The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

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.

It scarcely matters what Hutt and Robinson did or didn't say apropos the apron, because the match between the GS piece and the missing bit of the apron still attached to Eddowes' body in the mortuary clinches it.

There is no evidence to show that when the GS piece and the mortuary piece were matched they made up a full apron

The testimonies of Dr Brown and PCs Halse and Long about the matching-up of one shitty, bloody piece of apron with the remainder of an apron tied to a shitty, bloody corpse should be evidence enough.

[Elamarna]

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

Hi Gareth,

Probably the same we use to give a different picture. Trevor interprets it differently very often I have found.

Just so people are aware. I don't subscribe to the idea that the Killer wrote the GSG, but it's not set in stone for me, give me a piece of evidence that is convincing and I will happily reconsider.


Steve

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;428629

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.

What you call the old theory will soon be forgotten.

Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

It scarcely matters what Hutt and Robinson did or didn't say apropos the apron, because the match between the GS piece and the missing bit of the apron still attached to Eddowes' body in the mortuary clinches it.
The testimonies of Dr Brown and PCs Halse and Long about the matching-up of one shitty, bloody piece of apron with the remainder of an apron tied to a shitty, bloody corpse should be evidence enough.

I think you need to sit down and review the official inquest testimony because you post is so inaccurate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

I think you need to sit down and review the official inquest testimony because you post is so inaccurate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am not being deliberately thick, but I am struggling to understand what you are suggesting.

Is it that you perceive issues with the evidence provided at the inquest, such that there is doubt the apron piece came from the murder scene?

[Trevor Marriott]

I am not being deliberately thick, but I am struggling to understand what you are suggesting.

Is it that you perceive issues with the evidence provided at the inquest, such that there is doubt the apron piece came from the murder scene?

There is no doubt that the GS piece matched another piece of apron found with the body at the mortuary when the body was stripped. There is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, and dont let anyone on here try to tell you otherwise.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I think you need to sit down and review the official inquest testimony because you post is so inaccurate

We cannot just take one source as definitive, as there is the comparative brevity (or absence) of the official records on the one hand, and inconsistencies within, and across official and unofficial sources on the other. It's our job to make sense of them all and arrive at a logical conclusion. Besides, there's nothing in the newspaper transcripts of Dr Brown, Halse and Long's testimony that contradicts in any way the terse official documentation that survives. Your banging on about "secondary sources" is beginning to sound tiresome; never mind all that... just try and use some COMMON SENSE for once, please.

[etenguy]

There is no doubt that the GS piece matched another piece of apron found with the body at the mortuary when the body was stripped. There is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, and dont let anyone on here try to tell you otherwise.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank you for clarifying, but what significance do you place on whether the apron was full or partial?

[Trevor Marriott]

We cannot just take one source as definitive, as there is the comparative brevity (or absence) of the official records on the one hand, and inconsistencies within, and across official and unofficial sources on the other. It's our job to make sense of them all and arrive at a logical conclusion. Besides, there's nothing in the newspaper transcripts of Dr Brown, Halse and Long's testimony that contradicts in any way the terse official documentation that survives. Your banging on about "secondary sources" is beginning to sound tiresome; never mind all that... just try and use some COMMON SENSE for once, please.

It is not me that is using secondary sources !

and I know it is not me that is lacking in common sense

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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


Present something new, to convince many of us who do not agree. Giving the same old arguments gets the same old replies.

Steve

Steve

If we are talking about opinions, I could say the same about those who continue to keep the old accepted theory alive that Eddowes was wearing a full apron the night she was murdered, and that the killer did cut or tear a piece from it, and then deposited it in GS, and that would be their opinions based on the facts they want to believe in that this was the same opinions of the police in 1888.

But like many aspects of this mystery much of what was believed to have taken place in 1888 has now been carefully scrutinised and is now not all that we have been led to believe.

I have spent a great deal of time carefully assessing and evaluating the facts and the evidence surrounding the apron and the GS apron piece as a result I am of the opinion that much of what has been readily accepted is flawed and does not stand up to close scrutiny. That opinion is based on 40 years of experience in doing just that, assessing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases. finding flaws etc etc.

I have set out below several of the major flaws all of which both you and others on here either choose to continually ignore, or come up with alternative explanations, or opinions, in an attempt to smooth over the cracks.

From a post I made earlier today

One 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.

Even the police in 1888 must have known the difference between a full apron and a piece of an apron.

You keep asking for sources there are no sources, because it is the assessing and evaluation of the evidence that is relevant and the conclusions drawn from all of that.

I genuinely do not want to keep getting embroiled in this topic, but it does infuriate me when I keep seeing and hearing the old accepted theories keep being bandied about on here with them being readily accpted without question.

On another note if the killer was disturbed in Mitre Sq and I believe he was he would not have had time to cut or tear a piece from any apron she may have been wearing.

Despite what you or others think, or say, there is a case to suggest that Eddowes was not wearing an apron the night she was murdered, but she was simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some time in the past had come from a full white apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you for clarifying, but what significance do you place on whether the apron was full or partial?

Because if she wasnt wearing a full apron, then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece as has been suggested all these years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

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

hi jon. i have the apron being cut before the mutilations began. if jack the ripper had cut the apron after cutting her face and abdomen, there would have been blood on both sides of the apron, along the cut, from the blood on the blade.

he strangles her, cuts her apron, then mutilates her.

[etenguy]

Because if she wasnt wearing a full apron, then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece as has been suggested all these years.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm following your line of reasoning. Are you suggesting someone else already had a piece of Catherine's apron and discarded it at Goulston street for some reason.

[Joshua Rogan]

Philosophical question: how much material can you cut away from an apron before it is no longer an apron, but only a piece of an apron?

[Joshua Rogan]

hi jon. i have the apron being cut before the mutilations began.

That's what I suspect too, Robert.