The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

We do appear to be entering an area, where unless something can be conclusive proven to be so, some view that as a flaw.
If newspaper reports use different wording from each other it is viewed as major discrepancies.

Then it seems any idea, which is not impossible, is viewed as being a legitimate alternative to the original, although that original is far from being shown to be incorrect.

There also seems to be a tendency to say sources are not required and indeed are actually unhelpful.

And then we wonder why this area of study is so rarely taken seriously?

There are times I feel so despondent at all of this, and that does not even take into account the degree of abuse used by some posters towards others.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

We do appear to be entering an area, where unless something can be conclusive proven to be so, some view that as a flaw.

Indeed. Taking that to its extreme, I'm refusing to believe that Julius Caesar was assassinated.

[Wickerman]

Collard says there was a match, too.

For what it's worth, Insp. McWilliams of the City force also said it matched.

"...I then went to the mortuary in Golden Lane, where the body had been taken by direction of Dr. Gordon-Brown and saw the piece of apron - which was found in Goulstone Street - compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded."
Ultimate - page 179.

[Wickerman]

It is quite plaim,Jon and Sam,that in spite of what you write,that you believe your sources,the papers,to be the more correct than the source I quoted.

I think this exchange has demonstrated why it is not advisable to use only one source, as you are doing.

My opinion,from what I read,is that Long did answer,in reply to a question from a juror,that he did not ,at that time,know of Eddowes killing.There is no ambiguity there.

It is odd that you should say that because nowhere does PC Long provide that response. It may be inferred from what he said, but he does not directly deny knowledge of the murder.
The comment from the juror directly contradicts your point (as previously posted by Joshua).

A juryman. - "Having heard of the murder, and having afterwards found the piece of apron with blood on it and the writing on the wall, did it not strike you that it would be well to make some examination of the rooms in the building?"

This was a question which implies his knowledge of the city murder even before he found the piece of apron.
PC Long did not reply to that point, so no agreement nor denial.

Nothing to do with the apron or writing or ways of recording.A simple question of knowledge.Long either knew of the killing in Mitre Square,or he didn't.He is reported as saying he didn't know.I accept that he didn't.

Provisionally, I'd have to say no such denial exists.

Two options are available:
1 - He knew of the City murder before he found the piece of apron (as implied by the juror).
2 - He only heard of the City murder after he searched the staircase, and before he went to the station (as PC Long claimed).

Take your choice.

So answer this question.Should I treat the source I quoted as false and misleading,and no long rambling explanations that have nothing to do with that question.A simple yes or no is all.

I doubt very much if you are willing to take my advise.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Are you kidding.You first say I was quoting from the A-Z,then you write I was quoting from the papersMake up your mind..Now if you mean,and you should say so,that what was witten in the A-Z was taken from the newspapers,that is something you should first find out.

I'm glad you figured it out, yes the summary in the A-Z was taken from the press sources.
It is always preferable to use the original sources where possible.

But thanks for reminding everyone that it is recorded,somewhere,that Long denied having heard of the Eddowes murder,and that I did not misrepresent or make up the denial.

Him saying he learned of the City murder before he went to the station, is not a true denial of prior knowledge.
It requires us making an assumption that he didn't know of this murder while he searched the stairs.

To expand a little on what Trevor says.
Any evidence without support should be treated cautiously.
What,or who is there to support Long.Untill the second officer showed up,there is nothing and no one.One might say there is the cloth and the writing,they are physical things,but who is to confirm that both were there as Long testifies.He could have found the cloth outside,and he could have written the wording himself. It is belief,not evidence,that is stated when writing of Long.He could have had piles and wiped his own ass as far as I know.(Couldn't resist that).
Same with the apron.Only Brown is reported as saying there was a match made.I can find no support for his claim,despite there being others present at the mortuary.None of the doctors,there were three present,seems to have witten or spoke in support of that match up.Still I suppose someone will come up with a paper article proving me wrong.

I think you have now learned of others who confirmed the match.
None of us are ever too old to learn.

[Wickerman]

Sources can neither prove Long's testimony,nor disprove,so what is left is belief,and a consideration of alterate scenarios.Which seems to be what Trevor and myself suggest.

As has been suggested previously, alternate interpretations are always welcome, providing those interpretation are derived from the evidence. And that is the all important detail.
It is not advisable to promote alternate theories that are not supported by the evidence.
So, simply put. If an idea has no evidence to support it (its just touted as 'a possibility'), then it is a waste of everybody's time even discussing it.

[Wickerman]

And how can you keep relying on conflicting newspaper articles, they cant all be right, you have to look at all the reports, and in the case of Eddowes a comparison made with what is in the official inquest depositions. Not as you and others are continually doing. putting you own personal interpretation based on trying to assess the conflicting reports.

I think you are generalizing (ie; conflicting newspaper articles). I rarely concern myself with newspaper articles - Kelly's time of death as theorized over that first weekend being an exception. Articles can be full of errors, but we are talking about inquest coverage which is not an 'article' per-se. The inquest coverage by the press is among thee most reliable crime reporting available for the period.
Conflicts are few and far between, and they certainly do not color the whole subject.

For once forget about whether she was wearing an apron or not, just look at all the reports on the Eddowes murder, and look at all the discrepancies, and when you do. you should ask yourself which reports do I totally rely on? and the right answer is none of them totally

One of the reason's we should collate all available sources is so the discrepancies can be exposed and eliminated.

Its never going to work by looking at them all, and then trying to work out the truth from what is written because as has been proved its human nature for an individual to accept what that individual wants to believe from how he personally interprets what he reads.

Contradictions stand out when you have several sources all reporting on the same testimony, plus you get a better feel for the line of questioning when you have questions, or answers, presented in different ways.

Let me ask you a question do you accept that any of the evidence relating to the murder of Eddowes is flawed or do you accept it all without question.

If you do accept that some of it is flawed I would be happy to hear what you believe those flaws are.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you avoid generalizing, just give me a specific example of what you call "flawed" evidence.

[harry]

To all above,I am using evidence.The evidence of Long.Long places himself in the building.That is evidence of opportunity.That is the only evidence needed.Whoever wrote the the graffiti had to be in the building,It is the only evidence against the ripper writing the message.The Ripper had to be in the building. Everything else is supposition,no matter who is considered responsible.Did Long carry a piece of chalk?Did the Ripper cary a piece of chalk.Etc .As far as evidence is concerned,opportunity is the only element that can reasonably be considered,and Long,in that respect comes ahead of the Ripper,for while the apron piece does not conclusively place the Ripper in the building,he could have thrown it there,Long unquestionably,by his(Long)own testimony does place himself inside.So if the Ripper,as some suggest,could have written the message,then so could Long.

Jon,
You make the claim that the summary I took from the A-Z came from press sources.You have evidence of that?

[Wickerman]

But the facts of the case, and the evidence, connected is there to be proved or disproved.

Not at this late date.
Why this preoccupation with "proving"?
No-one is going to be able to prove anything of substance in this case. What we have are 'degrees of probability', some scenarios are far more probable than others.
We have several eyewitness sightings of Eddowes wearing an apron that morning, either in part or whole. That is normally deemed sufficient to "prove" she was wearing one.
You seem to refuse to accept that, but you don't offer any evidence that she wasn't wearing one.

What was I saying before that a theory must be supported by the evidence.

If you disprove something then there has to be another plausible explanation.

If you are going to prove something then it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and in my book that is know where near the case with many of the old accepted theories connected to the Ripper murders, you can drive a bus through a lot of the so called "evidence".

Happily, you have not disproved anything yet, contrary to some of your claims. Because you have convinced yourself does not qualify as "proof".

The analysis of historical data in many cases will not give you definitive answers, especially with regards to a murder investigation which relies on facts and evidence which are both there to be tested.

Correct, in most cases we will never reach a definitive answer.
I think that is where many of the "old theories" (your words), sit. Unproven, but largely accepted in general.
What some of us believe is simply the most reasonable interpretation of what we know on any given issue in this case. It isn't fact, and it certainly is not proven. What we have is just the best explanation available at this time.

Sadly much of what is relied on has not been tested, so it is wrong to readily accept it without question

It isn't "without question", and in most cases what we interpret cannot be tested, but until something else comes along that is consistent with the evidence (key point), then what we believe is not likely to change in any great degree.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
You make the claim that the summary I took from the A-Z came from press sources.You have evidence of that?

Aren't Paul's words good enough, him being directly involved in the A-Z?

[Wickerman]

Why should this not be looked on as not historical research, but a murder investigation. After all many murder investigations and the evidence gathering process, takes place long before a suspect is ever arrested, and that evidence is assessed and evaluated, any ambiguities which arise in witness testimony are looked at and clarified at that stage.

Because the evidence that has survived is not sufficient to treat this as a 'cold-case' murder investigation.
We can't gather evidence, witness testimony cannot be tested. All the murder sites are gone, so we can't even evaluate the crime scene's.
What we have is all on paper, so it is necessary to gather as much of that written record as is available.

Newspaper reports are not generally used as evidence by either the prosecution or defence because they are generally regarded as secondary evidential sources.

The court record is deficient in detail, where the press coverage is selective in what detail is given. They represent various parts of the whole.

The question is what are researchers looking to get from what they research. I would say an answer as to who the killer might have been,and evidence which may eliminate many suspects from the list of 200.

We cannot possibly know sufficient detail of anyone's daily comings & goings, or their personal background, to reasonably offer them as valid suspects.
Putting a name to the Whitechapel Murderer(s) is a pipe-dream.

Researchers should apply themselves in such a way that they start to look at these murder in an unbiased light, and remember the two most important words "prove or disprove" Not readily accept the facts and the evidence without question.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Looking for proof at this late date is setting yourself up for failure.

[PaulB]

To all above,I am using evidence.The evidence of Long.Long places himself in the building.That is evidence of opportunity.That is the only evidence needed.Whoever wrote the the graffiti had to be in the building,It is the only evidence against the ripper writing the message.The Ripper had to be in the building. Everything else is supposition,no matter who is considered responsible.Did Long carry a piece of chalk?Did the Ripper cary a piece of chalk.Etc .As far as evidence is concerned,opportunity is the only element that can reasonably be considered,and Long,in that respect comes ahead of the Ripper,for while the apron piece does not conclusively place the Ripper in the building,he could have thrown it there,Long unquestionably,by his(Long)own testimony does place himself inside.So if the Ripper,as some suggest,could have written the message,then so could Long.

Jon,
You make the claim that the summary I took from the A-Z came from press sources.You have evidence of that?

Harry,
You are correct that PC Long was in the stairwell and therefore had the opportunity to write the message, and on the basis of those facts you have postulated the possibility that actually did write it. Fine. But that is just a "could have". There's a long way between a "could have" and "possibly did". The only way you have of bridging that gap, of having the "could have" hypothesis taken seriously, is producing evidence to support it. And that is the evidence that you are being asked for.

And the A to Z entry, for which I am responsible, is a summary of what happened reconstrcted from the available source material. So, yes it is basedon newspaper reports. Having said that, I believe it accurately reflects what happened.

[John G]

To all above,I am using evidence.The evidence of Long.Long places himself in the building.That is evidence of opportunity.That is the only evidence needed.Whoever wrote the the graffiti had to be in the building,It is the only evidence against the ripper writing the message.The Ripper had to be in the building. Everything else is supposition,no matter who is considered responsible.Did Long carry a piece of chalk?Did the Ripper cary a piece of chalk.Etc .As far as evidence is concerned,opportunity is the only element that can reasonably be considered,and Long,in that respect comes ahead of the Ripper,for while the apron piece does not conclusively place the Ripper in the building,he could have thrown it there,Long unquestionably,by his(Long)own testimony does place himself inside.So if the Ripper,as some suggest,could have written the message,then so could Long.

Jon,
You make the claim that the summary I took from the A-Z came from press sources.You have evidence of that?

I've argued that JtR couldn't be responsible because it was simply too dark to have written the graffito in a legible hand. The same argument also applies to PC Long.

[harry]

PaulB
I have never stated that I believe Long wrote the message,or had evidence that he did.I said there was an oportunity for him to do so,and only that,and I have presented evidence supporting that opportunity.
It is only in your last post(Wickerman please note) that I accept you used newspaper sources as a basis.It doesn't indicate,in your book that newspapers were the source..Which brings another question.What newspaper source states Long denied knowing of Eddowes murder? Many posters appear to believe the opposite to be the case.
John G,
The same argument doesn't apply.Long had a lamp.

It appears to me that anyone who supports Trevor's statements that there are alternatives are in for a torrent of disapproval.How childish that supposedly educated and intelligent people could,because of personnel dislike,act that way.

[Sam Flynn]

I said there was an oportunity for him to do so,and only that,and I have presented evidence supporting that opportunity.

Well, he was there alone, and it's only his word we have to describe what happened. As evidence goes, that doesn't get us very far. If we applied the same criteria to the rest of the case then John Davis possibly killed Annie Chapman, Louis Diemschutz possibly killed Liz Stride and Harry Bowyer possibly killed Mary Kelly.

All are "possible", but - as with the idea of Long's writing the graffito - the mere fact that they had an "opportunity" has very little explanatory value.