The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Wickerman]

And how can you keep relying on conflicting newspaper articles, they cant all be right, you have to look at all the reports, and in the case of Eddowes a comparison made with what is in the official inquest depositions. Not as you and others are continually doing. putting you own personal interpretation based on trying to assess the conflicting reports.

I'm probably one of the few posters who has actually compiled all the major press sources, c/w the court record.

My list of sources for Dr Brown's testimony, by example:
(CLRO) – Corp. London Records Office - Original Inquest Document
(DT) – Daily Telegeraph, October 5th. / 12th.
(T) – Times, October 5th. / 12th.
(DN) – Daily News, October, 5th. / 12th.
(MA) – Morning Advertiser, October 5th. / 12th.
(MP) – Morning Post, October 5th. / 12th.
(STD) – The Standard, October 5th. / 12th.
(E) – Echo, October 4th. / 12th.

I have compared every sentence of testimony for all the witnesses across all eight sources. So any time you want to discuss sentence by sentence, or line by line, for any witness. Just let me know.

I do not see conflict in the inquest coverage

Let me ask you a question do you accept that any of the evidence relating to the murder of Eddowes is flawed or do you accept it all without question.

If you do accept that some of it is flawed I would be happy to hear what you believe those flaws are.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am interested in what you interpret as "flawed".

[Joshua Rogan]

The sources all indicate that Long did not hear of the Eddowes murder until just before he left for the station. Not before he searched the building.

I have to disagree with this, Jon. The question (according to the Daily News account) was put to Long "Before proceeding to the station, had you heard of any murder having been committed?"
To which he simply replied "Yes"

So all we can reasonably draw from this is that just before going to the station was the latest he could have heard of it, which still leaves a window of well over an hour.

His report from 6th Nov says, on discovering the apron and writing, he "at once called the PC on the adjoining beat and then searched the stair-cases"

So it's possible he heard from this PC before (or after, of course) performing his search, or from another, earlier source.

The juror who enquired about the search certainly seems to have believed Long knew of the murder before finding the apron, and Long does not contradict him, suggesting that this was the order in which things occurred;

"A Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there."

So I'd say that some sources definitely indicate that he did know of the murder before finding the apron piece. Whether we choose to trust them or not is another matter.

[Wickerman]

I have to disagree with this, Jon. The question (according to the Daily News account) was put to Long "Before proceeding to the station, had you heard of any murder having been committed?"
To which he simply replied "Yes"

Hi Joshua.
Ok, then how do you interpret the court record, where we read:
"Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square"

This appears to provide a sequence, the search - hearing of the city murder - go to the station?

The juror who enquired about the search certainly seems to have believed Long knew of the murder before finding the apron, and Long does not contradict him, suggesting that this was the order in which things occurred;

"A Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir. I did not expect the man had committed the murder in the passage, but I though the body might have been hidden there."

Yes, but do not forget Long had heard of the Berner St. murder too, perhaps this was what that quote was referring to?
He had heard of two murders that night, he only tells us that he heard of the city murder before proceeding to the station. He doesn't say when he heard of the Berner St. murder.

[harry]

Jon,
Are you kidding.You first say I was quoting from the A-Z,then you write I was quoting from the papersMake up your mind..Now if you mean,and you should say so,that what was witten in the A-Z was taken from the newspapers,that is something you should first find out.But thanks for reminding everyone that it is recorded,somewhere,that Long denied having heard of the Eddowes murder,and that I did not misrepresent or make up the denial.
To expand a little on what Trevor says.
Any evidence without support should be treated cautiously.
What,or who is there to support Long.Untill the second officer showed up,there is nothing and no one.One might say there is the cloth and the writing,they are physical things,but who is to confirm that both were there as Long testifies.He could have found the cloth outside,and he could have written the wording himself. It is belief,not evidence,that is stated when writing of Long.He could have had piles and wiped his own ass as far as I know.(Couldn't resist that).
Same with the apron.Only Brown is reported as saying there was a match made.I can find no support for his claim,despite there being others present at the mortuary.None of the doctors,there were three present,seems to have witten or spoke in support of that match up.Still I suppose someone will come up with a paper article proving me wrong.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Joshua.
Ok, then how do you interpret the court record, where we read:
"Having searched I at once proceeded to the Station Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder having been committed I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square"

This appears to provide a sequence, the search - hearing of the city murder - go to the station?

Yes, it does appear to provide a sequence, but it also happens to be the order in which the evidence was given.
As I understand it, the court record was compiled from the questions put to and the evidence given by a witness, turned into a first-person statement that the witness could then sign. I may be wrong on this, I'm not an expert on court proceedings, but the statements all seem to follow the same order as press reports, albeit with many (presumably) extraneous details omitted.

Yes, but do not forget Long had heard of the Berner St. murder too, perhaps this was what that quote was referring to?
He had heard of two murders that night, he only tells us that he heard of the city murder before proceeding to the station. He doesn't say when he heard of the Berner St. murder.

Perhaps. I think the Daily Telegraph is the only source, and that says;

"Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain."

I'm not really sure that it matters which murder he had heard of, as there's no evidence that he knew of any details other than the location. But knowing one (or more) had occurred may have affected his response to finding a piece of apron.

[Joshua Rogan]

harry,

The relevant entry in the A-Z is not a direct quotation from any contemporary source, but a short summary of Long's evidence, and is therefore not a primary source. We have access to several primary sources which record Long as saying he had heard of a murder, including one signed by Long himself. I haven't seen any that suggest he hadn't heard of a murder, though one or more may exist. I would advocate using primary sources where available.

A-Z entry;
"He was criticised by a juror for not conducting a thorough search of the rooms in the building, but replied that he did not know of Eddowes' murder, and accepted Mr Crawford's suggestion that on discovering the apron he thought the victim of a crime, and not the criminal, might be inside and so made a complete tour of the open staircases and landings."

Long's signed inquest statement;
"Having searched I at once proceeded to the station. Before proceeding there I had heard of a murder being committed. I had heard of the murder in Mitre Square"

[Sam Flynn]

Only Brown is reported as saying there was a match.

Collard says there was a match, too.

[PaulB]

Paul, can I ask you this: rather than responding to Trevor, have you ever thought of settling back, putting your feet up and leaving him to defend his lost cause?

Yes, frequently. And I haven't contributed to this thread for that very reason. Furthermore, I don't think Trevor is interested in anything more than getting people to argue with him so that he and his ideas can appear challenging and important, so it would probably be best if we all ignored Trevor and his nonsense. However, as someone who argues their corner passionately, you will know yourself that it's difficult not to scratch these annoying itches. And there is always that nagging thought that somewhere there are under-informed people who might think Trevor is saying something reasonable. But, yes, I think it's probably best to try and ignore Trevor.

[PaulB]

Jon,
Are you kidding.You first say I was quoting from the A-Z,then you write I was quoting from the papersMake up your mind..Now if you mean,and you should say so,that what was witten in the A-Z was taken from the newspapers,that is something you should first find out.But thanks for reminding everyone that it is recorded,somewhere,that Long denied having heard of the Eddowes murder,and that I did not misrepresent or make up the denial.
To expand a little on what Trevor says.
Any evidence without support should be treated cautiously.
What,or who is there to support Long.Untill the second officer showed up,there is nothing and no one.One might say there is the cloth and the writing,they are physical things,but who is to confirm that both were there as Long testifies.He could have found the cloth outside,and he could have written the wording himself. It is belief,not evidence,that is stated when writing of Long.He could have had piles and wiped his own ass as far as I know.(Couldn't resist that).
Same with the apron.Only Brown is reported as saying there was a match made.I can find no support for his claim,despite there being others present at the mortuary.None of the doctors,there were three present,seems to have witten or spoke in support of that match up.Still I suppose someone will come up with a paper article proving me wrong.

Harry,
When compiling the A to Z we compared all the sources we could find of PC Long's testimony and the entry in the A to Z is a summary of the sequence of events as can best we could construct it. I am therefore interested in any fact-based argument that might require the entry to be changed. So, as you correctly say, there is no independent corroboration of what Long said (nor would there have been in 1888), but what fact-basedreasons are there for doubting what he said? By that I mean, what evidence do the sources contain that suggest an alternative scenario is more likely?

[harry]

Sam,
What did Collard say,and what were the circumstances?Did Collard witness or conduct a match himself.

PaulB,
Sources can neither prove Long's testimony,nor disprove,so what is left is belief,and a consideration of alterate scenarios.Which seems to be what Trevor and myself suggest.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
What did Collard say,and what were the circumstances?Did Collard witness or conduct a match himself.

"A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased"

Collard's inquest testimony, Daily Telegraph 5th October.

[Sam Flynn]

Sources can neither prove Long's testimony,nor disprove,so what is left is belief,and a consideration of alterate scenarios.

Any alternative scenario has to stand up to scrutiny, and - if it is to displace the "old theories" - it has to fit the evidence better, and be more, not less, plausible.

[Michael W Richards]

This thread seems top overlook the fact that 2 murders were committed and there is no proof that one person committed both, so if we are asking whether "Jack" wrote it we should consider that its possible the message relates specifically to one event. I believe the apron section can address that point. In which case the Jews might be the Three Wise Men who allegedly saw Kate with Sailor Man.

Hypothetical..what if the witnessed encounter was really more like what Isreal Schwartz described he saw, and the witnesses walked on past without trying to assist the lady in distress? Could they be blamed by the killer for having done nothing to save the woman?

[PaulB]

Sam,
What did Collard say,and what were the circumstances?Did Collard witness or conduct a match himself.

PaulB,
Sources can neither prove Long's testimony,nor disprove,so what is left is belief,and a consideration of alterate scenarios.Which seems to be what Trevor and myself suggest.

I understand that, Harry, and I'm all for alternative scenarios, but they still have to be based on the sources. The sources aren't proofs. The sources are the foundation upon which our understanding of what happened is based. The sources are the only evidence we have of what PC Long did. In fact, they are the only evidence that PC Long even existed. So, if someone thinks PC Long did something different to what the sources tell us, the evidence for that alternative scenario has to come from the sources too. So, what I am asking is this: what is the evidence contained in the sources upon which an alternative scenario is based? And what is that alternative scenario?

[Joshua Rogan]

Sam,
What did Collard say,and what were the circumstances?Did Collard witness or conduct a match himself.

It was surely obvious to all those present whether or not they matched - the apron pieces were held up in court at various times for everyone to see, eg;

Star 11th Oct
"THE APRON was here produced by the police, in two pieces"