The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

The arrogance displayed in that post is truly mind blowing.

Carry on, each post exposes the lack of any serious substance.

Steve

Note being arrogant being truthful. I have to ask as a former politician is that word part of your vocabulary ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You never cease to surprise. Your ignorance simply plumbs new depths every time you approach a keyboard.

"The Creature"

Thanks for the kind words, I am glad you appreciate my talents and what I bring to the table.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Well how many ways are there to remove clothes from a body, and list them in order of how they came off the body for future reference?

You never cease to amaze me, you are really doing yourself no favours now

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From you that is so funny.

It's not about how you take the clothing off, it's about when you recorded, following your normal approach prove the recording is contemperanoeous with the removal and not written up afterwards?

Steve

[Elamarna]

Note being arrogant being truthful. I have to ask as a former politician is that word part of your vocabulary ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again insults achieve nothing other than to highlight the weakness of you ideas..

Dear me can you truly do no better Trevor, it's not even an original insult.


Like your theories, no substance and a lack of knowledge of the subject.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

From you that is so funny.

It's not about how you take the clothing off, it's about when you recorded, following your normal approach prove the recording is contemperanoeous with the removal and not written up afterwards?

Steve

You prove it wasnt!

I can tell you that is always the procedure adopted at mortuaries with regards to victims of homicide and suspicious deaths. The only difference now is the each item would be bagged separately for forensic examination if required.

But I am sure you will find some academic or historical fact to rely on to prove me wrong.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

You prove it wasnt!

I can tell you that is always the procedure adopted at mortuaries with regards to victims of homicide and suspicious deaths. The only difference now is the each item would be bagged separately for forensic examination if required.

But I am sure you will find some academic or historical fact to rely on to prove me wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No I am following your approach, prove to me it was.

The negative approach you use all the time is not easy to counter is it?



Steve

[PaulB]

Thanks for the kind words, I am glad you appreciate my talents and what I bring to the table.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I certainly appreciate your talents and how valuable they are. And also what you bring to the table, although the quality doesn't make for a fine dining experience. However, Trevor, as a detective constable, explain why the only way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts is not the academic way. University professors around the world will be hanging on your every word, eager to know why generations of them, in numerous fields of study, have managed to get it wrong.

"The Creature"

[Elamarna]

Actually all 3 items are referred to by Collard as "pockets" and appear to have been worn on the body.

Only one is referred to as ticking and this refers to the material used, the other two are called unbleached calico.

I am having difficulty in finding information in the Official Report to support that statement , maybe I am missing it, perhaps you could be so good as to point me in the correct direction I am always happy to ask for assistance If I need it.

However I see no attempt to answer the questions asked?
Go on enlighten me?

Steve

I see no response to the question of pockets/bags.

It seems you had no idea what "ticking" meant and only one pocket was described as such by Collard, so it must be so. Why did you erroneously say all 3 were ticking?

It also seems from the description of cut tapes, that these were attached to the body, and IF so part of her clothing.

All 3 by the way are described as blood stained.


Steve

[Joshua Rogan]

I see no response to the question of pockets/bags.

It seems you had no idea what "ticking" meant and only one bag was described as such by Collard, so it must be so. Why did you erroneously say all 3 were ticking?

It also seems from the description of cut tapes, that these were attached to the body, and IF so part of her clothing.

All 3 by the way are described as blood stained.

Steve,
There was one Blue stripe bed ticking pocket listed, two small blue bed ticking bags and two unbleached calico pockets. I don't think it's possible to say which items were contained in which pocket or bag.

[Elamarna]

Steve,
There was one Blue stripe bed ticking pocket listed, two small blue bed ticking bags and two unbleached calico pockets. I don't think it's possible to say which items were contained in which pocket or bag.

Hi Joshua,
thank you for the correction.

My apologies then to both the forum and Trevor, I missed the bags they are listed far after the 3 pockets. My mistake, must do better.
However Trevor similarly missed the 2 unbleached calico pockets. So we are both at fault here.

However as you rightly state there is no way of knowing what was where, indeed given the bags are called small, they could themselves have been in any of the 3 pockets, which I take to be tie on to the body bags, like a modern day money belt, if anyone knows different please let me know.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Let's just look at this again.

I originally said she did not have a large bag.

Trevor responded that she had 1 pocket and 2 small bags, which does not contradict my initial comment.

The comment from Trevor and my subsequent reply were incorrect.

She had 5 items which appear to have been capable of holding possessions, however we have no idea where any of these were actually located nor what was contained in any of them.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Joshua,
thank you for the correction.

My apologies then to both the forum and Trevor, I missed the bags they are listed far after the 3 pockets. My mistake, must do better.
However Trevor similarly missed the 2 unbleached calico pockets. So we are both at fault here.

However as you rightly state there is no way of knowing what was where, indeed given the bags are called small, they could themselves have been in any of the 3 pockets, which I take to be tie on to the body bags, like a modern day money belt, if anyone knows different please let me know.

Steve

So it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she was in fact in possession of an old white piece of apron which was found at the bottom of one of the ticking
Bags when the bags were emptied and rightly listed as being amongst her possessions

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

So it is not beyond the realms of possibility that she was in fact in possession of an old white piece of apron which was found at the bottom of one of the ticking
Bags when the bags were emptied and rightly listed as being amongst her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The bags are called small, maybe like a small coin purse, who knows?
It is probable they were carried in the aforementioned pockets, it seems fairly clear Eddowes was not carrying them in her hands when taken drunk to the Police Station in Bishopsgate.
It follows that they were probably on her person, rather than carried.
Given that we do not know the size of the bags or pockets or the size of the piece of apron it is impossible to say if it could have been carried in any of them.

Of course such is academic as we have witness statements from Collard:

"– I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

This is from the official report, not newspapers and it seems clear where the portion of apron was found; certainly not in a bag or pocket.

It also of course suggests it is outermost of all other items of clothing, which would be correct if he had been wearing it as an apron.

That I venture to suggest exposes a serious flaw in your theory!



Steve

[Wickerman]

I have a serious question for those who say the lists provided by Collard are beyond question.

How do you propose these lists were made?

1. A item at a time as removed from the body?

2. After all items had been removed?

3. One list at a time?

4. Both lists simultaneously?


One importan't point to bear in mind is that all the items listed as possessions were on the body of Eddowes, she was not carting a large bag. It therefore follows that as items of obvious clothing were removed so were possessions.

I am not discussing the apron here at all, rather how these lists were compiled.


Steve

Hi Steve.

I think it is only fair to say that if a body is stripped then the first things we remove are the hat, and top coat/jacket. Then a dress/skirt, and, in this case a bodice. Under these outer clothes should be petticoats and or a chemise, c/w underwear.
This is just how the list was recorded, so I know I am agreeing with Trevor in this, but I do think the list as it has come down to us reflects the likelyhood that the list was made as the items of clothing were removed.

This is why I do not think the last item: "1 Piece of old white apron", is the remnant still attached to the body. If it was, it should be earlier in the list.

However, I think the list (two sheets of foolscap) is too neat & tidy to have been written at the mortuary while the body was being stripped.
I feel sure that Collard (if it is his handwriting), would have made these notes in his pocketbook, as was the policy.
The notes then being transferred to foolscap for filing with his report, and for the inquest.

Now, if the list was not made while the body was being stripped, then it was made from a pile of clothing, which should mean there would be no sequence to the list. We might expect to read of a chemise, then the coat, then an apron, a handkerchief, then the bodice, and boots, etc. In other words no identifiable sequence - but this is not what we see.

Because I do see a sequence, and because the piece of old white apron is listed last, then that piece must have turned up last, therefore, it is likely the GS piece brought by Dr Phillips. Which means, the remnant piece that was still attached to the body is listed earlier, and under some other identification.
I think it is recorded as: "1 large white handkerchief, blood stained", which is noted directly following the piece of red gauze that came off the neck.

The Times actually records three items together:

"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

In the official list we read:

"Pair of mens lace up boots......
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon, found on neck"
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

I think these are the same items.

[Wickerman]

She had 5 items which appear to have been capable of holding possessions, however we have no idea where any of these were actually located nor what was contained in any of them.

Steve

This is true, but it was explained to me that these type of 'pockets' are what we see market workers wearing around their waist. Some call it a "fanny-pack", it's really just a belt with a pocket attacked to it. You wear it under your clothing so no-one knows you have anything of value.
This is where I imagine they were removed from, under her clothes and around her waist.