GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

The Police at the time stated that the apron found in Goulston Street came from Eddowes apron. They were there. We weren’t. Why were they wrong? Of course it’s pointless for me to point out the fact that Hutt and Robinson, who both saw her and spent time on her company, both stated that she was wearing an apron, because you desperately try to discredit their evidence purely to prop up your own theory. That she was wearing an apron can be taken as a proven fact.

My emphasis was "at the time she was murdered" much of the police evidence from 1888 has proved to be unreliable from the constables on the ground right up to the senior officers

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

My emphasis was "at the time she was murdered" much of the police evidence from 1888 has proved to be unreliable from the constables on the ground right up to the senior officers

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And on the subject of Robinson and Hutt you are clearly wrong, as there isn’t the merest smidgeon of a doubt that they lied or incorrectly confirmed that she was wearing an apron. This is just a convenient assumption on your part so that you can make a point. Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she died. This shouldn’t even be up for question. It’s simply a statement of fact.

[Sunny Delight]

Careful, Sunny D, you conclude too far: taking the large piece of Eddoes' apron (which he could have used and discarded in situ rather than invest critical time in cutting it out, so he clearly wanted to take it away) does show us that he headed into Whitechapel rather than away from it but it most certainly does not show that he 'lived locally'. It may well have been the case that he had a room locally which he could use.

This - of course - answers Trevor's question about why it would take the killer so long to discard the apron. Whether he 'lived locally' or had access to a room locally, he self-evidently could have gone there first, changed his clothes, hid his knife, waited an hour or so, and then went out with the apron in his pocket, written the GSG, and only then dropped the apron to flag the GSG up to the police, before walking calmly back to his room or his home.

This is a great deal more plausible than that the killer hung around the streets for an hour or so with his knife and Eddowes' bloodied apron and goodness only knows how much of her blood under his long coat

Ike

You also conclude too far. It may be that PC Long merely did not notice the apron on his beat at 2:20am- it makes even less sense that after taking the incriminating evidence all the way back to a room he may have had access to, he then re-enters the streets with the incriminating evidence and then discards it in Goulston Street and heads where? Back to his room or to his own home elsewhere? Surely after making it to the room you would just stay there, particularly after just murdering two women. It doesn't make any sense. My feeling is the Halse missed it first time around and by the time it was discovered the killer was long gone- back home in the middle of Whitechapel.

[Iconoclast]

You also conclude too far. It may be that PC Halse merely did not notice the apron on his beat at 2:20am- it makes even less sense that after taking the incriminating evidence all the way back to a room he may have had access to, he then re-enters the streets with the incriminating evidence and then discards it in Goulston Street and heads where? Back to his room or to his own home elsewhere? Surely after making it to the room you would just stay there, particularly after just murdering two women. It doesn't make any sense. My feeling is the Halse missed it first time around and by the time it was discovered the killer was long gone- back home in the middle of Whitechapel.

The only reason Jack would have had to leave his bolthole (given the danger) was in order to write the GSG. The apron was clearly intended to draw attention to it. This all implies that the GSG was planned well in advance (not simply written 'impetuously).

And before anyone says how stupid it is to think Jack planned to write the GSG in advance, let's acknowledge that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that he didn't. It's really not that big a stretch.

[Sunny Delight]

The only reason Jack would have had to leave his bolthole (given the danger) was in order to write the GSG. The apron was clearly intended to draw attention to it. This all implies that the GSG was planned well in advance (not simply written 'impetuously).

And before anyone says how stupid it is to think Jack planned to write the GSG in advance, let's acknowledge that there is absolutely no reason to suggest that he didn't. It's really not that big a stretch.

It is of course possible. For me however highly unlikely. It was reported by some of those who saw the graffitti that it was faded and likely there for some time. Added to that why did the killer not just do it on his way to the bolt hole? Instead he goes home and then re-enters the streets with incriminating evidence to scrawl an anti-semitic message on the jamb of a wall. Would it not be more likely that:

- JTR kills Eddowes and takes a piece of her apron.

- He makes his escape likely reaching Goulston Street at 2am. There he discards the apron. Why he had it we don't know.

- PC Long on his beat at 2:20am merely does not notice the apron. I dont wish to disparage him but he didn't even bring his pocket book to the inquest and had to be requested to get it. He also couldn't definitively say how the graffitti had been spelt. Evidently he may not have been the most observant. The persons on the jury were none too impressed with him and his lack of searching the tenements.

- JTR is safely back at his lodgings in the centre of Whitechapel. PC Long passes Goulston Street at 2:55pm and finds the apron. One corner wet with blood.

To me it is fairly obvious that Long initially missed the apron. PC Halse had also passed Goulston Street at 2:20am but said he would not neccessarily have seen the Apron at the Inquest.

[Trevor Marriott]

And on the subject of Robinson and Hutt you are clearly wrong, as there isn’t the merest smidgeon of a doubt that they lied or incorrectly confirmed that she was wearing an apron. This is just a convenient assumption on your part so that you can make a point. Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she died. This shouldn’t even be up for question. It’s simply a statement of fact.

If I met you in the street and then 7days later you asked me to say what kind of a shirt you were wearing would I be able to remember I doubt it, yet Robinson and Hutt were asked almost 7 days later if she was wearing a white apron when all the women of the day were wearing white aprons, they were less than liberal with the truth in order to follow what the senior officers wanted to belive and that was which way the killer went after the murder, and you and others have beem fooled into believing all of this

So why is there no evidence from Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who booked her in and released her She would have been in his view on both ocasions for some considerable time, and nothing that resembles an apron on Fosters sketch, and Insp Collard who refers to an apron piece listed among her possessions.

I would suggest as I always have that she was not wearing an apron, and at some time before her arrest she was in possession of two pieces of old white apron which had at some point in the past come from a full white apron which she had used as a makeshift sanitary device and the blood and the faecal matter found on just one side of the apron piece confirms that and she had the time and the opportujity to dispose of it under The GS arch on leaving the police station and before meeting her killer.

Flower and dean Street where she was lodging was a stones throw away from GS

But we have gone over this many times before shame you cant accept the reality of all of this apron business

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I met you in the street and then 7days later you asked me to say what kind of a shirt you were wearing would I be able to remember I doubt it, yet Robinson and Hutt were asked almost 7 days later if she was wearing a white apron when all the women of the day were wearing white aprons, they were less than liberal with the truth in order to follow what the senior officers wanted to belive and that was which way the killer went after the murder, and you and others have beem fooled into believing all of this

So why is there no evidence from Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who booked her in and released her She would have been in his view on both ocasions for some considerable time, and nothing that resembles an apron on Fosters sketch, and Insp Collard who refers to an apron piece listed among her possessions.

I would suggest as I always have that she was not wearing an apron, and at some time before her arrest she was in possession of two pieces of old white apron which had at some point in the past come from a full white apron which she had used as a makeshift sanitary device and the blood and the faecal matter found on just one side of the apron piece confirms that and she had the time and the opportujity to dispose of it under The GS arch on leaving the police station and before meeting her killer.

Flower and dean Street where she was lodging was a stones throw away from GS

But we have gone over this many times before shame you cant accept the reality of all of this apron business

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Conjecture on your part. I thought that conjecture wasn’t allowed. You however claim your conjecture as ‘reality’ an your definition of ‘reality’ differs with the actual definition. You’ve come up with a scenario and are expecting everyone to accept it as fact. So again…..opinion stated as fact. You are simply shaping events to fit your own theory…..again.

[Trevor Marriott]

Conjecture on your part. I thought that conjecture wasn’t allowed. You however claim your conjecture as ‘reality’ an your definition of ‘reality’ differs with the actual definition. You’ve come up with a scenario and are expecting everyone to accept it as fact. So again…..opinion stated as fact. You are simply shaping events to fit your own theory…..again.

I notice you avoid the facts I have mentioned is that because you have no answer?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

If I met you in the street and then 7days later you asked me to say what kind of a shirt you were wearing would I be able to remember I doubt it, yet Robinson and Hutt were asked almost 7 days later if she was wearing a white apron when all the women of the day were wearing white aprons, they were less than liberal with the truth in order to follow what the senior officers wanted to belive and that was which way the killer went after the murder, and you and others have beem fooled into believing all of this
[/URL]

There would have been a more than reasonable chance of me remembering the colour though and I’d certainly have remembered if you weren’t wearing one. And an apron was considerably more visible than a shirt. Both Robinson and Hutt would have had a mental image of her which clearly included a white apron. Wouldn’t she have been searched before being placed in the cell? Meaning a closer than usual look? This wasn’t a woman that they’d seen in passing across the street. They saw her at close quarters and over a lengthy time period.

And why would they have confirmed the apron if they weren’t certain? The Police had no steak in whether the Goulston Street piece was from Kate’s apron. If it wasn’t from her apron the Police would have wanted to have known this. So there was absolutely no reason for them to have confirmed a falsehood. Whichever way you look at it they had no motive for lying and we have no reason to even suspect that both would have made the same mistake.

