The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

The part that was matched to the GS piece, had been described as a handkerchief.

Where was it ever so described ?

The list of possessions is a re-write for the inquest. Police notes were recorded in a pocketbook, so the list will have been on several small pages.
This evidence was then re-written on two pages for the court, at the inquest.

Where is the evidence to support this claim ?

And why was the mortuary piece described as "A piece of old white apron" as against "An old white apron with piece missing?" or simply "An old white apron"?

You mention the mortuary piece as being a piece of rag, if it was the apron then it was a big piece of rag was it not?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
Times. Oct. 12.

When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
Morning Post. Oct 12.

The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it.
Star. Oct 11.

Anything not clear in the above?

The evidential value of the newspaper articles and the witness testimony have already been covered in previous posts please keep up.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

The evidential value of the newspaper articles and the witness testimony have already been covered in previous posts please keep up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

This is from the Smithsonian Institution Education Archives.

Primary source - a document or object that was created by an individual or group as part of their daily lives. Primary sources include birth certificates, photographs, diaries, letters, embroidered samplers, clothing, household implements, and newspapers.
First person testimony - the account of a person who actually participated in an event. **Examples are oral history interviews, diaries, letters, photographs and drawings of events, and court testimony of an eyewitness.
Secondary source - summaries, second-hand accounts, and analyses of events created by someone who did not witness the event, but may have read or heard about it.* Examples may include: books or articles written on a topic, artworks depicting an event, letters or diaries recounting a version of events told to the author by another source.*
Second person or hearsay testimony - an account repeated by someone who did not actually participate in the event. *Examples are newspaper accounts from interviews of observers, letters that repeat a story told to the writer, drawings based on other people’s observations, or a book written about a topic.


As you can see in paragraph #1 (Primary Source), a newspaper account is a primary source. A witness speaking at an inquest would be "First person testimony". A newspaper reporter sitting in the inquest and reporting what he heard from the "First person testimony" and writing about it in his newspaper would be a primary source from a first person witness. Reporters from different newspapers recorded and heard different things as they sat through the inquests. That doesn't mean they are to be disregarded and thrown out as a secondary source.

A secondary source and "second person or hearsay testimony" would come from an "observer" of the event. For example, person A overheard PC Watkins talk about the scene of the crime. Person A was not at the crime scene or did not see what PC Watkins saw but relates their version of what they heard/saw from the witness to the reporter.

It's obvious from Jon's newspaper snippets that they are from the newspaper reports of the inquest.

[jerryd]

In addition to what I said in my previous post, the same holds true for first hand witness accounts recorded by the press. The reporter may get some details incorrect such as hearing parts of testimony from "observers" (hearsay) and other parts from the actual witness. This is a called a mixed source.

Again from same Smithsonian article.

Mixed sources - A document that is a primary source may contain both first person testimony and second hand testimony. *An example would be a diary entry that records a person’s eyewitness observations of an event (first person testimony) but also contains additional stories told to the writer by a family member (second hand testimony).* Newspapers often contain a mixture of first and second hand accounts.


As you can see, a mixed source can still be a primary source. It is wise to use caution with these mixed sources and marry them up with several other newspaper accounts of the same incident to find where the truth is.

[Elamarna]

The evidential value of the newspaper articles and the witness testimony have already been covered in previous posts please keep up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

Your post gives the impression that a consensus view on this matter has been reached.
That is not correct is it Trevor?
You have given your view. Others another.
Further research is required to reach an overview on this issue. At that point we may reach a consensus, I think you are going too far at this point.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

This is from the Smithsonian Institution Education Archives.

Primary source - a document or object that was created by an individual or group as part of their daily lives. Primary sources include birth certificates, photographs, diaries, letters, embroidered samplers, clothing, household implements, and newspapers.
First person testimony - the account of a person who actually participated in an event. **Examples are oral history interviews, diaries, letters, photographs and drawings of events, and court testimony of an eyewitness.
Secondary source - summaries, second-hand accounts, and analyses of events created by someone who did not witness the event, but may have read or heard about it.* Examples may include: books or articles written on a topic, artworks depicting an event, letters or diaries recounting a version of events told to the author by another source.*
Second person or hearsay testimony - an account repeated by someone who did not actually participate in the event. *Examples are newspaper accounts from interviews of observers, letters that repeat a story told to the writer, drawings based on other people’s observations, or a book written about a topic.


As you can see in paragraph #1 (Primary Source), a newspaper account is a primary source. A witness speaking at an inquest would be "First person testimony". A newspaper reporter sitting in the inquest and reporting what he heard from the "First person testimony" and writing about it in his newspaper would be a primary source from a first person witness. Reporters from different newspapers recorded and heard different things as they sat through the inquests. That doesn't mean they are to be disregarded and thrown out as a secondary source.

A secondary source and "second person or hearsay testimony" would come from an "observer" of the event. For example, person A overheard PC Watkins talk about the scene of the crime. Person A was not at the crime scene or did not see what PC Watkins saw but relates their version of what they heard/saw from the witness to the reporter.

It's obvious from Jon's newspaper snippets that they are from the newspaper reports of the inquest.

