Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?
      No, the one apron on the list was the one Eddowes was wearing.
      Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott;428
        , 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.
        [url
        www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/url]
        Please show the Evidence. I mean documented sources which suggested she was not wearing an apron.

        What you present above is not evidence, it is supposition.
        The official report clearly states that an apron was worn.

        Pc Robinson:

        ".” By Mr. Crawford –“The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing.” "


        The "I believe" comment does not refer to her wearing an apron or not

        Pc Hutt:


        "I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station. "


        Again his comment about believing does not relate to if she was wearing an apron or not.

        I See nothing produced to counter those statements or to suggest they are mistaken.


        Steve

        Comment


        • Originally posted by etenguy View Post
          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.
          Hutt said she left the police station at 1am, and estimated it was an 8 minute walk to Mitre Square. Meaning there was time, I think, to - in theory - walk to Goulston Street, deposit apron, go to Aldgate, pick up a companion and get to Church Passage by half past one.

          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.
          Missed not just once, but up to three times between about 1:20 and 2:55

          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.
          In theory, that sounds like a possibility. But remember, this poor woman was wearing or carrying everything she owned. Do you think she'd resort to destroying her own clothing when she already had "12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained" along with various othet pieces of material in her pockets?

          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.
          There are various desciptions of the Goulston Street apron piece in the press reports if you trawl through them. Most say something like it looked as if someone had wiped their hands or knife on it.

          It's interesting to note that a bloodstained cloth was found a few streets away from the Pinchin Street torso, which was recognised as having been used for sanitary purposes since it was folded into a diaper shape.

          Comment


          • This thread really has jumped the shark now Trev's riding his favourite hobby horse. Nothing else to see here, folks. Show's over.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              The inventory of clothing and belongings were taken at the mortuary.Only one piece of apron was mentioned,that piece being listed among her belongings,not of the clothes she was wearing.So this could have been the piece matched to the piece found by Long.If she was also wearing a piece of apron,that would mean three pieces surely?
              The piece found matched the piece missing from the apron Kate was wearing and that can be verified by the match in lines of the the old repair to the apron. I'm with you on the above, I assume then we are talking about a third piece that Kate had in her pocket perhaps?

              Which wouldnt be surprising, considering she had everything but a kitchen sink on her at the time.
              Michael Richards

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                I assume then we are talking about a third piece that Kate had in her pocket perhaps?
                Two pieces. See post #1645

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                  No, the one apron on the list was the one Eddowes was wearing.
                  Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.
                  That is conjecture on your part !

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Steve

                    Originally posted by Elamarna View Post
                    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.

                    And its not necessary so that we readily accept the opinions of the police from 1888. My opinion based on what I have presented is just as valid as theirs from 1888, even more so when you look at the ambiguities more closely.

                    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.

                    But the official lists show she was not wearing an apron and no matter how you or others twist that around that evidence is not going to go away. Nor is the fact that pieces of apron are continually mentioned, along with the fact that their in no evidence to show the two matched pieces ever made up a full apron.

                    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.

                    Yes because you and others choose to keep sweeping what I suggest under the carpet hoping it will go away so you can get back to discussing the old accpted theory.

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

                    Because those you refer to dont want the mystery changing

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

                    Most hmmmmmmmmmmmm residents of numpty towers?

                    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.

                    The official report are the one to regard, those secondary sources you and others seek to rely on, many are in conflict with the official reports, and in many case conflict with each other, but again we see time and again, a newspaper report quoted simply to corroborate someones explanation or theory.

                    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.

                    Not just the wording but the answers given by witnesses

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

                    I look forward to reading it.

                    Cheers

                    Steve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                      Evidently, the apron must have been taken off the corpse at the mortuary once the match was made by Dr Brown.
                      I have to agree with Trevor on this one...

                      Halse said that he saw the body stripped at the mortuary before hearing that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. So as I see it, when Dr Brown talks of matching that piece with the piece still attached to the body, he must mean attached when the body was found, not when the pieces were matched.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Most hmmmmmmmmmmmm residents of numpty towers?
                        How old are you, Trrvor?

                        The official report are the one to regard
                        The 'official report' where three people confirm she was wearing an apron when alive, which you disregard?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                          I have to agree with Trevor on this one...

                          Halse said that he saw the body stripped at the mortuary before hearing that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. So as I see it, when Dr Brown talks of matching that piece with the piece still attached to the body, he must mean attached when the body was found, not when the pieces were matched.
                          Are you sure ?

                          Collard states that the body was stripped by the mortuary keeper in the presence of the 2 doctors and himself.

                          No Halse ?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                            That is conjecture on your part !
                            No, it`s the appliance of the facts.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                              How old are you, Trrvor?



                              The 'official report' where three people confirm she was wearing an apron when alive, which you disregard?
                              Hi JR

                              How old are you, Trrvor?
                              LOL!

                              I always tend to forgive Trevor a little when he calls me a Numpty. Its kind of cute and endearing somehow
                              "Is all that we see or seem
                              but a dream within a dream?"

                              -Edgar Allan Poe


                              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                              -Frederick G. Abberline

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                                Are you sure ?

                                Collard states that the body was stripped by the mortuary keeper in the presence of the 2 doctors and himself.

                                No Halse ?
                                And at that time the Gs piece had not been found.

                                He says he saw the body stripped, two interpretations, stripped as in clothing removed, or stripped with the body naked after clothes removed!

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 09-13-2017, 07:05 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X