The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

There is very little proven, would be my reading of the evidence.Mostly it comes down to belief.

Reasoned conclusions, consistent with the evidence, goes a little further than mere "belief"

Was Eddowes wearing an apron when she was killed?

She seems to have been, given that we have the testimony of a reliable witness that part of the apron was still attached by strings to the body.

[Sam Flynn]

When have you ever known a body to be so rifled for organs at the mortuary, at the beginning of a murder inquiry, even before the inquest has sat?

... and who was responsible for excising the length of large intestine and leaving it alongside the body in Mitre Square? The Poop Fairy?

[Wickerman]

... and who was responsible for excising the length of large intestine and leaving it alongside the body in Mitre Square? The Poop Fairy?

Ah, that's an easy one - Jack Russell, the Terrier of Mitre Square. The little runt was also at Hanbury street, they found he piddled against the fence, if I recall...

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, that's an easy one - Jack Russell, the Terrier of Mitre Square. The little runt was also at Hanbury street, they found he piddled against the fence, if I recall...

That little scamp!

[Wickerman]

On the minor issue of 'testimony given at face value', this is one difference between a trial and an inquest.
Testimony given at a trial is adversarial, it is expected to be challenged. Testimony given at an inquest is non-adversarial, meaning it can be challenged, but it is not expected to be, and rarely is challenged.
It is taken at face value.
There is no 'accused', at an inquest.

PC Long's testimony is questioned today, but it was not found questionable when given. Today, we love to question everything. This does not mean what we read is questionable, it is in many cases a reaction to the lack of information that has survived over the past century.
As for Dr Brown's evidence, that was recorded at the inquest - the original documents still survive.

[harry]

I was not referring so much to the evidence given,but to Brown's notes.Do they survive? Is any information, in writing,available in relation to Long's evidence.Notebook entries for example.Were any produced at the inquest,or was evidence given from memory?
The only evidence given at the inquest,as far as I am aware,and supported by written information,was the list of clothing and possessions of Eddowes,taken at the time her body was derobed.If any evidence can be taken at face value it is surely that,and it does not include her as wearing an apron or apron piece.

[Sam Flynn]

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Dr Brown, inquest testimony. Note 'still attached... to the body'. It really doesn't get much clearer than this.

[Trevor Marriott]

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Dr Brown, inquest testimony. Note 'still attached... to the body'. It really doesn't get much clearer than this.

But that is in conflict with official inquest testimony. Stop cherry picking !!!!!!!!!

Dr Browns Official inquest testimony signed deposition

My attention was called to the apron, it was the corner of the apron "WITH A STRING ATTACHED" no where does it mention attached to the body

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Trevor, look at the equivalent section of Brown's testimony in the Telegraph, 5th Oct 1888.

In all the years you've been researching the Ripper case, surely you've come to realise that we can't rely on single sources.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, look at the equivalent section of Brown's testimony in the Telegraph, 5th Oct 1888.

In all the years you've been researching the Ripper case, surely you've come to realise that we can't rely on single sources.

But with depositions taken at court as is the case, they are written down, then either read over to the witness, or the witness reads them before signing them so they have to be correct do they not?

and you cannot keep relying on newspaper reports that conflict with the official testimony and signed depositions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

But with depositions taken at court as is the case, they are written down, then either read over to the witness, or the witness reads them before signing them so they have to be correct do they not?

They need not be complete in every detail. It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a degree of sense that the inquest statements in question are not verbatim transcripts, but extremely terse summaries. Some details are clearly missing and, in point of fact, they are not always infallible, either.

[Elamarna]

I was not referring so much to the evidence given,but to Brown's notes.Do they survive? Is any information, in writing,available in relation to Long's evidence.Notebook entries for example.Were any produced at the inquest,or was evidence given from memory?
The only evidence given at the inquest,as far as I am aware,and supported by written information,was the list of clothing and possessions of Eddowes,taken at the time her body was derobed.If any evidence can be taken at face value it is surely that,and it does not include her as wearing an apron or apron piece.

Harry
The issue there is that to reach that conclusion, that she was not wearing an apron, one must discount the witness statements given by Hurt and Robinson.

Trevor is happy to do that, I and many others it seems are not.

Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

They need not be complete in every detail. It should be abundantly clear to anyone with a degree of sense that the inquest statements in question are not verbatim transcripts, but extremely terse summaries. Some details are clearly missing and, in point of fact, they are not always infallible, either.

But the issue you seek to dispute is clear, and concise, in the deposition, and he signed it. If when reading it through before signing he found errors they would have been put right.

You cant go through all the contentious issues in the ripper mystery cherry picking, which ones are best suited to prop up a particular theory. We see this time and time again on here.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

But with depositions taken at court as is the case, they are written down, then either read over to the witness, or the witness reads them before signing them so they have to be correct do they not?

and you cannot keep relying on newspaper reports that conflict with the official testimony and signed depositions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

However Trevor it does not conflict. It merely adds words which may have been missed from the official report. Or are you seriously suggesting the official report missed not a single word or made a no mistakes?

If the official report explicitly said the Apron was not attached to the body and was signed off as such you would have a case. It does not however say that and your argument therefore is incorrect.

Steve

[Elamarna]

But the issue you seek to dispute is clear, and concise, in the deposition, and he signed it. If when reading it through before signing he found errors they would have been put right.

You cant go through all the contentious issues in the ripper mystery cherry picking, which ones are best suited to prop up a particular theory. We see this time and time again on here.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It is not clear and concise . It does not make mention of if the Apron was attached or not.
It's your Personal interpretation Trevor!


Steve