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:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 15 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by caz 1 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by caz 1 hour and 3 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by Graham 1 hour and 14 minutes ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by OneRound 3 hours ago.
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - by cobalt 15 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (10 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: A theory about some injuries! - (5 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Centenaries - whole and half - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Why doubt a soldier murdered Tabram? - (2 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (2 posts)
Audio -- Visual: Mention of JtR in recent episode of "The Flash" - (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
  #1581  
Old 09-11-2017, 03:34 AM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,460
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?
deleted
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1582  
Old 09-11-2017, 05:55 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
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 witness was being asked to confirm something that had previously been established before the apron was produced in evidence.
Quote:
The apron piece was in court.
Yes, it was produced for the record, as evidence often is (and you should know). However, the identification with Eddowes' apron had already been made:

"After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goulston-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with" (The Star, 1st October... the day after the murder, and BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"No mention is made of anything that can be called a clue-if we except an alleged discovery of a remnant of the apron worn by one of the deceased women, which tends to show in what direction the murderer fled" (Daily News, 2nd October... BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"Mr. Crawford, in answer to one of the jurymen, said evidence would be given later on [NB: "later on". This shows that the identification had already been made] that a portion of the deceased's apron was found in Gouldstone street" (Evening News, 4th October... a day BEFORE the apron was produced at the inquest)

"Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Brown: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were [NB: "there were". Brown has obviously seen this piece of evidence prior to its being brought into the room] smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence [NB: "fitted" - past tense; not "it fits", "I think it will fit" or "I believe it fits". By "fitted", Brown is confirming an established fact]" (The Times, 5th October)

"Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirming that there was a piece missing from Eddowes' apron at the mortuary]. (Daily Telegraph, 12th October)

"A constable of the Metropolitan Police deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [confirming the match]" (Ibid.)
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1583  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:08 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The witness was being asked to confirm something that had previously been established before the apron was produced in evidence.
Yes, it was produced for the record, as evidence often is (and you should know). However, the identification with Eddowes' apron had already been made:

Yes made by Dr Brown at the mortuary at the time of the post mortem, but not by the police officers who were shown the piece at the time of the inquest

"After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goulston-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with" (The Star, 1st October... the day after the murder, and BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"No mention is made of anything that can be called a clue-if we except an alleged discovery of a remnant of the apron worn by one of the deceased women, which tends to show in what direction the murderer fled" (Daily News, 2nd October... BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"Mr. Crawford, in answer to one of the jurymen, said evidence would be given later on [NB: "later on". This shows that the identification had already been made] that a portion of the deceased's apron was found in Gouldstone street" (Evening News, 4th October... a day BEFORE the apron was produced at the inquest)

"Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Brown: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were [NB: "there were". Brown has obviously seen this piece of evidence prior to its being brought into the room] smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted [NB: "fitted" - past tense; not "it fits", "I think it will fit" or "I believe it fits". By "fitted", Brown is confirming an established fact] the piece of apron in evidence" (The Times, 5th October)

"Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirming that there was a piece missing from Eddowes' apron at the mortuary]. (Daily Telegraph, 12th October)

At the time he just happened to notice that a piece was missing so what made him take note of that at that time because, as stated the GS piece had not been found yet, and the pieces were not matched until later in the day.

"A constable of the Metropolitan Police deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [confirming the match]" (Ibid.)
Forget what is in the papers, the official inquest depositions made at court and signed by the witnesses are the ones to rely on

My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing, and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue, having regards to the clothing lists and Collards ambiguous inquest testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-11-2017 at 06:14 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1584  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:31 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Forget what is in the papers, the official inquest depositions made at court and signed by the witnesses are the ones to rely on

My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing, and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue, having regards to the clothing lists and Collards ambiguous inquest testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
whats your point Trevor? that neither the apron she was found wearing nor the piece found in Goulston street were really hers?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1585  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:44 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
whats your point Trevor? that neither the apron she was found wearing nor the piece found in Goulston street were really hers?
You clearly still have that lack of understanding you have had for a long time !

There is no dispute that the GS piece and the Mortuary piece matched, and that both had been in possession of Eddowes, but whether they made up a full apron is another matter, if they didn't then she wasnt wearing an apron and the lists corroborate this, you cant get better evidence than the lists-Notes made at the time !!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-11-2017 at 06:55 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1586  
Old 09-11-2017, 06:53 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 5,301
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
You clearly still have that lack of understanding you have had for a long time !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Thanks Trevor-I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Now get back to selling those Feigenbaum T-shirts. Or whatever such nonsense your pedaling these days.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1587  
Old 09-11-2017, 07:13 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,776
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Thanks Trevor-I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Now get back to selling those Feigenbaum T-shirts. Or whatever such nonsense your pedaling these days.
All you need to know can be found by following the link !!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 09-11-2017 at 07:24 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1588  
Old 09-11-2017, 07:38 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 8,883
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing
Brown, Halse and (probably) Long seem to have been satisfied that it matched the apron still attached to the body.

Brown:On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence [NB: not partially fitted, but fitted]

Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirmation that there was a piece of Eddowes' apron missing].

A constable of the Metropolitan Police [unnamed, but probably Long] deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [not partly corresponding, but corresponding to the apron found upon the body].

Edit: So, irrespective of what Robinson and Hutt may have said, it is well-attested that an incomplete apron was still attached to Eddowes at the mortuary, and that the apron-piece found at Goulston Street fitted it.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 09-11-2017 at 08:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1589  
Old 09-11-2017, 07:40 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,628
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
B]My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing
Which is why both answered "to the best of my knowledge" and "to the best of my belief" when asked.

Quote:
and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue,
Hutt and Robinson confirmed she was wearing an apron when they saw her.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1590  
Old 09-11-2017, 08:09 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,438
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Hutt and Robinson confirmed she was wearing an apron when they saw her.
Not to mention Wilkinson, the lodging house deputy who saw Eddowes earlier thay day.
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 05:52 AM.


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