Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

A big consideration about the GS graffito is that it was written in a "round hand", which would be cursive writing. Considering that, the multiple ways that the "Juwes" was transcribed is unsurprising.

Yes, though that would not explain the different placements of the word "not". Again, for reasons like the above, without us having a photograph of the graffiti to examine, there is no way for us to know which of the versions recorded (if any) are the correct ones.

Of course, even if we had a photograph, none of this gets us closer to resolving who the author of it was. At least we would be able to see what they said, though.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

Yes, though that would not explain the different placements of the word "not". Again, for reasons like the above, without us having a photograph of the graffiti to examine, there is no way for us to know which of the versions recorded (if any) are the correct ones.

Of course, even if we had a photograph, none of this gets us closer to resolving who the author of it was. At least we would be able to see what they said, though.

- Jeff

Considering the nature of cursive writing, we might still be debating the spelling if the police had taken a photograph of the GSG. I am doubtful that the Ripper wrote the GSG.

[harry]

Fiver,
Of course there would be no indication of a second apron.The killer took it with him.

[JeffHamm]

Considering the nature of cursive writing, we might still be debating the spelling if the police had taken a photograph of the GSG. I am doubtful that the Ripper wrote the GSG.

Hi Fiver,

That is quite possible, but sadly, something we can never know. I would think we could work out where the word not was though.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Where does it state this?

Where does it state they went inside?

What do you think they were doing till 5,20am they were waiting the arrival of |Dr Phillips "outside" and as stated he had not arrived by then. Where else is it recorded that the press were allowed in any of the other mortuaries, why would they be allowed to enter and for what purpose? there is no answer to that because they would not have been permitted. There is no need for anything to be produced in writing to that effect that would have been protocol, just the same as none of the press or the public were allowed to enter the Mitre Square crime scene. The mortuary was not a circus and if they had have been allowed do you not think that there would have been some reports as to what they saw inside.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm suggesting they cut the string, it's what is done today in similar cases. I don't know if they were so careful in 1888, but as you say "the clothes were taken off carefully", which is quite consistent in Davis not wanting to disturb the body for the reason's I already gave. Cutting the clothes off, all the clothes, is treating the body, which is evidence, with care.

And no, Collard would not be required to make a note of the cuts to the jacket, skirts, petticoat, etc. to aid in their removal. Cuts in the clothes made by the doctor or his assistant, are not 'evidence', much the same as the cuts to the body during autopsy are not part of the evidence.

You really dont know what you are talking about !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Where does it state they went inside?

What do you think they were doing till 5,20am they were waiting the arrival of |Dr Phillips "outside" and as stated he had not arrived by then. Where else is it recorded that the press were allowed in any of the other mortuaries, why would they be allowed to enter and for what purpose? there is no answer to that because they would not have been permitted.

See Wickerman's post on the previous page, post number 685, where he gives us this:

--------------------------------------
"As the body lies in the mortuary the head seems to be almost severed, the gash being about three inches long and nearly the same depth."
Daily News, 1 Oct. 1888.

Which reads as if the reporter saw the body himself.
--------------------------------------
And yes, that sentence makes no sense except in the case of the reporter having been let in to see the body.

So your conjecture above is factually incorrect.

There is no need for anything to be produced in writing to that effect that would have been protocol, just the same as none of the press or the public were allowed to enter the Mitre Square crime scene. The mortuary was not a circus and if they had have been allowed do you not think that there would have been some reports as to what they saw inside.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And yet you claim anybody even remotely connected to the medical profession could just rock on up and take bits if they wanted. Sooner or later it will dawn on you just how irreparably damaged your whole case is as a result of all the conflicting statements you are making, resulting in your entire approach and the case you are presenting being unsafe.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

...This could be used to suggest he did not have the attention to detail that one would require to put faith in his statement the apron was not there at 2:20. However, without the photograph of the graffiti to compare to, we cannot examine for ourselves the graffiti to be completely sure that it was PC Long who got it wrong. The counter argument would be that he was the one to record it properly. I think on the balance of probabilities that seems unlikely, but as we cannot verify the graffiti and we have multiple versions, it boils down to a question of whom we think the more reliable transcriber was.

- Jeff

The alternate view, in my opinion is, that PC Long's version was seen and read (so confirmed?) by the inspector who questioned the spelling, whereas the version recorded by Halse was confirmed by no-one.
Therefore, in my book, PC Long comes out ahead.

[JeffHamm]

The alternate view, in my opinion is, that PC Long's version was seen and read (so confirmed?) by the inspector who questioned the spelling, whereas the version recorded by Halse was confirmed by no-one.
Therefore, in my book, PC Long comes out ahead.

Hi Wickerman,

Ah, it appears I've forgotten all of the details of who confirmed what and of whose version. So in light of what you've outlined above, if PC Long's was confirmed in terms of word order, and only the spelling was questioned, then yes, I would put the odds on PC Long's word order as well.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

What do you think they were doing till 5,20am they were waiting the arrival of |Dr Phillips "outside" and as stated he had not arrived by then.

I think at this point it may be necessary to consider that Dr Phillips may have visited Golden Lane Mortuary more than once. This is important because it is stated by Dr Brown that Dr Phillips is the one who brought the GS piece to Golden Lane.

- We have a handful of reports which suggest Dr Brown immediately, on discovery of the body, sent for Dr Phillips.
- There are also reports that "shortly after" the body arrived (approx. 3:00am), a preliminary examination was conducted by Dr's Brown, Phillips & Seqeuira.
- Couple that with the comment that Dr Phillips was expected at Golden Lane sometime after 5:20 am.
- And finally, the autopsy that was conducted by Dr's Brown & Philips took place at Golden Lane in the early afternoon.

At the very least there is the reasonable possibility that Dr Phillips visited Golden Lane more than once on that Sunday, perhaps two or three times, even though we know he was also occupied with the Stride murder.
If Dr Phillips did arrive "shortly after" 3:00am, how could that be described elsewhere as "after 5:20am", and then how come he was there over 7 hours later for the autopsy in the afternoon?

So, if Phillips did visit G. L. Mortuary more than once, though more analysis is required of these press accounts, we may reasonably ask, on which visit (therefore at what time?) - did Dr Phillips bring the GS piece to Golden Lane?
I don't think it is at all clear at the moment.

[Trevor Marriott]

See Wickerman's post on the previous page, post number 685, where he gives us this:

--------------------------------------
"As the body lies in the mortuary the head seems to be almost severed, the gash being about three inches long and nearly the same depth."
Daily News, 1 Oct. 1888.

Which reads as if the reporter saw the body himself.
--------------------------------------
And yes, that sentence makes no sense except in the case of the reporter having been let in to see the body.

So your conjecture above is factually incorrect.



And yet you claim anybody even remotely connected to the medical profession could just rock on up and take bits if they wanted. Sooner or later it will dawn on you just how irreparably damaged your whole case is as a result of all the conflicting statements you are making, resulting in your entire approach and the case you are presenting being unsafe.

- Jeff

Medical personnel would have been able to freely enter the mortuaries in the course of their normal daily work. The public and the press were not.

We have already discussed at lengths the illegal trade in body parts and the time the bodies were left in situ before the doctors came back to do the post mortems.

It is not I that keep changing the explanations to suit. I have maintained the same stance throughout, it is you and the others who keep changing the goalposts and coming out with a plethora of explanations on the various aspects of this thread

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

I've been in a mortuary at night time.
Friend was showing me around.
Not the big deal Trev makes it out to be.
Damn sure the press have fairly easy access.

[JeffHamm]

Medical personnel would have been able to freely enter the mortuaries in the course of their normal daily work. The public and the press were not.

Pure conjecture.

We have already discussed at lengths the illegal trade in body parts and the time the bodies were left in situ before the doctors came back to do the post mortems.

And you have failed to show one iota of proof of organ theft in this specific case. It is just speculation on your part.

It is not I that keep changing the explanations to suit.

True, and despite the fact your explanations do not suit, you do not change them. Rather, you change your criterion for what you call unsafe to suit.

I have maintained the same stance throughout, it is you and the others who keep changing the goalposts and coming out with a plethora of explanations on the various aspects of this thread

The only sense in which I've changed the goal posts is that, I have lately adopted your goal posts, the ones you insist others play by, and am requiring you to hold to your own standards. If your case cannot meet your own standards, then your case is considered flawed - by you because they are your standards.

You define unsafe any evidence which is not 100% accurate.
You insist any evidence that is unsafe should not be relied upon.
You admit the court transcripts are not word for word correct, therefore they are not 100% accurate.

You base your arguments on single words, such as "apparently", and your interpretations of very specific phrasings found only in the court transcripts, and so forth, making your case rely solely on a document you admit is not 100% accurate in every word, making it unsafe to rely upon. say is unsafe and should not be relied upon.

If that's not clear enough for you, it shows that by your arguments your own case is unsafe. You do not seem to get it that you are not arguing with me, despite my pointing this out to you a few times now. It's not that hard to get that you are arguing against yourself. Those are your criterions, and definitions, and yet everything you're doing fails to live up to them. Congratulations, you've defeated your own case.

But you can't change your definitions because if you do, you have to bring in the newspaper versions of the transcripts and find the common meaning and you know that results in the inquest testimony clearly refuting your case. That horn of the dilemma gets you.

But if you don't change them, then your own definitions makes your case falls down. The other horn of the dilemma gets you.

That is what it means to be skewered on the horns of the dilemma. Make one choice, and you fail. Make the other, and you fail. Your case has nowhere to turn, or to hide, because one way or the other your case is defeated.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

When you end up in such a situation, it is proof that you theory is wrong; it's not evidence, or suggestive, it's proof the theory is dead in the water.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Pure conjecture.



And you have failed to show one iota of proof of organ theft in this specific case. It is just speculation on your part.



True, and despite the fact your explanations do not suit, you do not change them. Rather, you change your criterion for what you call unsafe to suit.



The only sense in which I've changed the goal posts is that, I have lately adopted your goal posts, the ones you insist others play by, and am requiring you to hold to your own standards. If your case cannot meet your own standards, then your case is considered flawed - by you because they are your standards.

You define unsafe any evidence which is not 100% accurate.
You insist any evidence that is unsafe should not be relied upon.
You admit the court transcripts are not word for word correct, therefore they are not 100% accurate.

You base your arguments on single words, such as "apparently", and your interpretations of very specific phrasings found only in the court transcripts, and so forth, making your case rely solely on a document you admit is not 100% accurate in every word, making it unsafe to rely upon. say is unsafe and should not be relied upon.

If that's not clear enough for you, it shows that by your arguments your own case is unsafe. You do not seem to get it that you are not arguing with me, despite my pointing this out to you a few times now. It's not that hard to get that you are arguing against yourself. Those are your criterions, and definitions, and yet everything you're doing fails to live up to them. Congratulations, you've defeated your own case.

But you can't change your definitions because if you do, you have to bring in the newspaper versions of the transcripts and find the common meaning and you know that results in the inquest testimony clearly refuting your case. That horn of the dilemma gets you.

But if you don't change them, then your own definitions makes your case falls down. The other horn of the dilemma gets you.

That is what it means to be skewered on the horns of the dilemma. Make one choice, and you fail. Make the other, and you fail. Your case has nowhere to turn, or to hide, because one way or the other your case is defeated.



When you end up in such a situation, it is proof that you theory is wrong; it's not evidence, or suggestive, it's proof the theory is dead in the water.

- Jeff

its not just the theory is it,its about disputing the facts and the evidence and the testimony all have been proven to be unsafe and shows that the old accepted theory is not 100% to be believed and now I am finally going to withdraw from this thread.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Pure conjecture.



And you have failed to show one iota of proof of organ theft in this specific case. It is just speculation on your part.



True, and despite the fact your explanations do not suit, you do not change them. Rather, you change your criterion for what you call unsafe to suit.



The only sense in which I've changed the goal posts is that, I have lately adopted your goal posts, the ones you insist others play by, and am requiring you to hold to your own standards. If your case cannot meet your own standards, then your case is considered flawed - by you because they are your standards.

You define unsafe any evidence which is not 100% accurate.
You insist any evidence that is unsafe should not be relied upon.
You admit the court transcripts are not word for word correct, therefore they are not 100% accurate.

You base your arguments on single words, such as "apparently", and your interpretations of very specific phrasings found only in the court transcripts, and so forth, making your case rely solely on a document you admit is not 100% accurate in every word, making it unsafe to rely upon. say is unsafe and should not be relied upon.

If that's not clear enough for you, it shows that by your arguments your own case is unsafe. You do not seem to get it that you are not arguing with me, despite my pointing this out to you a few times now. It's not that hard to get that you are arguing against yourself. Those are your criterions, and definitions, and yet everything you're doing fails to live up to them. Congratulations, you've defeated your own case.

But you can't change your definitions because if you do, you have to bring in the newspaper versions of the transcripts and find the common meaning and you know that results in the inquest testimony clearly refuting your case. That horn of the dilemma gets you.

But if you don't change them, then your own definitions makes your case falls down. The other horn of the dilemma gets you.

That is what it means to be skewered on the horns of the dilemma. Make one choice, and you fail. Make the other, and you fail. Your case has nowhere to turn, or to hide, because one way or the other your case is defeated.



When you end up in such a situation, it is proof that you theory is wrong; it's not evidence, or suggestive, it's proof the theory is dead in the water.

- Jeff

Absolutely.

As I’ve said on other threads Trevor sets rules and guidelines for other posters which don’t appear to apply to himself. He does the same when deciding which bits of evidence are safe or unsafe.