The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

Dr Brown, at the inquest stated that the GS piece had been brought by Dr Phillips. I don't think he was talking about the piece being produced at the inquest, Dr Phillips was not present at the Eddowes Inquest.
(The two pieces were brought to the inquest as items of evidence by the police).

Brown's testimony seems to be a bit misleading, but he must mean that the GS piece was brought to Golden Lane by Dr Phillips, as Philips did help with the post-mortem. It was at the mortuary where the two pieces were matched, by both Phillips and Brown, not at the inquest.
From that point forward both pieces belong to the City police as evidence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Dr Brown, at the inquest stated that the GS piece had been brought by Dr Phillips. I don't think he was talking about the piece being produced at the inquest, Dr Phillips was not present at the Eddowes Inquest.
(The two pieces were brought to the inquest as items of evidence by the police).

Brown's testimony seems to be a bit misleading, but he must mean that the GS piece was brought to Golden Lane by Dr Phillips, as Philips did help with the post-mortem. It was at the mortuary where the two pieces were matched, by both Phillips and Brown, not at the inquest.
From that point forward both pieces belong to the City police as evidence.

You are totally correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

You are still missing the point !

Had they been shown it before then their evidence would have been different. It would have been along the lines of "At ....... on .......... I was shown a piece of white apron found in Goulston Street, I believe it was a piece from the apron the victim was wearing"

The apron piece was in court.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Why was the apron piece taken to the mortuary by a doctor?It was in police possession since handed in by Long. Why should it have been thought a connection to Eddowes murder?for as Trevour says,all it appeared to be was a dirty white bloodstained piece of cloth.How , when and why,did the police first form an opinion it might be evidence?

[Trevor Marriott]

Why was the apron piece taken to the mortuary by a doctor?It was in police possession since handed in by Long. Why should it have been thought a connection to Eddowes murder?for as Trevour says,all it appeared to be was a dirty white bloodstained piece of cloth.How , when and why,did the police first form an opinion it might be evidence?

Good question. I think Dr Brown wanted Dr Phillips to be involved as he had been involved in other murders. You are correct the two pieces were not matched until the post mortem stage many hours after the body arrived at the mortuary in the possession of Dr Phillips who had taken it from Pc Long

And when it arrived and was stripped, no one at the mortuary knew about the GS piece because it hadn't been found at that time. So if she had been wearing an apron, and a piece was missing there would have been no reason to at the time connect it to the GS piece or specifically note down the fact that a piece was missing from the apron she was apparently wearing.

Much of the evidence relating to this is retrospective and unsafe, after they realised the two pieces matched.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

Why was the apron piece taken to the mortuary by a doctor?It was in police possession since handed in by Long. Why should it have been thought a connection to Eddowes murder?for as Trevour says,all it appeared to be was a dirty white bloodstained piece of cloth.How , when and why,did the police first form an opinion it might be evidence?

deleted

[Sam Flynn]

You are still missing the point !

Had they been shown it before then their evidence would have been different. It would have been along the lines of "At ....... on .......... I was shown a piece of white apron found in Goulston Street, I believe it was a piece from the apron the victim was wearing"

The witness was being asked to confirm something that had previously been established before the apron was produced in evidence.

The apron piece was in court.

Yes, it was produced for the record, as evidence often is (and you should know). However, the identification with Eddowes' apron had already been made:

"After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goulston-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with" (The Star, 1st October... the day after the murder, and BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"No mention is made of anything that can be called a clue-if we except an alleged discovery of a remnant of the apron worn by one of the deceased women, which tends to show in what direction the murderer fled" (Daily News, 2nd October... BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"Mr. Crawford, in answer to one of the jurymen, said evidence would be given later on [NB: "later on". This shows that the identification had already been made] that a portion of the deceased's apron was found in Gouldstone street" (Evening News, 4th October... a day BEFORE the apron was produced at the inquest)

"Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Brown: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were [NB: "there were". Brown has obviously seen this piece of evidence prior to its being brought into the room] smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence [NB: "fitted" - past tense; not "it fits", "I think it will fit" or "I believe it fits". By "fitted", Brown is confirming an established fact]" (The Times, 5th October)

"Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirming that there was a piece missing from Eddowes' apron at the mortuary]. (Daily Telegraph, 12th October)

"A constable of the Metropolitan Police deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [confirming the match]" (Ibid.)

