The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[harry]

How was the match made? Perhaps that little blue man from Mars that's been mentioned,did the matching?
Were the two pieces laid on the floor side by side.?Were they held up by the hands?Was it a casual glance at two separate items made at different times?All of the above are feasible.There now seem to be quite a confusion surrounding the apron pieces.a considerale amount of could be,maybe,etc.It was all so plain before Trevor stepped in and s aid there could be other explanations,and we should look for them.Credit where credits due.Why, when the match supposedly made by Brown occurred with three other doctors present,did none of those three comment on it?Wouldn't Phillips,who took the Goulsten street cloth to the mortuary,for reasons unknown,have been interested enough to make some official comment?
But back to Long.If there had been only excrement on the cloth would he have jumped to the conclusion that a crime may have been committed in that building?if not it must have been the blood that caused his later actions.How much blood was there?Not much from some accounts,plus no victim,no assailant.Plus as has been mentioned countless times,blood on people even, was commonplace in London at that time.
Long's evidence smells,and I do not need him here to question him,to come to that conclusion.

[Wickerman]

Not true. Halse said he was aware when the body was stripped, as I said earlier. He also says he heard of the piece found by Long shortly afterwards, when he returned to Mitre Square, And heard that Dr Phillips had it in his possession when he and Hunt went to Leman St station.

But Joshua, nobody knew that the piece of apron found by Long belonged to Eddowes until it was brought to Golden Lane mortuary, that was a while after the body was stripped.
So Halse is talking anachronistically, yes he saw the body stripped, but we have no suggestion by anyone present at the mortuary to indicate they knew she had been wearing an apron.
Only PC's Hutt & Robinson could speak to that but they were not at the mortuary.

If the apron was still attached to the body by the strings, as Brown says, I don't believe that it could have been mistaken for a kerchief. I think the most likely explanation is that it simply became detached when the body was moved to the mortuary.

A misshapen piece of cloth was attached to the body, but we have no indication anyone believed this was part of an apron she was wearing.

But Long's piece wasn't found ON her. So, whilst it was an important piece of evidence, I don't think it would simply have been added to a list of possessions.

The fact it had been matched would make it eligible for the list. Clearly, if half of it was attached to her body then the other half from Goulston st also belongs to her.

The mustard tin contained the pawn tickets which may have led to identifying her, or potentially the killer, so I'd say would have been seen as very important. But that wasn't added either.

The mustard tin may have belonged to her killer. It was found on the pavement, not on her person.
They had yet to investigate those pawn tickets. Only later did they determine the mustard tin belonged to Eddowes.

[Wickerman]

...Wouldn't Phillips,who took the Goulsten street cloth to the mortuary,for reasons unknown,have been interested enough to make some official comment?
...

Dr Phillips is well known as one who avoids talking with the press.

[PaulB]

How was the match made? Perhaps that little blue man from Mars that's been mentioned,did the matching?
Were the two pieces laid on the floor side by side.?Were they held up by the hands?Was it a casual glance at two separate items made at different times?All of the above are feasible.There now seem to be quite a confusion surrounding the apron pieces.a considerale amount of could be,maybe,etc.It was all so plain before Trevor stepped in and s aid there could be other explanations,and we should look for them.Credit where credits due.Why, when the match supposedly made by Brown occurred with three other doctors present,did none of those three comment on it?Wouldn't Phillips,who took the Goulsten street cloth to the mortuary,for reasons unknown,have been interested enough to make some official comment?
But back to Long.If there had been only excrement on the cloth would he have jumped to the conclusion that a crime may have been committed in that building?if not it must have been the blood that caused his later actions.How much blood was there?Not much from some accounts,plus no victim,no assailant.Plus as has been mentioned countless times,blood on people even, was commonplace in London at that time.
Long's evidence smells,and I do not need him here to question him,to come to that conclusion.

Harry,
Why do you persist in asking questions, but never respond when they are answered? You said in an earlier post that PC Long's testimony needs to be proven beyond doubt. I reasonably asked you how you proposed that should be done. You have ignored the question.

The point is that his testimony can't be proven beyond doubt. Not not. Probably not ever. So you are asking for the impossible. All you can do is look at the evidence you have and draw from it the best conclusion possible. Do you not agree with that? If not, there is an obligation on you to explain how we proceed.

You have quite rightly pointed out that PC had the opportunity to write the message, but that alone is meaningless. You haven't provided a shred of evidence to so much as even tenuously suggest that he did. So where do you propose you, me, or anybody goes with this?

You clearly read the posts, but you don't answer. There's not much point in asking questions is there?

[DJA]

Dr Phillips is well known as one who avoids talking with the press.

Which is interesting in itself.

Perhaps he said too much regarding Chapman's killer.

Seeking a pardon for an accomplice, after Hutchinson came forward immediately after Mary Kelly's inquest, is worthy of investigation.

[etenguy]

How was the match made? Perhaps that little blue man from Mars that's been mentioned,did the matching?
Were the two pieces laid on the floor side by side.?Were they held up by the hands?Was it a casual glance at two separate items made at different times?

I am not sure what point you are driving at. Are you suggesting the method of matching was suspect? In the context of this particular murder case, involving London's most wanted man, the matching would surely have been carefully done.

All of the above are feasible.There now seem to be quite a confusion surrounding the apron pieces.a considerale amount of could be,maybe,etc.It was all so plain before Trevor stepped in and s aid there could be other explanations,and we should look for them.Credit where credits due.Why, when the match supposedly made by Brown occurred with three other doctors present,did none of those three comment on it?Wouldn't Phillips,who took the Goulsten street cloth to the mortuary,for reasons unknown,have been interested enough to make some official comment?

What confusion do you refer to. Trevor's confusion about whether the apron was worn or not. The evidence is quite clear in this respect. Trevor has been selective in the evidence he has considered which is why he has produced an alternative theory. His theory relies on discarding a lot of evidence and focusing only on the list of possessions and the use of the word apparently by Collard - all other evidence which counters his theory is ignored. There is no confusion among those who consider the whole body of evidence.

But back to Long.If there had been only excrement on the cloth would he have jumped to the conclusion that a crime may have been committed in that building?if not it must have been the blood that caused his later actions.How much blood was there?Not much from some accounts,plus no victim,no assailant.Plus as has been mentioned countless times,blood on people even, was commonplace in London at that time.
Long's evidence smells,and I do not need him here to question him,to come to that conclusion.

Why do you cast doubt on PC Long's evidence? He appears to have acted in exactly the way a diligent police officer would act. He finds a piece of rag (which turns out to be part of an apron) which has appeared in the early hours of the morning with blood stains and soiled and one corner wet with blood. He takes the rag to be considered in case it is important evidence to a crime - which it turns out to be. None of that casts doubt on his probity as far as I can tell.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;
At the time of making the list, no-one at the mortuary was aware of her wearing an apron.[/QUOTE]

And at the time of making the list on one knew about the Gs piece because when the list was made up the Gs piece had not yet been found. So you have to say that all what went on at the mortuary regarding the lists can be taken as correct because there would have been no need for anyone to think anything untoward.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite so. It doesn't matter if the apron had "strings attached" or "was attached to the body by strings", the plain fact of the matter is that the piece found in Goulston Street obviously matched the remainder of the apron found in association with Eddowes' body.

You are correct but your same statement would apply if she had not been wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time in the past had been cut or torn from a full apron. Because there is simply no evidence that the two pieces made up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

For what it's worth, McWilliam went to the mortuary "and saw the piece of apron — which was found in Goulstone Street — compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded. I then returned to the Detective Office and had telegraphed to the Divisions and Metropolitan Police a description of the murdered woman and her clothing." (Report to the Home Office by Inspector James McWilliam, City of London Police, 27 October 1888).

That description as published in several newspapers concluded with an old pair of men's lace-up boots and "a piece of coarse white apron". The following is from The Daily Telegraph, 1 October 1888):

"The full official description is as follows: "Age forty; length, 5 ft; dark auburn hair; hazel eyes; dressed in black jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons; brown bodice; dark green chintz skirt, of Michaelmas and Gordon lily pattern, and with three flounces; thin white vest, light drab lindsey skirt, dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise; brown ribbed stockings, mended at foot with piece of white stocking; black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet; large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron. The letters 'T. C.' were tattooed on the left fore-arm in blue ink."

The belief of McWilliam, as given by him in a report, is that Eddowes was wearing the apron. The same is expressed by others, such as Collard and Halse. The official description as issued by McWilliam lists the apron at the end, as it also appears on the list compiled by Collard. Maybe there's nothing in it, maybe it suggests the apron was separated from the rest of Eddowes' clothes and possessions before the list was compiled, possibly for the purpose of comparison.

Just a bit of fat to chew over.

There are a lot of maybe`s and beliefs on your part, but they do not equate to hard evidence.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

There are a lot of maybe`s and beliefs on your part, but they do not equate to hard evidence.

Trevor,
There are two "maybes", neither of which is associated in any way with "hard evidence", and the only "belief" is Inspector McWilliam's statement of what he believed. So, are you trying to make a point, or just making a rather lame attempt to insinuate that I am drawing conclusions based on what ifs and maybes.

The point I was making is that Inspector McWilliam witnessed the two pieces of apron being matched, referred to one of those pieces as having been worn by Eddowes, and had shortly afterwards issued an official description that mentioned the apron at the end, as did Collard. That's hard fact, not speculation, so do you have an observation to make?

You dismissed Steve's criticism of your thinking by writing, "You keep banging on about academic research. There is only one way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts and its not the academic way." That's a very important statement, and, not wishing to be harsh, it appears truly ignorant and stupid. I'm sure nobody wants to draw adverse conclusions based on it, therefore you have been asked to explain it. Please take the opportunity to do so.

I'd also asked you to explain where anything in my reviews of your books is wrong, or to otherwise withdraw and apologise for your statement that they show what sort of creature I am, a remark that merits a formal complaint to the moderators here. I'm not making such a complaint, of course, and I don't expect you to apologise, but it seems worthwhile to point out that you throw out these claims but hardly ever justify them. Perhaps you could therefore explain your understanding of "the academic way" and explain why it doesn't apply.