She was wearing an apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I notice you avoid the facts I have mentioned is that because you have no answer?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I haven’t seen any ‘facts.’ Only your conjecture.

[Sunny Delight]

If I met you in the street and then 7days later you asked me to say what kind of a shirt you were wearing would I be able to remember I doubt it, yet Robinson and Hutt were asked almost 7 days later if she was wearing a white apron when all the women of the day were wearing white aprons, they were less than liberal with the truth in order to follow what the senior officers wanted to belive and that was which way the killer went after the murder, and you and others have beem fooled into believing all of this

So why is there no evidence from Sgt Byfield the station Sgt who booked her in and released her She would have been in his view on both ocasions for some considerable time, and nothing that resembles an apron on Fosters sketch, and Insp Collard who refers to an apron piece listed among her possessions.

I would suggest as I always have that she was not wearing an apron, and at some time before her arrest she was in possession of two pieces of old white apron which had at some point in the past come from a full white apron which she had used as a makeshift sanitary device and the blood and the faecal matter found on just one side of the apron piece confirms that and she had the time and the opportujity to dispose of it under The GS arch on leaving the police station and before meeting her killer.

Flower and dean Street where she was lodging was a stones throw away from GS

But we have gone over this many times before shame you cant accept the reality of all of this apron business

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr Brown: ......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

Inspector Collard: A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

Are you actually trying to claim Eddowes waw not wearing an apron?

[Sunny Delight]

The Police at the time stated that the apron found in Goulston Street came from Eddowes apron. They were there. We weren’t. Why were they wrong? Of course it’s pointless for me to point out the fact that Hutt and Robinson, who both saw her and spent time on her company, both stated that she was wearing an apron, because you desperately try to discredit their evidence purely to prop up your own theory. That she was wearing an apron can be taken as a proven fact.

Even if she wasn't as Trevor suggests what does it tell us? That the killer wasn't heading back into Whitechapel? That's it. Nothing else. Possibly the graffitti unconnected too but I think the general consensus is it was unconnected anyways. It is really quite a strange thing to pick up on really when it's fairly obvious that those who were there confirmed it was part of Eddowes apron. A proven fact as you rightly define it.

[Mark J D]

... I would suggest ... she was in possession of two pieces of old white apron which ... she had used as a makeshift sanitary device ... and she had the time and the opportujity to dispose of it under The GS arch on leaving the police station and before meeting her killer...

Why would she 'dispose of it under the GS arch' -- i.e. at pavement level and where someone would have to pick it up and remove it -- when the deep recesses all along the front of the building [see photo ] would have been natural drops down which to dump something foul and nasty?



M.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even if she wasn't as Trevor suggests what does it tell us? That the killer wasn't heading back into Whitechapel? That's it. Nothing else. Possibly the graffitti unconnected too but I think the general consensus is it was unconnected anyways. It is really quite a strange thing to pick up on really when it's fairly obvious that those who were there confirmed it was part of Eddowes apron. A proven fact as you rightly define it.

It wasn’t doubted at the time by those that actually saw Eddowes while she was still alive and those that saw the Goulston Street piece and the apron in her possession. These people gained no possible benefit from insisting that the GS piece came from Eddowes apron if it hadn’t. It’s always seemed pretty clear cut to me. In fact I think it seems clear cut to everyone but Trevor.

[Iconoclast]

It is of course possible. For me however highly unlikely. It was reported by some of those who saw the graffitti that it was faded and likely there for some time. Added to that why did the killer not just do it on his way to the bolt hole? Instead he goes home and then re-enters the streets with incriminating evidence to scrawl an anti-semitic message on the jamb of a wall. Would it not be more likely that:

- JTR kills Eddowes and takes a piece of her apron.

- He makes his escape likely reaching Goulston Street at 2am. There he discards the apron. Why he had it we don't know.

- PC Long on his beat at 2:20am merely does not notice the apron. I dont wish to disparage him but he didn't even bring his pocket book to the inquest and had to be requested to get it. He also couldn't definitively say how the graffitti had been spelt. Evidently he may not have been the most observant. The persons on the jury were none too impressed with him and his lack of searching the tenements.

- JTR is safely back at his lodgings in the centre of Whitechapel. PC Long passes Goulston Street at 2:55pm and finds the apron. One corner wet with blood.

To me it is fairly obvious that Long initially missed the apron. PC Halse had also passed Goulston Street at 2:20am but said he would not neccessarily have seen the Apron at the Inquest.

Have you ever been to Goulston Street? It would be nigh-on impossible to miss that apron.

The reason why he didn't write the GSG then go home? Simple, mate - home was nearer.