The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Thats conjecture on your part. If he were disturbed he would not even have had time to do anything other than get away asap. That includes cutting an apron piece !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

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?

Mike you are missing the point that Trevor says that the use of "apparently" shows uncertainty and a tendency to accept what fits his idea and dismiss as unsafe what does not.


Steve

[Herlock Sholmes]

Mike you are missing the point that Trevor says that the use of "apparently" shows uncertainty and a tendency to accept what fits his idea and dismiss as unsafe what does not.


Steve

Hi Steve,

Perhaps another officer was more observant as to what she was actually wearing and Collard reflected this by saying that she was 'apparently' wearing it as opposed to just having it in her possession?

[Robert St Devil]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

what,s puzzling is she had several rags or handkerchiefs on her person that he could have used if he needed to clean up on the spot.

sequencing seems to be important. i have a general assumption that he cut her face first bc her face wasnt splattered in fecal matter. if he did cut it first, he may have wiped the blade on her apron before lifting her skirt, and could have cut the apron at this moment. for what purpose, im not certain. my random answers are he accidentally cut himself and needed a bandage; he disposed of gloves after the Stride murder; or the latter presence of fecal matter.

{** after reading the coram mystery, ive been wondering if the handkerchiefs were his.}

[DJA]

Anyone ever considered that the diagonally cut piece of apron was the same as a Esmarch bandage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esmarch_bandage

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Esmarch

[Pierre]

Except your example would still result in two halves, and there was no mention of two halves, and the cuts in the clothing were either in a downward direction, or across, none were described as being diagonal.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I agree. And any information about halves had been meaningless anyway.

Pierre

[Pierre]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He cut the apron before he drew her clothes up.

He did not want a piece of material to wipe his hands or knife on.

He wanted a piece of apron to use as evidence.

He had to.

Pierre

[Sam Flynn]

He cut the apron before he drew her clothes up.

The apron would have been under her coat.

He did not want a piece of material to wipe his hands or knife on.

Agreed. He didn't want it... he needed it, after getting cack on his hand(s) or sustaining a cut, depending on which explanation you favour. (I'm with the cacky hands explanation.)

He wanted a piece of apron to use as evidence.

In which case, a piece of apron cut after the mutilation would suffice just as well as one cut before he mutilated her.

[etenguy]

Posted twice in error

[etenguy]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The quotes from the verbatim reports of the inquest provided by journalists who were there, posted earlier, all state that Catherine was wearing an apron. I have not come across a challenge to this by any of the witnesses.

To believe that Catherine was not wearing an apron, every witness who saw her and stated otherwise would have to be wrong, and/or each of the reports of their statements would have to be wrong. This is possible but highly improbable.

The suggestion that the use of the word 'apparently' in one person's testimony and the perceived list anomaly, outweighs six independent witnesses all stating the same thing, is not convincing.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;429536]

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.

Trevor,

there are pieces of evidence left by the killer in the whole case. The GSG and the apron are not even the most clear pieces of evidence, although they are very clear.

And there are even better pieces of evidence. The small pieces of evidence were left on purpose. Understanding the pieces left in the past is the only way to solve the case.

So there is no "real logic" but the logic of the killer.

Cheers, Pierre

[Pierre]

The apron would have been under her coat.Agreed. He didn't want it... he needed it, after getting cack on his hand(s) or sustaining a cut, depending on which explanation you favour. (I'm with the cacky hands explanation.)
In which case, a piece of apron cut after the mutilation would suffice just as well as one cut before he mutilated her.

No Sam, he saved the piece of apron to use it as evidence for the GSG. To show the police that he was there. And the GSG was misunderstood.

And it still is.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Robert St Devil;429544]

what,s puzzling is she had several rags or handkerchiefs on her person that he could have used if he needed to clean up on the spot.

And so it is obvious to you that he did not use it for that.

[Elamarna]

Pierre

I have no idea why the piece of apron was taken to Goulston st.
However I am happy to accept that Eddowes was wearing an apron while in custody, and that the piece found in Goulston st matched the piece left with the body.
Trevor argues against but I am unconvinced by his arguments because there little to support his view to me.

However I still can see nothing to definitive connect the Apron to the GSG.
I know you believe you have sources to support all of this, so I will wait for your report.
Hopefully it may be out before I finish my proposed work on Mitre square in 2019 I suspect.


Steve

[Pierre]

Pierre

I have no idea why the piece of apron was taken to Goulston st.
However I am happy to accept that Eddowes was wearing an apron while in custody, and that the piece found in Goulston st matched the piece left with the body.
Trevor argues against but I am unconvinced by his arguments because there little to support his view to me.

However I still can see nothing to definitive connect the Apron to the GSG.
I know you believe you have sources to support all of this, so I will wait for your report.
Hopefully it may be out before I finish my proposed work on Mitre square in 2019 I suspect.

Steve

OK Steve.