The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

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

What purpose would that serve?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

I think what Trevor is suggesting is that somebody else's apron fragment matched Eddowes' partial apron precisely. However, the bloody and shitty Goulston Street apron piece matched the bloody and shitty remainder of an apron which remained attached to Eddowes' body, as is attested by at least three witnesses. Trevor refuses to see the bloody and shitty obvious in this simple and straightforward matter.

[Joshua Rogan]

What purpose would that serve?

Perhaps the killer was thinking ahead?

Perhaps he knew (from experience) that he'd need it later to clean up, or intended to use the cloth to wrap the knife handle, making it less slippery when covered in blood?

[Robert St Devil]

What purpose would that serve?

i dont know yet but the pieces of the apron should have been easier to marry up if the cut had been made with a bloody knife since the blood would have been on both pieces. my memory is shot but i think they matched the pieces up by the fabric, meaning the apron was not cut with a bloody knife.

[Joshua Rogan]

meaning the apron was not cut with a bloody knife.

Or he wiped the knife before cutting the apron?

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

I may be wrong, but I believe Trevor's theory is that Kate wasn't wearing an apron at all, but had two pieces of one in her posession. She used one piece as a sanitary towel, discarding it herself in Goulston Street before being murdered in Mitre Square.

[Robert St Devil]

Or he wiped the knife before cutting the apron?

were both sides of the apron bloodied and soiled, or just the goulston street piece?

[harry]

There is one piece of apron listed as being in her possession.There is no piece of apron listed as being among the clothes she wore.There were two pieces of apron being matched at the post mortum.To me that totals three pieces of apron.Now if the piece of apron matched with the piece that Long produced,was the piece listed as being in her possession,the question is,why w asn't the match made at the police station?Why wait until the post mortum?
Plus,if no apron piece was among the clothes she wore,who took the piece matched to Long's,to the post mortum?
So were there three pieces of apron,or two?

[Joshua Rogan]

were both sides of the apron bloodied and soiled, or just the goulston street piece?

According to Dr Brown, both had blood on them, but he only mentions soiling, as you put it, on the Goulston St piece;

"My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin......Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street"

[Joshua Rogan]

There is one piece of apron listed as being in her possession.There is no piece of apron listed as being among the clothes she wore.There were two pieces of apron being matched at the post mortum.To me that totals three pieces of apron.Now if the piece of apron matched with the piece that Long produced,was the piece listed as being in her possession,the question is,why w asn't the match made at the police station?Why wait until the post mortum?
Plus,if no apron piece was among the clothes she wore,who took the piece matched to Long's,to the post mortum?
So were there three pieces of apron,or two?

Only two pieces I think, harry. Many papers report the apron being produced in court, but the Star mentions the two parts;

"Police-constable Robinson proved arresting the deceased for drunkenness on the Saturday afternoon before her death and locking her up in a cell. She was wearing an apron.
THE APRON
was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it. The ghastly reminder of the crime quite upset Mrs. Phillips, the deceased's daughter, who sobbed bitterly on seeing the blood-smeared rag."

[etenguy]

Thanks Joshua.

For that theory to be accurate then, as the blood on the apron was still wet when PC Long found the piece of apron, Catherine would have had to have gone to Goulston street after she was released from the cells and then journeyed back to Mitre Square (possibly enough time to do that if she didn't dawdle). Though PC Hutt has her leaving in the direction of Houndsditch - which is on route to Mitre Square.

I think it would also mean PC Long missed seeing the apron on his first pass rather than it not being there at 2.20am.

I suppose most of the sightings of Catherine wearing a white apron that day could still have been correct if she tore the apron herself later in the day and used it as suggested.

I think I would want to find a better description of the pattern of blood stains and the amount of blood on the piece found in GS to help determine if this theory was a likely explanation. It seems less likely than the conventional theory to me, so far.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

If that were the case and all the other victims killed by the same hand, would we not perhaps see evidence of other victims aprons being cut, besides cutting it at the beginning shows a motive, that being that he intended to take organs, if that were his intention would he have not gone prepared and therefore not needed to cut the apron at the point you suggest.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think what Trevor is suggesting is that somebody else's apron fragment matched Eddowes' partial apron precisely. However, the bloody and shitty Goulston Street apron piece matched the bloody and shitty remainder of an apron which remained attached to Eddowes' body, as is attested by at least three witnesses. Trevor refuses to see the bloody and shitty obvious in this simple and straightforward matter.

I am not suggesting that at all. I am pointing out how unsafe some of the police witness testimony is, which people have readily accepted all of this time and how it lacks continuity.

The two pieces matched that is a fact. But there is no evidence that those two pieces when matched made up a full apron, and there is a lot of evidence to show that she may not have been wearing an apron, as the two pieces have been described as just that, two pieces.

The important piece is the mortuary piece, which you and others suggest was her apron that she was wearing, from which the killer cut or tore the Gs piece from. I would suggest that if it that piece was an apron with a piece missing it would have been described as that, and nor referred to several times by different witnesses as an apron piece.

Surely they knew the difference between an apron and and apron piece ?

As to the two police officers being shown an apron piece at the inquest and saying that they believed it was from the apron they saw her wearing. It beggars belief that they were not asked how could they be certain that it came from that apron she was wearing as all white aprons look almost the same.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor
Much of what you say, is how you believe things should have been done, how things You beleive should have been recorded; its your own perspective and is not necessarily so.

I and others see NO case to suggest she was not wearing an apron.
Indeed last night I read again the official report and I do not reach your conclusion. It appears clear that she was wearing an apron. That you choose to interpret the same document differently is one of those things.


The point of my post was that this is the same debate over and over again. It appears you have convinced few of your interpretation. Just repeating the same arguments will not change that.

What you have done is to provide possabilties, which while not impossible are far from convincing to others who study the murders.

You may be correct, who knows, however the source data does not appear to support that in the view of most.


My comments are based on the official report not the paper reports which you incorrectly still refer to as Secondary Sources, from an historical perspective they are also primary sources, being recorded at the same time and in the same place as the official report.

However the official report being present does give advantages to the researcher, it allows comparison of mistakes and also ommisions. This is important as it is clear from just reading the official report that the wording for some questions is impricise.

This is one of the reasons I am giving the Project treatment to Mitre Square next.

Cheers

Steve

[Jon Guy]

If that were the case and all the other victims killed by the same hand, would we not perhaps see evidence of other victims aprons being cut

We do see evidence of another victims clothing been taken.