The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Simon Wood]

Hi Harry D,

Thanks for the advice.

It's thinking like yours that for 131 years has prevented a solution to this mystery being found.

Regards,

Simon

[Joshua Rogan]

note there was no mention of cuts or blood stains to the mortuary piece, and if she had been wearing an apron given the cuts to the clothing, there should have been signs of cuts or blood stains on that mortuary piece had she been wearing it as an apron, and there were neither.

The mortuary apron-piece was cut into two, Trevor. It also had bloodstains, as Dr Brown mentions;

Morning Advertiser 5 Oct
"Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are"

[Harry D]

Hi Aperno,

Forget the chalked message. It was nothing but a piece of window dressing designed to lend credence to the "finding" of the apron. I'm not completely certain it was ever there, until such time as someone thought it a good idea. There are seven recorded official variations of the GSG, and they're all subtly different. Surely the cops weren't so completely stupid.

As I said to Jon, the conspiracy was Jack the Ripper.

Our task is to find out what was really going on.

Regards,

Simon

Stop trying to be a special little snowflake with your conspiretard theory.

[Leanne]

If someone is reading from a different list of her clothing and possessions PLEASE LINK IT TO ME!
I can't find a detailed account of her inquest in any other newspaper, because the press were warned not to report about the graffito for fear of riots!!!!!!!!

[Leanne]

If she was wearing an apron when she was mutilated, WHY DID HER MUTILATOR LEAVE IT ON?

[Leanne]

Did she just lift up her skirts, stick her hand down her crutch, grab the sanitary apron and throw it in a doorway in Goulston street? When did she replace it with a clean apron? It's use as her sanitary napkin is a stupid theory!!!!!!

[Leanne]

If the apron piece was her santitary napkin, why did just throw it in someone elses doorway?

[Leanne]

In regards to Kate using the piece of apron as a sanitary napkin and then dropping it next to the graffito, do we have any clue if Kate would/could have passed by Goulston street once released from the drunk tank? I.e. Is there a reasonable guess as to the route Kate traveled to Mitre Square?

IF SHE WAS USING A PIECE OF APRON AS A SANITARY NAPKIN, WHY DIDN'T SHE JUST USE THE WHOLE APRON, FOLDED?
Why did she put it back in her pocket after she used it, and replace it with one of the 12 pieces of rag?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Aperno,

Forget the chalked message. It was nothing but a piece of window dressing designed to lend credence to the "finding" of the apron. I'm not completely certain it was ever there, until such time as someone thought it a good idea. There are seven recorded official variations of the GSG, and they're all subtly different. Surely the cops weren't so completely stupid.

As I said to Jon, the conspiracy was Jack the Ripper.

Our task is to find out what was really going on.

Regards,

Simon

[Leanne]

Why not repair it and wear it? Wait - her apron was repaired and she was wearing it (because it was tied around her neck), so that's that mystery solved.

PS: Don't feed the Trevor.

WHERE ARE YOU GETTING ALL OF THIS INFORMATION FROM?

What she was wearing:

1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief

[APerno]

Halse did the planting, Long made the discovery.

The police were interested in something or someone that was far more important than a Jewish Jack the Ripper.

However, Sir Robert Anderson would have us believe differently.

If you make it a City of London conspiracy, (who were seeking an end run around Warren's interference, looking to create legal ground for an exigency search of the area) you don't have to corrupt PC Long, he could well have been played as a dupe; it explains the non 2:20 sighting. But you have to make a connection between the two City of London boys, Halse and Watkins. The piece of apron has to leave the crime scene, and that has to happen early on. That makes for one hell of a made-up-on-the-spot conspiracy.

But then again I always believed that Fuhrman's plan was to grab one of the bloody gloves and take it to Brentwood for just that purpose, an exigency search of the home before OJ could get rid of the evidence; he thought that up on the spot.

It gives Halse plenty of time to write the message.

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm talking about the item listed after "1 piece of red gauze silk".
It is a "1 large White Handkerchief", blood stained.

If it was among her possessions why would it be blood stained?

Well bearing mind she had her abdomen ripped open, and the fact, that all her clothes were bloodstained from where she was stabbed through her outer clothing you would expect some transference of blood to items she had on her person

Next are listed two "pockets", then her possessions begin with "1 white cotton pocket handkerchief, red and white birds eye border".

I'm not. Due to the diagonal cut the piece remaining is pretty nonedescript in both size & shape, what else could he call it, a piece of scrap cloth? - that's a handkerchief.

You do not know the size of either the mortuary piece or the GS piece. He called it what it was "One piece of old white apron"

If it was written at the time, why isn't it written on several small pocketbook pages?
The standard issue for police taking notes in the field is their pocketbook, yet these notes have been transcribed on something close to Letter size. And, the whole list is very neat, but many items are underlined. If this was an original list of evidence no-one would be marking it up with lines here and there.

So I'm saying it is a transcribed copy made back at the station, taken from an original list of possessions in Collards? pocketbook.

Even if it was whats is your point? the first list was taken down correctly, so why should any copy be different. There would be no reason to add on anything after the event,and then present it to a court as being factually correct when it clearly would not have been

Or, handn't you really thought about why the list is so neat if it was done on the fly at Golden Lane mortuary?

Why shouldnt the original list have been taken down neatly did you expect it to be bloodstained? I would have expected Collard to be scribing whilst the mortuary attendant removed each item of clothing, and care was taken as the list shows, because all the items of clothing were examined for cuts and blood stains, note there was no mention of cuts or blood stains to the mortuary piece, and if she had been wearing an apron given the cuts to the clothing, there should have been signs of cuts or blood stains on that mortuary piece had she been wearing it as an apron, and there were neither.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Jack the Ripper was the conspiracy.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

The quote I have seen from the inquest testimony, and checked the record on this site too, is:

[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall?

[Long} The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

This makes more sense to me, as otherwise why would the rag have drawn Long's attention. Are you suggesting this is not the right description?

There are several descriptions, it goes from being stained with blood, to being spotted with blood, to being smeared with blood

Pc Longs quote you refer to does not appear in his inquest evidence in chief, which was signed by him at court after he gave his evidence, any other quotes purportedly made thereafter may or may not be accurate. Dr Brown does not corroborate the fact that a corner was wet with blood.

Does it matter though spots, stains, smears?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

When you say "the police" do you mean the City police, Met police, or both?

I would assume Simon is talking about a conspiracy at the Home Office.
Both the City police (Halse) and the Met. (Long) answered to the Home Office.