The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Joshua Rogan]

Ah, but had Brown seen 'Alien' - that might have changed his report.

Haha! It must make abdominal surgery quite interesting, if every time you open a patient you get a face full of intestines.

[harry]

Sourced from th A to Z book.
He(Long)was mildly criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the buildings.,but reasonably replied that he did not know of the Eddowes murder. He conducted a search of the staircases and landings,because he(Long),on discovering the apron piece,thought a victim of crime,and not a criminal was inside.
So it is clear from the above,that after a search,what he had thought,proved to be without evidence,and the reference to an apron piece,was not that he knew it was an apron piece,but something he had learned of since.As Trevor says.
So where was there an incentive or reason to go haring down to a police station,clutching a piece of soiled material that he neither knew nor had reason to believe,was evidence of a crime.
Someone,a long time ago,gave an answer.

[Robert St Devil]

M'William must have arrived late that morning, as the Lloyds reporter says he left the mortuary about 5:20 am, and Phillips had not arrived yet, but was expected.
The Post-mortem was only conducted at 2:30 that afternoon at which Dr Phillips took part.

Hi Jon. I find it interesting that the report in the September 30th edition of Lloyd's dismisses the rumour that a part similar to Annie Chapman's was taken away by Kate's murderer. I blv the reporter may have been Thos. Catling, editor of Lloyd's newspaper. In his autobiography My Life's Pilgrimage [online, pg. 184], Catling writes of his experience the morning of Kate's murder. He was summoned to the murder sites; then, he proceeded to the mortuary, where he met his old school chum Mr. Gordon Brown, who informed him on the particulars of Kate's injuries. So, at 5:20a, Catling had enough to write-up the first report to appear in that day's issue.

[Elamarna]

Sorry to disappoint but Pierre is not correct !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Considering two have said the same and you do not by your own admission speak German how do you know?

And what alternative translation do you have?


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Sourced from th A to Z book.
He(Long)was mildly criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the buildings.,but reasonably replied that he did not know of the Eddowes murder. He conducted a search of the staircases and landings,because he(Long),on discovering the apron piece,thought a victim of crime,and not a criminal was inside.
So it is clear from the above,that after a search,what he had thought,proved to be without evidence,and the reference to an apron piece,was not that he knew it was an apron piece,but something he had learned of since.As Trevor says.
So where was there an incentive or reason to go haring down to a police station,clutching a piece of soiled material that he neither knew nor had reason to believe,was evidence of a crime.
Someone,a long time ago,gave an answer.

I think it is now right to say that the GS piece was not matched to the mortuary piece whilst that piece was still on the body, and any such reference or statements to that effect should be disregarded as being incorrect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

So where was there an incentive or reason to go haring down to a police station,clutching a piece of soiled material that he neither knew nor had reason to believe,was evidence of a crime..

There was blood on it. It's as simple as that.

[Elamarna]

Now I hate to say this but the translation is almost correct, and I was mistaken, Further research shows the victim in the photo is a 13 year old girl, her body was found outside. The knife shown in the photo is the knife used to cut her throat and to cut open her abdomen.

It still doesn't take away the fact that the victims intestines recoiled outwards, and upwards, and moving the body would not result in them recoiling from an open wound, if they already hadn't done so, unless they tipped the body over, or on its side, because they would have covered the body for transportation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So your previous post was incorrect. Glad to see you have learnt from last year.
your comment that movement would not cause movement of the intestines is also incorrect. Such is of course possible, it depends on the cut and the movement involved.
Such sweeping statements are so often wrong and demonstrate a rush and lack of research.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Well look at the photo, and where the wound must be. If you imagine the wound to eddowes from pubes to sternum, and then the ripping open. it is quite feasible that the intestines could have recoiled further up than those shown in the photo.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor

Physics does not work like that.
The fact that no medics back this view, should tell you something.

Can one ask why you assume guess work trumps knowledge?


Steve

[harry]

So,every time a policeman found an article with blood on it,irrespective of whether or not evidence of a crime could be associated with it,a policeman left his post to report the finding to a police station?

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor

Physics does not work like that.
The fact that no medics back this view, should tell you something.

Can one ask why you assume guess work trumps knowledge?

Steve

Its not guesswork you are ignoring the obvious. That victims photo shows how far the intestines recoiled out to. My point which you choose to ignore is that how much further up the body would they have finished up if the abdominal wound would have been bigger and extended higher up the body in line with Eddowes wound.

You are too quick to accept the old theories, when there are other plausible explanations.

We keep going round in circles.

I think you need to realise that it is unlikely that there is ever going to be any primary evidence to conclusively disprove the old accepted theories. But there is evidence, which suggests that what researchers have been asked to rely on an readily accept without question for 129 years does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the other plausible explanations may be viable.

All that can be done is to present the facts for both sides and let people decide on what they believe to be correct.

These forums are not the place where the new plausible explanations get a fair hearing, simply because many who frequent these boards on a daily basis are biased in favour of the old accepted theories and will not consider anything new and have made that plainly clear, when we see posters making up explanations to try to prop up the old theories.

I am all for open discussion but I find that impossible. We have seen many good researchers leave the boards never to return. To be honest I am at that point. I have some new research to conclude and publish and then perhaps I will exit stage left.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

So,every time a policeman found an article with blood on it,irrespective of whether or not evidence of a crime could be associated with it,a policeman left his post to report the finding to a police station?

Given the circumstances and location - 1888, Whitechapel, during a spate of sensational murders - what would you have done? Indeed, regardless of the circumstances, finding a bloodstained portion of clothing would warrant further investigation.

It's not often PC Long gets any credit, but he does on this occasion.

[Sam Flynn]

Its not guesswork you are ignoring the obvious. That victims photo shows how far the intestines recoiled out to. My point which you choose to ignore is that how much further up the body would they have finished up if the abdominal wound would have been bigger and extended higher up the body in line with Eddowes wound.

No they would not. How many times do I have to tell you that the intestines are not coiled springs? They would NOT erupt from the abdomen and shoot out over someone's shoulders. The idea is utterly preposterous.

[Joshua Rogan]

Sourced from th A to Z book.
He(Long)was mildly criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the buildings.,but reasonably replied that he did not know of the Eddowes murder.

I'm pretty sure that Long says he was aware of the murder in Mitre Square before taking the apron piece to the station, and some reports say he had also heard rumours of another murder.

[Elamarna]

Its not guesswork you are ignoring the obvious. That victims photo shows how far the intestines recoiled out to. My point which you choose to ignore is that how much further up the body would they have finished up if the abdominal wound would have been bigger and extended higher up the body in line with Eddowes wound.

Sorry you are either ignoring or have no understanding of physics or anatomy.
We just can't make things up all the time to fit our own ideas.

You are too quick to accept the old theories, when there are other plausible explanations.

NOT accepting any old ideas or new for that matter on this issue, it's a simple matter of science.

We keep going round in circles.

Only because you are fixated on your somewhat unrealistic and unsupported theories.

I think you need to realise that it is unlikely that there is ever going to be any primary evidence to conclusively disprove the old accepted theories. But there is evidence, which suggests that what researchers have been asked to rely on an readily accept without question for 129 years does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the other plausible explanations may be viable.

Unfortunately Trevor what you need to realise that because you say something does not stand up to scrutiny it need not, and in these cases normally is NOT SO.

All that can be done is to present the facts for both sides and let people decide on what they believe to be correct.

Agreed , but don't present them as facts as you do.
Which people do you mean, those with an interest and some knowledge or those who have little background and when told something is the truth just accept it?

These forums are not the place where the new plausible explanations get a fair hearing, simply because many who frequent these boards on a daily basis are biased in favour of the old accepted theories and will not consider anything new and have made that plainly clear, when we see posters making up explanations to try to prop up the old theories.

I see.
You mean any who disagree with you are bias, while those who attend your shows and read your books get a fair unbias view from yourself.

I am all for open discussion but I find that impossible. We have seen many good researchers leave the boards never to return. To be honest I am at that point. I have some new research to conclude and publish and then perhaps I will exit stage left.

That is YOUR choice, I am sure it will not stop you publishing and making a living.

A shame given some of the actual research is good.

Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Jon. I find it interesting that the report in the September 30th edition of Lloyd's dismisses the rumour that a part similar to Annie Chapman's was taken away by Kate's murderer. I blv the reporter may have been Thos. Catling, editor of Lloyd's newspaper. In his autobiography My Life's Pilgrimage [online, pg. 184], Catling writes of his experience the morning of Kate's murder. He was summoned to the murder sites; then, he proceeded to the mortuary, where he met his old school chum Mr. Gordon Brown, who informed him on the particulars of Kate's injuries. So, at 5:20a, Catling had enough to write-up the first report to appear in that day's issue.

Thanks Robert, good find!
Given that this was before the autopsy, it's not clear what Dr Gordon Brown could say for sure at that time.

It's interesting that Catling says "He gave me facts — more than could be published — as to the condition of the bodies"

Is that simply too much info to fit into the report, that some facts were unsuitable for publication, or was he asked not to publish some details?