The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Elamarna]

Hi Harry
You are totally correct about how the newspapers got their information, and much of it has proved to be false or misleading, and many reports as have been shown, are in direct conflict with each other.

But what bugs me is that where we can clearly see a direct conflict reported, some posters will want to use the one which suits their purpose i.e. " It was the corner of the apron with the string attached" Dr Browns official inquest testimony read over and signed by him"

Then we have the newspaper report which I will paraphrase because I dont have it to hand where Dr Brown is quoted as saying he matched the GS piece to the mortuary piece which was still attached to the body by the strings.

Now we know the latter one cannot be correct, but how many times have we seen it used to corroborate the fact that she was wearing an apron, which was still attached to her body, before the body was stripped at the mortuary?

Then we see posters saying things like, "well this is what he really meant", or simply saying "the reporter took it down wrong".

Now a word or phrase misconstrued, or taken down wrongly, or deliberately altered can drastically alter a report, as can adding things which were not said.

Now that doesnt mean to say all newspaper reports should be disregarded, they should be treated with caution, because in some cases even though they may report the same incident, they report it differently, if they report the main body of the incident the same, then that is corroboration to what actually took place.

As an example, a number of different newspapers following the post mortem of Kelly reported the fact that no organs were taken away by the killer. Do we ignore all of them and say they made it up, or got it wrong? By reason of the fact that all the reports were not worded the same suggests that each paper may have obtained its own information.

So it is not correct to assume that every newspaper report is what is referred to by some as a primary source as you and I have both pointed out.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again I see portraying personal opinion as fact. Will some never learn.

Steve

[Elamarna]

Like several others on here, you have no answers to the truth, and when the truth isn't what you want to hear, you resort to making comments like the above.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The truth is Trevor. That Hurt and Robinson and COLLARD all said she was wearing an apron. You wish to misrepresent the sources to fit an idea.
Face up to the truth yourself, stop ignoring sources because they do not support the story you want.

Steve

[Elamarna]

To someone who has only recently returned to this website, this is how it appears to me in relation to the question of whether Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered and Mr Marriott's alternative theory.

There is a great wealth of evidence which clearly states Catherine was wearing an apron. This is across members of the public as well as policemen as well as doctors. They all independently state this to be the case and we know this from a multitude of reports of the evidence provided at the inquest. Some reports paraphrased and some verbatim records.

Mr Marriott has found amongst that wealth of evidence, some incomplete and/or ambiguously worded statements. This he considers, allows for a complete reinterpretation of events, although there is no evidence to corroborate that his theory is the right way to reinterpret the evidence.

The decision to be made is whether in the context of overwhelming evidence that Catherine was wearing an apron, the discrepancies that Mr Marriott points to are sufficiently compelling to disregard all other evidence to the contrary. For the vast majority posting in this thread, a few perceived discrepancies are insufficient to set aside the bulk of the evidence. But even if we did, imaginative and novel as it is, there is no evidence to support Mr Marriott's re-imagining of events.

Of course, Mr Marriott might point to Copernicus, who alone believed the earth orbited the sun and was subsequently proved right. However, Copernicus did provide positive evidence for his theory. That is what we ask of Mr Marriott if we are to be convinced of his theory. To date, as far as I can tell, there is no supportive evidence provided.

Very well put.

A very good post.

Steve

[Sam Flynn]

Instead of slagging me off, your time might be better spent in making sure that what you do post is correct, and not something you think happened.

I always strive to be correct in what I post, yet you accuse me of inaccuracy and biased thinking. Oh the irony!

[Wickerman]

Jon,
No wonder Trevor accuses you of making things up.Read the beginnining of your last post to me.Have I stated I will only accept paper reports if a reporter was proved to be present.

You object to my question?

You previously wrote:
"In fact,only if one could prove a certain reporter from a particular paper was present,could one speak from a position of certainty when quoting papers."

