The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Kattrup]

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

I believe this is incorrect, The Times quotes him as saying he did not notice if she was wearing an apron or not.


I'm not going to bother with the rest, but on a general note, it is futile to try and cast aspersions on the sources we have, claiming that "they should have asked" or "it should have been questioned" etc. Or in the quote above, "strangely he was never asked".

Or saying we should expect Collard to list the apron piece first, and if he didn't, there's something fishy about it.

The sources are what they are. There's nothing strange about witnesses being asked or not being asked about certain things.

Trying to infer from a lack of questions is an invalid argument. Trying to infer from a lack of conformity to one's own preconceived and subjective notions is an invalid argument.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe this is incorrect, The Times quotes him as saying he did not notice if she was wearing an apron or not.

Well he of all should have noticed should he have not, as she would have been standing before him both on arrival and on leaving. If he didnt notice how come the other two were certain that she was.

I'm not going to bother with the rest, but on a general note, it is futile to try and cast aspersions on the sources we have, claiming that "they should have asked" or "it should have been questioned" etc. Or in the quote above, "strangely he was never asked".

Or saying we should expect Collard to list the apron piece first, and if he didn't, there's something fishy about it.

But there is something fishy about it he doesn't describe a full apron he describes a piece there is a big difference

The sources are what they are. There's nothing strange about witnesses being asked or not being asked about certain things.

Trying to infer from a lack of questions is an invalid argument. Trying to infer from a lack of conformity to one's own preconceived and subjective notions is an invalid argument.

Rubbish !

and to readily accept without question what has been accepted as being correct is being blinkered, facts are there to be proved or disproved. The facts as i have listed without doubt bring the old accpted theory into question.

Many of the sources used to support the old theory are secondary sources.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Trevor

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.

But Dr Brown testified that he matched the apron piece to the apron whilst it was still on Eddowes, and Eddowes was stripped early Sunday morning.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that Phillips took the apron piece to Golden Lane and the match was made just prior to the post mortem?

[DJA]

Rubbish !

and to readily accept without question what has been accepted as being correct is being blinkered, facts are there to be proved or disproved. The facts as i have listed without doubt bring the old accpted theory into question.

Many of the sources used to support the old theory are secondary sources.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Dr. Brown 4th October.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

[Jon Guy]

Trevor

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.

Are you sure?
PC Hutt confirmed that the clothing he was shown were what Eddowes was wearing in the Bishopsgate cell.

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.

Yet, PC Hutt had already identified Eddowes clothing by Tues 2nd Oct
So, your 12 day gap thing is irrelevant

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.

Yes, the above is correct.

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.

I mentioned this yesterday, but again, this is why both qualified their answer as "to the best of my knowledge"

The point is that it was confirmed that Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was taken into custody and released

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.

How did they remember 12 days later ?
Because they were asked about it a couple of days after the murder

[Kattrup]

Dr. Brown 4th October.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Exactly. From this we gather that a) Eddowes was wearing the apron when slain, and b) the apron was made up of two pieces ("the remaining portion").

However, according to Trevor Marriott, this is a "secondary" source and so it "does not stand up to close scrutiny"....I guess I'm blinkered

[Jon Guy]

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.

But there was an apron on the list.
So, perhaps, she was not wearing the apron when Collard made the list.

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?

I`m afraid stating I would have expected and would have been surely described does not make it a fact. That is just your opinion.

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.

No-one but you is disputing anything to do with Collard`s list.

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.

Again, perhaps she was not wearing the apron when he made the list.

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.

Why would the items of clothing and the remainder of the apron have to have faecal matter on them ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. From this we gather that a) Eddowes was wearing the apron when slain, and b) the apron was made up of two pieces ("the remaining portion").

However, according to Trevor Marriott, this is a "secondary" source and so it "does not stand up to close scrutiny"....I guess I'm blinkered

Lets stick with the official version
"My attention was drawn to the apron, it was the corner of the apron with a string attached"

So, what he had was not a full apron, but a corner of an apron with a string attached ! ( a piece of apron)

Which is how the mortuary piece was described by Collard, its not rocket science.

