The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Leanne]

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.

WHERE?

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

IF HER UNDERGARMENT WAS DESCRIBED AS A CHEMIE IN HER CLOTHING, WHY WAS AN APRON WITH A REPAIR DESCRIBED IN HER POSSESSIONS?

[Leanne]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

[DJA]

and why would he bother to cut or tear a piece at that early stage. If organ taking was the motive then he would have gone prepared with something to take them away with. A ridiculous suggestion you make to prop up the old accepted theory.

How many times are you going to be told that the description of the apron piece is not consistent with carrying away a kidney and a uterus taken from a freshly killed victim.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sounds like you prefer Jack to carry a Gladstone bag and prolly wear a top hat

[Simon Wood]

Hi Joshua,

I don't trust that account.

It makes it sound like Eddowes was the only woman in London wearing an apron.

Regards,

Simon

[DJA]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

It is online. Just Google the section you seek followed by Evans and Skinners The Ultimate (Jack the Ripper Source Book).

Definitely one of the best reference books.

[Wickerman]

WHERE CAN I FIND THIS ORIGINAL???????? Link me to it!

You have to buy it.

[DJA]

and his memory suddenly reappeared days after the event when he gave his inquest testimony. What would have made him take note of Eddowes wearing an apron when she left the police station and how could he remember if she was or wasn't days later.

The fact is that the police were naive enough to readily accept without question that the killer cut a piece of her apron and so they all went along with the corroboration except Sgt Byfield who was the station Sgt responsible for processing her after her arrest, and questioning her and then later releasing her. He makes no mention of seeing her wearing a statement, and I would have thought if anyone was relaible he would have been. So its not as conclusive as you make out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It was Constable Lewis Robinson who identified the apron at the inquest. He was the policeman who arrested her.

Byfeld was busy getting a name and address from her so he could release her.

Hutt was the last policeman to see her at the station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5hWWe-ts2s

[Wickerman]

There was no blood on the mortuary piece

Really?
Dr. Brown would argue against that, in fact he did:

Dr. Brown - My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin

In the press we also read:

My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.
Daily News.

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.
Morning Advertiser.

So it would seem the three-corner remnant taken from her body at the mortuary had blood stains.

....well if he only planned for one he would have still gone prepared and after the first failed he would still have what bet set out with to carry organs away

He didn't seem to go prepared with Chapman - her scarf was missing.
These murders could easily have been spontaneous, we have no idea either way.

how many times have I posted photos to prove that point?

Your photos, of your reproduction, of your interpretation, of the witness testimony do not constitute proof of anything that happened 130 years ago.

[DJA]

You have to buy it.

AUS $13 Kindle or $26 paperback on Amazon.

$29 on eBay.

Some reviewer named Tom Wescott gave it 5 stars.

The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z is $5.18 for Kindle.

[Wickerman]

WHERE?

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

IF HER UNDERGARMENT WAS DESCRIBED AS A CHEMIE IN HER CLOTHING, WHY WAS AN APRON WITH A REPAIR DESCRIBED IN HER POSSESSIONS?

It wasn't!

First off, all those victims wore a chemise, likely every woman did of their type.
The piece of apron is not listed on the hand written original as "with repair", this detail has been added by whomever created that link.

[Wickerman]

AUS $13 Kindle or $26 paperback on Amazon.

$29 on eBay.

Some reviewer named Tom Wescott gave it 5 stars.

The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z is $5.18 for Kindle.

Actually, I was talking about the original inquest papers, hand written. Available from the London Metropolitan Archives.

[APerno]

What's this then . . .

East London Advertiser, October 13th 1888

''City Police-constable Lewis Robinson deposed that on the Saturday night before the murder at about 8:30 he saw a crowd at Aldgate. He went up and saw a woman lying on the curb drunk. He had since identified her as the deceased. He could not do anything without the assistance of another policeman, which he obtained, and the woman was then conveyed to the station. When asked her name she replied, "Nothing." Last time he saw her was at 9 o'clock in the cell. She was wearing a white apron at that time, which he identified with one produced as the one she was wearing."

How do they mean "Nothing" --- how should I read this? That her reply was mute, or that her reply was a spoken "Nothing"? -- The quotes and the capital N leave me befuddled.

I think this is a weird coincidence: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Anyway this seems to confirm Kate was wearing a white apron as late as 9:00 PM that night. No reason she shouldn't still be wearing it at 1:55 AM. I think if you want it not to be there at 1:55 AM you have to find cause for it coming off; it is likely she left the drunk tank with it on.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." /// "The Juwes are not the men who will be blamed for nothing." /// "The Juws are not the men to be blamed for nothing."

[DJA]

Actually, I was talking about the original inquest papers, hand written. Available from the London Metropolitan Archives.

Didn't realise Eddowes inquest had survived.

Any of the other CV5?

[Wickerman]

Eddowes & Kelly, the only two of the five.

(but you quoted part of it from Evans & Skinner, where do you think they got it from?)

[Wickerman]

...

How do they mean "Nothing" --- how should I read this? That her reply was mute, or that her reply was a spoken "Nothing"? -- The quotes and the capital N leave me befuddled.

I think this is a weird coincidence: "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing."

Yes, that's an old chestnut you missed the fact the City police station is located at The Old Jewry (Juwes=Jewry)

Don't trouble yourself, it's well trodden ground.