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:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by etenguy 2 hours ago.
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - by RockySullivan 5 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: H H holmes - by DirectorDave 9 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Abby Normal 10 hours ago.
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - by Sam Flynn 11 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - by Madam Detective 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (12 posts)
Elizabeth Stride: Elizabeth's murder and the double event - (3 posts)
Maybrick, James: Acquiring A Victorian Diary - (2 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: H H holmes - (1 posts)
General Discussion: Albert Backert - did he emigrate? - (1 posts)
Witnesses: The Bucks Row Project part 2 - (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
  #1681  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:20 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

Who ever made an inventory of her possessions,and the clothing she was wearing,seems,by the description of the articles,to have taken great care in being exact.An apron piece was found among her possessions,and the list of possessions can be shown to differ from the list of clothing worn.No one item can be confused as belonging to the two lists.
If she was wearing an apron piece,an apron piece was among her possessions,and Long found another piece matching an apron piece on her body or in her possession,that makes three pieces of apron.What it doesn't prove is all three pieces came from the same apron.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1682  
Old 09-13-2017, 11:53 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunter View Post
Hi Trevor,

I agree that the remaining part of the apron with Catherine Eddowes' body was already removed and invoiced before Phillips arrived. My point was that Phillips left Leman St. shortly after receiving the other piece around 4 a.m. of the morning of the murder, not the following morning. He attended the preliminary examination that lasted till just before 6 a.m. having been summoned by Dr. Brown himself. The two pieces were matched together at that time. They then agreed to go home, probably flesh out their notes and get some needed rest, then return for the formal post-mortem at 2 p.m.

In other words, Phillips made two trips to Golden Lane on Sept. 30.
Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then, and by then the body had been already stripped and the lists made up.

There is no evidence that shows a preliminary post mortem examination took place.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1683  
Old 09-14-2017, 12:15 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Trevor, the apron is mentioned.

Eddowes only had one handkerchief, it was white with 'red & white birds' as a border. It is listed here in the Times of Oct. 1st.
"...a common white handkerchief with a red border,"

In her list of possessions this is described as:
"1 White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief, red and white birds eye border."

However, the Times also offers two articles found around her neck:
"...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

It doesnt matter what the papers say its whats the official lists tell us. They are secondary sources !!!!!!!!!!!

In her list of possessions we find the same two articles listed together:
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon found on neck.
1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".


The ragged piece of blood-stained apron found around her neck was described as a handkerchief by the constable who made the list.

There was no constable present when the body was stripped and the lists made up

The GS piece brought by Phillips is the last item on her list of possessions:
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

So, both pieces are there.
Yes, both pieces were there but there is no evidence that they ever made up a full apron all we have all through this are references to apron pieces

So why would they add the GS piece to the list of possessions when it was believed that it was from the apron she was wearing that doesn't make any sense at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1684  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:01 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,703
Default

Trevor

Let's be clear the newspaper reports of the inquest are not secondary sources!!!!!!

Your insistence on this is truly astounding.

Please provide some defintintive statements to back this up from someone other than your good self.

The official report and the paper reports are written at the same time, in the same place by much the same process. Someone listens to what is said and then this is written down.

Historically they are both primary sources.
A secondary source is such as you or I, writing at a later date based on various information.

What you mean is that you consider them less valid and reliable than the official report, which is a matter of opinion and which I shall not comment on until I have looked at all in much greater detail. However Trevor , That does not make them secondary sources


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1685  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:21 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,703
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Yes, both pieces were there but there is no evidence that they ever made up a full apron all we have all through this are references to apron pieces

So why would they add the GS piece to the list of possessions when it was believed that it was from the apron she was wearing that doesn't make any sense at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Because they made a mistake.

None of your proposals explain why Eddowes is recorded under oath as wearing an Apron.
If she was wearing one as the official report strongly confirms, where did it go?

You however accept the list as being beyond reproach.
Why is this ?
Surely there must be more than just it fits your thinking.

