The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

We don't know how big it was.

Well it wasn't ever described by anyone as a large piece was it?

And besides if it was screwed up then it must have been a small piece. as a large piece of material will unfurl when screwed up and discarded.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Robinson said he could identify it, if he saw the whole of it. The two pieces produced are described as "an apron", not part of an apron.
It's only "an apron" if it is complete.
Semantics is not your strong point Trevor.

And assessing and evaluating the strength of witness testimony is clearly not yours

It didn't matter, one of the two pieces had come off her body, the second piece was matched to the first.
PC Hutt saw her leave the station wearing an apron.
PC Robinson saw last saw her in the cell, she was wearing an apron.

And Sgt Byfield states he di not notice if she was wearing an apron when he booked her in and released her

Of course you can claim someone was lying.

I am merely pointing out why I suggest the testimony is unsafe, and not to be totally relied on, because it has never been tested and what we know now suggests that it should have been tested.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Well it wasn't ever described by anyone as a large piece was it?

Nor was it ever described as a small piece, Trev.

And besides if it was screwed up then it must have been a small piece. as a large piece of material will unfurl when screwed up and discarded.

Was it described as screwed up? Or furled/unfurled for that matter?

[Wickerman]

Where would he have heard the rumours from. He doesn't say he met anyone who told him does he?

He was never asked.
You can't find suspicion based on him not providing an answer to a question he was never asked.

Also given that the Gs piece was a relatively small piece I still find it difficult to understand that a discarded piece of screwed up material would warrant him picking it up and examining it resulting in his actions thereafter.

What is your source for it being a small piece?

The Commissioner Henry Smith, was at the mortuary and he said that approx. half the apron had been sliced off.
Knowing how large those common aprons were, "about half" would be several square feet.
Halse is also credited with saying the same thing in The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, but I have not seen the original source for that comment myself.

So, what is your source for it being small?

After all he would not have been able to form any opinion until he picked it up and examined it, so what made him pick it up in the first instance?

It was blood stained. There's a 50/50 chance it was human blood, which is why he looked through the different staircases.
He only took the piece to the station after, he heard of the City murder.

If it genuinely wasnt there when he passed by 30 mins previous, could Dc Halse have planted it there?

On what evidence?
Remember, theories evolve from evidence, not from speculation.

Certainly the killer was not coming and going as you suggest?

Says who?
Haven't you heard that serial killers get their thrills from risky behaviour?

I refer to this official extract which shows there was at least some official concern about how the apron piece got to GS

October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:
My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.

Isn't that a normal consideration in police investigations?

[PaulB]

I am merely pointing out why I suggest the testimony is unsafe, and not to be totally relied on, because it has never been tested and what we know now suggests that it should have been tested.

What do you mean by the testimony has never been tested and should have been tested and is therefore unsafe?

Tested when? By whom? Against what?

[PaulB]

He was never asked.
You can't find suspicion based on him not providing an answer to a question he was never asked.




What is your source for it being a small piece?

The Commissioner Henry Smith, was at the mortuary and he said that approx. half the apron had been sliced off.
Knowing how large those common aprons were, "about half" would be several square feet.
Halse is also credited with saying the same thing in The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, but I have not seen the original source for that comment myself.

So, what is your source for it being small?



It was blood stained. There's a 50/50 chance it was human blood, which is why he looked through the different staircases.
He only took the piece to the station after, he heard of the City murder.



On what evidence?
Remember, theories evolve from evidence, not from speculation.



Says who?
Haven't you heard that serial killers get their thrills from risky behaviour?



Isn't that a normal consideration in police investigations?

I'd just add, that whether the piece of apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer, DC Halse, or the Vicar of Dibley, PC Long's attention was still drawn to it by something. And since he thought he might find somebody dead or hurt in the tenement, hence the reason why he searched the landings and stairs, I think it's probably safe to assume that something on the apron (such as a corner being saturated with blood) caused him to think that.

The Home Secretary evidently wanted it confirmed that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer, and such evidence as there is suggests that the police made every effort to establish that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron, asking everyone who came into contact with her, from Frederick Wilkinson who saw her that morning to the police who cared for her when she was at Bishopsgate. Everyone said she was wearing an apron (and given that aprons were a commonly worn, some might argue that it would have been noticed if Eddowes hadn't been wearing on), nobody said a piece was missing from it - except DC Halse, who said he saw something when the body was being stripped, that we now know to have been the apron, and that it had a piece missing.Given the importance of a request from the Home Secretary, it's telling that there isn't anywhere a tittle of a suggestion that Eddowes was not wearing an apron up to and when her body was found.

