PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Roy Corduroy]

Cut to the chase

I also suggest that she could have deposited there herself prior to her murder.

The evidence is not totally conclusive either way but a good case can be brought to suggest the killer certainly didn't cut it or tear it and take it away with ...

Okay, you suggest the murderer did not cut the apron piece and take it to Goulston Street. Instead Catherine Eddowes put it there herself while she was alive.

Based on this, what is your conclusion, Trevor? Is this a clue?

Roy

[Wickerman]

I think you will find that the coroner was given the names of the witnesses and given by the police a written overview of the testimony they were going to give.

Yes, we see that. It is a summary of what the police statements contained, they are not police statements.
Police statements MUST be signed.

And, unless I have a page missing, I don't see Halse listed there.

The summary attached to PC Long makes no mention of the graffiti, but it does say, quite clearly that the portion of apron found in Goulstone St. "corresponds with a portion found on the body".

Not, among the possessions, but ON the body.

[Roy Corduroy]

Wait a minute, now that I think of it - It doesn't matter whether the apron 'part 1' was on her body or in her possessions. Everyone agrees it was 'hers.'

And everyone agrees the apron 'part 1' matched the 'part 2' from Goulston Street. It was hers, too. Both parts were 'hers.'

Trevor is basing his argument that the killer did not take the apron on- the apron being in her possessions - rather than her wearing it. It doesn't matter at all. And it doesn't prove his argument that the killer did not carry apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street. In fact, it doesn't boost his argument at all. Trevor's argument is a non sequitur.

A non sequitor is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

You do realize that, folks. You've been arguing a point that has no bearing whatsoever on Trevor's suggestion the killer did not take apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street.

If Catherine Eddowes put apron 'part 2' in Goulston Street while she was alive, it doesn't matter whether 'part 1' was in her possession or if she was wearing it. It was 'with her' when her body and possessions were recovered in Mitre Square.

Or if, after the murder, A N Other pilfered the crime scene, and took apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street, it doesn't matter if Catherine Eddowes was wearing 'part 1' or whether it was in her possession. It was 'with her' when her body and possessions were recovered in Mitre Square.

And even if the killer did not take the apron (part 2) how is that a clue? A clue to what? That was my original question, Trevor.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Roy
A very good post

Wait a minute, now that I think of it - It doesn't matter whether the apron 'part 1' was on her body or in her possessions. Everyone agrees it was 'hers.'

Exactly !

And everyone agrees the apron 'part 1' matched the 'part 2' from Goulston Street. It was hers, too. Both parts were 'hers.'

"Exactly"

Trevor is basing his argument that the killer did not take the apron on- the apron being in her possessions - rather than her wearing it. It doesn't matter at all. And it doesn't prove his argument that the killer did not carry apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street. In fact, it doesn't boost his argument at all. Trevor's argument is a non sequitur.

A non sequitor is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

Exactly

You do realize that, folks. You've been arguing a point that has no bearing whatsoever on Trevor's suggestion the killer did not take apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street.

You are right but of course when you look specifically at the GS piece and examine the facts surrounding that particular piece in more detail then there are serious doubts about how it got there, when it got there and who put it there.

If Catherine Eddowes put apron 'part 2' in Goulston Street while she was alive, it doesn't matter whether 'part 1' was in her possession or if she was wearing it. It was 'with her' when her body and possessions were recovered in Mitre Square.

Exactly, but the question is "In her possession" or wearing it" because the accepted theory has been that she was wearing it and the GS piece was cut or torn fro that apron that she was "wearing"

Or if, after the murder, A N Other pilfered the crime scene, and took apron 'part 2' to Goulston Street, it doesn't matter if Catherine Eddowes was wearing 'part 1' or whether it was in her possession. It was 'with her' when her body and possessions were recovered in Mitre Square.

And even if the killer did not take the apron (part 2) how is that a clue? A clue to what? That was my original question, Trevor.

A clue to dispel what has previously been accepted, that the killer cut or tore the GS piece and took it away with him for the reasons again which have been suggested all these years. Dispel the accepted apron piece theory and you go along way to dispel the suggestion that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

"I think you will find that the coroner was given the names of the witnesses and given by the police a written overview of the testimony they were going to give."

Finally.

Monty

Written overview not statements and you can see all the witnesses gave their testimony in order of the chain of events.

i.e,
Frederick Wilkinson
Deputy lodging house keeper will testify how he knew the deceased and when he last saw her

Frederick Foster- Surveyor
Will produce a plan of the crime scene

William Sedgwick Saunders- Medical officer
Will give medical evidence re the examination of the stomach contents of deceased

and so on and so on

[Debra A]

Well Debs
You are entitled to draw your own conclusion and interpret the facts how you see fit.

Exactly! Thanks Trevor.

[Stewart P Evans]

Arrant Nonsense

There's some arrant nonsense in this thread. Now I know why I quit the boards.

[Debra A]

Wait a minute, now that I think of it - It doesn't matter whether the apron 'part 1' was on her body or in her possessions. Everyone agrees it was 'hers.'

I got the impression that the idea that Eddowes wasn't actually wearing the apron may have sprung up in the face of massive opposition to the idea that Eddowes would have used an apron she was actually wearing as a sanitary device. That it was just a possession and not a functional garment would make it more likely it could have been used for this purpose and left at GS by Catherine, rather than the killer took it there, is how I remember this idea developing originally. I'm probably wrong though, Roy.

[Trevor Marriott]

I got the impression that the idea that Eddowes wasn't actually wearing the apron may have sprung up in the face of massive opposition to the idea that Eddowes would have used an apron she was actually wearing as a sanitary device. That it was just a possession and not a functional garment would make it more likely it could have been used for this purpose and left at GS by Catherine, rather than the killer took it there, is how I remember this idea developing originally. I'm probably wrong though, Roy.

No. you are right but I am not going to get into lengthy arguments again over these issues. They have been well documented in the past nothing has changed. You and others are still going to stick to what you believe and no matter what is presented before you is not going to change that. So really these forums should be shut down and we should all and go and live long and prosperous lives. Will that happen -no because to some there is no life away from these forums.

I have one more informative post to make in the next 48 hours then it will be hasta la vista baby from me for the final time. SPE has summoned it up very well.

[Monty]

I got the impression that the idea that Eddowes wasn't actually wearing the apron may have sprung up in the face of massive opposition to the idea that Eddowes would have used an apron she was actually wearing as a sanitary device. That it was just a possession and not a functional garment would make it more likely it could have been used for this purpose and left at GS by Catherine, rather than the killer took it there, is how I remember this idea developing originally. I'm probably wrong though, Roy.

Indeed Debs,

And what was presented as supporting evidence was unconvincing, and ignorant on such matters concerning menstruation.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed Debs,

And what was presented as supporting evidence was unconvincing, and ignorant on such matters concerning menstruation.

Monty

Well I will be guided by the facts and the evidence of those far more knowledgable than you and I for that matter

[Debra A]

No. you are right but I am not going to get into lengthy arguments again over these issues. They have been well documented in the past nothing has changed. You and others are still going to stick to what you believe and no matter what is presented before you is not going to change that. So really these forums should be shut down and we should all and go and live long and prosperous lives. Will that happen -no because to some there is no life away from these forums.

I have one more informative post to make in the next 48 hours then it will be hasta la vista baby from me for the final time. SPE has summoned it up very well.

I have no wish to carry on with this either, believe me...
All I did was post a possible alternative reason for the apron being listed in the belongings, for Carol!
I can only make conclusions based on the evidence as I see it-that's all anyone can do. Someone offers their version of a solution and we are free to accept or reject it based on how we ourselves interpret the sources used. No need to get personal.

[Debra A]

Indeed Debs,

And what was presented as supporting evidence was unconvincing, and ignorant on such matters concerning menstruation.

Monty

I would agree, Neil. I'm definitely not going there again though! It got very ugly last time ...even without Trevor joining in!

[Monty]

I would agree, Neil. I'm definitely not going there again though! It got very ugly last time ...even without Trevor joining in!

No, best let that one rest.

Monty

[Scott Nelson]

There's some arrant nonsense in this thread. Now I know why I quit the boards.

This, unfortunately, is why I now treat almost everything written here as a joke.