I am not disputing thats where they are from, but if the reporters were not there and recorded the notes at the time then they are not primary, and it is quite clear as I have stated that is what is the case with some of the newspaper reports.

I have also gone to great lengths to point out that there are discrepancies in these various reports, and point out that one word wrongly noted can change the whole context of the report, which is what has happened, and why we have the conflicts that we have with the testimony, and evidence.

In the case of the Eddpwes inquest, if one persons inquest signed deposition states that it was an apron piece then that is what it is according to that witness. If we then have another newspaper article from a reporter who wasnt there, where the same witness is quoted as saying something different which one do we believe? Because they both cant be right can they?

There has to be a common sense approach to this because we have researchers who state she was wearing an apron, quoting newspaper reports that mention the word apron and corroborate their belief, and they have to keep this belief alive, because this is another important an integral part of the ripper mystery, which if proved wrong has a massive impact on the overall mystery.

Then we have those on the other side referring to the original inquest testimony, the balance of which tends to support the fact that she wasnt.

So who is right and who is wrong? The public will decide based on what is presented to them from both sides of the argument because if this evidence were ever presented to a jury, it would not stand up to close scrutiny, as it does not stand up to close scrutiny on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you mentioned this before, last year?
At that time you were reminded that the clothing was lifted up, so her skirts were upsidedown, which I think has led you to draw another erroneous conclusion.

No the wrong conclusions are from those who believe the killer cut or tore a piece from an apron she was wearing, when with her clothes drawn up it would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to find, get hold of, and to cut through, because it would have been hidden under all her other clothing.

I Keep saying this, if the killer had have wanted a piece of material to wipe his hands or knife on, he could have done that on her clothes before leaving the scene, or cut a piece from any other item of clothing more accessible to him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Then we have those on the other side referring to the original inquest testimony, the balance of which tends to support the fact that she wasnt.

That is just not so Trevor.

The official report containing signed depositions contains reports that clearly and categorically state Eddowes wore an Apron while in custody


You do not accept those, fine it's your right, however the reports are there and so it is wrong to say that on balance the report says she was not. It says clearly she was.

It's your intreptation of the report, and only that which says on balance she was not.

So who is right and who is wrong? The public will decide based on what is presented to them from both sides of the argument because if this evidence were ever presented to a jury, it would not stand up to close scrutiny, as it does not stand up to close scrutiny on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You mean YOU believe it does not stand up to close scrutiny; that is not the same as it does not stand up to scrutiny!

And before the comments about those who won't accept new ideas, ideas are great but they need to be supported by fact, evidence, sources to be more than just ideas. And you don't have these as yet do you post (1725)?

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

That is just not so Trevor.

The official report containing signed depositions contains reports that clearly and categorically state Eddowes wore an Apron while in custody.

How can you say that when there are clear examples of conflicts which show the evidence you refer to is unsafe. Take those rose tinted specs off for a change.

You do not accept those, fine it's your right, however the reports are there and so it is wrong to say that on balance the report says she was not. It says clearly she was.

It's your intreptation of the report, and only that which says on balance she was not.

Its not just mine there are others who concur from this site and from the big wide world outside.

You mean YOU believe it does not stand up to close scrutiny; that is not the same as it does not stand up to scrutiny! There is a wealth or material that i have shown which supports my belief which you seem to want to totally ignore

Yes I believe, and I have shown why

And before the comments about those who won't accept new ideas, ideas are great but they need to be supported by fact, evidence, sources to be more than just ideas. And you don't have these as yet do you post (1725)?

Steve

You really have no concept at all on assessing and evaluating evidence. Yet you prop up the old accepted theory, and when this is challenged you roll out the same old lines. All you keep asking for are sources to prove the challenge, but you know there are no specific sources, its a matter of interpretation of all the evidence in its totality.

I know that whatever is said, or put froward by anyone against the old accepted theories is going to be met with strong opposition. I have seen this time and time again on here over the years, why do think we get very few new posters coming on the site?

But we never seem to see the roles reversed, whereby you or any of the other members of the hatchet squad on here have done anything to prove the old accepted theories as being correct. It has always been to accept the old evidence without question viz a viz "its in the newspapers so it must be right" or "The police said it so it must be right, and they must be believed, because they are the police, and the police couldn't possibly tell lies"

That is the case otherwise someone before now, other than me would have brought the contentious issues to the forefront, but no keep the mystery going at all costs. what a sad bunch, you all really need to get out more !

I cant be bothered to waste any more of my valuable time on this topic. What I have said and put forward has been said, and I will stand by that and defend it come what may.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Trevor, this has nothing to do with adherence to "old, accepted theories", and everything to do with the most sensible reading of the evidence. All the evidence, and all the most logical interpretations of it, point inexorably to Eddowes' having had a piece of her apron cut off in Mitre Square, a piece of apron which was found in Goulston Street about an hour later, and which was positively matched and reunited with the rest of the apron shortly afterwards.

As I've said previously, this is about the most certain we can be about any piece of evidence in the Ripper case. There are enough "mysteries" already without concocting ones of our own.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, this has nothing to do with adherence to "old, accepted theories", and everything to do with the most sensible reading of the evidence. All the evidence, and all the most logical interpretations of it, point inexorably to Eddowes' having had a piece of her apron cut off in Mitre Square, a piece of apron which was found in Goulston Street about an hour later, and which was positively matched and reunited with the rest of the apron shortly afterwards.

As I've said previously, this is about the most certain we can be about any piece of evidence in the Ripper case. There are enough "mysteries" already without concocting ones of our own.

There is no dispute hat the two pieces of apron matched and that there is a link to the victim with the piece found at GS. that evidence is conclusive.

Its the rest of the evidence relating to the apron pieces that is not conclusive. But people are buying their heads in the sand pretending that the anomalies dont exist.

They are real, Collards list is real that confirms that she was not wearing an apron. That was made up at the time. For those who say they made a mistake. they got it wrong. if that had been the case whatever they were trying to describe was not a full apron with a piece missing which is what is being suggested as what happened at Mitre Square. It was described as an old piece of white apron. Not "an old white apron with piece missing"

There is no real logic for the killer to cut, or tear, a piece and then discard it some time after that distance from the crime scene all the time carrying with him incriminating evidence. He could have discarded it anywhere in less time it took to get to GS, in the gutter,over a wall.

To wipe his hands or knife again if that had been the case either of those actions could have been carried out within a few yards of Mitre Square.

And when Collard gave his evidence, when he said the words "apparently wearing" why was he not asked to clarify the position, as he had just produced lists which showed she wasn't wearing an apron. Just another one of the many ambiguities which I have continued to highlight on this topic and other going back over the years which you and others have chosen to reject. With at least three posters on here who have invented explanations to try to negate the anomalies and the ambiguities, how good is that ? I call that desperate attempts to prop up the old theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

You really have no concept at all on assessing and evaluating evidence. Yet you prop up the old accepted theory, and when this is challenged you roll out the same old lines. All you keep asking for are sources to prove the challenge, but you know there are no specific sources, its a matter of interpretation of all the evidence in its totality.

The exact point.

It's all guesswork on your part! Presented as proven fact!

Backed by nothing other than self belief in ones own ideas.

Never better illustrated than in Post 1659


"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 have never read such a truly unrealistic comment as that; one which shows the absurdly high regard one has for ones own worth.

I know that whatever is said, or put froward by anyone against the old accepted theories is going to be met with strong opposition. I have seen this time and time again on here over the years, why do think we get very few new posters coming on the site?

All I ask is that you support your ideas, that's how history works Trevor.
You say the testimony of some is unsafe of Robinson and Hurt, I have read your reasoning and it fails to stand up to scrutiny as You are so fond of saying.

But we never seem to see the roles reversed, whereby you or any of the other members of the hatchet squad on here have done anything to prove the old accepted theories as being correct. It has always been to accept the old evidence without question viz a viz "its in the newspapers so it must be right" or "The police said it so it must be right, and they must be believed, because they are the police, and the police couldn't possibly tell lies"

The onus is on the originator of new theories to prove their point.

And there is no Hatchet squad, just people who want facts to back up ideas rather than pure speculation.
When I consider you have made a good point I say so.

On your last point, of course the Police can and do lie, however one needs to provide some sort of evidence to support the view, and you don't, your evidence is your interpretation time after time. That is not sufficient.

That is the case otherwise someone before now, other than me would have brought the contentious issues to the forefront, but no keep the mystery going at all costs. what a sad bunch, you all really need to get out more !

Your normal response when others don't agree, insult, predicictable and boring.
Sticks and stones and so on

I cant be bothered to waste any more of my valuable time on this topic. What I have said and put forward has been said, and I will stand by that and defend it come what may. [/B]

Good and I will do the same.
I have far better things to do than pointing out faults.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

There is no real logic for the killer to cut, or tear, a piece and then discard it some time after that distance from the crime scene all the time carrying with him incriminating evidence. He could have discarded it anywhere in less time it took to get to GS, in the gutter,over a wall.

To wipe his hands or knife again if that had been the case either of those actions could have been carried out within a few yards of Mitre Square.


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I've always opposed the idea of the ripper cutting away a piece of cloth for cleaning up. Surely he would have done that in situ? Paul Begg made a reasonable, and rather obvious suggestion in fact, over on the Forum, that the ripper could indeed have wiped his hands and knife in situ but he may have wanted to check himself over for blood when he was away from the scene and under less time pressure and so would have needed a piece of cloth.

The fact of the time gap and subsequent disposal in Goulston Street for me is the strongest point in favour of the ripper writing the graffito. Obviously we can't be certain of that though.

[Sam Flynn]

I've always opposed the idea of the ripper cutting away a piece of cloth for cleaning up. Surely he would have done that in situ?

His hand(s) would have been filthy after having cut through Eddowes' colon and smeared her excrement over her intestines. That stuff takes some shifting and, given that he only had perhaps seconds to play with in Mitre Square, he couldn't afford to hang about and scrub up on the spot.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, I'm feeling stupid and I haven't followed all of this thread so it might be that no one wants to answer this but......

Trevor says that 'Collard' proves that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron?

Collard said this......

[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.

What am I missing chaps?