The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

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]

yes the two pieces matched but there is not one scrap of real evidence which states the two pieces ever made up a full apron

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].

He doesnt say she was wearing the mortuary piece does he ? The mortuary piece was floating around, and i guess anyone looking at it would be able to see it had been cut or torn. But that doesn't prove she was wearing an apron.

Why did he specifically notice a piece missing at this time there was no need to closely examine the mortuary piece because as I keep saying the GS piece had not yet been found and by the time he got there the body had been stripped I believe and the lists no doubt made up.

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].

What a load of old tosh. A piece of old white apron was found on her and listed amongst her posessions

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.

No thats not correct either. Lets stop using secondary sources

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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



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

You are also missing the point, when they gave evidence that she was wearing an apron they should have been asked what drew their attention to the apron, was it different from all the other aprons being worn at the time. And what made that particular apron stick out in their minds to be able to say 6 days later when they gave evidence why they believed that what they were shown came from the apron she was wearing?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Almost every woman wore a white apron back then !

I will ask a question which applies to all on this thread "Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 6 days ago?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

No thats not correct either. Lets stop using secondary sources

I give up.

[Jon Guy]

You are also missing the point, when they gave evidence that she was wearing an apron they should have been asked what drew their attention to the apron,

You mean what drew the policemen`s attention to the big white thing wrapped around her torso ?

was it different from all the other aprons being worn at the time. And what made that particular apron stick out in their minds to be able to say 6 days later when they gave evidence why they believed that what they were shown came from the apron she was wearing?

6 days later, Trevor ?!?!?!?!?
Can I ask then, when was it that the city police realised Eddowes had been in their custody before she was murdered ?

[Sam Flynn]

6 days later, Trevor ?!?!?!?!?
Can I ask then, when was it that the city police realised Eddowes had been in their custody before she was murdered ?

Evidently not until it had been written up in the papers!

[Trevor Marriott]

You mean what drew the policemen`s attention to the big white thing wrapped around her torso ?



6 days later, Trevor ?!?!?!?!?
Can I ask then, when was it that the city police realised Eddowes had been in their custody before she was murdered ?

How many day was it between the murder and the inquest when they gave their evidence ? Bearing in mind the city inquests were held differently to the Met Police inquests.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I give up.

I do to !

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see, or dont want to see"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

"There are none so blind as those who cannot see, or dont want to see"

You should adopt that motto as your signature, Trev.

[DJA]

How many day was it between the murder and the inquest when they gave their evidence ? Bearing in mind the city inquests were held differently to the Met Police inquests.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's see ..... Sunday,Monday,Tuesday,Wednesday,Thursday .... four days!

[jerryd]

I will ask a question which applies to all on this thread "Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 6 days ago?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wasn't wearing a shirt. I had on a white apron.

[jerryd]

Almost every woman wore a white apron back then !www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then the witnesses that saw her wearing one were most likely correct!

[DJA]

I will ask a question which applies to all on this thread "Can you remember what colour shirt you were wearing 6 days ago?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Blue.

Still wearing it

[harry]

Drs Phillips and/or Brown are reported as making the match at the mortuary.There is no other reported act of matching up,so it appears all reports and evidence of matching originates from them(Phillips/Brown).Any evidence of matching except from Phillips/Brown,is therefor hearsay.
I believe that is what Trevor speaks of.

[Trevor Marriott]

Drs Phillips and/or Brown are reported as making the match at the mortuary.There is no other reported act of matching up,so it appears all reports and evidence of matching originates from them(Phillips/Brown).Any evidence of matching except from Phillips/Brown,is therefor hearsay.
I believe that is what Trevor speaks of.

Hi Harry
Just to make it clearer for one and all. You are correct that the match was made at the mortuary,the following day when the post mortem was carried out by Dr`s Brown and Phillips, who had taken the GS piece to the mortuary having been given it by Pc Long after he had taken it from GS to Leman St Police station where he was, dealing with the Stride murder.

There is no evidence to show that the GS piece was shown to, or identified by any other person connected to this before the inquest, which was opened on Oct 4th. However Pc`s Hutt and Robinson did not give their evidence until Oct 11th. So the gap between the murder and the inquest was 12 days.

On 11th Hutt and Robinson were shown the GS piece at the inquest after stating that on the night of the murder they saw her wearing an apron, and that the piece produced was they believed from the apron they saw her wearing.

Their testimony does not stand up to close scrutiny and in my opinion unsafe to totally rely on. It is a known fact that white aprons worn by women were a common site in Victorian times. So how were they able to say that the GS piece came from the apron she was supposedly seen wearing.

What made then remember 12 days later that on the night of the murder she was wearing an apron? How were they able to remember? I am sure that if they had been shown any old piece of white apron they would have still said it came from the victims apron, or furthermore if they had been shown 3 identical pieces of white apron would they have identified the right one.

They were not asked, and should have been, what was memorable about the apron that they saw here wearing for them to positively identify the Gs piece as coming from the apron they saw her wearing.

I would suggest that they were simply going with the flow, as by the time the inquest took place it would have been common knowledge that the police believed the killer cut or tore the GS piece and deposited it in GS.

It should also be noted that Sgt Byfield who was the station Sgt and who was responsible for booking Eddowes into custody and also responsible or releasing her make no mention of her wearing an apron, and strangely he was never asked if she was at the inquest

Another major flaw in the apron evidence is with the testimony of Insp Collard who produced lists of clothing, personal property, and a list showing cuts and bloodstains on the clothing. There is no mention of an apron amongst the clothing she was wearing.

The list of personal property shows she was in possession of "one piece of old white apron" Now had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut or torn a piece as was believed at the time, I would have expected that to be firstly shown in the list of clothing worn, and secondly it would have been sureley described as "One old white apron with piece missing" But it was not, why?

So we have primary evidence here with notes made at the time the body was stripped, which is almost irrefutable, and the original notes still in existence so no room for these to be disputed as not being accurate or original.

The we have Insp Collards testimony which again is unsafe. He produces the lists of clothing and then he says "I produce a piece of the apron the deceased was "apparently" wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress"

Why does say apparently? Either she was wearing it or she wasn't. This was never clarified. However was clarification needed, when he has used the words "piece of the apron" and "found outside her dress" No mention of a full apron, or her wearing what was described.

On a final note the Gs piece was described in part as having traces of faecal matter upon it. But none of the other items of clothing, or the rest of the apron from the mortuary had any traces of faecal matter on them.

So just to repeat that much of the police evidence relating to Eddowes apron and the GS piece does not stand up to close scrutiny and is unsafe to totally rely on. But I am sure those who still want to believe that the killer cut or tore the Gs piece from an apron she was wearing will choose to disregard what has been said which is their prerogative

My belief is that she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron which had at some point in time previously come from a full apron, which had been cut or torn for some unknown purpose. There is no evidence to show that when the GS piece and the mortuary piece were matched they made up a full apron ,and that the killer did not cut or tore the piecs from an apron she was wearing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk