PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

But you and others say she was prove it conclusively !

I haven't actually said anything of the sort, but that is not the point I was making. Your earlier post implied that the fact that there was no mention of her wearing an apron was of evidential value in supporting your claim that she wasn't. I merely point out that, as there is no mention one way or the other, the evidential value is nil.

[Roy Corduroy]

It makes a big difference beause this belief that the killer cut and tore the apron piece for taking away the organs in has been an important and integral part of this mystery. Disprove this and you bring into question other issues regarding the apron and the apron piece, such as

Did the killer really remove the organs from the body at all?

If he did how did he take them away?

this belief that the killer cut and tore the apron piece for taking away the organs in has been an important and integral part of this mystery.

An important and integral part, huh. Where did you get that idea, Trev? Not in Cullen, Knight, Rumbelow, Howells & Skinner, Fido, Begg, Sugden, Evans & Gainey, Tully, or Evans & Rumbelow.

Maybe you're arguing against something you saw on TV, Trevor That's what you mean by a 21st Century Investigation.

Roy

[El White Chap]

Oh dear oh dear, well this is all getting awkwardly embarrassing again...

[Jon Guy]

. Both when the clothes were removed and when the second and third lists were written, and then he continued with his failings losing all his powers of observation by describing this three quartered apron she was supposedly wearing as just an old piece of white apron, come on lets be realistic !

The butchered apron was now lying on the body (she was not actually wearing it at this point as the string had been cut, it was probably lying on her) he said "apparently" - meaning, before it had been cut and she was wearing it, as opposed to just lying on her.

[Trevor Marriott]

He definitely said it at the inquest ,Trev
It`s in the Daily News and Morning Advertiser.

Ah the conflicting press and inquest testimony rises its head again and the cherry picking continues !


He was there when she was stripped.

Well as I said that's not crystal clear and in any event according to you an others, he failed to notice three quarters of an apron that she wore. Both when the clothes were removed and when the second and third lists were written, and then he continued with his failings losing all his powers of observation by describing this three quartered apron she was supposedly wearing as just an old piece of white apron, come on lets be realistic !

[Jon Guy]

Not in official inquest testimony he doesn't ! Nor is it the Times

He definitely said it at the inquest ,Trev
It`s in the Daily News and Morning Advertiser.

Its a mute point because he prepared the lists. Either he was there and prepared the list as the clothes were taken off, or he arrived later and prepared the lists from the clothes which had been taken off and in separate piles.

He was there when she was stripped.

[Trevor Marriott]

Applying 21st Century legal standards, everything about the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane is hopelessly, irrevocably queered in your theory, Trevor. The mortuary lists, the autopsy, all of it. Becuase of the criminal malfeasance that occured there, the tampering with the corpse of murder victim Catherine Eddowes, and then the doctors writing it up as if organ removal happened during the murder.

So all this debate about the 'apron' while ignoring the implications of your theory is ... well, we have a saying for that ...

Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel

Roy

I would suggest you consider going on e bay to see if anyone has a spare brain for sale, because the one you have is clearly dead, as your rants suggest to me that in fact you are already dead from the neck up !

You never know you might find a new one capable of allowing you to apply sensible logical reasoning.

[Roy Corduroy]

21st Century Investigation

Applying 21st Century legal standards, everything about the City of London Mortuary, Golden Lane is hopelessly, irrevocably queered in your theory, Trevor. The mortuary lists, the autopsy, all of it. Becuase of the criminal malfeasance that occured there, the tampering with the corpse of murder victim Catherine Eddowes, and then the doctors writing it up as if organ removal happened during the murder.

So all this debate about the 'apron' while ignoring the implications of your theory is ... well, we have a saying for that ...

Gag at a gnat and swallow a camel

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Collard elaborated at the inquest on exactly how the body was stripped and in whose presence, and it was reported by a few newspapers.

Not in official inquest testimony he doesn't ! Nor is it the Times

Its a mute point because he prepared the lists. Either he was there and prepared the list as the clothes were taken off, or he arrived later and prepared the lists from the clothes which had been taken off and in separate piles.

His comment "apparently wearing" is cause for concern in coming to a definite conclusion either she was or she wasn't. Clearly he is unsure. But it doesn't detract away from the fact that no full apron was described and an old piece of white apron was (emphasis on piece). The two are different and should not be categorized as one and the same.

If he wasn't there then Halse comments about seeing the body stripped are ambiguous, because if he arrived with Collard after the clothes had been taken off, he would have seen the body naked (stripped)

[Debra A]

Collard elaborated at the inquest on exactly how the body was stripped and in whose presence, and it was reported by a few newspapers.

Yes. I think that's what happened too.

[Jon Guy]

Well no need to say anymore then do we ?

Collard elaborated at the inquest on exactly how the body was stripped and in whose presence, and it was reported by a few newspapers.

[Trevor Marriott]

Daily Tel 5th Oct 88

Well no need to say anymore then do we ?

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps you could quote that source ?

Daily Tel 5th Oct 88

[Debra A]

You don't listen and read the posts do you. I previously said that the ashes searched was just part of the re examination of the room. As a result of that fuller examination the following was reported

"the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room"

"It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing"

"surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position"


The details of the re examination of the room as reported in the press are in such great detail you cant ignore that. They didn't make it up, If they had wanted to make it up they would have sold more papers with the heart missing that not.

As to Hebbert I am given to understand but I do stand to be corrected here but you even went as far as saying he was writing down at the time they did the post mortem. If that be the case then his writings would have ended there when the post mortem concluded. He didn't go with them back to the room. He probably went for his tea and never took any further involvement.

There is no record of anything further occurring whereby he needed to write down anything. Dr Bond would have been the person to document any further events. He didn't, why because all was accounted for.

That is exactly what I asked you if you were saying in my summary.
If you'd read it properly you would see I didn't contradict one thing you said, I was asking for clarification of what you were suggesting happened. That's all. I won't bother again believe me.

[Wickerman]

"He [Warren] feels that your eminence as an expert in such cases"

Expert in what though?, not serial murder.
It is the previous sentence to the above which sets the parameters, where we read:

"In dealing with the Whitechapel murders the difficulties of conducting the enquiry are largely increased by reason of our having no reliable opinion for our guidance as to the amount of surgical skill and anatomical knowledge probably possessed by the murderer or murderers"
[My emphasis in bold]

The number of murders (five) are therefore established by Anderson's criteria, but he admitted there could have been more than one hand at work, which was not a question Bond was expected to answer.
And, in reply Dr. Bond suggested no apparent skill and, contrary to Phillips, that only one hand was at work.

There are therefore two components to this series of murders. The repeated mutilations create one category, and the suggestion of identifiable technique creates another.
In requesting Dr. Bond to only look at the 'mutilation' murders he inadvertently set the limits which we follow today.