Given the doubts expressed by you, my question in response seems quite reasonable.
Please explain to me what is "made up" about me asking you that question.

Lets suppose Long did know about the Eddowes murder,and also the Stride killing.Would he then say ,as he was reported as saying. he was looking for a victim and not a perpetrator.Shouldn't it be the other way round.Or are we to believe Long suspected a third murder,which as a poster has already pointed out,seems ridiculous.

Would you care to remind me where he said he was looking for a victim?
He does say he found no footmarks, blood, or any person on the staircases.

[Wickerman]

Sam,
The last post of Wickerman,which was quite lenghtly but contained nothing new, didn't answer the question of where or from who,the information came .It may have come from a reporter or it might just have been assumed it came from a reporter,and although I gave my source I didn't claim,like he does of his, that my source should be considered the best.

On the subject of "making things up", can you show me where I wrote that my sources "should be considered the best".

[Wickerman]

It demonstrated, very well, that we have a number of different sources who give different levels of detail. Not all of these will be consistent or complete, but by taking a baseline across multiple sources we can arrive at a sensible reconstruction of what was probably said. This is how historical research works, as I've already pointed out.....

There is no single source that can be considered definitive, and we simply must take a broader view of the many sources at our disposal in order to reconstruct the most likely picture of what actually transpired.

Excellent Gareth, yes!

I find it so perplexing why anyone finds this difficult to understand.
I know this is not an academic forum, but this is how serious research is conducted.
We must always consult all the available sources. Every source is compiled by a person, so every source is susceptible to errors. Every source is subject to editing. Almost all sources are selective in what they report often due to available space, or preference of interest. This is why it is so important to collate what is available.
No single source is beyond reproach, but taken together we are far more likely to arrive at a rational interpretation.

[Wickerman]

The body had already been stripped, so Brown could not have matched the two pieces whilst the body was still clothed. So a clear exmaple of misreporting by the newspaper.

This looks to me to be a case of misrepresenting the press accounts.

You have already had it explained to you that Brown was not saying the piece of apron was on the body when the GS piece was matched.
It was matched to the piece found on the body.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.
Daily News.

How can you possibly hope to solve a mystery when you persistently misrepresent what was said?

Then to top it all in his evidence he uses the term "an apron she was apparently wearing" when shown the mortuary piece. This whole evidence is unsafe

Just like you said her intestines were "apparently" removed from her abdomen.

[harry]

It is quite plaim,Jon and Sam,that in spite of what you write,that you believe your sources,the papers,to be the more correct than the source I quoted.
My opinion,from what I read,is that Long did answer,in reply to a question from a juror,that he did not ,at that time,know of Eddowes killing.There is no ambiguity there.
Nothing to do with the apron or writing or ways of recording.A simple question of knowledge.Long either knew of the killing in Mitre Square,or he didn't.He is reported as saying he didn't know.I accept that he didn't.
So answer this question.Should I treat the source I quoted as false and misleading,and no long rambling explanations that have nothing to do with that question.A simple yes or no is all.

[harry]

Jon,
Your persistent quoting of the code, your selective extracts from newspapers,plus your frequent questioning of other posters correctness was all I needed when I made that remark.
It is also evident in your exchanges with Trevor and myself.
I too have a theory.It is that Long wrote the graffiti. Well it's not really my theory,it has been mentioned before,and it's a possibility that,to me,explains other actions of Long's.What say you about that.Is it possible?

[Wickerman]

Jon,
Your persistent quoting of the code, your selective extracts from newspapers,plus your frequent questioning of other posters correctness was all I needed when I made that remark.
It is also evident in your exchanges with Trevor and myself.
I too have a theory.It is that Long wrote the graffiti. Well it's not really my theory,it has been mentioned before,and it's a possibility that,to me,explains other actions of Long's.What say you about that.Is it possible?

Of course it's possibly Harry.