Your observation, "You can't find suspicion based on him not providing an answer to a question he was never asked." And "...theories evolve from evidence, not from speculation." are particularly true.

A good post, Jon. Do Jones and Lloyd give a source, they often do, but I don't have access to my copy at the minute?

[Wickerman]

..... Do Jones and Lloyd give a source, they often do, but I don't have access to my copy at the minute?

Thankyou Paul, and unfortunately Jones & Lloyd do not provide a source for a number of their quotes.
This is the relevant sentence:

"When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam."

- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

[Trevor Marriott]

He was never asked.
You can't find suspicion based on him not providing an answer to a question he was never asked.

But it gets back to what I have been saying. His evidence was never fully tested, had it been we might be that much wiser.

What is your source for it being a small piece?

The Commissioner Henry Smith, was at the mortuary and he said that approx. half the apron had been sliced off.
Knowing how large those common aprons were, "about half" would be several square feet.

I disagree with that size, if anything the original apron from which the twi pieces originated from was nothing ,more than one which would have tied around the waist and dropped down several feet.

Halse is also credited with saying the same thing in The Ripper File, Jones & Lloyd, but I have not seen the original source for that comment myself.

So, what is your source for it being small?

common sense based on aprons of the day

It was blood stained. There's a 50/50 chance it was human blood, which is why he looked through the different staircases.

I am questioning given the circumstances what made him do what he did?

So if you on your way home happen to come across a piece of discarded material which you choose to pick up and examine in the entrance to a block of flats would you automatically look for a body, or suspect a murder had taken place, or even bother reporting it to the police?

There are different descriptions of the piece, blood stained is but one, again which one do we rely on?

On what evidence?
Remember, theories evolve from evidence, not from speculation.

And untested evidence which has flaws and ambiguities that you seek to rely on does not have to be readily accepted, when there are plausible explanations which may negate those you seek to rely on.

Haven't you heard that serial killers get their thrills from risky behaviour?

But if that is risky behaviour and the same killer killed all of the victims why is it not evident in any other murder?.

Isn't that a normal consideration in police investigations?

Well according to some on here there is no doubt about the historical facts and they should not be questioned

But it creates a doubt and I am constantly asked for evidence to back up doubts well here is some. Well read it an weep

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd just add, that whether the piece of apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer, DC Halse, or the Vicar of Dibley, PC Long's attention was still drawn to it by something. And since he thought he might find somebody dead or hurt in the tenement, hence the reason why he searched the landings and stairs, I think it's probably safe to assume that something on the apron (such as a corner being saturated with blood) caused him to think that.

The Home Secretary evidently wanted it confirmed that the apron was taken to Goulston Street by the murderer, and such evidence as there is suggests that the police made every effort to establish that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron, asking everyone who came into contact with her, from Frederick Wilkinson who saw her that morning to the police who cared for her when she was at Bishopsgate. Everyone said she was wearing an apron (and given that aprons were a commonly worn, some might argue that it would have been noticed if Eddowes hadn't been wearing on), nobody said a piece was missing from it - except DC Halse, who said he saw something when the body was being stripped, that we now know to have been the apron, and that it had a piece missing.Given the importance of a request from the Home Secretary, it's telling that there isn't anywhere a tittle of a suggestion that Eddowes was not wearing an apron up to and when her body was found.

Your observation, "You can't find suspicion based on him not providing an answer to a question he was never asked." And "...theories evolve from evidence, not from speculation." are particularly true.

A good post, Jon. Do Jones and Lloyd give a source, they often do, but I don't have access to my copy at the minute?

As we are discussing doubts perhaps you would be so kind as to explain in your inimitable way, this which appears in The A-Z page 157 which could point to Eddowes being in close proximity to GS prior to her murder.

"And that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”.

You see I do read books after all

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[PaulB]

As we are discussing doubts perhaps you would be so kind as to explain in your inimitable way, this which appears in The A-Z page 157 which could point to Eddowes being in close proximity to GS prior to her murder.

"And that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”.

You see I do read books after all

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm glad to see that you read them (you haven't shown much evidence of it in the past) and read the good stuff too. Since Eddowes wasn't seen in a dark corner, I think you'll find that's a reference to the corner of the passage leading into Mitre Square (Lawende's sighting).

[Wickerman]

But it gets back to what I have been saying. His evidence was never fully tested, had it been we might be that much wiser.

Lets not lambaste the Coroner for sticking to the issues at hand.
Where, when or from whom PC Long heard the rumour of the Berner St. murder is not relevant to him finding the apron & graffiti.
He didn't need to justify taking the rag to his superior, but it is pure logic for him to first check his immediate surroundings to see if this blood stained cloth is connected to a crime. Then, his curiosity satisfied, he takes it to the station.
He did the right thing, the rag may be connected to either of the two local murders. There is no indication Long was reprimanded for his actions, so why cast suspicion on what he did?

I disagree with that size, if anything the original apron from which the twi pieces originated from was nothing ,more than one which would have tied around the waist and dropped down several feet.
.
.
common sense based on aprons of the day

This was a common women's apron of the day. Half of that is quite large.

So if you on your way home happen to come across a piece of discarded material which you choose to pick up and examine in the entrance to a block of flats would you automatically look for a body, or suspect a murder had taken place, or even bother reporting it to the police?

I am not a policeman.
I have not heard of two murders in the close vicinity.
PC Long did his job, you of all people should appreciate that.

There are different descriptions of the piece, blood stained is but one, again which one do we rely on?

The pieces were blood stained, some smears, some spots, and a wet corner.

And untested evidence which has flaws and ambiguities that you seek to rely on does not have to be readily accepted, when there are plausible explanations which may negate those you seek to rely on.

When do we get to hear the 'plausible' explanations?

[harry]

In the late 1930,'a large amount of blood was found on Haw Bridge in Gloucestershire,England.The policed dismissed it as probably animal blood,and as no evidence of a crime existed,no investigation was begun.Some days later a torso of a male person was found in the river Severn.
So it would seem that blood itself was no reason for suspicion of a persons death,even lots of it,and Long found only smears,and no evidence of a victim,or of a crime.So long had no reason to report anything.
Heres a little test.Take a small quantity of blood,a small amount of any substance that resembles excrement,rub it well over your hands,then attempt to wipe it off with a dirty white piece of material for a couple of minutes.See what you come up with.
Long did not,in his testimony,associate his discovery in Wentworth Building with any crime.

[Sam Flynn]

In the late 1930,'a large amount of blood was found on Haw Bridge in Gloucestershire,England.The policed dismissed it as probably animal blood,and as no evidence of a crime existed,no investigation was begun.Some days later a torso of a male person was found in the river Severn.
So it would seem that blood itself was no reason for suspicion of a persons death,even lots of it,and Long found only smears,and no evidence of a victim,or of a crime.

A bridge is an inanimate object, whereas an apron is a personal garment, typically worn by women. The GS apron piece was found on a public street at a time when women were being killed in a bloody manner on the public streets during a major crime wave. The circumstances were entirely different. Furthermore, a piece of apron is portable, whereas a bridge is not. There is no comparison.

Long did not,in his testimony,associate his discovery in Wentworth Building with any crime.

He evidently suspected something sinister was up, otherwise he had no reason to search the stairs.

[harry]

It is clear,portable or not,that it was the blood that was of significance to Long..Would the excrement alone have raised suspicions of a victim of crime?So we can draw a comparison with the blood on the bridge.Even if Long did start with a suspicion,it is clear from his evidence,he finished with the knowledge there was no evidence of a victim.

[PaulB]

A bridge is an inanimate object, whereas an apron is a personal garment, typically worn by women. The GS apron piece was found on a public street at a time when women were being killed in a bloody manner on the public streets during a major crime wave. The circumstances were entirely different. Furthermore, a piece of apron is portable, whereas a bridge is not. There is no comparison. He evidently suspected something sinister was up, otherwise he had no reason to search the stairs.

Sam,
Unless Harry can demonstrate that not investigating when blood was found was considered to be the correct action for policemen to take, and that the police doing nothing when there is blood but no body was accepted practice, I can't see that Harry is even making a relevant point even if there was some point of comparison.I don't know what went through PC Long's mind, but he hadn't been on that beat before, had possibly never even been in the East End before, had been drafted in because of the murders, and was probably aware that a few months earlier Martha Tabram had been found murdered on a tenement staircase. As you so rightly say, in the heightened tensions of the time, it's hardly suprising that he undertook a hurried search of the stairs and landings before taking the apron to the police station in the belief that his superiors would better know what to do.