Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Sam Flynn 16 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Robert St Devil 50 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - by Joshua Rogan 51 minutes ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Jeff Leahy 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - by Elamarna 4 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Doctors and Coroners: Baxter's influence on Ripper lore - (9 posts)
Kosminski, Aaron: My theory on Kosminski - (7 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Same motive = same killer - (6 posts)
Shades of Whitechapel: Caught!? Long Island Serial Killer suspect - (5 posts)
Non-Fiction: Elizabeth Stride and Jack the Ripper: The Life and Death of the Reputed Third Victim. - (3 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: How about the "Bad Cop" ??? - (2 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #121  
Old 11-28-2016, 04:19 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,779
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerryd View Post
But when the lower portion of the bib apron (where the strings would be) has been cut off and taken away, how can it be attached to the body?
But the mortuary piece was the piece that had the string/strings attached. The GS piece did not

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 11-28-2016, 04:35 PM
jerryd jerryd is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But the mortuary piece was the piece that had the string/strings attached. The GS piece did not

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Sorry, I'm not only tired but focusing on another thread. Yes, the mortuary piece was suggested as a corner piece with strings. Do we really have to re-hash this again, Trevor? You have your opinion, I have mine. You think I can't understand the testimony based on your interpretation and you're correct.

By the way. I don't think organs were carried away in the apron and I don't have a suspect. So no horse in the race on this one. Several witnesses saw her wearing an apron before the murder. Dr. Brown describes her wearing one after her death. Good enough for me. Any questions beyond that, I refer you to the good Dr. F. Gordon Brown.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 11-28-2016, 04:38 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
But as you know there is other evidence to show this statement maybe wrong.

Dr Browns official inquest testimony
“My attention was called to the apron, it was the corner of the apron with the string attached”
Trevor, again you refuse to even consider that YOUR interpretation of what is written could be wrong.


If one really understands the English language, it is clear that Brown Could be referring to an area with blood on it, which his attention was drawn to, not the piece of cloth as a whole.

It is truly astounding that you have refused to consider this or even discuss it.
Or is it simply that you do not understand?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

Finally the mortuary piece was described as one piece of old white apron. If she had been wearing it, might we have expected it it have been described as one old white apron with piece missing?
No why should we?

It is what it says a piece(part of) an old white apron.

The piece from GS makes a whole as confirmed at the inquest :

"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, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron."

The Times.


Further to support the idea that only one piece was missing:

Dc Halse
"I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing"



That is very clear A Portion was missing, singular. not more than one piece!



Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 11-28-2016, 05:52 PM
Elamarna Elamarna is online now
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: South london
Posts: 3,715
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
And, for what it's worth, if you don't mind I'd like to point out that the court recorder wrote in long-hand, so the official record only provides the gist of the exchange. We have no questions, only replies, and the replies are often copied down in brief, rarely verbatim. The recorder will merely summarize the witness testimony as opposed to copy word for word, which he clearly has not the time to do.

The press used short-hand which permitted them to capture both questions and answers, and in most cases the replies by the witness were more complete and in many cases verbatim.

It is demonstrably foolish to limit our knowledge by only using the court records. While press coverage varied, and also carried minor errors, the intelligent researcher compiles all the press versions and compares the individual testimonies with each source, and with the original court record.

The intent is, and should always be, to gain a deeper and broader understanding of all the exchanges at the inquest. Not...look for a narrow interpretation which tends to suit a preferred theory, while dismissing contradictory testimony found in the press as, untrustworthy.

With respect to covering crime in the press, the inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of sources at our disposal.

All good points Jon


Steve
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 11-28-2016, 05:59 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Are you not forgetting that the official depositions made by the witnesses at the inquest were signed by them afterwards. If they could not read then they would have been read over to them before they signed or made there mark.

So I think that process alone would rule out errors does it not?
I didn't recall suggesting the court record contained errors. I did suggest it is more of a summary of the witness testimony than a verbatim account.
The court record is not as complete as the press coverage - that is the important point.

Quote:
So any contentious issues, which have arisen between the official testimony and the press reports, might suggest that it was the press that got it wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
The issues of contention usually stem from more detail being provided by the press. There are numerous examples where one or two lines are recorded by the court, yet the press are able to provide several lines of exchange between the witness and Mr. Crawford.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 11-28-2016, 06:25 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Finally the mortuary piece was described as one piece of old white apron. If she had been wearing it, might we have expected it it have been described as one old white apron with piece missing?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
On the contrary, the last item will be the G.S. piece - "1 Piece of old White Apron".

Collard made a list of her possessions at the mortuary, and you of all people should know that a policeman uses his pocketbook when taking notes in the field.
The paperwork deposited for the inquest are not pages from his pocketbook.
Clearly, his pocketbook notes were re-transcribed on to a larger notepad for presentation at the inquest.

This being the case we do not know what the last item was in his pocketbook - presumably the ball of hemp.
Naturally the G.S. piece when it turned up was determined to be from Eddowes, therefore Collard would naturally append the G.S. piece to the bottom of this list he is making for the inquest.
Whether it was actually recorded in his pocketbook or not we will never know.

The smaller piece of the apron found on the body was already listed in his pocketbook. As this piece of cloth was unrecognizable as part of an apron in its present (as found) condition, the Inspector could only identify it in general terms, either:
"1 piece of white coarse linen", or
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 11-28-2016, 06:47 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,888
Default

The Times, Oct. 1st provides this description of her possessions:

The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings,

A piece of apron was around her neck.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 11-28-2016, 11:22 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The Times, Oct. 1st provides this description of her possessions:

The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings,

A piece of apron was around her neck.
An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.
The neck string can be either a noose that is not tied but simply hung over the neck, or it can be divided in two strings, that are tied behind the neck.
Then there will be two strings that are tied around the waist.

This link:

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CEYAAO...k1/s-l1600.jpg

...goes to show what I mean. There are varying types, but this would be the basic idea.

Now, if the apron was a bib apron that was still "tied loosely around her neck", and if the lower part was cut away, then why is it only tied around her neck? Surely, it should have been tied around neck and waist?

Or was it untied at the waist? If so, how and why? Did the killer reach in under her and untie the apron? Or did he do so as she was on her side, then rolling her over afterwards? Why is it not mentioned that the apron was untied at the waist - it would have been quite remarkable.

Or was the apron cut so high up that the killer took the waist strings with himself, attached to the piece of apron he carried away? Then why was not that mentioned? And surely, the portion taken away would not have been half of the apron in such a case, it would be most of it.

There is something odd going on here. Is there any way this can be reconciled inbetween the sources?

Last edited by Fisherman : 11-28-2016 at 11:47 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 11-29-2016, 12:17 AM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.
The neck string can be either a noose that is not tied but simply hung over the neck, or it can be divided in two strings, that are tied behind the neck.
Then there will be two strings that are tied around the waist.

This link:

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CEYAAO...k1/s-l1600.jpg

...goes to show what I mean. There are varying types, but this would be the basic idea.

Now, if the apron was a bib apron that was still "tied loosely around her neck", and if the lower part was cut away, then why is it only tied around her neck? Surely, it should have been tied around neck and waist?

Or was it untied at the waist? If so, how and why? Did the killer reach in under her and untie the apron? Or did he do so as she was on her side, then rolling her over afterwards? Why is it not mentioned that the apron was untied at the waist - it would have been quite remarkable.

Or was the apron cut so high up that the killer took the waist strings with himself, attached to the piece of apron he carried away? Then why was not that mentioned? And surely, the portion taken away would not have been half of the apron in such a case, it would be most of it.

There is something odd going on here. Is there any way this can be reconciled inbetween the sources?
Fisherman,

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from it?

Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 11-29-2016, 12:26 AM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 15,865
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Fisherman,

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from it?

Pierre
Do you agree with me that it would seem that I do not debate with you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.