The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

You cant handle the truth

You don't know what the truth is, anymore than I do.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You cant handle the truth

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

To repair them into one piece??????

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.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would anyone want to carry around 12 pieces of white rag?

To blow your nose? You can blow your nose in half an apron, I guess, but it would be like using an oil-drum as a spitoon.

[Leanne]

Why would anyone want to carry around 12 pieces of white rag?

[Sam Flynn]

When we get anywhere near the real truth, we see signs of mass panic among those wanting to keep propping up the old theory

Nobody's propping anything up, and what "old theory" had you in mind anyway? That the killer cut the apron away from Eddowes and discarded it in Goulston Street? Fits the evidence far better than your idea that she discarded it herself after having used it as a sanitary towel.

[Leanne]

Why would anyone want to carry around two pieces of old white apron?

To repair them into one piece??????

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would anyone want to carry around two pieces of old white apron?

Who knows what strange things people do, but one plausible explanation given the description of how the Gs piece was decsribed is that it could have been used as a sanitary device as I have suggested, and the second as a back up perhaps.

One thing is for sure, is that The GS piece was connected to the victim, and the victim was in lodgings very close to where it was found, and given the fact that her movements between 1am-1.44am are not known, and given the fact that she would have had time after leaving the police station to make her way back towards her lodgings and for those reasons this should not be dismissed outright.

i have gathered enough evidence to show that the organs were not taken away in it, and that there are many reasons why the killer would not have needed to wipe his hands or his knife on it. So there has to be an explanation does there not ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Leanne]

Read this:

https://casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

[Leanne]

THERE WAS NO MENTION THAT CATHERINE EDDOWESS WAS WEARING HALF AN APRON.
Among her possessions was: '1 piece of old white apron with repair'.

As she had lots of sewing gear amongst her possessions:
'12 pieces of white rag some slightly blood-stained,
1 piece of course linen,
1 piece of blue and white skirting,
1 piece of red flannel with pins and needles,
serveral buttons and a thimble,'

could not the two pieces of apron have been among her possessions for her to mend, fallen in two pieces with Jack grabbing one piece to carry away her kidney?
It's a shame the police didn't examine the bloodstained pieces of white rag in her possession to see if those stains could have been made with a wiping of a knife.

[Sam Flynn]

Why would anyone want to carry around two pieces of old white apron?

[rjpalmer]

I believe the message in the lower left corner reads 'Up the Spout' (ie., slang for knocked up, pregnant; evidently an attempt at humor due to the building's many drain pipes)

lower right corner, that is...

I don't know if a plan of this building exists, but the size/shape of this back entry makes me think it was an open passage that gave access to the stairwells (?) Someone should know...

[Trevor Marriott]

Years ago when we first discussed this I was not convinced that last item was the G.S. piece.

It cannot be the Gs piece because when the lists were compiled that hadn't been found, why would they add it on later it makes no sense, doing that would potentially taint the evidence.

The way I looked at it then was that the body had been stripped, and the List of Possessions made, before the G.S. piece was brought to Golden Lane. Therefore, an appended item should differ in writing in some way. As do many added items, the penmanship is not always the same as when the list was made an hour or so previous.
I just do not see that difference, so possibly that last item was the remaining piece of apron from the body. But, if that was the case, why was it not listed in sequence of the removal of clothing?
There can be little doubt, the List of Possessions reads like it was complied as each article of clothing was removed.
So, we have a dilemma.

Then, I realized, reports are re-written for the inquest.

But the official lists I believe are still in the archives

If you notice PC Long refers to his notes when answering the coroners questions, the original notebook was left at Westminster.
So, the list of possessions we have as part of the inquest papers may not be the original list, it was re-written for the inquest. Which leaves me back with the initial question, why is this piece listed last if it did not arrive last?

because it was not on her person but in her possessions, which adds weight to the suggestiin that at some pint in time she had been in possession ot two pieces of old white apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The piece described as 'handkerchief', for want of a better description, was around her neck.
It was the G.S. piece that was large.

"Handkerchief" does not denote a size, it describes a use. It could be any size.

The large white blood stained handkerchief was in her possessions, not around her neck so it wasn't the remnants of an apron it was a handkerchief ! I am sure they knew the difference between an apron piece and a handkerchief. There is nothing to show that when the body was stripped there was any mention of them taking a party torn/cut apron piece from the body and listing it as such when the lists were compiled.

This lists stand alone as prime evidence they were written at the time, it was produced by an Inspector who was present when the list was made, you cant get better evidence than that. You can huff and puff till the cows come home that evidence isnt going to change.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[rjpalmer]

The buildings in the advert appears to me to be part of Wentworth Dwellings on the opposite side of Goulston Street to the building where the apron was found, and having frontage on Wentworth Street.

On further thought, I think you're right. Here's a rather horrible copy of Harrison's photograph. As you can see, the rear entrance was bricked over at a later date (far left) P.S. Some things never change: random graffiti in the East End. I believe the message in the lower left corner reads 'Up the Spout' (ie., slang for knocked up, pregnant; evidently an attempt at humor due to the building's many drain pipes)