The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

How old are you, Trrvor?



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

I have merely highlighted how unsafe their evidence is, and the reasons why it is unsafe.

At the end of the day it doesn't change the fact that we know 2 pieces of apron were matched at the mortuary and were both connected in some way to the victim.

But for two officers to stand in court and have produced before them an old piece of white apron and state that they believed it came from an apron the victim was wearing beggars belief. At that point questions should have been asked of them about how they could be certain, what was special and memorable about the apron they saw her wearing etc etc for then to remember she was wearing an apron when they only had fleeting glimpses of her.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Point by point

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.

Oh dear Trevor. Your views 129 years on from the events are just a valid as those there.
That is just arrogant.

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.

No they don't. They do not list it as being clothing, that is a different matter entirely.
And you have been provided with possible explanations for this. You don't accept those, no problem
What is not going to go away however is the testimony saying she was wearing an 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.

No I am not sweeping it under an carpet, it is in the open, unproven and poorly supported by actual sources/evidence.


[Quote ]
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
[/quote]

No Trevor it is because you have repeatedly failed to prove you points,

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?

Sticks and stones, surely ypu can do better.

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.

Please they are not secondary sources, you may not like it, but they are Primary sources.

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

Agreed. That is why one needs to compare.

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

I look forward to reading it.

I will appreciate any comments and input you care to make.

Steve

[Jon Guy]

And at that time the Gs piece had not been found.

I think you need a detailed timeline of the nights events.

[Jon Guy]

But for two officers to stand in court and have produced before them an old piece of white apron and state that they believed it came from an apron the victim was wearing beggars belief. At that point questions should have been asked of them about how they could be certain, what was special and memorable about the apron they saw her wearing etc etc for then to remember she was wearing an apron when they only had fleeting glimpses of her.

I guess you`re not aware of the process Hutt went through in identifying Eddowes as the woman who had been in their custody ?

But anyway, as I`ve told you a couple of times this week, both Hutt and Robinson said "to the best of my knowledge ... " when asked about the apron

...and you know Hutt had to check Eddowes clothing for anything dangerous, so he was in a good position to notice her apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

I guess you`re not aware of the process Hutt went through in identifying Eddowes as the woman who had been in their custody ?

But anyway, as I`ve told you a couple of times this week, both Hutt and Robinson said "to the best of my knowledge ... " when asked about the apron

That is not a positive identification. Its like a witness viewing an ID parade and says I think its number 3

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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.

An that's quite possibly correct. However, whether the apron was still tied to Eddowes' body whilst the GS apron piece was matched, or the apron had just been taken off the body and the GS piece then matched, it still means that the GS piece was originally part of Eddowes' apron. Of all the pieces of evidence adhering to the Ripper case, this is surely one of the most straightforward.

[Jon Guy]

That is not a positive identification. Its like a witness viewing an ID parade and says I think its number 3

A positive identification

All they were doing was confirming that Eddowes had been wearing a white apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

An that's quite possibly correct. However, whether the apron was still tied to Eddowes' body whilst the GS apron piece was matched, or the apron had just been taken off the body and the GS piece then matched, it still means that the GS piece was originally part of Eddowes' apron. Of all the pieces of evidence adhering to the Ripper case, this is surely one of the most straightforward.

Now you are being silly, you know the match was not made until later that day. It could not have been made before because the GS piece was with Dr Phillips and he didnt go to the mortuary until the following day, and by that time the body had been stripped and the lists made up.

Yes remember them, the lists that show she was not wearing an apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

A positive identification

All they were doing was confirming that Eddowes had been wearing a white apron.

I give up with you I surrender

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hunter]

Now you are being silly, you know the match was not made until later that day. It could not have been made before because the GS piece was with Dr Phillips and he didnt go to the mortuary until the following day, and by that time the body had been stripped and the lists made.

That is simply not true. Upon receiving the GS piece at Leman St. Phillips carried it to the Golden Lane mortuary and met Brown there on the morning of the murders.

[Pierre]

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

And all you want to say with that is that the pieces were "sanitary towels" used by the victim, who discarded one in Goulston Street.

And Steve wants to try and examine the "timings" for that idea to show it is "impossible".

And your idea is based your interest in making Feigenbaum the killer.

And Steve´s mission is based on the interest in "making everything possible or impossible".

And the sum of all this is:

There will be endless discussions about whether it is possible or impossible that a piece of apron was used as a sanitary towel by the victim and whether it is possible or impossible that Feigenbaum was the killer.

Another endless discussion in 130 years of endless discussions.

Pierre

[etenguy]

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.

This may have been possible, though she started the journey moving away from Goulston street. Not sure what she would go there for either - if it was to meet a potential client, surely she would have stayed there for at least 15 minutes before searching more fertile ground.

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

Indeed.


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 agree it is unlikely.


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 is just possible that journalists were describing what they thought might help sell papers and the imagery used evokes a possible murderer's use of the apron.

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.

That is interesting and suggests the police would have not considered that as likely in the gs scenario (else they would have recorded as much).

[Trevor Marriott]

That is simply not true. Upon receiving the GS piece at Leman St. Phillips carried it to the Golden Lane mortuary and met Brown there on the morning of the murders.

I think you are a little bit out.

Dr. Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving the GS piece the following morning took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till some time after 5.20am, and I would suggest this was when the post mortem was being carried out much later in the morning. So Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body if it ever was fixed.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hunter]

Hi Trevor,

I agree that the remaining part of the apron with Catherine Eddowes' body was already removed and invoiced before Phillips arrived. My point was that Phillips left Leman St. shortly after receiving the other piece around 4 a.m. of the morning of the murder, not the following morning. He attended the preliminary examination that lasted till just before 6 a.m. having been summoned by Dr. Brown himself. The two pieces were matched together at that time. They then agreed to go home, probably flesh out their notes and get some needed rest, then return for the formal post-mortem at 2 p.m.

In other words, Phillips made two trips to Golden Lane on Sept. 30.

[Wickerman]

.... 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?

Trevor, the apron is mentioned.

Eddowes only had one handkerchief, it was white with 'red & white birds' as a border. It is listed here in the Times of Oct. 1st.
"...a common white handkerchief with a red border,"

In her list of possessions this is described as:
"1 White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief, red and white birds eye border."

However, the Times also offers two articles found around her neck:
"...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

In her list of possessions we find the same two articles listed together:
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon found on neck.
1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

The ragged piece of blood-stained apron found around her neck was described as a handkerchief by the constable who made the list.

The GS piece brought by Phillips is the last item on her list of possessions:
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

So, both pieces are there.