The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[harry]

Who ever made an inventory of her possessions,and the clothing she was wearing,seems,by the description of the articles,to have taken great care in being exact.An apron piece was found among her possessions,and the list of possessions can be shown to differ from the list of clothing worn.No one item can be confused as belonging to the two lists.
If she was wearing an apron piece,an apron piece was among her possessions,and Long found another piece matching an apron piece on her body or in her possession,that makes three pieces of apron.What it doesn't prove is all three pieces came from the same apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Again that is not quite correct there is a newspaper report from a reporter who was it would appear waiting at the mortuary, he states that Dr Phillips had not arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece before 5.20am, and by then the body had been stripped and the lists made up, so the two pieces could not have been matched before then, and by then the body had been already stripped and the lists made up.

There is no evidence that shows a preliminary post mortem examination took place.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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."

It doesnt matter what the papers say its whats the official lists tell us. They are secondary sources !!!!!!!!!!!

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.

There was no constable present when the body was stripped and the lists made up

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.

Yes, both pieces were there but there is no evidence that they ever made up a full apron all we have all through this are references to apron pieces

So why would they add the GS piece to the list of possessions when it was believed that it was from the apron she was wearing that doesn't make any sense at all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Trevor

Let's be clear the newspaper reports of the inquest are not secondary sources!!!!!!

Your insistence on this is truly astounding.

Please provide some defintintive statements to back this up from someone other than your good self.

The official report and the paper reports are written at the same time, in the same place by much the same process. Someone listens to what is said and then this is written down.

Historically they are both primary sources.
A secondary source is such as you or I, writing at a later date based on various information.

What you mean is that you consider them less valid and reliable than the official report, which is a matter of opinion and which I shall not comment on until I have looked at all in much greater detail. However Trevor , That does not make them secondary sources


Steve

[Elamarna]

Yes, both pieces were there but there is no evidence that they ever made up a full apron all we have all through this are references to apron pieces

So why would they add the GS piece to the list of possessions when it was believed that it was from the apron she was wearing that doesn't make any sense at all.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because they made a mistake.

None of your proposals explain why Eddowes is recorded under oath as wearing an Apron.
If she was wearing one as the official report strongly confirms, where did it go?

You however accept the list as being beyond reproach.
Why is this ?
Surely there must be more than just it fits your thinking.

Your argument appears to be because it is never explicitly said the two pieces form a whole (full) apron, they do not!
Such an approach is just your intreptation, that's ok, people disagree; however those who don't agree are numpties according to you, that is a very poor form of debate.

In an earlier post you said to the effect that you did not enjoy repeating this over and over again, let me assure you that you are not alone, I for one do not enjoy point out to you that your theories are often lacking in substance over and over again.
And don't forget, when I feel credit is due I say so, and I have done several times this year regarding some of your work.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

I'm not sure about that, Jon. Hutt says in his evidence that when Kate was taken into custody;
"I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief."

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Let's be clear the newspaper reports of the inquest are not secondary sources!!!!!!

Your insistence on this is truly astounding.

Please provide some defintintive statements to back this up from someone other than your good self.

The official report and the paper reports are written at the same time, in the same place by much the same process. Someone listens to what is said and then this is written down.

Historically they are both primary sources.
A secondary source is such as you or I, writing at a later date based on various information.

What you mean is that you consider them less valid and reliable than the official report, which is a matter of opinion and which I shall not comment on until I have looked at all in much greater detail. However Trevor , That does not make them secondary sources


Steve

This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Just as an observation, I find it revealing that despite the fact this thread is about the writing, not the apron, the overwhelming choice for discussion has been about the apron. I suppose being the first and only piece of evidence that was found that had been transported by the killer to a different location it is contentious, but I believe the fact that the writing just happens to be so close to it and that it refers in some way to Jews and Blame, (on a night like no other in terms of ethnicity of witnesses and murder sites), allows us to consider a local man with anti Semitic feelings. Local residents were unhappy about the number of immigrant Jews now living in cramped quarters around them, that's why I think we can deduce local man. And thats relevant information.

It opens up the possibility that Stride was intentionally killed on Jewish property by an anti Semite, and that the cloth was dropped with the writing to suggest that Jews did both killings. I never considered this as a possibility until now. Maybe nothing.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because they made a mistake.

None of your proposals explain why Eddowes is recorded under oath as wearing an Apron.
If she was wearing one as the official report strongly confirms, where did it go?

You however accept the list as being beyond reproach.
Why is this ?
Surely there must be more than just it fits your thinking.

Your argument appears to be because it is never explicitly said the two pieces form a whole (full) apron, they do not!
Such an approach is just your intreptation, that's ok, people disagree; however those who don't agree are numpties according to you, that is a very poor form of debate.

In an earlier post you said to the effect that you did not enjoy repeating this over and over again, let me assure you that you are not alone, I for one do not enjoy point out to you that your theories are often lacking in substance over and over again.
And don't forget, when I feel credit is due I say so, and I have done several times this year regarding some of your work.

Steve

I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories, because if I am right then it blows the whole Ripper mystery as it has been known for 129 years out of water.

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[John G]

This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Except Times Law Reports are low down in the hierarchy of reports that can be cited. In fact, even All England Reports, and Weekly Law Reports, have secondary status, even though they have to be viewed, and signed off by the judge (I believe this also applies to the Times Reports). See: http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/law...f-authorities/

[Elamarna]

This argument keeps rolling on and on let me explain where i am with this

As an example a Times reporter attends court and make a written note of the proceedings and that report is published in its entirety in The Times. That is a primary source because it was written down at the time by the person who published it, who was present. I am sure we all agree on that point. It will never become a secondary source.

If the same report is later copied by another reporter who wasn't present and then published and there are conflicts, then that report becomes secondary which is what we have all through this mystery conflicts in the evidence, conflicts in the newspaper reports.

We see time and time again newspaper reports from as far a field as Scotland, Ireland, with conflicting evidence, and it is quite clear that those newspapers did not have reporters at the proceedings. So how in gods name can they be primary sources in the true sense.

I fully understand that from a historical perspective all historical documents can be loosely described as primary sources because they were all made at the time. But in the case of the Ripper we have the original documents and original reports, which in themselves are primary sources, and all others that are not originals in my opinion then become secondary. because primary sources will always take preference over secondary.

In criminal trials secondary evidence will only be admitted if the primary sources are not available for whatever reason.

I have right from the start always looked on this mystery from a criminal investigative perspective, which entails assessing and evaluating the primary sources. Because the problem has been as I see it, is that far to many people have become embroiled in all the various econdary conflicting newspaper reports to the point that the real facts, and real evidence, have become lost in individuals attempts to prop up theories,explanations by using what I deem to be secondary

You only have to look back on this thread and see all those who have been posting various newspaper reports, and all of these conflict with each other.

I have to ask where does the truth really lie?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes one needs to read carefully. However you have been constinently say all the paper reports are secondary, glad to see that you do realise that is not the case. The work on Bucks Row shows that while we may have up to 15 reports, several are by the same author and should only be regarded as a single source. We also have the issue where weekly papers repeat a story word for word even when other information has emerged since the first report.

We should not assume that the official report is foolproof either.
For instance if we had say four distinctly seperate reports which all gave roughly the same wording for an exchange while the official report were just to give a generic "x was asked"
There is then a strong case for accepting the press reports.

Sorry that I won't be doing this until middle of next year I guess, but it should prove interesting.


Steve






N saying

[Elamarna]

I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories, because if I am right then it blows the whole Ripper mystery as it has been known for 129 years out of water.

And what has surprised me is that for 129 years researchers have been naive enough to accept the old accepted theories without question, when clearly the whole mystery is litterer with major flaws in the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The big word there is "IF".

You are almost obsessed with NEW being right and OLD wrong. I do not mean that in a derogatory way but I can think of no other term to use. Your conviction that the old ideas have failed to answer it so must be wrong is clear; but not necessarily so.
It may just be that the sources are so bad an answer is not possible, hence the number of utterly ridiculous suspects.

I do note that you don't address the issue of the witnesses saying Eddowes was wearing an apron in the official report. With all due respect unless you can successfully counter those you interpretation over a full apron or not fails has a theory.


Steve

[Jon Guy]

I understand the reluctance by the hardliners to accept my theories,

Because they are only theories, unsupported by facts.

If you really have uncovered facts that CHALLENGE the historical record, you won`t need acceptance from the hardliners.

[Elamarna]

Except Times Law Reports are low down in the hierarchy of reports that can be cited. In fact, even All England Reports, and Weekly Law Reports, have secondary status, even though they have to be viewed, and signed off by the judge (I believe this also applies to the Times Reports). See: http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/law...f-authorities/

John

Having looked at the article it's about the stadiums of reports for legal purposes and use, that is not the same as Primary and Secondary historical sources.

Steve

[John G]

John

Having looked at the article it's about the stadiums of reports for legal purposes and use, that is not the same as Primary and Secondary historical sources.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Well, it's a while since I studied law, but I would have to say you're correct!

The point I was making is that just because a source is lower down the hierarchy doesn't mean it's not authoritative.

Would you agree that there is no clear dividing line as to what constitutes a primary or secondary source?