder sites; then, he proceeded to the mortuary, where he met his old school chum Mr. Gordon Brown, who informed him on the particulars of Kate's injuries. So, at 5:20a, Catling had enough to write-up the first report to appear in that day's issue.

You may be right.

[Wickerman]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

I think you have a short memory!

Daily Telegraph
Inquest testimony of Dr Brown,

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Just goes to show how wrong some of these press report are, and how some can be sucked into believing what they say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.
Everybody knows the corpse was stripped before the GS piece arrived, surely you can figure that out.

[Hunter]

He meant still attached to body in situ to distinguish the piece, not that it was attached to the body when matched.

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.

That's quite correct. Either way, it's as plain as plain can be that Eddowes was still wearing the apron when she was brought into the mortuary, which means she was also wearing it at the scene of the crime. From this it follows that, due to the presence of blood and faeces on both the body the GS apron piece, that the latter was cut by the killer from the rest of the apron at Mitre Square.

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Wickerman

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.
Everybody knows the corpse was stripped before the GS piece arrived, surely you can figure that out.

Thats your take other reports contradict that as you have been repeatedly shown.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Originally Posted by Sam Flynn

That's quite correct. Either way, it's as plain as plain can be that Eddowes was still wearing the apron when she was brought into the mortuary, which means she was also wearing it at the scene of the crime. From this it follows that, due to the presence of blood and faeces on both the body the GS apron piece, that the latter was cut by the killer from the rest of the apron at Mitre Square.

Thats your take, other reports contradict that

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott

Thats your take, other reports contradict that

There is not a single report that contradicts what I, or Wickerman, said.