The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Harry D]

Wasn't a bad thread until Trev hijacked it with his usual twaddle.

[Trevor Marriott]

Wasn't a bad thread until Trev hijacked it with his usual twaddle.

I think you mean hijacking it with interesting and plausible theories, your brain and hands are clearly not in sync with each other

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There is no report which says she was not wearing an apron, there are many which say she was.
Find a valid source which definitively says no apron was worn and then one can debate the subject seriously. All we have at present is an argument based on belief.

Nothing you have posted counters the point that the source you have been using to back the hypothesis that she was not wearing an apron - Brown official inquest report, does not actually contain the data/information required for the hypothesis to be tested.
The hypothesis is based on wishful thinking, and as such it cannot be proven.
Provide an hypothesis based on fact and you may find people are prepared to consider it.
Steve

I think you should also look what Dr Brown stated "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"

Notice he uses the term piece, not as you might expect just "apron"

So the two pieces had originally been sown together at some time in the past and had been now been detached along the stitching where they had been joined. How lucky would that have been for the killer to be able to take hold of an apron in haste she was wearing, in almost total darkness, and just happen to be able cut or tear along the same line where they had been sown together.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

I think you mean hijacking it with interesting and plausible theories, your brain and hands are clearly not in sync with each other

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Naaah, just the same tired, worn-out, beaten to death crap you've always peddled.

[Sam Flynn]

And your wording is wrong, it should surely read "a blood stained piece of fabric which was matched to another piece of fabric

It was identified as a piece of apron, and it was found to match the remainder of the apron attached by strings (to the victim's body).

[Sam Flynn]

So the two pieces had originally been sown together at some time in the past and had been now been detached along the stitching where they had been joined. How lucky would that have been for the killer to be able to take hold of an apron in haste she was wearing, in almost total darkness, and just happen to be able cut or tear along the same line where they had been sown together

Easy. There was a natural weakness or fault-line where the patch had been sewn on. Indeed, bearing this in mind, it's eminently possible that the killer didn't need to cut it off at all; it might simply have torn off like a sheet of toilet paper. Quite appropriate, really.

[Elamarna]

I think you should also look what Dr Brown stated "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"

Notice he uses the term piece, not as you might expect just "apron"

So the two pieces had originally been sown together at some time in the past and had been now been detached along the stitching where they had been joined. How lucky would that have been for the killer to be able to take hold of an apron in haste she was wearing, in almost total darkness, and just happen to be able cut or tear along the same line where they had been sown together.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It "apparently" happened, luck or not!

However closer reading again demonstrates faulty interpretation .
A patch had at some stage been added, we have no knowledge of the position of said patch or it's size, or if it held the other parts to together Or merely covered a hole?

Therefore there is no reason to suspect that the cut was along any existing cut or tear, just that the patch was intersected at some point.

Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item.
The use of "piece" merely says that neither portion fitted was a complete apron on its own.
Therefore I would not expect him to use Apron when refering to either portion.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Easy. There was a natural weakness or fault-line where the patch had been sewn on. Indeed, bearing this in mind, it's eminently possible that the killer didn't need to cut it off at all; it might simply have torn off like a sheet of toilet paper. Quite appropriate, really.

The way it reads to me is that the cut/tear that divided the apron went through the patched area, but didn't divide the patch itself - this stayed intact attached to the Goulston Street piece, but tore through the stitching which originally fixed it to the other portion.

[Sam Flynn]

The way it reads to me is that the cut/tear that divided the apron went through the patched area, but didn't divide the patch itself - this stayed intact attached to the Goulston Street piece, but tore through the stitching which originally fixed it to the other portion.

You could well be right, Josh.

[Trevor Marriott]

It "apparently" happened, luck or not!

However closer reading again demonstrates faulty interpretation .
A patch had at some stage been added, we have no knowledge of the position of said patch or it's size, or if it held the other parts to together Or merely covered a hole?

Therefore there is no reason to suspect that the cut was along any existing cut or tear, just that the patch was intersected at some point.

Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item.
The use of "piece" merely says that neither portion fitted was a complete apron on its own.
Therefore I would not expect him to use Apron when refering to either portion.

Steve

I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron

[Elamarna]

I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron

Read what I wrote Trevor, not what you think I wrote.


"Why should he refer to "apron" ? He had two portions of the item, two pieces, neither of which was a complete apron. If he had said "fitted that apron to this apron" or even "that apron to this piece" he implies the part he already has is a complete item. "

Neither portion/piece/bit was a whole apron. Together they are!

The fact that you "APPARENTLY" do not understand what is very clear, makes your continual misinterpretations understandable.

Steve

[etenguy]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your argument is sound and would make perfect sense if he was thinking straight. And indeed is possibly what he did with the Lusk letter.

I can envisage someone in a rage, perhaps because he was disturbed with Liz Stride, just wanting to vent immediately, hence the GSG. I don't strongly believe that to be the case, there is insufficient evidence either way. There are other perhaps more convincing reasons, but again all based on logical reasoning and insufficient evidence to come to a definitive conclusion.

If we favour the argument that he discarded it along the way, or later came out to discard it (why come back out - unless to leave a message?), then it does point to perhaps to the direction he was living.

[Pierre]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430025

Why leave a signature at a location some distance from the crime scene,

To avoid leaving personal evidence in the form of personal handwriting at the murder site. Goulston Street was not a murder site.

And as we can see, it was successful. The police could not know if the writing was done by the killer. And ripperologists could never know if the writing was done by him or if the apron was left there by him.

You are debating it and people have been doing so since the murders on 30th September 1888.

The killer wanted and expected that sort of debate and that uncertainty.

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.

And the killer knew the consequences of these circumstances and expected the debates and the uncertainty.

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

The killer never wanted to send his apron piece or any organs to the police. That is why that was not done.

It is actually easy, Trevor. Some things happened. They are just historically well established facts now.

Even the debate and the uncertainty.

Cheers, Pierre

[John G]

QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;430025



To avoid leaving personal evidence in the form of personal handwriting at the murder site. Goulston Street was not a murder site.

And as we can see, it was successful. The police could not know if the writing was done by the killer. And ripperologists could never know if the writing was done by him or if the apron was left there by him.

You are debating it and people have been doing so since the murders on 30th September 1888.

The killer wanted and expected that sort of debate and that uncertainty.


And the killer knew the consequences of these circumstances and expected the debates and the uncertainty.



The killer never wanted to send his apron piece or any organs to the police. That is why that was not done.

Cheers, Pierre

And, of course, you haven't a shred of evidence to support this argument. But then many contributors to this subject don't think they need anything as banal as actual evidence to support their arguments.

Oh dear, oh dear.

[Pierre]

I am glad you now acknowledge that the two pieces never made up a full apron

It doesn´t matter what the two pieces made up. What matters is what the killer did.

Is there any evidence that Feigenbaum had anything to do with the so called double event?

Since there is not, it should not be so important to discuss some pieces of apron.

Also, Trevor, you should remember the victim found in the police building.

How was that event constructed in relation to Stride and Eddowes?

Pierre