[PaulB]

You are correct but your same statement would apply if she had not been wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point in time in the past had been cut or torn from a full apron. Because there is simply no evidence that the two pieces made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is simply no evidence that the two pieces didn't make up a full apron either.

Why would anyone have stated specifically that two pieces made a whole apron? It would have been far more important to have observed if the two pieces did not make a whole, but nobody did.

[harry]

PaulB,
I ask questions because I believe they need to be asked.I have answered where it is reasonable to answer.
We are faced with testimony of what Long says he(Long)did,and why he did it.We can respond to that.I have.
If opportunity is meaningless in discussing long,then opportunity is meaningless in discussing the killer of Eddowes as having written the graffito,for there is no evidence the killer wrote it either opportunity or not.

Etenguy,
One point if you read carefully,is that four persons were present when a match was supposedly made,and only one speaks of it happening.
I am writing of the general confusion that appears to be present.
I cast doubt on Longs evidence,as it is not in accordance with what I would expect would be a diligent officer's approach to the circumstances,and if you have been following the thread you should know what those circumstances were.
Another question that is worthy of consideration.That the evidence at Wentworth building was the most important clue in the Ripper murders.Clue to what?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
There are two "maybes", neither of which is associated in any way with "hard evidence", and the only "belief" is Inspector McWilliam's statement of what he believed. So, are you trying to make a point, or just making a rather lame attempt to insinuate that I am drawing conclusions based on what ifs and maybes.

The point I was making is that Inspector McWilliam witnessed the two pieces of apron being matched, referred to one of those pieces as having been worn by Eddowes, and had shortly afterwards issued an official description that mentioned the apron at the end, as did Collard. That's hard fact, not speculation, so do you have an observation to make?

You dismissed Steve's criticism of your thinking by writing, "You keep banging on about academic research. There is only one way to assess and evaluate real evidence and real facts and its not the academic way." That's a very important statement, and, not wishing to be harsh, it appears truly ignorant and stupid. I'm sure nobody wants to draw adverse conclusions based on it, therefore you have been asked to explain it. Please take the opportunity to do so.

I'd also asked you to explain where anything in my reviews of your books is wrong, or to otherwise withdraw and apologise for your statement that they show what sort of creature I am, a remark that merits a formal complaint to the moderators here. I'm not making such a complaint, of course, and I don't expect you to apologise, but it seems worthwhile to point out that you throw out these claims but hardly ever justify them. Perhaps you could therefore explain your understanding of "the academic way" and explain why it doesn't apply.

The academic way it would seem is to assess all the facts available even though many contradict each other and are clearly unsafe, and then decide on an explanation that is believed to be the right one.

That is not the right way to do it in the case of the ripper murders.

As to your reviews. as stated they are biased without a doubt. You have made it plainly clear over the past years that you have no liking for any of my Ripper research which goes against your research, and if I am correct blows yours firmly out of the water. and therefore gives you every reason to write adverse vindictive reviews, and I have no intention of apologising or retracting anything I have said.

Despite what I believe are deliberate attempts with these adverse reviews to stop people buying the books, it has not succeeded.

For the benefit of readers, all books can be purchased at www.trevormarriott.co.uk where genuine unbiased reviews can be found by following the respective book links.

[Elamarna]

The academic way it would seem is to assess all the facts available even though many contradict each other and are clearly unsafe, and then decide on an explanation that is believed to be the right one.

That is not the right way to do it in the case of the ripper murders.

That is not how research particularly academic research works, the continual reference to contradicting reports is never actually explained.
If such is fine for all other research why is it not the way here?
Please explain what approach that will stand up to scrutiny is more applicable in this case

If one does not asses the facts, one is left with imagination and guesswork is one not?

Despite what I believe are deliberate attempts with these adverse reviews to stop people buying the books, it has not succeeded.

Do I need to point out that von Daniken, with who you appear to share a common approach to research, has sold far more books than you, quantity says nothing.

Steve

[Elamarna]

PaulB,
I ask questions because I believe they need to be asked.I have answered where it is reasonable to answer.
We are faced with testimony of what Long says he(Long)did,and why he did it.We can respond to that.I have.
If opportunity is meaningless in discussing long,then opportunity is meaningless in discussing the killer of Eddowes as having written the graffito,for there is no evidence the killer wrote it either opportunity or not.



Etenguy,
One point if you read carefully,is that four persons were present when a match was supposedly made,and only one speaks of it happening.
I am writing of the general confusion that appears to be present.
I cast doubt on Longs evidence,as it is not in accordance with what I would expect would be a diligent officer's approach to the circumstances,and if you have been following the thread you should know what those circumstances were.
Another question that is worthy of consideration.That the evidence at Wentworth building was the most important clue in the Ripper murders.Clue to what?

Harry Good to see that you openly say your view of Long is not based on fact but on your Personal view of how YOU think he should have reacted.

One can't build a theory, let alone challenge other views if no facts are used.

Steve