PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor.

So I posted a few sentences of Insp. Collard's Inquest testimony and you complained that Collard never mentioned Halse?
Yet Halse does mention Collard - and that is not enough for you?
You think Halse is lying?

I merely highlighted the inconsistencies in the witness testimony. It matters not who was there there are inconsistencies. What matters is who saw what? and the answer to that is no one conclusively saw her wearing an apron at the mortuary. By reason of what is included in some witness statements. That evidence can only lead to an inference. But the other evidence then negates that inference.

Do you contest that Maj. Henry Smith was present at the mortuary?

"By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut".
From Constable to Commissioner, Sir Henry Smith, pg 152.

There is no mention of him initially going to Mitre Square before the body was taken away. So how could he have accompanied the body. He no doubt went to the mortuary at some point but was not there when the body was stripped.

No mention of him being present when the clothes were taken off.

Maj Smith does not say she was wearing an apron that's conjecture on your part "again"

If she had two pieces of the same apron with her before her death, As we know one finished up in GS the other in the mortuary and they matched. As you can see from the photograph, those two pieces would have made half an apron (right side) not a full apron. "Severed with a clean cut" that supports the fact that the the two pieces she had in her possession had come from a full apron at some point and had been cut. [/B]

Not good enough?

[B]Nope not good enough especially as he didn't write that until 1910 He must have had a good memory !

[Trevor Marriott]

Worth mentioning Jon that by all the evidence we have it can be said that the severed piece of apron matched the piece remaining on the victim, based on a old repair line that both portions had. It doesn't say anywhere, to my knowledge, that the complete apron was recovered...just that the Goulston piece was at least a part of the apron she was wearing.

I don't buy most of the speculation here, but I do see how someone might get away with stating we don't know it was a complete apron when paired together.

Cheers

Look at the photos I posted it could not have been a full apron and she could not have been wearing it.

[Garry Wroe]

I don't buy most of the speculation here, but I do see how someone might get away with stating we don't know it was a complete apron when paired together.

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

[Michael W Richards]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

Hi Gary,

The use of "The apron" is almost certainly a paraphrase of "The apron in question" in this case, and I don't agree that those two words suggest the apron was in fact completely intact..in fact, the apron might well have been less volume than a store bought version would be due to its overuse by the owner, ....although no-one in Bishopsgate noted an apron that had a section missing when they booked her.

For Devils Advocate sake I made the post....Im not really buying the greater premises made, just noting that in my opinion that specific matter isn't defined precisely.

Cheers

[Monty]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

BOOM as the Lord Madden would say.

Monty

[Hunter]

This is pitiful. And I wasted 5 minutes after a "Long" hard day to even pull this sh!t up instead of watching a baseball game.

[Wickerman]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

Not necessarily a mistranscription Garry.

With an open abdominal wound such as we see on Eddowes I wouldn't imagine the doctors would try turn the body over to untie the apron. My expectation is that they would simple cut the string at one side and pull the portion of apron off.
The end result is section of apron with one long string attached at one side (The string is actually both strings still tied together in the middle).

[Wickerman]

I don't buy most of the speculation here, but I do see how someone might get away with stating we don't know it was a complete apron when paired together.

Hi Michael.

The testimony of PC Robinson suggests the two pieces produced were a full apron.

"The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing".

"The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it."

"Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
PC Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,"

Two pieces made up the whole apron - is there anything ambiguous about that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Not necessarily a mistranscription Garry.

With an open abdominal wound such as we see on Eddowes I wouldn't imagine the doctors would try turn the body over to untie the apron. My expectation is that they would simple cut the string at one side and pull the portion of apron off.
The end result is section of apron with one long string attached at one side (The string is actually both strings still tied together in the middle).

Then it wouldn't be a corner piece.

What was left would have been cut from the waistband area as one of the photos shows and would have had cuts snd blood stains in line with the rest of her clothing

That meant that the GS piece must have been the remaining three quarters according to your theory to make up a full apron. I spent a lot if time preparing those photos to prove the points which you choose to ignore

Now we have dr brown misquoted why then did dr brown not say "my attention was drawn to the apron. In the corner were spots of blood"
He specifys corner piece !

Then it has been suggested that spe missed of an s as well as dr brown

I see you keep avoiding the fact that collard prepared the lists no mention of her wearing an apron I suppose you wil say that was a mistake

If as you say the apron was cut the it would have been visîble and had to be physically removed it would have come off bonnet first,jacket second,
Apron third

I told you before there are set procedures at mortuaries as to how murder victims are dealt with with regards to listing clothing etc

You duck and dive with regards to accepting that there is a distinct differnce between an apron piece

Not forgetting no one from the mortuary can say she was wearing an apron.

The reality is that your theory does not stand up to close scrutiny.

I think you and Garry ought to book a holiday together on Fantasy Island !

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Michael.

The testimony of PC Robinson suggests the two pieces produced were a full apron.

"The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing".

These issues have been discussed in detail and the flaws in this testimony highlighted I am not going to keep repeating myself it is quite clear that you keep wanting to have the last say by keep posting the same things in an attempt to prove your theory

"The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it."

"Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
PC Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,"

Two pieces made up the whole apron - is there anything ambiguous about that?

where does it say the two pieces made up a full apron,

The flaws in this testimony have been documented many times I do not intend to keep repeating them but clearly you can't see them or I suspect you don't want to

[Debra A]

Thank you for mentioning that

Pic attached

You're welcome. They only have one string though.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're welcome. They only have one string though.

Yes they do but that one string has two ends does it not which are pulled tight around the waist and then tied back or front ?

[Debra A]

Yes they do but that one string has two ends does it not which are pulled tight around the waist and then tied back or front ?

Yeah, but if one end comes undone the whole bit of string can be completely pulled to one side or the other?

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, but if one end comes undone the whole bit of string can be completely pulled to one side or the other?

Yes I knew where you were coming from !

[Varqm]

This is most of what is there,the credibilty of the officers/doctors involved.

Yes but they conflict with each other and are therefore unsafe to totally rely on.

Trevor

It is most of all vague.It is also unsafe to say she was not wearing it. But what the policemen saw (and only this) as she was released from jail was credible.They did not observe any part/s missing. It is possible though she could have taken it off after.

She had handkerchiefs, pieces of white rag she could have used for menstruation/defecation purposes. No reason to cut the apron.

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron and left it as such it was connected by a string to the body, about to fall/detached if it had'nt already , would it not be considered as 'she was "apparently wearing" it'?

Would they have classified it as wearing or as a possession?

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron - whatever the position was of the apron on Kate's body,why did'nt they just unanimously simply say that she was just carrying it among her other possessions. Why allude to wearing? Also why not just say the pieces of the apron did'nt fit.
They had time to consider all these.