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:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by MysterySinger 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 3 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Wickerman 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - by Abby Normal 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Possible reason for Hutch coming forward - (17 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (11 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (6 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Kosminski/Kaminsky - please debunk - (4 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (2 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: Tabbard Street East? - (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
  #1651  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:41 AM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,684
Default

The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1652  
Old 09-13-2017, 01:47 AM
Jon Guy Jon Guy is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Blighty
Posts: 2,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?
No, the one apron on the list was the one Eddowes was wearing.
Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1653  
Old 09-13-2017, 02:12 AM
Elamarna Elamarna is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott;428
, and there is a lot of evidence to show that she may not have been wearing an apron, as the two pieces have been described as just that, two pieces.
[url
www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/url]
Please show the Evidence. I mean documented sources which suggested she was not wearing an apron.

What you present above is not evidence, it is supposition.
The official report clearly states that an apron was worn.

Pc Robinson:

".” By Mr. Crawford –“The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing.” "


The "I believe" comment does not refer to her wearing an apron or not

Pc Hutt:


"I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station. "


Again his comment about believing does not relate to if she was wearing an apron or not.

I See nothing produced to counter those statements or to suggest they are mistaken.


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1654  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:05 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by etenguy View Post
Thanks Joshua.

For that theory to be accurate then, as the blood on the apron was still wet when PC Long found the piece of apron, Catherine would have had to have gone to Goulston street after she was released from the cells and then journeyed back to Mitre Square (possibly enough time to do that if she didn't dawdle). Though PC Hutt has her leaving in the direction of Houndsditch - which is on route to Mitre Square.
Hutt said she left the police station at 1am, and estimated it was an 8 minute walk to Mitre Square. Meaning there was time, I think, to - in theory - walk to Goulston Street, deposit apron, go to Aldgate, pick up a companion and get to Church Passage by half past one.

Quote:
I think it would also mean PC Long missed seeing the apron on his first pass rather than it not being there at 2.20am.
Missed not just once, but up to three times between about 1:20 and 2:55

Quote:
I suppose most of the sightings of Catherine wearing a white apron that day could still have been correct if she tore the apron herself later in the day and used it as suggested.
In theory, that sounds like a possibility. But remember, this poor woman was wearing or carrying everything she owned. Do you think she'd resort to destroying her own clothing when she already had "12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained" along with various othet pieces of material in her pockets?

Quote:
I think I would want to find a better description of the pattern of blood stains and the amount of blood on the piece found in GS to help determine if this theory was a likely explanation. It seems less likely than the conventional theory to me, so far.
There are various desciptions of the Goulston Street apron piece in the press reports if you trawl through them. Most say something like it looked as if someone had wiped their hands or knife on it.

It's interesting to note that a bloodstained cloth was found a few streets away from the Pinchin Street torso, which was recognised as having been used for sanitary purposes since it was folded into a diaper shape.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1655  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:12 AM
Harry D Harry D is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 2,024
Default

This thread really has jumped the shark now Trev's riding his favourite hobby horse. Nothing else to see here, folks. Show's over.
__________________
Hail to the king, baby!
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1656  
Old 09-13-2017, 03:45 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,144
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?
The piece found matched the piece missing from the apron Kate was wearing and that can be verified by the match in lines of the the old repair to the apron. I'm with you on the above, I assume then we are talking about a third piece that Kate had in her pocket perhaps?

Which wouldnt be surprising, considering she had everything but a kitchen sink on her at the time.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1657  
Old 09-13-2017, 04:01 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
I assume then we are talking about a third piece that Kate had in her pocket perhaps?
Two pieces. See post #1645
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1658  
Old 09-13-2017, 05:38 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
No, the one apron on the list was the one Eddowes was wearing.
Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.
That is conjecture on your part !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1659  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:00 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor

Much of what you say, is how you believe things should have been done, how things You beleive should have been recorded; its your own perspective and is not necessarily so.

And its not necessary so that we readily accept the opinions of the police from 1888. My opinion based on what I have presented is just as valid as theirs from 1888, even more so when you look at the ambiguities more closely.

I and others see NO case to suggest she was not wearing an apron.
Indeed last night I read again the official report and I do not reach your conclusion. It appears clear that she was wearing an apron. That you choose to interpret the same document differently is one of those things.

But the official lists show she was not wearing an apron and no matter how you or others twist that around that evidence is not going to go away. Nor is the fact that pieces of apron are continually mentioned, along with the fact that their in no evidence to show the two matched pieces ever made up a full apron.

The point of my post was that this is the same debate over and over again. It appears you have convinced few of your interpretation. Just repeating the same arguments will not change that.

Yes because you and others choose to keep sweeping what I suggest under the carpet hoping it will go away so you can get back to discussing the old accpted theory.

What you have done is to provide possabilties, which while not impossible are far from convincing to others who study the murders.

Because those you refer to dont want the mystery changing

You may be correct, who knows, however the source data does not appear to support that in the view of most.

Most hmmmmmmmmmmmm residents of numpty towers?

My comments are based on the official report not the paper reports which you incorrectly still refer to as Secondary Sources, from an historical perspective they are also primary sources, being recorded at the same time and in the same place as the official report.

The official report are the one to regard, those secondary sources you and others seek to rely on, many are in conflict with the official reports, and in many case conflict with each other, but again we see time and again, a newspaper report quoted simply to corroborate someones explanation or theory.

However the official report being present does give advantages to the researcher, it allows comparison of mistakes and also ommisions. This is important as it is clear from just reading the official report that the wording for some questions is impricise.

Not just the wording but the answers given by witnesses

This is one of the reasons I am giving the Project treatment to Mitre Square next.

I look forward to reading it.

Cheers

Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1660  
Old 09-13-2017, 06:03 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Guy View Post
Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.
I have to agree with Trevor on this one...

Halse said that he saw the body stripped at the mortuary before hearing that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. So as I see it, when Dr Brown talks of matching that piece with the piece still attached to the body, he must mean attached when the body was found, not when the pieces were matched.
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 06:58 PM.


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