The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

"Lipski" was chalked in large letters on a black paling opposite the arch where the Pinchin torso was found.

I never knew that, Jerry. Was the "Lipski" graffito found at the same time as the torso? Was it ever suggested that they were linked?

[jerryd]

I never knew that, Jerry. Was the "Lipski" graffito found at the same time as the torso? Was it ever suggested that they were linked?

Hi Sam,

https://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=12711

[jerryd]

I find it interesting that although it was not written directly above the torso, it was written on black paling just like the GSG. It would show up better that way, would it not?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby,

One corner of the apron was wet with blood. His light was on at the time."

Another example of the many ambiguous statements to be found amongst the witness testimony in these inquests.

The murder took place at least 90 mins before the apron piece was found, would a corner still have been "wet" with blood after that length of time?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

The murder took place at least 90 mins before the apron piece was found, would a corner still have been "wet" with blood after that length of time?

It had been raining heavily, and it's likely that the floor of the passageway would have had its fair share of puddles. I daresay that some of this wetness would have seeped into the cloth, given that - as I suspect - it had lain in contact with the floor for quite some time before PC Long discovered it, and had soaked up additional moisture in the interim.

[DJA]

Another example of the many ambiguous statements to be found amongst the witness testimony in these inquests.

The murder took place at least 90 mins before the apron piece was found, would a corner still have been "wet" with blood after that length of time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Given the temperature and humidity,how was the water constituent of the blood going to evaporate!

[Trevor Marriott]

Given the temperature and humidity,how was the water constituent of the blood going to evaporate!

But it wasnt soaked or saturated was it?

Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet.”

This means a portion was wet, which again is difficult to understand as it appear the wetness was not blood.

Pc Long as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it.”

Pc Long as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood.”

He simply found a portion of material, at the time he could not have known it had come from an apron. His evidence is retrospective by the time he gave it it had been established that it had matched a piece of apron found on the victim.

Then the other evidential fiasco follows where other police officers at the inquest are shown portions of an apron, which they categorically state are from the apron she was wearing. How could they be certain that what they were shown was what she was wearing, all white aprons look alike.

It seems everybody wanted the facts to fit very nicely, and many do still to this day.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Then the other evidential fiasco follows where other police officers at the inquest are shown portions of an apron, which they categorically state are from the apron she was wearing. How could they be certain that what they were shown was what she was wearing, all white aprons look alike.

Because the portion of the apron found at Goulston Street was found to match the remainder of the apron still attached to the body in Mitre Square. It's as simple as that.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because the portion of the apron found at Goulston Street was found to match the remainder of the apron still attached to the body in Mitre Square. It's as simple as that.

No its not that simple, for a witness to be able to identify a piece of material as having come from an apron that the witness purported saw her wearing he surely has to be asked how he can say the piece shown to him at court was from the apron she was wearing, what was unusual about it,what made it stick in his mind? Not simply take if for granted for the reasons you suggest.

The witnesses could have been showing any old piece white apron and i have doubt they would have still said it was from the apron she was wearing, because that was the belief at the time.

Instead the witnesses went out on a limb and stated that what was shown to them was from the apron she was wearing, and they were believed without question, and of course if she wasn't wearing an apron that makes a hell of a difference to the evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Another example of the many ambiguous statements to be found amongst the witness testimony in these inquests.

The murder took place at least 90 mins before the apron piece was found, would a corner still have been "wet" with blood after that length of time?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unless saturated unlikely Trevor unlikely, but given it was wet that night, that could explain it away. The other option is that it was not Eddowes blood, but that of the proposed killer, who may have used it to staunch a cut he inflicted on himself.

All possible, all unprovable.

I am going onto Mitre square and the GSG next year by the way, after i finish Bucks Row. will give it the same sort of Treatment.


Steve

[Sam Flynn]

No its not that simple, for a witness to be able to identify a piece of material as having come from an apron that the witness purported saw her wearing he surely has to be asked how he can say the piece shown to him at court was from the apron she was wearing, what was unusual about it,what made it stick in his mind?

The match was made before the inquest took place, and it was a physical match between the fragment found at Goulston Street and the remainder of the apron still attached by strings to Eddowes' person. It wasn't as if the Goulston Street piece was briefly waved around at the inquest and the witness(es) asked to identify it there and then from memory.

[Trevor Marriott]

The match was made before the inquest took place, and it was a physical match between the fragment found at Goulston Street and the remainder of the apron still attached by strings to Eddowes' person. It wasn't as if the Goulston Street piece was briefly waved around at the inquest and the witness(es) asked to identify it there and then from memory.

I am fully aware how the match was made but I think you need to read the inquest testimony again.

There has to be an element of continuity, both Pc Robinson and Pc Hutt in their official inquest testimoniescoincidentally say exactly the same thing at the inquest "I believe the one produced is the one she was wearing" But both had no way of positively identifying the piece of apron or the remains of the apron as being the one she was apparently wearing. There was nothing identifiable about the apron it was an old white apron like hundreds in circulation at that time.

As I said any old piece could have been put before them and you can bet they would have said exactly the same thing. Just another example of how the many ambiguities in these inquests were not picked up and clarified.

Then we have Collard who produces the list of clothing from the mortuary and was present when the body was stripped, saying she was apparently wearing an apron, when the lists he produced support the fact she wasn't wearing an apron.

With regards to the Eddowes inquest there are more holes in the witnesses testimony than in a cullender and most of it relates to police evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

As I said any old piece could have been put before them and you can bet they would have said exactly the same thing. Just another example of how the many ambiguities in these inquests were not picked up and clarified.

You're missing the point. An apron piece was not "put before them" at the inquest. The match had previously been made. Just how many shitty, bloody pieces of apron can we believe were floating around Whitechapel within an hour of a shitty, bloody murder?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely this is as straight forward as Sam explained. The apron had already been matched up. Perhaps Hutt, Long and Robinson should have, more accurately, said 'well it certainly looks like it.' But the outcome is the same. What reason did they have to lie?

[harry]

I am with Trevor on this.The only person that could give evidence that the piece found by Long matched the piece found on the body of Eddowes,was the person who made the match.Long would have been speaking of being told a match had been made.My opinion.