[Trevor Marriott]

The witness was being asked to confirm something that had previously been established before the apron was produced in evidence.
Yes, it was produced for the record, as evidence often is (and you should know). However, the identification with Eddowes' apron had already been made:

Yes made by Dr Brown at the mortuary at the time of the post mortem, but not by the police officers who were shown the piece at the time of the inquest

"After committing the second murder, the man seems to have gone back towards the scene of the former. An apron, which is thought by the police to belong to the woman found in Mitre-square, as it was the same material as part of her dress was found in Goulston-street. It was smeared with blood, and had been evidently carried away by the murderer to wipe his hands with" (The Star, 1st October... the day after the murder, and BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"No mention is made of anything that can be called a clue-if we except an alleged discovery of a remnant of the apron worn by one of the deceased women, which tends to show in what direction the murderer fled" (Daily News, 2nd October... BEFORE the inquest had even started)

"Mr. Crawford, in answer to one of the jurymen, said evidence would be given later on [NB: "later on". This shows that the identification had already been made] that a portion of the deceased's apron was found in Gouldstone street" (Evening News, 4th October... a day BEFORE the apron was produced at the inquest)

"Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Brown: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were [NB: "there were". Brown has obviously seen this piece of evidence prior to its being brought into the room] smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted [NB: "fitted" - past tense; not "it fits", "I think it will fit" or "I believe it fits". By "fitted", Brown is confirming an established fact] the piece of apron in evidence" (The Times, 5th October)

"Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirming that there was a piece missing from Eddowes' apron at the mortuary]. (Daily Telegraph, 12th October)

At the time he just happened to notice that a piece was missing so what made him take note of that at that time because, as stated the GS piece had not been found yet, and the pieces were not matched until later in the day.

"A constable of the Metropolitan Police deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [confirming the match]" (Ibid.)

Forget what is in the papers, the official inquest depositions made at court and signed by the witnesses are the ones to rely on

My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing, and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue, having regards to the clothing lists and Collards ambiguous inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Forget what is in the papers, the official inquest depositions made at court and signed by the witnesses are the ones to rely on

My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing, and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue, having regards to the clothing lists and Collards ambiguous inquest testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

whats your point Trevor? that neither the apron she was found wearing nor the piece found in Goulston street were really hers?

[Trevor Marriott]

whats your point Trevor? that neither the apron she was found wearing nor the piece found in Goulston street were really hers?

You clearly still have that lack of understanding you have had for a long time !

There is no dispute that the GS piece and the Mortuary piece matched, and that both had been in possession of Eddowes, but whether they made up a full apron is another matter, if they didn't then she wasnt wearing an apron and the lists corroborate this, you cant get better evidence than the lists-Notes made at the time !!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

You clearly still have that lack of understanding you have had for a long time !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks Trevor-I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Now get back to selling those Feigenbaum T-shirts. Or whatever such nonsense your pedaling these days.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor-I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

Now get back to selling those Feigenbaum T-shirts. Or whatever such nonsense your pedaling these days.

All you need to know can be found by following the link !!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing

Brown, Halse and (probably) Long seem to have been satisfied that it matched the apron still attached to the body.

Brown: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. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence [NB: not partially fitted, but fitted]

Halse: I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing [confirmation that there was a piece of Eddowes' apron missing].

A constable of the Metropolitan Police [unnamed, but probably Long] deposed to finding in Goulston-street a portion of an apron corresponding with the fragment of the same garment found upon the body [not partly corresponding, but corresponding to the apron found upon the body].

Edit: So, irrespective of what Robinson and Hutt may have said, it is well-attested that an incomplete apron was still attached to Eddowes at the mortuary, and that the apron-piece found at Goulston Street fitted it.

[Jon Guy]

B]My point is that the testimony given by Pc`s Robinson and Hutt is unsafe. There is no evidence to show that what they were shown could be positively identified by them as coming from an apron they saw her wearing

Which is why both answered "to the best of my knowledge" and "to the best of my belief" when asked.

and her wearing or not wearing an apron is a big issue,

Hutt and Robinson confirmed she was wearing an apron when they saw her.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hutt and Robinson confirmed she was wearing an apron when they saw her.

Not to mention Wilkinson, the lodging house deputy who saw Eddowes earlier thay day.