The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[GUT]

No. In history they are both Primary Sources, in law there are no such things as primary and secondary sources.

[harry]

If I have to accept reports that she was wearing an apron at time of death,then I have to discount Collard's list of clothing and possessions of being wrong.Why should I do that?He was there as each piece of clothing was removed,and if he could identify a piece of apron among possessions,then he could have identified an apron piece had she been wearing one.
Brown's testimony was taken in the form of notes by coroner Langham.How accurate that was would be guesswork.Not a hundred per cent.So more of a statement of evidence than a record of evidence.Pity Brown's notes didn't survive,instead of Langham's.

[Wickerman]

Then you need to accept that Collards list must include the piece of apron he said she was wearing.

[Wickerman]

No. In history they are both Primary Sources, in law there are no such things as primary and secondary sources.

Would you mind reading over this link..

http://library.noctrl.edu/subject/business_law_primary_sources.pdf

[Robert St Devil]

On the contrary, I think exploring your theory has been most helpful in making the events of that night a little clearer.

It now seems to me that the murderer was intent on communicating with the authorities, and after all the hoax letters wanted to authenticate his communications. The apron was used for the GSG and the kidney for the Lusk letter. It shows a consistency of approach and might also explain why he committed a double murder that night when he couldn't get what he needed from poor Elizabeth Stride. It was a risky endeavour given the police presence and his knowledge that the first victim that night had been found.

By exploring a possible alternative explanation and being able to discount it, that has helped me to focus on what is known, make connections across the different aspects of that night's events and provide a reason for the second murder beyond the simple assumption he was satisfying a blood lust. It has helped cement, in my mind at least, that the GSG and Lusk letter are authentic.

Thank you, Trevor.

I can't make up my mind. If jack the ripper had gotten what he needed from apronless Liz, would there have even been "Goulston Street", would the grafitto have been written on the side of the IWEC... Or was Goulston Street part of his original plan ie. where he intended to go after murdering Liz Stride?

[Varqm]

Can we at least agree that the apron was more off than worn?

If the apron strings were attached to the body,it did not mean it was tied to the body?
So the possibility the killer took the apron (as one of Eddowe s's possession),cut it,threw it in front of
Eddowes body,while she was lying down,it spread out including the strings(appeared attached but not tied)
and it appeared like she was wearing it?Therefore the confusion?I doubt this.


A number of witnesses mentioned the apron worn by Eddowes before her murder,was it because they knew about Goulston or
were specifically asked to mention it as part of their testimony -perhaps to bolster she was wearing it??

But it does not change it,Long did not see the apron at 2:20 am, so the killer must have dropped it and he was heading past
Wentworth most likely,which is what was important.

[etenguy]

I can't make up my mind. If jack the ripper had gotten what he needed from apronless Liz, would there have even been "Goulston Street", would the grafitto have been written on the side of the IWEC... Or was Goulston Street part of his original plan ie. where he intended to go after murdering Liz Stride?

We will likely never know. One compelling explanation favoured by those who believe he wrote the GSG is that he became so frustrated after being disturbed that he sought out another victim to satisfy his blood lust. He then used part of what he took away to authenticate his GSG and possibly the Lusk letter. The suggestion is that the frustration led him to want to communicate - much like when we vent to get something off our chests.

I would suggest an alternative, that for some reason he wanted to taunt those after him. Maybe he was enjoying his notoriety and wanted to show off how clever he was at evading the police and vigilantes. It may always have been his intent to communicate and he would have taken something from Liz Stride for this purpose if he had a chance. Being thwarted, he may have become outraged that he was nearly caught leading him to the second murder in the same night to show he was back on top. It would add an additional reason for him to have taken such a risky course.

[Trevor Marriott]

Then you need to accept that Collards list must include the piece of apron he said she was wearing.

No he didnt say that in his testimony he uses the words "apparently wearing"

this without a doubt throws a spanner in the works because as i have said before why wasnt he asked "Officer either she was or she wasnt which is it?"

apparently definition

"You have read or been told something although you are not certain it is true"

"apparent -used to describe something that appears to be true based on what is known"

What can be taken from all of this. My interpretation is that the list was made up in good faith at the time, and clearly she was not wearing an apron when it was made. At the time the Gs piece had not been found.

After it had been found and the two pieces later matched there was a wrong inference made by some that in fact she was wearing an apron and the killer cut ot tore the GS piece all to make the pieces fit (no pun intended)

And that is why Collard used the term apparently.He had to use that term because he had just produced lists which showed she was not wearing one.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can we at least agree that the apron was more off than worn?

Most certainly we can

A number of witnesses mentioned the apron worn by Eddowes before her murder,was it because they knew about Goulston or
were specifically asked to mention it as part of their testimony -perhaps to bolster she was wearing it??

Thats my take with Pc Robinson and Hutts testimony, and why we have Collard who doesn't go along with the lie when he says apparently wearing. He was an Inspector and probably thought he was not going to risk his pension by perjuring himself

But it does not change it,Long did not see the apron at 2:20 am, so the killer must have dropped it and he was heading past
Wentworth most likely,which is what was important.

[B]The GS piece could not have been dropped, it had been discarded at a location off the main street

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

We will likely never know. One compelling explanation favoured by those who believe he wrote the GSG is that he became so frustrated after being disturbed that he sought out another victim to satisfy his blood lust. He then used part of what he took away to authenticate his GSG and possibly the Lusk letter. The suggestion is that the frustration led him to want to communicate - much like when we vent to get something off our chests.

I would suggest an alternative, that for some reason he wanted to taunt those after him. Maybe he was enjoying his notoriety and wanted to show off how clever he was at evading the police and vigilantes. It may always have been his intent to communicate and he would have taken something from Liz Stride for this purpose if he had a chance. Being thwarted, he may have become outraged that he was nearly caught leading him to the second murder in the same night to show he was back on top. It would add an additional reason for him to have taken such a risky course.

But the killer was never a signature killer. If you are suggesting GS shows a signature then you have to look at that closely. Why leave a signature at a location some distance from the crime scene, at a location, and in circumstances where the graffiti and the apron piece may never have been found and never ever connected to the murder.

The simplest way would to have sent the apron piece to the police in an envelope or one of the organs.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

My interpretation is that the list was made up in good faith at the time, and clearly she was not wearing an apron when it was made.

Are we to believe., then, that when the GS apron piece was brought to Dr Brown, it was found to match someone else's damaged apron that just happened to be lying around?

[Sam Flynn]

Why leave a signature at a location... where the graffiti and the apron piece may never have been found and never ever connected to the murder.

Unlikely. Wentworth Model Dwellings was a residential building occupied by a significant number of people. It was almost guaranteed that one of the residents would have found the apron piece in the morning, as it was dropped almost literally on their doorstep, in a small entranceway leading to the communal stairs. Given that the cloth was stained with blood and faeces, it was equally probable that its finder would report it to the police, especially in light of the fact that a bloody murder had taken place the previous night. Two murders, in fact.

Seen in this light, it is perhaps to Long's credit that he found it before one of the residents did.

Edit: I'd even go so far as to say that, if the killer intended it to be found, he'd have expected the residents to discover it first.

[Trevor Marriott]

Are we to believe., then, that when the GS apron piece was brought to Dr Brown, it was found to match someone else's damaged apron that just happened to be lying around?

No there is no argument that the two pieces matched that is accepted. But the two pieces could have come from a full apron which at sometime in the past been cut or torn to make pieces of material. They were matched by the seams. More than that we can only speculate.

If the killer cut or tore the Gs piece I have to ask where from the apron did he cut or tear it. The most logical place would be from the bottom half, and if that had been the case then surely the apron would still have been on her body when it was stripped and therefore noted down amongst her clothing she was wearing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve.

Seeing as we are once again on this Primary/Secondary subject, can I ask you something just to settle my own curiosity.

We have a reporter present at the inquest, and his coverage provides verbatim accounts - this is a Primary Source, I'm sure we agree.
What if this reporter produces a paraphrase account?

As example, in one version we have Mr Crawford asking "Was your attention drawn to the apron?"
Dr Brown responds: "Yes".

In another version we have Dr Brown saying:
"My attention was drawn to the apron....".

Which is what he meant, but not exactly what was said.

So, is the former version a Primary Source, and the latter version a Secondary Source?
The reason I ask is due to the fact that in the sciences a true Secondary Source is one that analyzes, or interprets a Primary Source.
Well, surely, providing a paraphrase version is 'interpretation', isn't it?

Can you offer an opinion?

The major issue in your example would be knowing which was the original.

Both statements you make give the same result and my personal view is both are Primary for the reason mentioned above.

My work on the BUCKS ROW reports made it clear to me that reports vary in the words they use, often one report will give detailed comments on some exchanges and paraphrase others. Are we really meant to say some lines are Primary and some secondary.
In one report of Nichols the time reports the testimony in the 3rd person, does that make it secondary?
So long as the reporter was present ii is primary to me. Syndicated reports however need to be treated carefully and compared to the original.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Unlikely. Wentworth Model Dwellings was a residential building occupied by a significant number of people. It was almost guaranteed that one of the residents would have found the apron piece in the morning, as it was dropped almost literally on their doorstep, in a small entranceway leading to the communal stairs. Given that the cloth was stained with blood and faeces, it was equally probable that its finder would report it to the police, especially in light of the fact that a bloody murder had taken place the previous night. Two murders, in fact.

Seen in this light, it is perhaps to Long's credit that he found it before one of the residents did.

Edit: I'd even go so far as to say that, if the killer intended it to be found, he'd have expected the residents to discover it first.

Doesnt matter who would have found it how would a resident have connected it to a murder or the graffiti ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk