The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[etenguy]

I am given to understand that there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided in that paragraph. Potentially over stating conclusions, and particularly in light of more modern knowledge.

However, I remember an interview/documentary featuring Martin Fido during which, if memory serves me well, he alluded to a re-evaluation of the medical reports of the time which did suggest the kidney section came from Eddowes. Lost the reference unfortunately.

PS Found the reference and the documentary is on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvNtdSnH5Zc

It is at 25 minutes in and refers to an evaluation by Mick Warren, a surgeon and editor of Ripperana.

[Pierre]

I tend to agree, and with Sam Flynn when he says he just sliced or tore some cloth without too much thought - as long as it was big enough for his purpose.

I think it would be interesting to consider why he discarded it so quickly. If it was a carry all, then why risk going back on the police covered streets so close to the time of the murder (assuming he used it all the way home), admittedly some distance away. He could discard it at a safer time later, or burn it even. Unless he had a specific purpose in mind (authenticating the GSG for instance - pure speculation). It does add to the reasons we might consider the GSG was left by the murderer.

The ONLY reason the writing was discovered was the piece of apron.

[Pierre]

That's a question that intrigues me. If the scenario is correct, and it appears plausible, why did he go back out to discard the apron. He had absolutely no need to. I know that many disagree but I think that this is the biggest pointer to the fact that Jack might have written the graffito.

The ONLY reason the writing was discovered was the piece of apron.

[etenguy]

The ONLY reason the writing was discovered was the piece of apron.

You are absolutely correct. However, it does not necessarily follow that the writing was penned by the murderer. It may or may not have been. That is why through discussing possible reasons to believe it was (or wasn't) gets us a little closer to forming an opinion.

[DJA]

I am given to understand that there is some doubt as to the accuracy of the information provided in that paragraph. Potentially over stating conclusions, and particularly in light of more modern knowledge.

You prolly need to read Gull and Sutton's papers.
Remarkably insightful.


"Sutton/he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body"

Major Henry Smith was RL Stevenson's cousin

[DJA]

The ONLY reason the writing was discovered was the piece of apron.

Well,not really.

Do you suggest neither would have been found later that morning!

[Sam Flynn]

It is at 25 minutes in and refers to an evaluation by Mick Warren, a surgeon and editor of Ripperana.

A summary of Nick Warren's conclusions can be found under the "Lusk Kidney" entry on the Casebook Wiki, but I summarise them here:

It is impossible to prove either way the genuineness of the Lusk Kidney. Author, researcher and practising surgeon N. P. Warren made 7 points of identification (based on the contemporary reports) in 1989:

The Lusk Kidney was human.
It came from a woman.
It came from a person approximately 45 years old.
It had been extracted from the body within three weeks of its examination.
It came from an alcoholic.
It was severely affected by Bright's disease.
It had approximately 1 inch of renal artery adhering to it.

Warren was able to deduce that only one of the above statements was beyond reasonable doubt (that the kidney was human). The others were either uncertain or negative.

So, according to Nick, the most they could have said was that the Lusk kidney came from a human, and there was no way they could have tied it to Eddowes.

[etenguy]

Thanks Sam, I am familiar with that analysis, but didn't connect the two. It seemed to me that Martin Fido was referring to a more positive analysis, but on listening again he simply says that Mr Warren's analysis allows for the kidney to have come from Catherine Eddowes. Although it follows a remark that it used to be considered a hoax. It may be the editing, but the whole segment suggests it went from hoax to likely to be from the victim. Just goes to show how a collection of sentences, each accurate, can be formed into a whole that can easily be misinterpreted. (Or maybe I am just a lazy listener.)

[Trevor Marriott]

I tend to agree, and with Sam Flynn when he says he just sliced or tore some cloth without too much thought - as long as it was big enough for his purpose.

And what do you suggest was his purpose, certainly not to carry the organs away in, that old chestnut has now been totally blown out of the water.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

By whom?

[etenguy]

And what do you suggest was his purpose, certainly not to carry the organs away in, that old chestnut has now been totally blown out of the water.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If only we knew his purpose, but I'm less inclined to dismiss that he might have used it as a carry-all than you. There is always the possibility it was taken specifically to later authenticate the GSG - much in the same way the kidney piece was used to authenticate the Lusk letter. That would show a consistency of approach, and while neither is certain, one tends to corroborate the other.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sorry for not being up to date on this but what happened to the missing organs then?

[harry]

Dr Brown made two statements concerning the blood,which appear interesting.
(1) There was no blood on the front of the clothes.
(2) I should not expect much blood to have been found on the person who had inflickted these wounds.
So why the need for a large piece of apron to wipe away blood?Why did Brown later declare there was blood on the piece of apron matched to the piece found by Long?

[Wickerman]

Prior to Brown stating: "There was no blood on the front of the clothes", he had been providing answers which seem to be consistent with questions concerning whether Eddowes had been attacked while standing - no blood on her abdomen, or spurting of blood on the bricks or the pavement, etc.

[Elamarna]

Sorry for not being up to date on this but what happened to the missing organs then?

No problem for Trevor, Mike.

He proposes that the Killer did not remove organs, that this was done at the mortuary for a trade in organs he proposes for research purposes. However he is unable to provide ANY support for this other than his argument it was too dark and there was too little time to do it on site. It's one of his new (actually old now) theories. In his own words it fails to stand up to serious scrutiny.

Steve