I am sure way back then they knew the difference between and apron and an apron piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

But there was an apron on the list.
So, perhaps, she was not wearing the apron when Collard made the list.

There was no apron on the list


I`m afraid stating I would have expected and would have been surely described does not make it a fact. That is just your opinion.

Maybe an opinion but supported by the facts


No-one but you is disputing anything to do with Collard`s list.

I am not disputing Collards list. It is quite clear the lists show she wasnt wearing an apron and that she was in possession of a piece of old white apron, big difference between a piece of apron and a full apron.

Why would the items of clothing and the remainder of the apron have to have faecal matter on them ?

Well if she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, and the killer did cut or tear the apron piece, then an explanation for faecal matter found on The Gs piece was that it had transferred onto the apron when her abdomen and intestines came out. So you would expect more faecal matter to have been found on the rest of the apron or on other items of clothing, there was none mentioned.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Exactly. From this we gather that a) Eddowes was wearing the apron when slain, and b) the apron was made up of two pieces ("the remaining portion").

However, according to Trevor Marriott, this is a "secondary" source and so it "does not stand up to close scrutiny"....I guess I'm blinkered

I would suggest you read posts through before posting replies. There is no evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

No matter what you, or others say, the flaws as highlighted in the evidence and facts surrounding the apron are not going to go away, they are real and give grounds for major concerns about the whole apron issue.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Well if she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, and the killer did cut or tear the apron piece, then an explanation for faecal matter found on The Gs piece was that it had transferred onto the apron when her abdomen and intestines came out. So you would expect more faecal matter to have been found on the rest of the apron or on other items of clothing, there was none mentioned.

So, the killer cut off a piece of apron to wipe his hands/knife after cutting through the colon.

[Trevor Marriott]

So, the killer cut off a piece of apron to wipe his hands/knife after cutting through the colon.

And what happened to the residue which would have come out of the colon after it had been cut, where did that end up ? No trace anywhere, perhaps it evaporated into thin air because it certainly wasn't on any any other of the clothing, or even the mortuary piece.

And besides this old chestnut about wiping hands is wearing a bit thin now. If by any chance the killer had done as you suggest he could have wiped said hands and thrown away the incriminating evidence long before he ever got to GS. Or equally he could have simply wiped his hands on her clothing before leaving the crime scene with no need to cut a piece off.

And finally to put the tin hat on it. As has been said before if she was wearing an apron it would have been the most difficult item of clothing to locate and cut from, because it would have been hidden under all her other clothing because her clothes were up above her waist.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

And what happened to the residue which would have come out of the colon after it had been cut, where did that end up ? No trace anywhere, perhaps it evaporated into thin air because it certainly wasn't on any any other of the clothing, or even the mortuary piece.

What do you mean by residue ?
There was certainly faecal matter on the rag and smeared all over her intestines.

And besides this old chestnut about wiping hands is wearing a bit thin now. If by any chance the killer had done as you suggest he could have wiped said hands and thrown away the incriminating evidence long before he ever got to GS.

Maybe he could have.
Perhaps there was a reason.

And finally to put the tin hat on it. As has been said before if she was wearing an apron it would have been the most difficult item of clothing to locate and cut from, because it would have been hidden under all her other clothing because her clothes were up above her waist.

These aren`t facts, Trevor.
Just your opinion.
Perhaps, he cut the apron piece before he threw her clothes up, or perhaps it was just to hand.

[Elamarna]

And what happened to the residue which would have come out of the colon after it had been cut, where did that end up ? No trace anywhere, perhaps it evaporated into thin air because it certainly wasn't on any any other of the clothing, or even the mortuary piece.

In the body cavity, and we have no idea how much there would have been.

Been here before Trevor, we can repost it all again if you really want to save the efforts of retyping.
Present something new, to convince many of us who do not agree. Giving the same old arguments gets the same old replies.
Like it or not Trevor, you do not seem to have gained much ground since last this was discussed

However i do admire your persistence.

All the best

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Many of the sources used to support the old theory are secondary sources

And which sources, pray, do we have to support the alternative?