The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[APerno]

What's this then . . .

East London Advertiser, October 13th 1888

''City Police-constable Lewis Robinson deposed that on the Saturday night before the murder at about 8:30 he saw a crowd at Aldgate. He went up and saw a woman lying on the curb drunk. He had since identified her as the deceased. He could not do anything without the assistance of another policeman, which he obtained, and the woman was then conveyed to the station. When asked her name she replied, "Nothing." Last time he saw her was at 9 o'clock in the cell. She was wearing a white apron at that time, which he identified with one produced as the one she was wearing."

How do they mean "Nothing" --- how should I read this? That her reply was mute, or that her reply was a spoken "Nothing"? -- The quotes and the capital N leave me befuddled.

I think this is a weird coincidence: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Anyway this seems to confirm Kate was wearing a white apron as late as 9:00 PM that night. No reason she shouldn't still be wearing it at 1:55 AM. I think if you want it not to be there at 1:55 AM you have to find cause for it coming off; it is likely she left the drunk tank with it on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." /// "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." /// "The Juws are not the men to be blamed for nothing."

[Wickerman]

AUS $13 Kindle or $26 paperback on Amazon.

$29 on eBay.

Some reviewer named Tom Wescott gave it 5 stars.

The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z is $5.18 for Kindle.

Actually, I was talking about the original inquest papers, hand written. Available from the London Metropolitan Archives.

[Wickerman]

WHERE?

https://casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

IF HER UNDERGARMENT WAS DESCRIBED AS A CHEMIE IN HER CLOTHING, WHY WAS AN APRON WITH A REPAIR DESCRIBED IN HER POSSESSIONS?

It wasn't!

First off, all those victims wore a chemise, likely every woman did of their type.
The piece of apron is not listed on the hand written original as "with repair", this detail has been added by whomever created that link.

[DJA]

You have to buy it.

AUS $13 Kindle or $26 paperback on Amazon.

$29 on eBay.

Some reviewer named Tom Wescott gave it 5 stars.

The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z is $5.18 for Kindle.

[Wickerman]

There was no blood on the mortuary piece

Really?
Dr. Brown would argue against that, in fact he did:

Dr. Brown - My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin

In the press we also read:

My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.
Daily News.

Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.
Morning Advertiser.

So it would seem the three-corner remnant taken from her body at the mortuary had blood stains.

....well if he only planned for one he would have still gone prepared and after the first failed he would still have what bet set out with to carry organs away

He didn't seem to go prepared with Chapman - her scarf was missing.
These murders could easily have been spontaneous, we have no idea either way.

how many times have I posted photos to prove that point?

Your photos, of your reproduction, of your interpretation, of the witness testimony do not constitute proof of anything that happened 130 years ago.

[DJA]

and his memory suddenly reappeared days after the event when he gave his inquest testimony. What would have made him take note of Eddowes wearing an apron when she left the police station and how could he remember if she was or wasn't days later.

The fact is that the police were naive enough to readily accept without question that the killer cut a piece of her apron and so they all went along with the corroboration except Sgt Byfield who was the station Sgt responsible for processing her after her arrest, and questioning her and then later releasing her. He makes no mention of seeing her wearing a statement, and I would have thought if anyone was relaible he would have been. So its not as conclusive as you make out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was Constable Lewis Robinson who identified the apron at the inquest. He was the policeman who arrested her.

Byfeld was busy getting a name and address from her so he could release her.

Hutt was the last policeman to see her at the station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s

[Wickerman]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

You have to buy it.

[DJA]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

It is online. Just Google the section you seek followed by Evans and Skinners The Ultimate (Jack the Ripper Source Book).

Definitely one of the best reference books.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

I don't trust that account.

It makes it sound like Eddowes was the only woman in London wearing an apron.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

and why would he bother to cut or tear a piece at that early stage. If organ taking was the motive then he would have gone prepared with something to take them away with. A ridiculous suggestion you make to prop up the old accepted theory.

How many times are you going to be told that the description of the apron piece is not consistent with carrying away a kidney and a uterus taken from a freshly killed victim.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sounds like you prefer Jack to carry a Gladstone bag and prolly wear a top hat

[Leanne]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

[Leanne]

Where on earth are you getting these doctored up lists?
There's an original out there Leanne, use it!
You don't seem to have Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate, they don't provide the original handwritten lists, it is typed, but at least it's accurate.

WHERE?

https://casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

IF HER UNDERGARMENT WAS DESCRIBED AS A CHEMIE IN HER CLOTHING, WHY WAS AN APRON WITH A REPAIR DESCRIBED IN HER POSSESSIONS?

[DJA]

It is not impeccable !
The drawing by Foster was not made by him while the body was in situ. He never attended the crime scene. It seems that he made the drawing from Dr Browns notes or perhaps a sketch made by Brown, although Brown makes no mention of making a sketch otherwise he would have produced it as evidence.

As can be see the sketch is not in line with the verbal evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Witness at Catherine Eddowes' inquest.

Frederick William Foster was the City surveyor who presented plans and maps relating to the Eddowes murder as well as sketches of her injuries to the inquest. These consisted of a scale map of Mitre Square and a sketch of the murder scene (both with Eddowes' body in situ), a map of the area between Mitre Square and Goulston Street upon which were marked two possible routes the murderer could have taken. He also made three sketches of Eddowes' mutilations, one full-length depiction as she was found, one in the mortuary and one concentrating on the facial injuries. He stated:
"I have made the plans produced - I have them in three sections one 8 feet to an inch, another 200 feet to an inch from an Ordnance map of the City - I have marked on an Ordnance Map of the same scale from Berner Street to Mitre Square - that would be 1144 yards about 3/4 of a mile - it would take about 12 minutes to walk it from one to another".
"It is the nearest route that anyone unaccustomed to it would take it - There are 2 routes to Goulstone Street one from Church Passage through Duke Street crossing Houndsditch through Gravel Lane, Stoney Lane crossing Petticoat Lane and through to Goulstone Street. A person going from Mitre Square to Flower and Dean Street would go as the most direct route across Goulstone Street - it would take within 1/4 of an hour to get there".^[1]
Foster's plans were discovered in the basement of the (Royal) London Hospital in Whitechapel by Professor Francis Camps and his assistant Sam Hardy in the 1960s^[2]. They are currently held in the hospital's museum and archives.

[Leanne]

She was, because she's explicitly described as having one tied around her neck. That aside, they might have called it something else, but it makes no difference what they called it; the only relevant fact is that a piece of some garment was found in Goulston Street and positively matched with the remaining part of the same garment at the mortuary. Whether they called it an "apron", a "calico chemise" or a "wing-wong for a mustard mill" it doesn't matter in the slightest, and it's pointless arguing about it.

A CHEMISE IS AN UNDERGARMENT /AN APRON IS AN OUTER GARMENT!

chemise

noun [ C ]
uk

/ʃəˈmi¢°z/ us

/ʃəˈmi¢°z/
a loose piece of clothing for women that covers the top part of the body and is worn under other clothes

[Trevor Marriott]

[/B]

Her intestines were thrown over the shoulder which could be the reason for blood spots on the mortuary piece.
There was no blood on the mortuary piece

[B]
Why would he come prepared with Eddowes, she appears to have been an after thought. Do you think he planned to have two victims that night?

well if he only planned for one he would have still gone prepared and after the first failed he would still have what bet set out with to carry organs away



You have no idea of the extent of blood stains on the G.S. piece for you to draw such a conclusion.

how many times have I posted photos to prove that point?

wwe.trevormarriott.co.uk