GSG Conclusion

[Trevor Marriott]

And no one has offerred any sensible explantion as to how one of the pieces of an apron she was supposedly wearing finished up in her possessions.

If you read Collard's sworn deposition you will see that he says: I produce a list of items found on her...she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which was cut through and found outside her dress. The piece listed in her possessions was not the piece found outside her dress, which was listed separately. Collard's deposition also stated that 3 buttons used for women's boots, a thimble and a mustard tin with two pawn tickets were picked up on the left side of the deceased, but they were not included in the list of possessions because they, like the portion of the apron, were not found on her body and were listed separately. Hence the use of the words "apparently wearing".

So if you are saying that the items you mentioned were not listed how do you explain that if the apron piece was found outside the body along with those items, how did that come to be mentioned and mentioned among her possessions. bearing in mind as I said previoulsy when the lists were compiled the GS piece had not been found so the relevance of the mortuary piece was not known.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

For the final time

The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attcahed, so that had to be the top left/right, the mortuary piece when fitted to the GS piece had to be the bottom left/right for them to match up as decsribed by Brown. This is the evidence that shows the two could not have made a full apron becasue they were form the same side of the apron.

The patch is irrelevant as Brown simply mentions that a new piece of material had been sown onto the piece that he had in his possession. He is referring to the Gs piece which had the new material sown on it, The matching of the two pieces was via the seams and the borders of the two pieces of apron when put together

How the list is formulated suggests that the clothing was removed from top to bottom starting with the bonnett and ending with the boots and listed as it came off the body, as is still the same procedure today in murder cases. If she had been wearing an apron it would have been visble and would have been described as one old white apron with piece missing under the list of clothing.

The term referenced "Found on the body" is ambiguos because it could suggest as I do that it was found on her body amongst her posessions which the list confirms.

The finding of the GS pieces was without a doubt what led to what I would decsribe as a blinkered approach to the police investigation which clouded their evaluation of the facts surrounding the two pieces of apron which was hindered by the two police officers swearing that she was wearing an apron leading the invstigation off at a tangent.

We cannot blame the police too much they were ill equipped to deal with a serial killer they did the best they could but were led by those at the top who had no proper investigative experience or expertise in criminal investigation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Now I understand why you are so completely and utterly wrong on this issue. How can you have misread the evidence so badly Trevor? It’s hard to credit such an error of an ex-detective.

So, to be absolutely clear and so there can be no backsliding or wriggling again on your part…..

The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attcahed, so that had to be the top left/right, the mortuary piece when fitted to the GS piece had to be the bottom left/right for them to match up as decsribed by Brown

So for you….it’s the Goulston Street piece with the string and the Mortuary Piece with no string which proves that the apron couldn’t have been a complete apron?

So there must be evidence somewhere that it was the Goulston Street piece that had string and that the Mortuary piece didn’t. Mustn’t there? Because if there wasn’t it would mean that your theory was based on an invention wouldn’t it?

Dr Brown’s Inquest deposition (again!):

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.”

SO WE HAVE THE MORTUARY PIECE WITH THE STRING ATTACHED.



And with that your entire theory about the 2 pieces not possibly making a complete apron crumbles. Dead as a dodo. Gone.

Neither Brown, Long, Halse or Collard mention the Goulston Street piece having string as far as I’m aware. Trevor I hate to say this but you appear to be making this up to suit your theory.

……..

The patch is irrelevant

Simply staggering!

You keep using the word ‘borders’ as an obfuscation tool. And let’s remind you yet again as you keep conveniently ‘forgetting.’

A seam is where 2 pieces of material are sown together.

A hem is where it’s sown down along a folded over piece of material.

We can ignore your joke comment about the apron being made by 2 pieces being sown together as ludicrous (basically it would have been a balloon - show me an apron made that way)

And so there were NO SEAMS down the edge of the cloth. You have invented them. The only actual SEAMS were the SEAMS of the patch (remember Trevor - 2 pieces of cloth sown together) And so Dr. Brown is explicitly, obviously and unmistakenly describing matching up to two pieces by the seams of the patch. Only you appear not to be able to see this. Then again, of course you can see it. Your an adult and you can read. So the only reasonable explanation is that you are deliberately mis-reading it in an attempt to make the evidence for your theory.

No further discussion should be required. If you do not concede that you are wrong here Trevor, which you categorically are, then this can no longer be put down to simple misinterpretation (even taking the most charitable view) it’s deliberate mis-direction on your part.

[Trevor Marriott]

A seam is where 2 pieces of material are sown together.

A hem is where it’s sown down along a folded over piece of material.

We can ignore your joke comment about the apron being made by 2 pieces being sown together as ludicrous (basically it would have been a balloon - show me an apron made that way)

And so there were NO SEAMS down the edge of the cloth. You have invented them. The only actual SEAMS were the SEAMS of the patch (remember Trevor - 2 pieces of cloth sown together) And so Dr. Brown is explicitly, obviously and unmistakenly describing matching up to two pieces by the seams of the patch. Only you appear not to be able to see this. Then again, of course you can see it. Your an adult and you can read. So the only reasonable explanation is that you are deliberately mis-reading it in an attempt to make the evidence for your theory.

No further discussion should be required. If you do not concede that you are wrong here Trevor, which you categorically are, then this can no longer be put down to simple misinterpretation (even taking the most charitable view) it’s deliberate mis-direction on your part.

I did make a mistake it was the mortuary piece which had the string attached but that doesnt change one single thing I have stated

But this isnt just about the apron piece its about showing the flaws in the inquest testimony and dismissing the explantions put forward by you and others and I think I have done both.

I am more than happy with the results of my investigation into these matters and stand by them implicity.

That being said I will take no further part in this discussion and leave you to peddle your own misguided theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

So if you are saying that the items you mentioned were not listed how do you explain that if the apron piece was found outside the body along with those items, how did that come to be mentioned and mentioned among her possessions. bearing in mind as I said previoulsy when the lists were compiled the GS piece had not been found so the relevance of the mortuary piece was not known.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor,

Please read Collard's sworn deposition. Were the buttons, thimble and mustard tin found next to her body included in her list of possessions? Answer is NO. Was the "portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which was cut through and found outside her dress" included in her list of possessions? Answer is NO. The piece of apron listed in her possessions was a different piece of apron to the piece "found outside her dress" which she "was apparently wearing". It was an entirely different piece of apron that was found in her possessions, entirely unrelated to that found next to her body.

[JeffHamm]

So if you are saying that the items you mentioned were not listed how do you explain that if the apron piece was found outside the body along with those items, how did that come to be mentioned and mentioned among her possessions. bearing in mind as I said previoulsy when the lists were compiled the GS piece had not been found so the relevance of the mortuary piece was not known.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We do not know at what point the list was compiled. It is only your assumption that in 1888 they followed the modern standards where it would be compiled as the clothes were removed. We must allow for the possibility that in 1888 the list was compiled after her clothing was removed as a matter of convenience. We have learned since that this is not the best way to do it, but we have over 130 years of experience to have learned from. You are presuming that in 1888 every procedural improvement now in place was already in place. As has been suggested before, it is entirely reasonable to suggest that the GS piece had been brought to the mortuary for comparison while the list was being compiled (or alternatively that this prompted the making of the list at that time), and so the piece was kept separate for examination and comparison, and finally added to the list as it was completed. To assert that the list was compiled as the clothes were removed is nothing more than one possibility for which we have no evidence. It is based upon your insistence that modern protocol was used in 1888.

Moreover, there are multiple inquest statements from a wide range of people, starting from the time she was still at the doss house, where it is stated she was wearing an apron that day. Nowhere does anyone phrase their statement to imply she was not wearing an apron, at most things are phrased including a word that allows one to state they are not phrasing it in definite terms. And when they do, such as the police from the station, you dismiss their inquest testimony on the basis that you do not allow them to remember that detail. This acceptance, or insistence, on failed memory flies in the face of your refusal to accept the possibility that other police might make memory errors in memoirs or interviews years after the fact.

I have no idea why you're so opposed to recognizing that everything we have access to points to the GS piece having been cut from the apron she was wearing and taken away by her killer to be dropped later. I suspect your opposition arises from a concern that people will, and have, argued that the apron piece was used to carry away her organs, which you reject. However, there is no evidence that was what the apron piece was, in fact, used for, rather it appears to have been used to complete the cleaning of his hands and/or knife. Probably because it also appears that JtR may have been interrupted by PC Harvey, and so needed to get away before being able to wipe his hands/knife down on the victim's clothes (combined with the issue that he probably got fecal matter on his hands).

Use of the cloth as a rag to clean up in no way limits who could have been JtR, nor does it impact upon your organ theft idea, nor does it contradict the information we have to work with. Your alternative notion, however, flies in the face of a large number of statements, none of which imply she was not wearing an apron unless one forces that interpretation on some statements and refuses to accept those where it is clearly stated by tossing out a "failed memory" card. Given the idea of her wearing an apron is entirely consistent with the information we have, there is no justification for playing that "failed memory card" - it doesn't result in other evidence making sense.

Like many others, I truly am at a loss to understand how, and why, you insist that she was not wearing the apron when given the information we have to work with, it is probably the most supported fact that we have available to us.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I did make a mistake it was the mortuary piece which had the string attached but that doesnt change one single thing I have stated

But this isnt just about the apron piece its about showing the flaws in the inquest testimony and dismissing the explantions put forward by you and others and I think I have done both.

I am more than happy with the results of my investigation into these matters and stand by them implicity.

That being said I will take no further part in this discussion and leave you to peddle your own misguided theories

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So to sum up.

. The evidence I seek to rely on is that the GS piece was a corner piece with a string attcahed

The evidence that you rely on is completely wrong and yet you persist? Really?

But this isnt just about the apron piece

Yes it is. This is what we have been discussing. It’s too late to try and move the goalposts now.

I am more than happy with the results of my investigation into these matters and stand by them implicity.

Even though your repeated stressing that the 2 pieces cannot have made up a completed apron has been proven to be completely false? Even though you called me a numpty when I’ve repeatedly tried to point out the very obvious to you?

leave you to peddle your own misguided theories

So evidence and facts have conclusively proved that your theory has crashed and burned yet you still desperately try and label me as misguided……for pointing out and proving what is absolutely true?

We can state without a single shadow of a doubt that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered and that the killer cut away a piece which was eventually found in Goulston Street by PC Long. The rest of the apron was found on the body in Mitre Square. Dr Brown aligned the two pieces along the seems of a patch which was on both pieces and they matched perfectly. They Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece when put back together made a complete apron.

This is what is indicated by the evidence. It’s not a theory. Whether you fully admit this or not is irrelevant.

[GBinOz]

We can state without a single shadow of a doubt that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered and that the killer cut away a piece which was eventually found in Goulston Street by PC Long. The rest of the apron was found on the body in Mitre Square. Dr Brown aligned the two pieces along the seems of a patch which was on both pieces and they matched perfectly. They Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece when put back together made a complete apron.

Hi Herlock,

Your summary is correct except that Collard's deposition did say that the Mitre Square piece of the apron was found "outside the dress" and the that deceased was "apparently wearing" it. Thus, it was not included in the list of clothing and possessions as it was found next to the body, not on the body. Nor were the other items found next to the body included on the list - buttons, thimble and tin.

This refutes Trevor's allegation that the apron would have been under the clothing and separates the piece found near her body from the old piece of apron found in her possessions. It appears the JtR removed the apron from her body early in his proceedings.

Cheers, George

[harry]

Well yes,she might have been wearing an apron the night she was killed,but Trevor's arguement is to whether she was wearing an apron at the time she was killed.
That two pieces of apron were undoubtably pieces from the same apron,nowhere do I see it mentioned,by those at the mortuary,or who handled the clothes and belongings,that the two pieces made up a complete apron.Anyone who had a say that night only mention pieces.
Brown's observation only shows that two parts matched,nothing else,and as to why he was he was engaging in what should have been police procedure is anyone's guess.It certainly cannot be classed as medical evidence.Yes i know his attention was called,but who callrd him?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Well yes,she might have been wearing an apron the night she was killed,but Trevor's arguement is to whether she was wearing an apron at the time she was killed.
That two pieces of apron were undoubtably pieces from the same apron,nowhere do I see it mentioned,by those at the mortuary,or who handled the clothes and belongings,that the two pieces made up a complete apron.Anyone who had a say that night only mention pieces.
Brown's observation only shows that two parts matched,nothing else,and as to why he was he was engaging in what should have been police procedure is anyone's guess.It certainly cannot be classed as medical evidence.Yes i know his attention was called,but who callrd him?

At the inquest PC Robinson, who had taken Eddowes to the police station, was asked if she was wearing an apron, and if he could identify it. He said he could if he was shown the whole apron. He was shown the two pieces, and said "to the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron". Please note everyone, he said "that is the apron" not part of the apron. Nothing was ever said at the inquest by Robinson or anyone else to suggest that the two pieces did not make up a whole apron.

[harry]

So what is your point Doctor Whatsit? I have not asserted there were more than two pieces,but supposing PC Robinson was correct,was he ever in a position that he could swear Eddowes was wearing the pieces when she was killed?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well yes,she might have been wearing an apron the night she was killed,but Trevor's arguement is to whether she was wearing an apron at the time she was killed.
That two pieces of apron were undoubtably pieces from the same apron,nowhere do I see it mentioned,by those at the mortuary,or who handled the clothes and belongings,that the two pieces made up a complete apron.Anyone who had a say that night only mention pieces.
Brown's observation only shows that two parts matched,nothing else,and as to why he was he was engaging in what should have been police procedure is anyone's guess.It certainly cannot be classed as medical evidence.Yes i know his attention was called,but who callrd him?

But we have two Police Officers who both saw her at close quarters on that night and also spent time in her company Harry. Both stated that she was wearing an apron. Neither of these officers had reason to state this if they weren’t confident that it was true.

You’re right of course that no one mentioned that the two pieces made up a whole apron (apart from when Robinson asked to be shown the ‘whole apron’ as Doctored Whatsit has mentioned) But we can ask ourselves what would have been the greater omission? No one mentioning that the 2 pieces made up a whole apron or not mentioning that the 2 pieces didn’t make up a whole apron? It’s surely the latter?

The Police were convinced that Eddowes had been wearing an apron and that the Goulston Street piece had come from the Mortuary piece so if they hadn’t have made up a completed apron they would have had to have concluded that there was a piece missing. And as the GS piece was considered a clue then this ‘missing’ piece would also have been important to them. But we have no mention of this and no mention of any police searching for it.

The fact that they didn’t mention the ‘whole apron’ (apart from Robinson) can be viewed as an assumption. Sometimes we don’t mention specific details because we consider it so obvious that it doesn’t need stating. I think that this is why it wasn’t mentioned (again, apart from Robinson)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

Your summary is correct except that Collard's deposition did say that the Mitre Square piece of the apron was found "outside the dress" and the that deceased was "apparently wearing" it. Thus, it was not included in the list of clothing and possessions as it was found next to the body, not on the body. Nor were the other items found next to the body included on the list - buttons, thimble and tin.

This refutes Trevor's allegation that the apron would have been under the clothing and separates the piece found near her body from the old piece of apron found in her possessions. It appears the JtR removed the apron from her body early in his proceedings.

Cheers, George

Hello George,

I take that to mean that because the string had been cut and that her clothing was disarranged the remaining apron wasn’t in the ‘normal’ position that it would have been for wearing. If, as Trevor claims, she wasn’t actually wearing it I can’t see how it would have been ‘outside her clothing?’ Wouldn’t she have had it in one of her bags with her other items? Or in a pocket?

So for me this means that the apron was on her body and outside her other clothing but as the string, attached to the Mortuary piece, would still have been tied beneath her body this pointed to the fact that she must have been wearing it just before she was killed, rather than carrying it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is curious, from The Times Oct 11th:

“Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke-street, Aldgate, a few minutes’ walk from Mitre-square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o’clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing.”

Sounds like Lawende, Levy and Harris of course. The fact that only 2 witnesses were mentioned sounds like the reporter had mixed them up with Hutt and Robinson as none of the three mentioned an apron?

[Herlock Sholmes]

So what is your point Doctor Whatsit? I have not asserted there were more than two pieces,but supposing PC Robinson was correct,was he ever in a position that he could swear Eddowes was wearing the pieces when she was killed?

Are you suggesting that she might have taken of her apron after leaving the Police Station Harry? What reason could she have had for doing that?

[Sunny Delight]

Thank you, Sunny D.

I have no intention of trying to educate Trevor further on either subject. It would be a total waste of time.

He doesn't even seem to know the difference between a woman in 1888, poor as a church mouse, carrying all her worldly possessions around with her, and one a century later, carrying a small handbag with just what she needs for a day or night out.

Love,

Caz
X

It is utterly bizarre. I don't even know how someone can arrive at such an obviously crackpot theory. It is so far fetched as to be dismissed completely.