The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Herlock Sholmes]

[QUOTE=Pierre;429558]

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,

Sorry but I can't resist saying this:

What are your sources for the above assertions?

[DJA]

Herlock,

We now have to wait for the book.

[Sam Flynn]

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

"The intestines were smeared over with feculent matter"

I read that as a significant pointer to the possibility that the killer needed to get the cack off his hands, and that this - and only this - was the reason for his cutting off a piece of cloth from the body. If he'd wanted to tie the GSG to the murder, why didn't he simply take one of her shoes and leave that in the doorway under the graffiti? Much easier to remove a shoe than to cut a sheet of fabric.

[etenguy]

"The intestines were smeared over with feculent matter"

I read that as a significant pointer to the possibility that the killer needed to get the cack off his hands, and that this - and only this - was the reason for his cutting off a piece of cloth from the body. If he'd wanted to tie the GSG to the murder, why didn't he simply take one of her shoes and leave that in the doorway under the graffiti? Much easier to remove a shoe than to cut a sheet of fabric.

Not sure a shoe would do it. No-one would take notice of a lost shoe - at least they would not think it was related to a crime. A blood soaked rag on the other hand looks suspicious.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock,

We now have to wait for the book.

Hi DJA,

After 30 years I'm starting to think that I don't have the necessary patience for ripperology

[harry]

I see no one has tried to answer the two questions I posed.As to Collards evidence,the list of clothing worn,combined with the list of possessions,were written down as it happened,on the morning of the murder, while his testimony at the inquest was given some days after the event,and from memory.
What if no match was made? I have yet to find any evidence of anyone whose testimony reads, Ï Placed the two pieces of cloth side by side and observed they matched"or words to that effect,and there were only a handful of people who were in a position to do so.In other words,as one poster points out,first person evidence of what was considered the most important clue.

[Trevor Marriott]

I see no one has tried to answer the two questions I posed.As to Collards evidence,the list of clothing worn,combined with the list of possessions,were written down as it happened,on the morning of the murder, while his testimony at the inquest was given some days after the event,and from memory.
What if no match was made? I have yet to find any evidence of anyone whose testimony reads, Ï Placed the two pieces of cloth side by side and observed they matched"or words to that effect,and there were only a handful of people who were in a position to do so.In other words,as one poster points out,first person evidence of what was considered the most important clue.

Hi Harry

From Dr Browns Inquest testimony

"I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

A blood soaked rag on the other hand looks suspicious.

Good point. Although why did it look like blood and faecal matter had been wiped on the apron? If someone had wanted to leave a bloody (and cacky) rag as a deliberate clue, there was a pool of blood, and the equivalent in faeces, available on and around Eddowes' body, in which the apron could have been well and truly dunked. If the killer needed to send a deliberate message, I'd have expected the apron to have been rather more contaminated than the "wiping cloth" found in Goulston Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

Good point. Although why did it look like blood and faecal matter had been wiped on the apron? If someone had wanted to leave a bloody (and cacky) rag as a deliberate clue, there was a pool of blood, and the equivalent in faeces, available on and around Eddowes' body, in which the apron could have been well and truly dunked. If the killer needed to send a deliberate message, I'd have expected the apron to have been rather more contaminated than the "wiping cloth" found in Goulston Street.

If bloody hands had been wiped on the Gs piece then there would be evidence of that on both sides of the apron piece surely? Especially as you have stated in the past that the killer had both hands inside the abdomen at some point.

Dr Brown use the term "As if a knife, or hand had been wiped" not conclusive just an observation by him.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Good point. Although why did it look like blood and faecal matter had been wiped on the apron? If someone had wanted to leave a bloody (and cacky) rag as a deliberate clue, there was a pool of blood, and the equivalent in faeces, available on and around Eddowes' body, in which the apron could have been well and truly dunked. If the killer needed to send a deliberate message, I'd have expected the apron to have been rather more contaminated than the "wiping cloth" found in Goulston Street.

You also make a good point and as much as I would like to believe the murderer left the piece of soiled apron to authenticate his graffito message, there is insufficient evidence to determine if that is case.

I think all we can state with any level of confidence is:
* a soiled (blood and faecal matter) piece of apron was found in Goulston street.
* this matched to an apron in the possession of the victim at Mitre Square.
* this was found near a chalked message which could be interpreted as blaming jews (a jew?) for the murder (not directly stating a jew committed the murder)

I think everything else, at the moment, is speculative. For instance, you could argue (in answer to the question you pose in your last post) that the murderer took the apron piece for a purpose (carry organs, clean up etc...) and only later decided to leave it to authenticate his message. Not a fact, but a reasonable potential explanation.

More data is required before we can come to a more definitive conclusion - and that is hard to come by. We do not even know whether the murderer left the apron piece there at all - it is possible it was discarded elsewhere and later ended up in its found position (wind, animal etc... could have moved it).

[Trevor Marriott]

If bloody hands had been wiped on the Gs piece then there would be evidence of that on both sides of the apron piece surely? Especially as you have stated in the past that the killer had both hands inside the abdomen at some point.

Dr Brown use the term "As if a knife, or hand had been wiped" not conclusive just an observation by him.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In adding to the above post I want to clarify that the above reference was not from his official inquest testimony It was from the Times Inquest report.

The Telegraph report states “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

Now we get back to ambiguities and conflicting evidence, which one is correct? Sadly Dr Browns testimony doesnt help, but there is a big difference between being spotted with blood and smeared. If spotted is correct then he didnt wipe his hand or the knife on it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Thanks for that information Trevor.So Brown,instead of informing the police of his suspicions regarding a connection between two pieces of apron,and having them make the match,did so himself.It is reported that Phillips brought to the post mortem the piece that Long found(why was it in Phillips possession?).Seems the good doctors were making investigations outside normal medical considerations.I suppose there is a chain of evidence regarding the handling and possession of those two pieces of apron.
I understand now,your warning to tread cautiously regarding the evidence given.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for that information Trevor.So Brown,instead of informing the police of his suspicions regarding a connection between two pieces of apron,and having them make the match,did so himself.It is reported that Phillips brought to the post mortem the piece that Long found(why was it in Phillips possession?).Seems the good doctors were making investigations outside normal medical considerations.I suppose there is a chain of evidence regarding the handling and possession of those two pieces of apron.
I understand now,your warning to tread cautiously regarding the evidence given.

I am glad you can also see the flaws in these apron issues.

In answer to your question Pc Long was a met officer, and it seems that at the time he mysteriously found the Gs piece he was not aware of the Mitre Sq murder and for whatever reason thought it was connected to a crime.

Dr Phillips was at Leman st police station at the time the officer arrived with the GS piece and took possession of it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

it is possible it was discarded elsewhere and later ended up in its found position (wind, animal etc... could have moved it).

Possible, yes, but a little unlikely. As I've recently mused, the doorway of Wentworth Model Dwellings was almost ideal for a fugitive to duck into for a number of reasons. It was in darkness, out of view and recessed from the street, but not so recessed that the killer could have stepped into the road if he'd heard someone coming down the stairs, or nipped up the stairs if he heard the boots of a beat policeman coming down the street.

[Pierre]

"The intestines were smeared over with feculent matter"

I read that as a significant pointer to the possibility that the killer needed to get the cack off his hands, and that this - and only this - was the reason for his cutting off a piece of cloth from the body. If he'd wanted to tie the GSG to the murder, why didn't he simply take one of her shoes and leave that in the doorway under the graffiti? Much easier to remove a shoe than to cut a sheet of fabric.

And I read that as a significant pointer that the killer smeared over the piece of apron with feculent matter and blood to show the police that:

1. The apron was from the murder site
2. He had written the messeage on the dado

Pierre