The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Joshua Rogan]

I agree with how Sam replied to you except to add. As the remaining piece of apron would look nothing like an apron to the eyes of some (hence the official identification as "handkerchief"), to the Times reporter he presumably did see what it had been at some point, possibly taking notice of the hemming, string & type of material.

Hmmm, not sure about that. Halse said he saw her stripped and noted a piece of her apron was missing. So it must have been apparent it was an apron to him, and I'd be surprised if he didn't mention it to anyone else at the time, if they didn't mention it first.

[Joshua Rogan]

Do you think it was Jack wearing a police uniform?
Please provide me another newspaper account of the inquest, which I think occurred over a few days. PLEASE!
Do you think the Telegaph lied?

Daily News
When I left I left in charge of the stair Constable 190 of the H Division of the metropolitan police.

Morning Advertiser
When I left to go to the police station I left another man, a member of the metropolitan police force, on the beat, and I told him to keep observation on the building to see if anyone left or entered.

Times
When he started for the police-station he left Police-constable 190 H in charge of the building. He did not know the constable's name; he was a member of the Metropolitan Police. Witness told him to keep observation on the dwelling, to see whether any one left or entered it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Spoken aloud, "with a string attached" sounds almost identical to "with THE string (meaning strings) attached". Besides, it's also explicitly stated that "a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck"

Not that it's impossible for there to have been only one string on either piece.

what it sounds like, and what is recorded, and signed as being correct are totally different. You cannot dismiss the signed testimony just because it doesn't fit another explanation. Thats not how it works, and that is precisely why we see researchers trying to change the goalposts by changing the description.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hmmm, not sure about that. Halse said he saw her stripped and noted a piece of her apron was missing. So it must have been apparent it was an apron to him, and I'd be surprised if he didn't mention it to anyone else at the time, if they didn't mention it first.

Buy why would they mention it, at the time the GS piece had not been found, and the two pieces had not been connected

Insp Collard presented in evidence at the inquest the list of her clothing as it was taken off the body in the order I have stated it was. It was described as one piece of old white apron, not one old white apron with piece missing.

Halse made that statement at a date and time after the event and before the inquest when it was known the two pieces were connected, when they were trying to work it all out and they then believed the killer took it away.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[curious4]

Yes he did

[Kattrup]

Theoretically his knife is covered in blood. And so, a proposed theory, Jack cuts away a piece of her apron for some unknown reason. However and normally, when you cut through fabric with a bloody knife, blood would be transferred to both halves of the fabric along the edge of the cut. From what I remember (could be wrong), the police matched the two halves up by the thread and orientation of the apron halves (and possibly a patch?); but, no mention of them stating that the apron that remained on her body was bloody and that they matched the two halves up by blood staining. It's almost as if there's a possibility that Jack the Ripper cut through the apron with a clean knife; might he have cut away the apron prior to eviscerating Kate?
.

She was the first victim wearing an apron, I believe. My suggestion was that the apron is outermost, separate from the dress. He cuts it first, lifting it with the part tied to the body acting as counterweight. When bundled up, cloth is difficult to cut. Stretched out, he gets a clean easy cut separating the two pieces, exactly as it’s described afterwards.
He then starts on the abdomen.
Afterwards, he picks up the cutaway piece, for an unknown purpose but probably to clean up, since it was described as having the look of a knife being wiped on it. He later discards it.

On a side note, the police not mentioning blood along the cut is not indicative of there not being any.
The police matched the two pieces in part by a patch that was cut through but matched up exactly.

[Trevor Marriott]

She was the first victim wearing an apron, I believe. My suggestion was that the apron is outermost, separate from the dress. He cuts it first, lifting it with the part tied to the body acting as counterweight. When bundled up, cloth is difficult to cut. Stretched out, he gets a clean easy cut separating the two pieces, exactly as it’s described afterwards.
He then starts on the abdomen.
Afterwards, he picks up the cutaway piece, for an unknown purpose but probably to clean up, since it was described as having the look of a knife being wiped on it. He later discards it.

On a side note, the police not mentioning blood along the cut is not indicative of there not being any.
The police matched the two pieces in part by a patch that was cut through but matched up exactly.

Yous post is exactly what i have described in post #3288 do you play football by any chance?

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

If it was handkerchief size it could not have been as large as half an apron !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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.

[Wickerman]

The apron was not around her neck you are again misleading people.

That came from the Times reporter, who presumably was there.

The body was stripped at the mortuary, and the list made of all her clothing. Procedure dictated that the clothing was taken off and listed as it came off the body starting at the top and working down. Had she been wearing the remains of an apron and by your suggestion is was a bib apron, it would have been one of the first items to come off and be listed. The official list does not show that, but at the end lists "one piece of old white apron" This is from the official list made at the time.

It should be listed first? - really?
Then how is it that the red silk neckerchief was listed before this 'handkerchief', and that was around her neck!
It seems your understanding is a little confused.
The hat, then outer clothing all came first, only when the torso was stripped did they turn to whatever was around the neck. Check the official list, thats how they proceeded.

At the time the body was stripped the GS piece had not been found so if the killer had cut a piece from an apron she was wearing and what was left on the body was the remaining part of the apron, why was it not listed at that time as "One old white apron with piece missing" ?

Because, presumably, they thought the way I do, not the way you do.

I still maintain that she was not wearing an apron at the time of her death and that she had been in possession of two old pieces of white apron, which as some point in time had made up a full apron.

And still an opinion of 'one' it seems.

The apron piece was described as a corner piece with a string attached,( Dr Browns signed inquest testimony) Even you know that you cant tie an apron with only one string.

You of all people should know that they do not untie a knot to remove clothing, for fear of disturbing evidence. They cut the string at one
point. Which leaves that string attached at only one point. I even drew the thing to make it a little easier to understand.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/letters-and-communications/goulston-street-graffito/2429-the-gsg-did-jack-write-it-poll?p=715252#post715252

[Wickerman]

Hmmm, not sure about that. Halse said he saw her stripped and noted a piece of her apron was missing. So it must have been apparent it was an apron to him, and I'd be surprised if he didn't mention it to anyone else at the time, if they didn't mention it first.

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

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.
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?

I'm not concerned that Halse differs in opinion from Collard (assuming he made the list), Halse may have agreed with the Times reporter, but not with Collard.

[rjpalmer]

I found this advertisement for a unit within the Wentworth Dwellings on Goulston Street showing the carpark at the back:

https://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-61719204.html

Can someone tell me where the alleyway in question would have been?

That's not the same building Paul Harrison photographed. He's claiming it was the slightly taller building to the right.

[Joshua Rogan]

That's not the same building Paul Harrison photographed. He's claiming it was the slightly taller building to the right.

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.

[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)

[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

[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