The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Jon Guy]

Well if you dont read it, and find out, you are in no position to criticise

I was guessing by your flippant remark of "did I dream it" that those details are not included in your book.

If you`ve read any of my articles you should have noted I`m all about facts and details, rather than convoluted theories (judging by your posts on the subject)

[Trevor Marriott]

I was guessing by your flippant remark of "did I dream it" that those details are not included in your book.

Well if you have evidence that happened put it up !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Well if you have evidence that happened put it up !

No, it`ll be in my book ;-)

[Trevor Marriott]

No, it`ll be in my book ;-)

Well if that had have happened other than in your dreams, their evidence would have been different. it would have been

"At ------ such and such a time on--------------date. At Bishopsgate Police Station, I was shown a piece of apron, which I "believe" came from the apron the victim was wearing the night of her murder"

But of course neither said that did they?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;429136]

Hi Steve,

On the contrary, actually. The sources are very good and if you study them you may see the pattern.

Cheers, Pierre

It depends on which sources one uses.
When we see the ones you are using perhaps we will all be enlightened..


Steve

[Elamarna]

Well in the case of Eddowes we have the signed depositions, and we can test that evidence, examples of which I have previously shown on this thread. So it must be the truth, unless they lied, or were trying to be to helpful, as in the evidence of Hutt and Robinson.

And your supporting source for this statement about Butt and Robinson is?

Once again Trevor we have your opinion presented as fact.
I asked for a reasoned counter to their testimony, the response amounts to "I don't believe them".

That just will not convince anyone.

What it looks like is that their testimony does not fit the theory you suggest and thus you simply dismiss it.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

And your supporting source for this statement about Butt and Robinson is?

Once again Trevor we have your opinion presented as fact.
I asked for a reasoned counter to their testimony, the response amounts to "I don't believe them".

That just will not convince anyone.

What it looks like is that their testimony does not fit the theory you suggest and thus you simply dismiss it.

Steve

I have already stated the reasons why their testimony is unsafe and given an example in previous posts if you don't accept those reasons so be it

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

I have already stated the reasons why their testimony is unsafe and given an example in previous posts if you don't accept those reasons so be it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I appear to have missed it Trevor. Post number pls?

Steve

[Pierre]

I have already stated the reasons why their testimony is unsafe and given an example in previous posts if you don't accept those reasons so be it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The reasons are so new that the believers in the old reasons can not accept them of course.

Pierre

[Elamarna]

I have already stated the reasons why their testimony is unsafe and given an example in previous posts if you don't accept those reasons so be it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,
I have reread your post on this thread.
I find arguments for disputing there identification of the apron pieces as belonging to the one she was wearing. However those arguments are once again just your view of what you consider reasonable, however I have no issue with that although I tend to disagree.
I see nothing you have posted to counter the claim that when in custody she was wearing a apron.

Steve

[Elamarna]

The reasons are so new that the believers in the old reasons can not accept them of course.

Pierre

I can't accept what I cannot find. I see no counter argument given for Eddowes not wear an apron as per the inquest testimony.

It appears you agree with Trevor here is that so?
If so, maybe you could point out the reasons given in his posts to counter the claims.

Steve

[etenguy]

Are there not a number of people who saw Catherine wearing an apron on Saturday night / Sunday morning as well as the apron piece found at GS being matched. Namely:

Frederick Wilkinson (inquest statement) "On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron, she was not dressed in anything particular."

Louis Robinson (inquest) "He remarked that she was wearing an apron and was able to identify it when it was produced at the inquest."

PC Hutt (inquest) "PC Hutt remembered that Eddowes was wearing an apron and recognised the one produced at the inquest as the one she was wearing."

PC Halse "At 2.20am he was in Goulston Street, but returned to Mitre Square. From there he accompanied Inspector Edward Collard to the City mortuary. He was present as the body was stripped and noted that a portion of Eddowes' apron was missing."

Edward Collard (Inquest) "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. "

It seems unlikely to me that all this testimony is wrong or suspect, particularly since they all independently state that Catherine had been wearing an apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are there not a number of people who saw Catherine wearing an apron on Saturday night / Sunday morning as well as the apron piece found at GS being matched. Namely:

Frederick Wilkinson (inquest statement) "On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron, she was not dressed in anything particular."

Louis Robinson (inquest) "He remarked that she was wearing an apron and was able to identify it when it was produced at the inquest."

PC Hutt (inquest) "PC Hutt remembered that Eddowes was wearing an apron and recognised the one produced at the inquest as the one she was wearing."

PC Halse "At 2.20am he was in Goulston Street, but returned to Mitre Square. From there he accompanied Inspector Edward Collard to the City mortuary. He was present as the body was stripped and noted that a portion of Eddowes' apron was missing."

Edward Collard (Inquest) "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. "

It seems unlikely to me that all this testimony is wrong or suspect, particularly since they all independently state that Catherine had been wearing an apron.

and where did you get all those quotes from ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

..2 cents..I focused mostly on Mary Kelly..


"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."

Trevor Marriott

First the only relevant time was when Eddowes left the police station, on whether she was wearing it or not and not before becuase she could have taken it off."Apparently was used,"IMO,because the apron was not "normally placed" like a woman alive who was wearing one,but it was moved/disturbed,either by the killer or during the transporting of Eddowes body from the crime scene to the mortuary.Collard saw something we do not know and he did not elaborate on but the position of the apron was such that-including the string(s) attached-, he assessed, she was apparently wearing it.Was it possible that she had it in her "possession" and the apron was moved that it appeared that she was wearing it,sure,but I doubt it,I believe more in the doctor's assessment.


It seems that the fitting of the 2 apron piece was done when the body was being or about to be stripped - per Brown below -and Phillips and Brown were present per Collard below.Since the apron was not "normally placed",weared completely,it was placed under "possession" rather than clothes weared.


Inspector Collard: "saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors {Phillips and Brown} and myself."

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

"Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased
carefully."

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't accept what I cannot find. I see no counter argument given for Eddowes not wear an apron as per the inquest testimony.

It appears you agree with Trevor here is that so?
If so, maybe you could point out the reasons given in his posts to counter the claims.

Steve

Steve
There are as many points to suggest that she was not wearing an apron as there are to suggest she was. So isnt it about time you stopped asking for sources in almost every post, when you know that there is not going to be specific sources. If there was it would be more clear cut, its about analysing the evidence and the witness statements and identifying flaws weighing up the evidence from both sides. Not as you and others seem to be doing accepting without question the old accepted theories

Look at it another way if the evidence and the witness statements were being tendered in a criminal trial, how they would stand up? Many clearly would not stand up to close scrutiny as they clearly dont now, and I have given the reason why they dont, and that they are unsafe. All evidence in any court has to be tested, and not readily accepted as being correct. Sadly at the inquest very little testing of evidence was done, and we are left wondering why, when clearly ambiguities arose from what evidence was given.

I am not being unkind to you when I say something isnt clearly getting through to you. Because you keep coming back with the same old comments, propping up the old accepted theory, and you totally disregard what I have put forward.

All of this is now wearing thin with me, as it is with you, and no doubt others on here. I can add nothing more to this specific issue, and wait to read you reports in great detail next year.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk