PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Carol]

With regard to ghost stories - of course, NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it to start with (my wife believes in that 'stuff', but not I - I'm the party-pooper that points out the trickery)

All that aside, are you sure it's advisable to write "I'm not that ga-ga" and then follow it with "Trevor talks a lot of sense"?



As far as the "take-off" is concerned I do recall arguing consistently for this interpretation for a number of years after I posted the dissertation and it didn't appear to me to be universally adopted.

While we're on the subject, try your "ga-ga" detector on our latest inspired proposal, a photo of Kelly's lower torso up close (MJK3) is now suggested to be a fake, and lastly, we have a Whitechapel murderer that never existed!
(Bloody-he11)

Where are you Ben Holme, we need to restore some sanity in this place....

You do have a way with words, Jon!

Carol (shamelessly quoting another poster)

[Wickerman]

Hi everyone,

Auntie Carol would just like to point out that the idea DID take off as I thought this was actually the case until this thread was started. I know I'm getting on a bit (68 last June) but I'm not that ga-ga. I think Trevor is actually talking a lot of sense and how he manages to keep his 'end' up in the face of all the opposition to EVERYTHING he says is remarkable to me.

I haven't made my mind up yet one way or the other, but I can't understand the attitude of many on Casebook who seem to think that we must automatically accept everything that has been written/said before. I really can't get my head around this. My father was a ghost-hunter/writer (amateur) and a member of the Society for Psychical Research. He was very well known in those circles back in his hey-day. A Ripper author, Peter Underwood, even dedicated one of his own books to him ('Ghosts of Kent'). Dad's name was Frederick Sanders. He always taught my brother and myself NEVER to take anyone else's word as 'gospel' (especially with regard to ghosts!) until you had looked into it yourself.

Carol

With regard to ghost stories - of course, NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it to start with (my wife believes in that 'stuff', but not I - I'm the party-pooper that points out the trickery)

All that aside, are you sure it's advisable to write "I'm not that ga-ga" and then follow it with "Trevor talks a lot of sense"?



As far as the "take-off" is concerned I do recall arguing consistently for this interpretation for a number of years after I posted the dissertation and it didn't appear to me to be universally adopted.

While we're on the subject, try your "ga-ga" detector on our latest inspired proposal, a photo of Kelly's lower torso up close (MJK3) is now suggested to be a fake, and lastly, we have a Whitechapel murderer that never existed!
(Bloody-he11)

Where are you Ben Holme, we need to restore some sanity in this place....

[Bridewell]

In fact I stand to be corrected here but I don't off the top of my head recall any official who was part of the initial investigation even suggesting that the killer was responsible for cutting or tearing the apron in any event.

Cutting or tearing?

Inspector Edward Collard:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

This portion of the apron is specifically described as having been cut (not torn); if not by the killer then by whom, bearing in mind that the portion referred to was "found outside her dress" i.e. still with the body?

People who are known to have been with Eddowes shortly before her demise and who were in possession of an implement capable of cutting cloth:

Her killer? Definitely.
Someone else? Probably not.

I think Collard's evidence should be seen as "suggesting that the killer was responsible", don't you?

[Bridewell]

Ah Trevor.
So PC Hutt did see her wearing an apron, but it wasn't the same apron introduced at the Inquest?

Curiouser and curiouser...



But of course, with the illusive Bishopsgate apron thief on the loose, no woman was safe.

Here's a thought, do you think its possible the apron thief and the kidney thief knew each other?

You do have a way with words, Jon!

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;304285

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.
Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.[/QUOTE]

Hi everyone,

Auntie Carol would just like to point out that the idea DID take off as I thought this was actually the case until this thread was started. I know I'm getting on a bit (68 last June) but I'm not that ga-ga. I think Trevor is actually talking a lot of sense and how he manages to keep his 'end' up in the face of all the opposition to EVERYTHING he says is remarkable to me.

I haven't made my mind up yet one way or the other, but I can't understand the attitude of many on Casebook who seem to think that we must automatically accept everything that has been written/said before. I really can't get my head around this. My father was a ghost-hunter/writer (amateur) and a member of the Society for Psychical Research. He was very well known in those circles back in his hey-day. A Ripper author, Peter Underwood, even dedicated one of his own books to him ('Ghosts of Kent'). Dad's name was Frederick Sanders. He always taught my brother and myself NEVER to take anyone else's word as 'gospel' (especially with regard to ghosts!) until you had looked into it yourself.

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
Daily Telegraph.

"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."
Times.

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.

Of course there was no source before then because in 1888 no one came to that conclusion. That source whoever started it off was presumably Gray Wroe.


Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.

Not universally accepted. You really are something else. Go back and read the many posts and discussion over the years all refer to the organs being taken away by the killer in the apron piece and then discarding it in GS.

The only straw man in this argument I fear is you

Now do you want me to throw a hand grenade into the hand wiping explanation and give you more sleepless nights ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon, I was trying to be subtle.

Surely Trevor had to get the idea somewhere or from someone that we all think the body parts were carried away in the apron.

I dunno who

Roy

I cannot see what your argument here is. I have already told you but you.

If you think you know the answer as to where this belief that the organs were taken away by the killer in the apron piece came from, then please share it with us all. Because whoever came up with did so with very little forethought and even with even less research, that person has a lot to answer for all, beacuse since then many have followed like sheep thereafter.

[Monty]

Was Simon on the Stella last night?

Monty

[Wickerman]

The description of the GS piece in any event is not consistent with organs being carried away in it, nor is it consistent with hands being wiped on it, with smears only on one side of the piece...

"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
Daily Telegraph.

"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."
Times.

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,..

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.
Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.

[Roy Corduroy]

Simon, I was trying to be subtle.

Surely Trevor had to get the idea somewhere or from someone that we all think the body parts were carried away in the apron.

I dunno who

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Come on, surely you can do better than that.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Then perhaps I'm only following your script Simon.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

I may have mentioned before that I think you're a patronizing prick.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

It is a very integral part of this mystery

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,

So let me get this straight, Trevor, you are telling me what I think. You are telling us all what we think. We all think the organs were taken away in the apron piece. Then you proceed to argue against that. Argue against what you told us we think. You argue the organs were not taken away in the apron piece and here's why.

Imagine you are in a bar, or a coffee house or a donut shop. Anywhere. A man walks in and proceeds, out of nowhere, to tell you what you think about something. What your opinion of it is, your stance on the issue. He tells you. Then, he proceeds to argue with you. He debates with you about what he had told you you think.

Its mental

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

Garry I am not insulting anyone and you know that.

Since last week, when you mentioned you had broached the idea in your book of the apron piece being used to carry the body parts, then ...aha ... starting now, Trevor Marriott finally has a name of someone who said that. Trevor goes on to claim that since you wrote your book, "from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,"

So yeah, we're all hunky dory now.

Roy