The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

[...] What follows is the equivalent section as reported by the Daily Telegraph (DT), then the Times (T), then the Daily News (DN), followed by the Morning Advertiser (MA), and the Morning Post (MP), and the Standard (STD).

The Court version is the least reliable from the point of view of complete coverage. This is not an isolated case, the press coverage is by far more detailed than either of the two Court records (Eddowes, Kelly) that have survived.

[...]

Bravo, Jon, and quite correct. Thank goodness for the verbatim reports in the press.

[harry]

Jon,
No wonder Trevor accuses you of making things up.Read the beginnining of your last post to me.Have I stated I will only accept paper reports if a reporter was proved to be present.Reporters are only one of the many sources a paper relies on.It is more reliable if a reporter can be proven to be present,and the newspapers you quote,only as good as the source.
There were hundreds of papers worldwide reporting on the murders.We know a great deal of printed material was false or misleading.We know that information came to the papers via unknown sources.Fact.So what makes your three or four more trustworthy than the others?
Lets suppose Long did know about the Eddowes murder,and also the Stride killing.Would he then say ,as he was reported as saying. he was looking for a victim and not a perpetrator.Shouldn't it be the other way round.Or are we to believe Long suspected a third murder,which as a poster has already pointed out,seems ridiculous.

[Sam Flynn]

There were hundreds of papers worldwide reporting on the murders. So what makes your three or four more trustworthy than the others?

No one source is definitive, the "official" sources included. We must therefore take a broad view across all sources and arrive at the most coherent and probable reconstruction of what happened. This is true of all historical research, by the way, not just the Ripper case.

We know a great deal of printed material was false or misleading.We know that information came to the papers via unknown sources.

That may be true of the "news on the streets", particularly in the early stages of an inquiry where gossip and hearsay often led to misunderstandings and ambiguities, but the reporting of formal proceedings such as inquests doesn't fall into the same category. The best papers/agencies had their own reporters who attended court hearings/inquests in person, taking copious, word-for-word notes; it is from such sources we get many of the detailed reports featured in Jon's examples. Are we to believe that these reporters were frustrated playwrights, making up enormous stretches of dialogue just for the fun of it? Extremely unlikely. What's more, we can verify what they said against other independent sources to check for consistency.

[Trevor Marriott]

Jon,
No wonder Trevor accuses you of making things up.Read the beginnining of your last post to me.Have I stated I will only accept paper reports if a reporter was proved to be present.Reporters are only one of the many sources a paper relies on.It is more reliable if a reporter can be proven to be present,and the newspapers you quote,only as good as the source.
There were hundreds of papers worldwide reporting on the murders.We know a great deal of printed material was false or misleading.We know that information came to the papers via unknown sources.Fact.So what makes your three or four more trustworthy than the others?
Lets suppose Long did know about the Eddowes murder,and also the Stride killing.Would he then say ,as he was reported as saying. he was looking for a victim and not a perpetrator.Shouldn't it be the other way round.Or are we to believe Long suspected a third murder,which as a poster has already pointed out,seems ridiculous.

Hi Harry
You are totally correct about how the newspapers got their information, and much of it has proved to be false or misleading, and many reports as have been shown, are in direct conflict with each other.

But what bugs me is that where we can clearly see a direct conflict reported, some posters will want to use the one which suits their purpose i.e. " It was the corner of the apron with the string attached" Dr Browns official inquest testimony read over and signed by him"

Then we have the newspaper report which I will paraphrase because I dont have it to hand where Dr Brown is quoted as saying he matched the GS piece to the mortuary piece which was still attached to the body by the strings.

Now we know the latter one cannot be correct, but how many times have we seen it used to corroborate the fact that she was wearing an apron, which was still attached to her body, before the body was stripped at the mortuary?

Then we see posters saying things like, "well this is what he really meant", or simply saying "the reporter took it down wrong".

Now a word or phrase misconstrued, or taken down wrongly, or deliberately altered can drastically alter a report, as can adding things which were not said.

Now that doesnt mean to say all newspaper reports should be disregarded, they should be treated with caution, because in some cases even though they may report the same incident, they report it differently, if they report the main body of the incident the same, then that is corroboration to what actually took place.

As an example, a number of different newspapers following the post mortem of Kelly reported the fact that no organs were taken away by the killer. Do we ignore all of them and say they made it up, or got it wrong? By reason of the fact that all the reports were not worded the same suggests that each paper may have obtained its own information.

So it is not correct to assume that every newspaper report is what is referred to by some as a primary source as you and I have both pointed out.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Sam,
The last post of Wickerman,which was quite lenghtly but contained nothing new, didn't answer the question of where or from who,the information came .It may have come from a reporter or it might just have been assumed it came from a reporter,and although I gave my source I didn't claim,like he does of his, that my source should be considered the best.
I have read the same information which states it came from a London correspondent.Other Ripper material, via newspaper,which states it was from a New York source.Had I written that I can imagine the howls that would have been expressed,asking for provenence.But I didn't,I named a source I consider sound.Too bad if you or Wickerman can't accept that.

[Sam Flynn]

Then we have the newspaper report which I will paraphrase because I dont have it to hand where Dr Brown is quoted as saying he matched the GS piece to the mortuary piece which was still attached to the body by the strings.

Now we know the latter one cannot be correct

We know no such thing. Of course it can be correct; indeed, it makes perfect sense. Aprons, by their very nature, DO tend to be attached to the body by strings, so there's nothing in the least bit absurd about it. Furthermore, we don't just have to rely on a single report of Dr Brown on this, for the Telegraph records Inspector Collard as testifying that "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased". He also says "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself".

The underlined shows that both Brown and Collard were in a good position to see what the deceased was wearing as she was stripped. Both men testify that the GS apron piece matched the apron that the deceased was wearing. We thus have at least two independent and highly responsible witnesses who were present at Mitre Square and the mortuary, who both attest to the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and who BOTH confirm that the GS piece matched the apron that she wore.

[Sam Flynn]

The last post of Wickerman,which was quite lenghtly but contained nothing new

It demonstrated, very well, that we have a number of different sources who give different levels of detail. Not all of these will be consistent or complete, but by taking a baseline across multiple sources we can arrive at a sensible reconstruction of what was probably said. This is how historical research works, as I've already pointed out.

came from a reporter,and although I gave my source I didn't claim,like he does of his, that my source should be considered the best.

I don't think Jon was saying there was a "best" source. There are many sources we have to take into account; there is no single source of truth - not even the official reports can claim to be infallible or comprehensive.

I have read the same information which states it came from a London correspondent.Other Ripper material, via newspaper,which states it was from a New York source.Had I written that I can imagine the howls that would have been expressed,asking for provenence.

I wouldn't ask for provenance, as in whether it was written by "Jim Spriggs" or "Scoop Maclean", but I would take a view on whether the newspaper in question was likely to be in a position to offer a reasonable account of events. Clearly, a London-based newspaper was more likely to fall into that category, as many of them had reporters attending the inquests, whereas a New York newspaper, or even a provincial British one, was more likely to rely solely on summarised reports from a Press Agency, which almost by definition are neither comprehensive nor reliable.

But I didn't,I named a source I consider sound.

There is no single source that can be considered definitive, and we simply must take a broader view of the many sources at our disposal in order to reconstruct the most likely picture of what actually transpired. Apart from the press/official sources, we also have to consider what is historically and logically consistent - like, for example, the simple fact that aprons almost invariably are worn by a person (they don't float through the ether on their own), that they were frequently worn by Victorian women, and that they almost invariably are attached by strings to a person's body.

Too bad if you or Wickerman can't accept that.

Wickerman and I have been researching this subject for long enough to know that we can't place our faith in a single source, and that any source, whether official or in the press, is rarely, if ever, 100% reliable and almost never complete in every detail.

[Trevor Marriott]

We know no such thing. Of course it can be correct; indeed, it makes perfect sense. Aprons, by their very nature, DO tend to be attached to the body by strings, so there's nothing in the least bit absurd about it. Furthermore, we don't just have to rely on a single report of Dr Brown on this, for the Telegraph records Inspector Collard as testifying that "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased". He also says "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself".

You have missed out the fact that the lists were then made up. You have also missed out that when this happened the GS pice had not yet been found. You have also missed out that when the Gs piece arrived at the mortuary later that day. The body had already been stripped, so Brown could not have matched the two pieces whilst the body was still clothed. So a clear exmaple of misreporting by the newspaper.

The underlined shows that both Brown and Collard were in a good position to see what the deceased was wearing as she was stripped.

So that is why Collard produced in evidence two lists, one to show she wasn't wearing an apron. The second to show she had an old piece of white apron in her possessions.

Then to top it all in his evidence he uses the term "an apron she was apparently wearing" when shown the mortuary piece. This whole evidence is unsafe

Both men testify that the GS apron piece matched the apron that the deceased was wearing. We thus have at least two independent and highly responsible witnesses who were present at Mitre Square and the mortuary, who both attest to the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and who BOTH confirm that the GS piece matched the apron that she wore.

No we dont

Again you miss the point, and write what you want to believe is correct because is suits you.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Again you miss the point, and write what you want to believe is correct because is suits you.

I'm not missing any point. For an ex-detective, your lack of logic and comprehension is utterly staggering.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not missing any point. For an ex-detective, your lack of logic and comprehension is utterly staggering.

Like several others on here, you have no answers to the truth, and when the truth isn't what you want to hear, you resort to making comments like the above.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Like several others on here, you have no answers to the truth

You don't have exclusive access to any kind of "truth", Trevor.

and when the truth isn't what you want to hear, you resort to making comments like the above

Well, if you keep saying things like "again, you miss the point" and "you're writing what you want to believe because it suits you", you can jolly well expect some return fire. You're lucky that I'm such a gentle soul, because such constant rudeness and arrogance deserves far worse.

[Trevor Marriott]

You don't have exclusive access to any kind of "truth", Trevor.
Well, if you keep saying things like "again, you miss the point" and "you're writing what you want to believe because it suits you", you can jolly well expect some return fire. You're lucky that I'm such a gentle soul, because such constant rudeness and arrogance deserves far worse.

Instead of slagging me off, your time might be better spent in making sure that what you do post is correct, and not something you think happened.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Instead of slagging me off, your time might be better spent in making sure that what you do post is correct, and not something you think happened.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I was under the impression we had agreed to stop this NONSENSE , obviously you just wanted me to stop responding to the unsupported theories and you to carry on.

All bets off.
Back to dismantling the unsupported ideas.
Please do not bother asking me to stop again.

Steve

[Elamarna]

No we dont

Again you miss the point, and write what you want to believe is correct because is suits you.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So funny. Pot calling kettle Black

Steve

[etenguy]

Instead of slagging me off, your time might be better spent in making sure that what you do post is correct, and not something you think happened.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

To someone who has only recently returned to this website, this is how it appears to me in relation to the question of whether Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered and Mr Marriott's alternative theory.

There is a great wealth of evidence which clearly states Catherine was wearing an apron. This is across members of the public as well as policemen as well as doctors. They all independently state this to be the case and we know this from a multitude of reports of the evidence provided at the inquest. Some reports paraphrased and some verbatim records.

Mr Marriott has found amongst that wealth of evidence, some incomplete and/or ambiguously worded statements. This he considers, allows for a complete reinterpretation of events, although there is no evidence to corroborate that his theory is the right way to reinterpret the evidence.

The decision to be made is whether in the context of overwhelming evidence that Catherine was wearing an apron, the discrepancies that Mr Marriott points to are sufficiently compelling to disregard all other evidence to the contrary. For the vast majority posting in this thread, a few perceived discrepancies are insufficient to set aside the bulk of the evidence. But even if we did, imaginative and novel as it is, there is no evidence to support Mr Marriott's re-imagining of events.

Of course, Mr Marriott might point to Copernicus, who alone believed the earth orbited the sun and was subsequently proved right. However, Copernicus did provide positive evidence for his theory. That is what we ask of Mr Marriott if we are to be convinced of his theory. To date, as far as I can tell, there is no supportive evidence provided.