PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

As evidence goes it is not worth the paper its written on

So police reports are not now best evidence, despite your insistence in previous posts that they are. He was there at the time but he didn't know what he was talking about because, 126 years later, ex Dc Trevor Marriott disagrees with him.

McWilliams states quite categorically, in an official report, that Eddowes was wearing the apron but this we have to disregard as "just another smokescreen"? Trevor, Eddowes was wearing her apron or what was left of it. It is simply ludicrous to pretend otherwise rather than accept the truth.

At this point I will take my leave from this particular discussion. You can only bang your head against a brick wall for so long before getting a headache. I admire your enthusiasm but your leaps of logic are simply breath-taking.

[Trevor Marriott]

And so it came to pass:-

"Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory."

You hang your dismissal of McWilliams' evidence (Primary & Best Evidence) on my use of the word "contemporaneous" and point out that the report was compiled 4 weeks after the murder. Do you think that report was compiled off the top of his head or was it based on written notes he made at the time, at the crime scene and at the mortuary? Pocket Note Books, Trevor. We all carried them. Sometimes we needed to refer to them in order to compile witness statements and written reports - just as McWilliams did. You know his report was based on a contemporaneous note; it had to be. Just for once concede a point.

Contemporaneous was your word when referring to his report. I was merely highlighting the flaws in that as far as his report was concerned. As evidence goes it is not worth the paper its written on It takes this issue no further, just another smoke screen.

If it were contemporaneous and his evidence so important as you suggest why was he not called to give evidence. What about Major Smith he was there also yet he didn't write his "report" until 1910 he must have been a slow writer and I would be surprised if he even had a pocket book

I will gladly concede a point when its is concedeable but not in this case .

[Bridewell]

You are as deluded as Wickerman you are missing the point !

McWilliams report dated 1 month after the event, that's not contemporaneous.

And so it came to pass:-

"Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory."

You hang your dismissal of McWilliams' evidence (Primary & Best Evidence) on my use of the word "contemporaneous" and point out that the report was compiled 4 weeks after the murder. Do you think that report was compiled off the top of his head or was it based on written notes he made at the time, at the crime scene and at the mortuary? Pocket Note Books, Trevor. We all carried them. Sometimes we needed to refer to them in order to compile witness statements and written reports - just as McWilliams did. You know his report was based on a contemporaneous note; it had to be. Just for once concede a point.

[Qlder]

If GSG not genuine, some questions follow...

A few interesting questions arise from Vincenzo's recent post in another thread about the Lusk Letter (with concurrence by Stewart Evans) regarding the provenance of the GSG.

From the thread From Hell (Lusk) Letter likely Fake

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vincenzo
I have always wanted to believe this letter is actually from Jack. It's just so perfect. I believe it is a fake. Much like the Dear Boss letter, I believe it was written by a journalist looking to keep the story as hot as possible. How easy it would be to get a bit of kidney, I do not know. But it seems as if it would not be impossible if someone were determined.
In the end though, I just do not believe that Jack the Ripper really wanted or cared about publicity. His agenda was to get away with murder not to provide the police or anyone else with any help in finding him.
This is also the reason why I do not believe the Goulston Street Graffito was written by Jack.

You are thinking along the correct lines, great to see.
__________________
SPE

Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

If we view the Goulston Street graffito as a hoax, we must then ask: Who did write the graffito? Were they motivated by anti-semitism or did they have some other reason for being provocative? How did the bloody apron section come to be "lying" next to the graffito? (In the context of a hoax, that is a sadly intended pun. Sorry.) Is it possible that someone (perhaps even PC Long) discovered the bloody apron piece somewhere else and decided to ginger up the neighbourhood by placing it next to Wentworth Dwellings and added the graffito to complete their desired effect? The apron piece certainly came from Eddowes' apron, so must be viewed as a strong clue in her murder. If it was moved to Wentworth Dwellings by a hoaxer, where in fact might Eddowes' murderer have discarded it? And how bold would a hoaxer need to be to pick up a piece of evidence from a murder while the police are still crawling around the streets looking for a man who is believed to have killed two women that very night?

That last question has me wondering if the GSG might have been perpetrated by a policeman with a grudge against the local Jewish community, as a policeman probably stood the best chance of not being strung up if found with bloody evidence from a recent murder.

Curious!


Addendum: I haven't read all 700+ posts in this thread, so if my post is raking over old ground (almost certainly true) I will not be offended in the least if told to RTFP (indelicate web slang for "Read the Post" where comments show ignorance of prior discussions).

[The Good Michael]

Trevor could be right. It may have been say 3/4 of an apron when the evening began. But it still was all of that 3/4 when it was dividede into two portions. So...it just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter.

Mike

[Monty]

Its not silliness.

Its ignorance of procedure.

