The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

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

Trevor

It is not Gareth who is "Cherry Picking" .

You are using one source, which incidentally does not actually say What you suggest it does.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

It is not Gareth who is "Cherry Picking" .

You are using one source, which incidentally does not actually say What you suggest it does.

Steve

Of course it does its never been clearer, and that one source is the original source, it has to be as has been explained. You wanted your sources now you have one and still you question it. What is wrong with you?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

The point of the exercise is to negate the newspaper report, which states it was attached to the body with the strings, thereby giving you and others ammunition for suggesting she was wearing an apron. In investigative terms its called proving or disproving the facts.

You clearly dont want to accept what is primary evidence in this case. However, This is one part though where you Sam and others would appear to be in great difficulty.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Important words are they not? Its easy to say what you said but Brown signed it and read it over so it takes precedence over your suggestion as to what might have been said or not said. You cant believe all that you read in the papers, and that`s still the case today.

Take time out and sit quiet in a dark room !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Important words are they not? Its easy to say what you said but Brown signed it and read it over

And it missed stuff out that the papers picked up on. It was a long statement, and it's not surprising if stuff got missed out by the clerk. It may have been correct in what it said, but it needn't have been complete in every detail, and I doubt that Brown was going to get too fussy if "with strings attached" should really have said "attached to the body with strings". It wasn't going to affect the findings of the inquest in any way, and it wasn't going to bring Catherine Eddowes back either. I shouldn't be surprised that a busy man like Dr Brown only gave it a cursory once-over anyway; it's not as if his livelihood was going to be ruined by a tiny clerical omission.

Besides, is it any more likely that a court clerk got everything down verbatim, but a Daily Telegraph journalist got stuff drastically wrong? We're not talking about a cheap sensationalist rag, here, not that there's anything "sensational" in recording the fact that an apron was attached to a body with strings. It's what apron strings do, for heaven's sake.

[Trevor Marriott]

And it missed stuff out that the papers picked up on. It was a long statement, and it's not surprising if stuff got missed out by the clerk. It may have been correct in what it said, but it needn't have been complete in every detail, and I doubt that Brown was going to get too fussy if "with strings attached" should really have said "attached to the body with strings". It wasn't going to affect the findings of the inquest in any way, and it wasn't going to bring Catherine Eddowes back either. I shouldn't be surprised that a busy man like Dr Brown only gave it a cursory once-over anyway; it's not as if his livelihood was going to be ruined by a tiny clerical omission.

Besides, is it any more likely that a court clerk got everything down verbatim, but a Daily Telegraph journalist got stuff drastically wrong? We're not talking about a cheap sensationalist rag, here, not that there's anything "sensational" in recording the fact that an apron was attached to a body with strings. It's what apron strings do, for heaven's sake.

Not if it was an apron piece with only one string

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Of course it does its never been clearer, and that one source is the original source, it has to be as has been explained. You wanted your sources now you have one and still you question it. What is wrong with you?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nothing wrong. The source simply does NOT SAY what you claim it does.


Steve

[Elamarna]

The point of the exercise is to negate the newspaper report, which states it was attached to the body with the strings, thereby giving you and others ammunition for suggesting she was wearing an apron. In investigative terms its called proving or disproving the facts.

You clearly dont want to accept what is primary evidence in this case. However, This is one part though where you Sam and others would appear to be in great difficulty.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You still do not appreciate the difference between secondary and primary historical sources.
There is clear evidence that she was wearing an apron in custody. Your refusal to accept such is just symptomatic of the subjective bias you show with regards to your Theories.

If you seriously beleive that the alternative view to your idea is in difficulty you are clearly reading a different thread or the interpretation applied displays great failings.



Steve

[Elamarna]

Important words are they not? Its easy to say what you said but Brown signed it and read it over so it takes precedence over your suggestion as to what might have been said or not said. You cant believe all that you read in the papers, and that`s still the case today.

Take time out and sit quiet in a dark room !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Bit he does not say the Apron was not attached does he Trevor?

What he signs is a truthful statement.

Why would one wish to sit in a dark room? that suggests you are winning the debate, sorry to inform you that you are not!

The report DOES NOT say the Apron was not attached; that is factual.
Other reports also signed at the inquest say she was wearing an apron.

It's all about what one accepts and how one interprets it; you attempt to interpret the testimony to fit your theory, sadly it does not do that.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

You still do not appreciate the difference between secondary and primary historical sources.
There is clear evidence that she was wearing an apron in custody. Your refusal to accept such is just symptomatic of the subjective bias you show with regards to your Theories.

If you seriously beleive that the alternative view to your idea is in difficulty you are clearly reading a different thread or the interpretation applied displays great failings.

Steve

We are dealing with different parts of the investigation. Whats the point in even bothering to read the inquest testimony depositions if you are not going to take notice of what they contain. Its not right to compare them against newspaper reports and then lump them all together, and then come up with an explanation. It doesnt work like that in the real world of investigation primary evidence is always the best evidence

That evidence is questionable for the reasons previously stated. It was never tested and had it been evidence in a criminal trial then it would have been. And as this is a criminal investigation from my perspective and not one of your historical exercises. I am right in pointing out the evidential flaws which you seem to continually want to disregard

They are there and are not going to go away.

This started when Sam F referred to the newspaper report that stated Dr Brown fitted the Gs piece to the piece he had which was still attached to the body. That is not a reality because when the body was stripped the Gs piece had not yet been found so how could he?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

And as this is a criminal investigation from my perspective and not one of your historical exercises.

And, as we know, criminal investigations invariably get things right, don't they? And historians... what do they know?

This started when Sam F referred to the newspaper report that stated Dr Brown fitted the Gs piece to the piece he had which was still attached to the body. That is not a reality because when the body was stripped the Gs piece had not yet been found so how could he?

At what time was the body stripped, Trevor? Besides, Brown's statement works regardless:

Un-stripped: "I fitted the portion... to the remaining portion, which was still attached to the body [as I matched the two pieces together]"

Stripped: "I fitted the portion... to the remaining portion, which was still attached to the body [when it was found in Mitre Sq]"

The key words are "attached to the body". In other words, Eddowes was wearing an apron, whichever way we - or Jack - cut it.

[Elamarna]

We are dealing with different parts of the investigation. Whats the point in even bothering to read the inquest testimony depositions if you are not going to take notice of what they contain. Its not right to compare them against newspaper reports and then lump them all together, and then come up with an explanation. It doesnt work like that in the real world of investigation primary evidence is always the best evidence

You continually use the term evidence, when you are refering to written sources there is no physical evidence.
The paper reports can be viewed as primary source, and must be studied if one wants to get the most accurate view of events.
Your continual reference to them as Secondary is incorrect.

That evidence is questionable for the reasons previously stated. It was never tested and had it been evidence in a criminal trial then it would have been. And as this is a criminal investigation from my perspective and not one of your historical exercises. I am right in pointing out the evidential flaws which you seem to continually want to disregard

They are there and are not going to go away.

It is not a criminal investigation Trevor, stop kidding yourself it is otherwise.
There is no evidence other than written sources and therefore it is an historical investigation.

The evidence is not questionable, you argument is based on semantics of the words used..

The point which you refuse to address is that the report you are using does not say what you claim it says.
At no point does Brown say or sign that the apron was not attached, nor does his official testimony suggest such was the case

This started when Sam F referred to the newspaper report that stated Dr Brown fitted the Gs piece to the piece he had which was still attached to the body. That is not a reality because when the body was stripped the Gs piece had not yet been found so how

That is YOUR interpretation of the events. Nothing more nothing less.
No this did not start with Gareth, rather it all stems from your unsupported theories and your view on sources.


Steve

[etenguy]

You continually use the term evidence, when you are refering to written sources there is no physical evidence.
The paper reports can be viewed as primary source, and must be studied if one wants to get the most accurate view of events.
Your continual reference to them as Secondary is incorrect.




It is not a criminal investigation Trevor, stop kidding yourself it is otherwise.
There is no evidence other than written sources and therefore it is an historical investigation.

The evidence is not questionable, you argument is based on semantics of the words used..

The point which you refuse to address is that the report you are using does not say what you claim it says.
At no point does Brown say or sign that the apron was not attached, nor does his official testimony suggest such was the case



That is YOUR interpretation of the events. Nothing more nothing less.
No this did not start with Gareth, rather it all stems from your unsupported theories and your view on sources.


Steve

Trevor has a point in saying that the written evidence is not as clear as it could be sometimes. At least when focusing on one piece at a time. However, as others have said, there is a body of evidence and taken as a whole, we can say without fear of contradiction (except possibly by Mr Marriott) that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

[Pierre]

I am fully aware how the match was made but I think you need to read the inquest testimony again.

There has to be an element of continuity, both Pc Robinson and Pc Hutt in their official inquest testimoniescoincidentally say exactly the same thing at the inquest "I believe the one produced is the one she was wearing" But both had no way of positively identifying the piece of apron or the remains of the apron as being the one she was apparently wearing. There was nothing identifiable about the apron it was an old white apron like hundreds in circulation at that time.

As I said any old piece could have been put before them and you can bet they would have said exactly the same thing. Just another example of how the many ambiguities in these inquests were not picked up and clarified.

Then we have Collard who produces the list of clothing from the mortuary and was present when the body was stripped, saying she was apparently wearing an apron, when the lists he produced support the fact she wasn't wearing an apron.

With regards to the Eddowes inquest there are more holes in the witnesses testimony than in a cullender and most of it relates to police evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

It doesn´t matter if it was the one she was "apparently wearing".

It doesn´t matter if it was "an old white apron like hundreds in circulation at that time".

It doesn´t matter if it was "any old piece".

It doesn´t matter if she "wasn't wearing an apron".

All of that was irrelevant in 1888.

Pierre

[barnflatwyngarde]

Hi Trevor,

It doesn´t matter if it was the one she was "apparently wearing".

It doesn´t matter if it was "an old white apron like hundreds in circulation at that time".

It doesn´t matter if it was "any old piece".

It doesn´t matter if she "wasn't wearing an apron".

All of that was irrelevant in 1888.

Pierre

And your point is caller?