The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Leanne]

Wearing at the time of her murder:

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

[Sam Flynn]

she wasn't wearing an apron!

She was, because she's explicitly described as having one tied around her neck. That aside, they might have called it something else, but it makes no difference what they called it; the only relevant fact is that a piece of some garment was found in Goulston Street and positively matched with the remaining part of the same garment at the mortuary. Whether they called it an "apron", a "calico chemise" or a "wing-wong for a mustard mill" it doesn't matter in the slightest, and it's pointless arguing about it.

[Wickerman]

Wearing at the time of her murder:

• Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.
• Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
• Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
• Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
• Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
• Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
• Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
• Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
• White calico chemise
• No drawers or stays
• Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
• 1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
• 1 large white pocket handkerchief
• 1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
• 2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
• 1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
• Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned at the feet with white cotton

Where on earth are you getting these doctored up lists?
There's an original out there Leanne, use it!
You don't seem to have Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate, they don't provide the original handwritten lists, it is typed, but at least it's accurate.

[Wickerman]

Point out the apron she was wearing:

Show me the Chintz skirt, the Grey Stuff Petticoat, the Green Alpaca skirt, the White calico chemise, the mans white vest......need I go on?

Because her clothes had been thrown up and over her body, what was worn on top was now underneath. An apron is worn under the coat but on top of the dress, and as this was only the remaining piece of apron it is understandably hidden in the roughed up clothing.
The piece was only discovered while undressing the body at the mortuary.

[Trevor Marriott]

Because she owned one, and (as you say elsewhere) she had to carry everything she owned with her.

I think six people at the inquest are recorded as saying that she was wearing an apron when they saw her, either on the day of her death or as she lay in Mitre Square. Don't let Trevor's speculation cloud the issue.

I am not speculating I am assessing and evaluating the facts and what the evidence points to.

No one saw her wearing any apron or apron piece whilst the body was in Mitre square so please do not mislead

Just because she was perhaps seen wearing an apron earlier in the day that doesnt mean to say she was wearing an apron when she was murdered

And Leanne would be far better listening to me than you, and others who continue to present misleading facts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Rubbish, a real ex-policeman would know that is not true.

Well I can assure you I am real, and an expert in assessing and evaluating evidence in modern day criminal cases on a daily basis

perhaps you should look, listen, and learn how to do the same because, some of your posts suggest you do not have those capabilities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

She was, because she's explicitly described as having one tied around her neck. That aside, they might have called it something else, but it makes no difference what they called it; the only relevant fact is that a piece of some garment was found in Goulston Street and positively matched with the remaining part of the same garment at the mortuary. Whether they called it an "apron", a "calico chemise" or a "wing-wong for a mustard mill" it doesn't matter in the slightest, and it's pointless arguing about it.

You are also posting misleading facts there was no apron tied around her neck

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Show me the Chintz skirt, the Grey Stuff Petticoat, the Green Alpaca skirt, the White calico chemise, the mans white vest......need I go on?

Because her clothes had been thrown up and over her body, what was worn on top was now underneath. An apron is worn under the coat but on top of the dress, and as this was only the remaining piece of apron it is understandably hidden in the roughed up clothing.
The piece was only discovered while undressing the body at the mortuary.

and as such would have been difficult for the killer to cut or tear a piece. There was many other items of her clothing more easily accessible then any apron hidden under the rest of her clothes.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Show me the Chintz skirt, the Grey Stuff Petticoat, the Green Alpaca skirt, the White calico chemise, the mans white vest......need I go on?

Because her clothes had been thrown up and over her body, what was worn on top was now underneath. An apron is worn under the coat but on top of the dress, and as this was only the remaining piece of apron it is understandably hidden in the roughed up clothing.
The piece was only discovered while undressing the body at the mortuary.

this pic I would suggest is not accurate if you review the description of the clothing and the cuts to the clothing

This pic shows what appears to be the clothing cut and parted to reveal the abdomen. He abdomen was not ripped open to the extent it is shown in the pic

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

You are also posting misleading facts there was no apron tied around her neck

(1) On the contrary, there is a report to that effect. (2) I have no intention to mislead. (3) It doesn't matter anyway, because...

...regardless what we call the garment, regardless of whether it was around her neck or up her arse, the fact remains that a missing piece of garment was found in Goulston Street and was definitively matched with the remainder of the garment at the mortuary. That's the salient point here. Bickering about such things as "It was/wasn't around her neck" or "It was/wasn't an apron" is totally irrelevant.

[Trevor Marriott]

(1) On the contrary, there is a report to that effect. (2) I have no intention to mislead. (3) It doesn't matter anyway, because...

...regardless what we call the garment, regardless of whether it was around her neck or up her arse, the fact remains that a missing piece of garment was found in Goulston Street and was definitively matched with the remainder of the garment at the mortuary. That's the salient point here. Bickering about such things as "It was/wasn't around her neck" or "It was/wasn't an apron" is totally irrelevant.

I totally agree that the two pieces were matched, and thus connected the victim to Goulston Street, but the question is how did it get there, and who discarded it, or as some suggest planted it ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Well I can assure you I am real, and an expert in assessing and evaluating evidence in modern day criminal cases on a daily basis

Which only goes to show, truth is often stranger than fiction.

......perhaps you should look, listen, and learn how to do the same because, some of your posts suggest you do not have those capabilities

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's precisely because I do, and have done for decades, that I am able to call you out on what I think a well trained policeman/detective should know.

I discovered decades ago that local inquests were often recorded in long-hand. Counties typically did not have the means to employ someone trained in shorthand to attend every inquest on a daily basis across the county. Both the Kelly & Eddowes inquest were certainly recorded in long-hand.

Which means what is often taken down in the original inquest papers is merely the most important high lites of witness testimony, whereas the newspapers were able to employ reporters who did have the ability to write short-hand.
This is the reason press coverage is often more detailed than the original.

Not only have I discovered this, but in my research of Joseph Isaacs I spoke at length with the head archivist at the London Met. Archives, who explained the exact same facts to me, unaware I already knew, but I appreciated hearing it come from an experienced archivist.
Press coverage is among thee most reliable inquest record that we have, for all their occasional spelling errors and misprints, they often do provide more detail than the original court record.

Which brings me back to my point, you making the lame excuse that "if its not in the original, then it cannot be relied on" is patently absurd, and any experienced policeman who has attended inquests would know this.
I suspect you do know this, which if true makes your position even worse. You know the true situation yet you have chosen to deliberately mislead the reading public by claiming a false argument with the sole intent of supporting your ill conceived theories.

[Wickerman]

and as such would have been difficult for the killer to cut or tear a piece. There was many other items of her clothing more easily accessible then any apron hidden under the rest of her clothes.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Jesus H Chri......
It was HIM who threw her clothing upside down, when she was originally laid down her clothing was in order, her coat no doubt open, exposing the apron. He lifted it up and sliced off a large piece, then set about pulling up her clothing out of the way.
It only stands to reason to me that he cut a section off before he mutilated her, which might suggest he thought ahead, he wanted something to drop the organs in as he cut them out. Then folded up the rag, with organs inside, and took off...

[DJA]

Where on earth are you getting these doctored up lists?
There's an original out there Leanne, use it!
You don't seem to have Evans & Skinner's The Ultimate, they don't provide the original handwritten lists, it is typed, but at least it's accurate.

Quite sure Leanne found that list here on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

(1) On the contrary, there is a report to that effect. (2) I have no intention to mislead. (3) It doesn't matter anyway, because...

...regardless what we call the garment, regardless of whether it was around her neck or up her arse, the fact remains that a missing piece of garment was found in Goulston Street and was definitively matched with the remainder of the garment at the mortuary. That's the salient point here. Bickering about such things as "It was/wasn't around her neck" or "It was/wasn't an apron" is totally irrelevant.

Yep!, that's the bottom line.