Monty

[Wickerman]

McWilliams report dated 1 month after the event, that's not contemporaneous.

The final session of the Stride inquest was three weeks after the murder.
Are you trying to claim that a three week wait is acceptable for a witness to give evidence, but four weeks isn't for a chief of detectives to file a report?

Another example of Silliness.

The GS piece must have been small in size otherwise it would not have had the appearance of being disposed off. Try the experiment with folding a large piece of material up such as half an apron and then throw it down, and see what happens to it it unfurls, and spreads itself out flat almost.

Aprons of the period, especially the cheap & common apron was made of Calico, it doesn't unfurl, it just stays as it was dropped.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then what is all this about if it's not an allusion to a piece being missing?

"Attach a portion to a piece and you still don't get a full apron"

No.

That is how you interpret the evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

Thank you for confirming that this is also your understanding. It gives me an opportunity to challenge your assertion that Eddowes wasn't wearing the apron:-
This is from Inspector James McWilliams' report dated 27th October 1888:-

"I then went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane, where the body had been taken by direction of Dr Gordon-Brown and saw the piece of apron - which was found in Goulstone (sic) Street - compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded."

Best evidence. Primary. Irrefutable. The words are yours. Eddowes was wearing what was left of her apron.

With the best will in the world your pictures aren't any kind of evidence. They are your pictures which illustrate your opinion - nothing wrong with that, and thank-you for posting, but they aren't evidence of any kind.

You don't debate. You just insist that you are right and demand that others agree.


I have made nothing up. McWilliams' report says what it says. The facts are contained in that report, quoted above. Best evidence. Primary evidence, Irrefutable evidence. Are you accepting his report or "blatantly ignoring" it?


McWilliams attended the murder scene.
"I went with D.s. Downes to Bishopsgate Station & from thence to Mitre Square".
He attended the mortuary.
I then went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane".
Having attended both the murder scene and the mortuary he alluded to the apron, saw the piece of apron from Goulston Street and compared it with
"a piece the deceased was wearing" (my italics).
Now this is primary evidence from a senior police officer who was in attendance. As such it is, by your definition, irrefutable. Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory.

You are as deluded as Wickerman you are missing the point !

McWilliams report dated 1 month after the event, that's not contemporaneous.

He was not there when the body was stripped. Collard and Brown were. It is not in dispute that the two pieces matched but why should it be assumed that the two pieces made up a full apron.

I have explained this in my last post but again you choose to ignore it and go off on a tangent quoting evidence that is not good evidence. He doesn't say the two matched pieces made a full apron, no one does, that's what you and other want to believe to prop up the old theory

The GS piece did not arrive at the mortuary until after 5am long after the body was stripped.

The GS piece must have been small in size otherwise it would not have had the appearance of being disposed off. Try the experiment with folding a large piece of material up such as half an apron and then throw it down, and see what happens to it it unfurls, and spreads itself out flat almost.

[Bridewell]

No one suggested anything about a piece being missing.

Then what is all this about if it's not an allusion to a piece being missing?

"Attach a portion to a piece and you still don't get a full apron"

Have you been sitting making things up with Wickerman?

No.

The GP piece and the MP did not and could not have make up a full apron based on Browns evidence.

That is how you interpret the evidence. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?

Brown clearly says about the MP piece "It was the corner of the apron with the string attached" Now that is in his inquest testimony read and signed by him after giving his evidence so that is irrefutable. Collards lists are irrefutable made at the time. That`s the best evidence you can get. primary. Newspaper reports are secondary evidence.

Thank you for confirming that this is also your understanding. It gives me an opportunity to challenge your assertion that Eddowes wasn't wearing the apron:-
This is from Inspector James McWilliams' report dated 27th October 1888:-

"I then went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane, where the body had been taken by direction of Dr Gordon-Brown and saw the piece of apron - which was found in Goulstone (sic) Street - compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded."

Best evidence. Primary. Irrefutable. The words are yours. Eddowes was wearing what was left of her apron.

Yes he matched it but it didn't make a full apron go back to my previous post a week or so ago where I displayed pics of aprons showing the various cuts relative to all of this.

With the best will in the world your pictures aren't any kind of evidence. They are your pictures which illustrate your opinion - nothing wrong with that, and thank-you for posting, but they aren't evidence of any kind.

Now I am not going to continue to debate this with people

You don't debate. You just insist that you are right and demand that others agree.

But why do you and others blatantly ignore the facts, and make things up ?

I have made nothing up. McWilliams' report says what it says. The facts are contained in that report, quoted above. Best evidence. Primary evidence, Irrefutable evidence. Are you accepting his report or "blatantly ignoring" it?

The main fact is that no one categorically saw her wearing an apron at the mortuary when the body was stripped.

McWilliams attended the murder scene.
"I went with D.s. Downes to Bishopsgate Station & from thence to Mitre Square".
He attended the mortuary.
I then went to the Mortuary in Golden Lane".
Having attended both the murder scene and the mortuary he alluded to the apron, saw the piece of apron from Goulston Street and compared it with
"a piece the deceased was wearing" (my italics).
Now this is primary evidence from a senior police officer who was in attendance. As such it is, by your definition, irrefutable. Nevertheless I'm sure that you will come up with some kind of convoluted argument which will insist that this particular example of best evidence, of primary evidence, contemporaneously recorded, somehow doesn't count and isn't irrefutable at all - because it doesn't fit with your theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron was cut into two pieces/portions. One was taken away; the other was left in situ. Nowhere does Brown - or anyone else - allude to there being a part of the apron which was unaccounted for. If an apron is divided into two parts and those parts are subsequently re-united, as was the case here, then yes, if you add one to the other you do get a full apron.

No one suggested anything about a piece being missing. Have you been sitting making things up with Wickerman? The GP piece and the MP did not and could not have make up a full apron based on Browns evidence.

Brown clearly says about the MP piece "It was the corner of the apron with the string attached" Now that is in his inquest testimony read and signed by him after giving his evidence so that is irrefutable. Collards lists are irrefutable made at the time. That`s the best evidence you can get. primary. Newspaper reports are secondary evidence.

Now kindly listen ! For the hundredth time on here. Browns evidence meant that the MP was either top left or top right so the GP piece had to have been bottom left or bottom right, in which case it could not have been a full apron to start with unless the killer removed three quarters of the full apron taking it away with him and by what has been said the GS piece did not come into that category.

Yes he matched it but it didn't make a full apron go back to my previous post a week or so ago where I displayed pics of aprons showing the various cuts relative to all of this.

Now I am not going to continue to debate this with people who want to interpret the facts in whatever way they want to that yours and theirs perrogative. But why do you and others blatantly ignore the facts, and make things up ?

The main fact is that no one categorically saw her wearing an apron at the mortuary when the body was stripped. When the body was stripped the GS piece had only just been found and those that were at the mortuary were not aware of till later.

[Bridewell]

Attach a portion to a piece and you still don't get a full apron

The apron was cut into two pieces/portions. One was taken away; the other was left in situ. Nowhere does Brown - or anyone else - allude to there being a part of the apron which was unaccounted for. If an apron is divided into two parts and those parts are subsequently re-united, as was the case here, then yes, if you add one to the other you do get a full apron.

[Wickerman]

According to the official record he did, Jon.

The official record is no more reliable than any press version, in fact it is less satisfactory due to lack of content. This is one of the reasons it is necessary to collate all the sources, as opposed to selecting a favourite.

We have a similar scenario at the Kelly inquest, where the official version records Barnett identifying the body by the 'ear', as opposed to other press versions where we read 'hair'.
Kelly's ears had been mutilated.
It's merely a problem of phonetics.

The press, especially the Telegraph, provided a far more cohesive and detailed rendition of the doctor's deposition.

The Telegraph is always a common favourite. I prefer to collate all eight principal sources to obtain a more complete picture of the inquest testimony. The main problem in following the Telegraph in this instance is that the Telegraph does not record that portion of Brown's testimony.
You need the Daily News & Morning Advertiser for that.

[Garry Wroe]

Well that's the issue I was trying to draw attention to. He didn't say "corner", so he isn't trying to locate the spots.

According to the official record he did, Jon.

If you recall both halves of the apron were entered into evidence (exhibits 'A' and 'B'?), all Brown was doing was identifying which piece he was talking about, ie;
"...it was the portion of the apron with the string attached...".

That's why certain press reports are far more informative than the official record. They include the preamble to Brown's reference to the corner and string. He was handed the upper section of apron produced from a brown paper bag and asked about the blood spots. He confirmed that this was the apron Eddowes had been wearing, then stated that the blood was located in the corner close to the string. At this point the lower section was produced from the same brown paper bag and Brown described it as that which had been 'in the possession of Dr Phillips'.

Again, Jon, I was merely addressing Trevor's conclusions based upon what he contended was the most reliable account of Brown's inquest evidence. Unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly, it isn't. The press, especially the Telegraph, provided a far more cohesive and detailed rendition of the doctor's deposition.

[Wickerman]

Assuming that he actually wrote the book in the first place.

Going on evidence from this thread alone, it doesn't appear there is too much familiarity with one's own writings.

Now there's a thought. I had wondered about a Ghostwriter myself. Maybe we should take a second look at this book, a clue may be had in the spelling.....

[El White Chap]

Do something useful Trevor, go acquaint yourself with your own book...

Assuming that he actually wrote the book in the first place.

Going on evidence from this thread alone, it doesn't appear there is too much familiarity with one's own writings.