The approach I prefer is to gather what we have, call it evidence if you like, and see where it points. There is no evidence that points to Long creating the graffiti, it's just an idea, its speculation.

Generally speaking, in historical research we let the evidence 'speak for its self', ie; point us in the direction we need to go.
We shouldn't invent ideas and expect others to prove it wrong, which sadly seems to be the most frequent means to creating a theory on Casebook.

[Wickerman]

It is quite plaim,Jon and Sam,that in spite of what you write,that you believe your sources,the papers,to be the more correct than the source I quoted.
My opinion,from what I read,is that Long did answer,in reply to a question from a juror,that he did not ,at that time,know of Eddowes killing.There is no ambiguity there.
Nothing to do with the apron or writing or ways of recording.A simple question of knowledge.Long either knew of the killing in Mitre Square,or he didn't.He is reported as saying he didn't know.I accept that he didn't.
So answer this question.Should I treat the source I quoted as false and misleading,and no long rambling explanations that have nothing to do with that question.A simple yes or no is all.

The A-Z source only suggests that Long did not know of the Eddowes murder at the time he searched the seven staircases in the building. The press sources all report that Long said he learned of the Eddowes murder 'before' he went to the station.
As these are two separate events - first he searched the stairs, then he called another constable, then he went to the station. There is no argument to pursue.

What happened in between those two events was the appearance of the second constable. So, we might assume he was the source who informed Long about the Eddowes murder, just before he left for the station - as he claimed.

It all seems straight forward to me.

[harry]

Jon,
The source says Long said no, he didn't know.It is not suggestive of anything other than Long was unaware of Eddowes murder..It was an answer in response to a question.Nothing indicates that Long would not have gone regardless of the circumstance,and nothing indicates the why he took the cloth with him.The last thing was his going to the station,so the press reports mean little,and I see you now only assume Long was told.
If there is no argument to pursue,why keep comparing the paper's reports to the source I named.Why not answer my questions.

I only asked if the theory was possible,Pleased you replied in the affirmative.

[Trevor Marriott]

This looks to me to be a case of misrepresenting the press accounts.

You have already had it explained to you that Brown was not saying the piece of apron was on the body when the GS piece was matched.
It was matched to the piece found on the body.

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.
Daily News.

How can you possibly hope to solve a mystery when you persistently misrepresent what was said?

Just like you said her intestines were "apparently" removed from her abdomen.

And how can you keep relying on conflicting newspaper articles, they cant all be right, you have to look at all the reports, and in the case of Eddowes a comparison made with what is in the official inquest depositions. Not as you and others are continually doing. putting you own personal interpretation based on trying to assess the conflicting reports.

For once forget about whether she was wearing an apron or not, just look at all the reports on the Eddowes murder, and look at all the discrepancies, and when you do. you should ask yourself which reports do I totally rely on? and the right answer is none of them totally

Its never going to work by looking at them all, and then trying to work out the truth from what is written because as has been proved its human nature for an individual to accept what that individual wants to believe from how he personally interprets what he reads.

Let me ask you a question do you accept that any of the evidence relating to the murder of Eddowes is flawed or do you accept it all without question.

If you do accept that some of it is flawed I would be happy to hear what you believe those flaws are.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Generally speaking, in historical research we let the evidence 'speak for its self', ie; point us in the direction we need to go.
We shouldn't invent ideas and expect others to prove it wrong, which sadly seems to be the most frequent means to creating a theory on Casebook.

But the facts of the case, and the evidence, connected is there to be proved or disproved. If you disprove something then there has to be another plausible explanation.

If you are going to prove something then it has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, and in my book that is know where near the case with many of the old accepted theories connected to the Ripper murders, you can drive a bus through a lot of the so called "evidence".

The analysis of historical data in many cases will not give you definitive answers, especially with regards to a murder investigation which relies on facts and evidence which are both there to be tested. Sadly much of what is relied on has not been tested, so it is wrong to readily accept it without question

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk