The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

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.

Well, as is often the case, the court version is limited as to detail. It is in the press versions where we find clarification.
In the Daily Telegraph, we read:
"I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."
So there had been rumors of the Berner street murder, but just before he left Goulston street he had been told of the Mitre Square murder, quite possibly by PC 190, who had just arrived on scene.

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.

Correct, he thought there may have been a crime at that location but, he was aware of rumors of the Berner street murder.
Having satisfied himself that there was no crime at that location, BUT the cloth was bloodstained, AND rumors of a recent murder, PLUS just learning of a second murder, he thought it wise to take the cloth to his superiors at the station.

He did the right thing.

[Wickerman]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There never were any statements which say it was matched while still on the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

There never were any statements which say it was matched while still on the body.

I think you have a short memory!

Daily Telegraph
Inquest testimony of Dr Brown,

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Just goes to show how wrong some of these press report are, and how some can be sucked into believing what they say

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

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.

Hello Robert.
Yes, this may have been intentional because we have a report that Supt. Foster of the City Police initially denied any organs had been removed from the Mitre Sq. murder.

A representative of the Press, in an interview yesterday with Superintendent Foster, of the City police, was assured that the rumour that a portion of the body of the woman found in Mitre-square was missing was totally unfounded.
Morning Advertiser, 2 Oct.

The denial cannot have been too successful, and only lasted a matter of hours until the results of the post mortem became known.
Normally, the City police were quite accomodating to the press, unlike the Met.

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.

You may be right.

[Wickerman]

I think you have a short memory!

Daily Telegraph
Inquest testimony of Dr Brown,

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Just goes to show how wrong some of these press report are, and how some can be sucked into believing what they say

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.
Everybody knows the corpse was stripped before the GS piece arrived, surely you can figure that out.

[Hunter]

He meant still attached to body in situ to distinguish the piece, not that it was attached to the body when matched.

[Sam Flynn]

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.

That's quite correct. Either way, it's as plain as plain can be that Eddowes was still wearing the apron when she was brought into the mortuary, which means she was also wearing it at the scene of the crime. From this it follows that, due to the presence of blood and faeces on both the body the GS apron piece, that the latter was cut by the killer from the rest of the apron at Mitre Square.

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, the statement is true.
That line does not mean it was still attached when matched, it means it was still attached when the body was found.
Everybody knows the corpse was stripped before the GS piece arrived, surely you can figure that out.

Thats your take other reports contradict that as you have been repeatedly shown.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

That's quite correct. Either way, it's as plain as plain can be that Eddowes was still wearing the apron when she was brought into the mortuary, which means she was also wearing it at the scene of the crime. From this it follows that, due to the presence of blood and faeces on both the body the GS apron piece, that the latter was cut by the killer from the rest of the apron at Mitre Square.

Thats your take, other reports contradict that

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Thats your take, other reports contradict that

There is not a single report that contradicts what I, or Wickerman, said.

[Trevor Marriott]

He meant still attached to body in situ to distinguish the piece, not that it was attached to the body when matched.

Why would he have been trying to distinguish the piece, there were only two pieces. On found in GS and one found at the mortuary.

If it had been attached to the body it would have been seen and noted down as being an item of clothing she was wearing. Not noted down amongst her possessions as "one old piece of white apron"

At what point does an apron cease to become an apron, and then is referred to as a piece? When it is so small so it can only be describe as a piece?

When the lists were made up no one knew about the GS piece. No one knew that a piece had been allegedly cut from the apron. So that is why it makes the lists prime evidence. Notes made at the time.

Why was the mortuary piece not simply described as "Old white apron with piece missing" Because that is how it would have looked at that time had she been wearing one.

Had she been wearing an apron it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and there would have been something clearly visible to those stripping the body and making the notes. They could not gave failed to notice it.

Lets look at it another way then. Lets accept that the officers evidence is kosher who saw her wearing an apron at the time of her arrest and detention. There is no evidence to show that when she left the police station she was seen wearing an apron.

So bearing in mind the fact that the two pieces of apron were later matched by the corresponding seams where the two pieces had been sown together and would therefore been easy to detach from each other it is possible that she herself separated the two pieces whilst in custody, using one as a temporary sanitary device, keeping the remaining piece amongst her possessions.

Now before the hit squad descend as they clearly will, suggesting that she didnt need to do that because she had 12 pieces of white rags in her possessions. Thats is correct, but of course she would have not had access to them in her cell because her property would have been taken off her on her arrival at the police station, and returned to her when she left. That is normal standard police procedure.

You see this apron issue is not as clear cut (no pun intended) as some would have us believe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Why would he have been trying to distinguish the piece, there were only two pieces. On found in GS and one found at the mortuary.

If it had been attached to the body it would have been seen and noted down as being an item of clothing she was wearing. Not noted down amongst her possessions as "one old piece of white apron"

That is just your view. Collard "apparently: disagreed with you when he said Eddowes was "apparently" wearing an apron. That being in line with the Testimony of 2 other police officers who saw her while in custody.

At what point does an apron cease to become an apron, and then is referred to as a piece? When it is so small so it can only be describe as a piece?

When it is not a whole. When it becomes a piece of the whole.

When the lists were made up no one knew about the GS piece. No one knew that a piece had been allegedly cut from the apron. So that is why it makes the lists prime evidence. Notes made at the time.

Again you no not understand primary and secondary sources. The list is a primary source as is Collard's testimony.
Being primary does not make it correct.

Why was the mortuary piece not simply described as "Old white apron with piece missing" Because that is how it would have looked at that time had she been wearing one.

You have no idea, stop second guessing what those there were thinking.

Had she been wearing an apron it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and there would have been something clearly visible to those stripping the body and making the notes. They could not gave failed to notice it.

Again it depends on how it was cut. You are second guessing.

Lets look at it another way then. Lets accept that the officers evidence is kosher who saw her wearing an apron at the time of her arrest and detention. There is no evidence to show that when she left the police station she was seen wearing an apron.

I see it's now the you can't prove I am wrong approach.


YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support this, it just wishful thinking with no substance or support.

So bearing in mind the fact that the two pieces of apron were later matched by the corresponding seams where the two pieces had been sown together and would therefore been easy to detach from each other it is possible that she herself separated the two pieces whilst in custody, using one as a temporary sanitary device, keeping the remaining piece amongst her possessions.

Again no proof it was easy to seperate, just ideas with no backing.
The same with the sanity towel idea.

Now before the hit squad descend as they clearly will, suggesting that she didnt need to do that because she had 12 pieces of white rags in her possessions. Thats is correct, but of course she would have not had access to them in her cell because her property would have been taken off her on her arrival at the police station, and returned to her when she left. That is normal standard police procedure.

You see this apron issue is not as clear cut (no pun intended) as some would have us believe.

Actually it is Trevor, its just the need to push your ideas that leads to this line of argument.
No evidence to support your views.
No sources to support your views and plenty of both which oppose it.
Yet you carry on its all a nasty group of people defending old failed ideas.

The truth is most of those things you say fail don't, but you have to argue such to attempt to push ideas that have nothing to support them.


Steve

[Wickerman]

Thats your take other reports contradict that as you have been repeatedly shown.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then show me one.
There's nothing wrong with the press reports. The fault lies with you and your contrary interpretations of what is understood by others to be common sense.

[Trevor Marriott]

That is just your view. Collard "apparently: disagreed with you when he said Eddowes was "apparently" wearing an apron. That being in line with the Testimony of 2 other police officers who saw her while in custody.




When it is not a whole. When it becomes a piece of the whole.



Again you no not understand primary and secondary sources. The list is a primary source as is Collard's testimony.
Being primary does not make it correct.




You have no idea, stop second guessing what those there were thinking.



Again it depends on how it was cut. You are second guessing.



I see it's now the you can't prove I am wrong approach.


YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support this, it just wishful thinking with no substance or support.




Again no proof it was easy to seperate, just ideas with no backing.
The same with the sanity towel idea.



Actually it is Trevor, it justs the need to push your ideas that leads to this line of argument.
No evidence to support your views.
No sources to support your views and plenty which opposes it.
Yet you carry on its all a nasty group of people defending old failed ideas.

The truth is most of those things you say fail don't, but you have to argue such to attempt to push ideas that have nothing to support them.


Steve

But at the end of the day the beauty of it is that you cannot disprove them !

So at the end of the day you still cannot prove conclusively that at the time of her murder she was wearing an apron, and if you cant do that then you cant say the killer cut or tore the Gs piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS.

End of story nothin more to say is there ?, but I am sure you will find something

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Then show me one.
There's nothing wrong with the press reports. The fault lies with you and your contrary interpretations of what is understood by others to be common sense.

You are a good one to talk about common sense

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk