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:
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - by Andrew Firth 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Abby Normal 2 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 4 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Alfie 5 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Fisherman 6 hours ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - by Sam Flynn 7 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (19 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (7 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (3 posts)
Conferences and Meetings: The East End Conference 2018: London - (1 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Talks from RipperCon Baltimore 2018 - (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 77 39.29%
NO 119 60.71%
Voters: 196. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1571  
Old 09-10-2017, 04:08 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
No its not that simple, for a witness to be able to identify a piece of material as having come from an apron that the witness purported saw her wearing he surely has to be asked how he can say the piece shown to him at court was from the apron she was wearing, what was unusual about it,what made it stick in his mind?
The match was made before the inquest took place, and it was a physical match between the fragment found at Goulston Street and the remainder of the apron still attached by strings to Eddowes' person. It wasn't as if the Goulston Street piece was briefly waved around at the inquest and the witness(es) asked to identify it there and then from memory.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1572  
Old 09-10-2017, 02:50 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The match was made before the inquest took place, and it was a physical match between the fragment found at Goulston Street and the remainder of the apron still attached by strings to Eddowes' person. It wasn't as if the Goulston Street piece was briefly waved around at the inquest and the witness(es) asked to identify it there and then from memory.
I am fully aware how the match was made but I think you need to read the inquest testimony again.

There has to be an element of continuity, both Pc Robinson and Pc Hutt in their official inquest testimoniescoincidentally say exactly the same thing at the inquest "I believe the one produced is the one she was wearing" But both had no way of positively identifying the piece of apron or the remains of the apron as being the one she was apparently wearing. There was nothing identifiable about the apron it was an old white apron like hundreds in circulation at that time.

As I said any old piece could have been put before them and you can bet they would have said exactly the same thing. Just another example of how the many ambiguities in these inquests were not picked up and clarified.

Then we have Collard who produces the list of clothing from the mortuary and was present when the body was stripped, saying she was apparently wearing an apron, when the lists he produced support the fact she wasn't wearing an apron.

With regards to the Eddowes inquest there are more holes in the witnesses testimony than in a cullender and most of it relates to police evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1573  
Old 09-10-2017, 04:00 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 9,472
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
As I said any old piece could have been put before them and you can bet they would have said exactly the same thing. Just another example of how the many ambiguities in these inquests were not picked up and clarified.
You're missing the point. An apron piece was not "put before them" at the inquest. The match had previously been made. Just how many shitty, bloody pieces of apron can we believe were floating around Whitechapel within an hour of a shitty, bloody murder?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1574  
Old 09-10-2017, 04:33 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 1,598
Default

Surely this is as straight forward as Sam explained. The apron had already been matched up. Perhaps Hutt, Long and Robinson should have, more accurately, said 'well it certainly looks like it.' But the outcome is the same. What reason did they have to lie?
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1575  
Old 09-10-2017, 05:55 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,704
Default

I am with Trevor on this.The only person that could give evidence that the piece found by Long matched the piece found on the body of Eddowes,was the person who made the match.Long would have been speaking of being told a match had been made.My opinion.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1576  
Old 09-10-2017, 06:54 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,027
Default

Dr Brown, at the inquest stated that the GS piece had been brought by Dr Phillips. I don't think he was talking about the piece being produced at the inquest, Dr Phillips was not present at the Eddowes Inquest.
(The two pieces were brought to the inquest as items of evidence by the police).

Brown's testimony seems to be a bit misleading, but he must mean that the GS piece was brought to Golden Lane by Dr Phillips, as Philips did help with the post-mortem. It was at the mortuary where the two pieces were matched, by both Phillips and Brown, not at the inquest.
From that point forward both pieces belong to the City police as evidence.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 09-10-2017 at 06:59 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1577  
Old 09-10-2017, 11:48 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Dr Brown, at the inquest stated that the GS piece had been brought by Dr Phillips. I don't think he was talking about the piece being produced at the inquest, Dr Phillips was not present at the Eddowes Inquest.
(The two pieces were brought to the inquest as items of evidence by the police).

Brown's testimony seems to be a bit misleading, but he must mean that the GS piece was brought to Golden Lane by Dr Phillips, as Philips did help with the post-mortem. It was at the mortuary where the two pieces were matched, by both Phillips and Brown, not at the inquest.
From that point forward both pieces belong to the City police as evidence.
You are totally correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1578  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:01 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
You're missing the point. An apron piece was not "put before them" at the inquest. The match had previously been made. Just how many shitty, bloody pieces of apron can we believe were floating around Whitechapel within an hour of a shitty, bloody murder?
You are still missing the point !

Had they been shown it before then their evidence would have been different. It would have been along the lines of "At ....... on .......... I was shown a piece of white apron found in Goulston Street, I believe it was a piece from the apron the victim was wearing"

The apron piece was in court.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1579  
Old 09-11-2017, 12:52 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,704
Default

Why was the apron piece taken to the mortuary by a doctor?It was in police possession since handed in by Long. Why should it have been thought a connection to Eddowes murder?for as Trevour says,all it appeared to be was a dirty white bloodstained piece of cloth.How , when and why,did the police first form an opinion it might be evidence?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1580  
Old 09-11-2017, 01:23 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
Why was the apron piece taken to the mortuary by a doctor?It was in police possession since handed in by Long. Why should it have been thought a connection to Eddowes murder?for as Trevour says,all it appeared to be was a dirty white bloodstained piece of cloth.How , when and why,did the police first form an opinion it might be evidence?
Good question. I think Dr Brown wanted Dr Phillips to be involved as he had been involved in other murders. You are correct the two pieces were not matched until the post mortem stage many hours after the body arrived at the mortuary in the possession of Dr Phillips who had taken it from Pc Long

And when it arrived and was stripped, no one at the mortuary knew about the GS piece because it hadn't been found at that time. So if she had been wearing an apron, and a piece was missing there would have been no reason to at the time connect it to the GS piece or specifically note down the fact that a piece was missing from the apron she was apparently wearing.

Much of the evidence relating to this is retrospective and unsafe, after they realised the two pieces matched.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
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 12:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.