Your argument appears to be because it is never explicitly said the two pieces form a whole (full) apron, they do not!
Such an approach is just your intreptation, that's ok, people disagree; however those who don't agree are numpties according to you, that is a very poor form of debate.

In an earlier post you said to the effect that you did not enjoy repeating this over and over again, let me assure you that you are not alone, I for one do not enjoy point out to you that your theories are often lacking in substance over and over again.
And don't forget, when I feel credit is due I say so, and I have done several times this year regarding some of your work.

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1686  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:39 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Trevor, the apron is mentioned.

Eddowes only had one handkerchief, it was white with 'red & white birds' as a border. It is listed here in the Times of Oct. 1st.
"...a common white handkerchief with a red border,"

In her list of possessions this is described as:
"1 White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief, red and white birds eye border."

However, the Times also offers two articles found around her neck:
"...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

In her list of possessions we find the same two articles listed together:
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon found on neck.
1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".


The ragged piece of blood-stained apron found around her neck was described as a handkerchief by the constable who made the list.

The GS piece brought by Phillips is the last item on her list of possessions:
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

So, both pieces are there.
I'm not sure about that, Jon. Hutt says in his evidence that when Kate was taken into custody;
"I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief."
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1687  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:42 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor

Let's be clear the newspaper reports of the inquest are not secondary sources!!!!!!

Your insistence on this is truly astounding.

Please provide some defintintive statements to back this up from someone other than your good self.

The official report and the paper reports are written at the same time, in the same place by much the same process. Someone listens to what is said and then this is written down.

Historically they are both primary sources.
A secondary source is such as you or I, writing at a later date based on various information.

What you mean is that you consider them less valid and reliable than the official report, which is a matter of opinion and which I shall not comment on until I have looked at all in much greater detail. However Trevor , That does not make them secondary sources


Steve
This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1688  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:42 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,108
Default

Just as an observation, I find it revealing that despite the fact this thread is about the writing, not the apron, the overwhelming choice for discussion has been about the apron. I suppose being the first and only piece of evidence that was found that had been transported by the killer to a different location it is contentious, but I believe the fact that the writing just happens to be so close to it and that it refers in some way to Jews and Blame, (on a night like no other in terms of ethnicity of witnesses and murder sites), allows us to consider a local man with anti Semitic feelings. Local residents were unhappy about the number of immigrant Jews now living in cramped quarters around them, that's why I think we can deduce local man. And thats relevant information.

It opens up the possibility that Stride was intentionally killed on Jewish property by an anti Semite, and that the cloth was dropped with the writing to suggest that Jews did both killings. I never considered this as a possibility until now. Maybe nothing.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1689  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:49 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Because they made a mistake.

None of your proposals explain why Eddowes is recorded under oath as wearing an Apron.
If she was wearing one as the official report strongly confirms, where did it go?

You however accept the list as being beyond reproach.
Why is this ?
Surely there must be more than just it fits your thinking.

Your argument appears to be because it is never explicitly said the two pieces form a whole (full) apron, they do not!
Such an approach is just your intreptation, that's ok, people disagree; however those who don't agree are numpties according to you, that is a very poor form of debate.

In an earlier post you said to the effect that you did not enjoy repeating this over and over again, let me assure you that you are not alone, I for one do not enjoy point out to you that your theories are often lacking in substance over and over again.
And don't forget, when I feel credit is due I say so, and I have done several times this year regarding some of your work.

Steve
I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories, because if I am right then it blows the whole Ripper mystery as it has been known for 129 years out of water.

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1690  
Old 09-14-2017, 02:52 AM
John G John G is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,079
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Except Times Law Reports are low down in the hierarchy of reports that can be cited. In fact, even All England Reports, and Weekly Law Reports, have secondary status, even though they have to be viewed, and signed off by the judge (I believe this also applies to the Times Reports). See: http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/law...f-authorities/
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 02:29 AM.


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