PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Wickerman]

Trevor.

You are misrepresenting Collards list.

[Bridewell]

Yes there is no dispute that the two pieces were cut but not from a full apron.

This is an extract from a post in which Trevor condemns me (and others) for speculating. O tempora! O mores!

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Trevor,

Both you and the small minority of naysayers have all manged to come up with different theories about the apron yet there is no argument between yourselves as to which is right.

None of you are looking at the overall picture. There is more to consider when coming to a conclusion that just this specific part.

You cant all be right. But you can all be wrong !

Actually, Trevor, the argument here is solely between you and what happened in 1888.

In 1888 everyone involved agreed the Mitre Square murderer cut a piece of Catherine Eddowes' apron, took it and discarded it in Goulston Street. Everyone. The police, the doctors, and the coroner. The press reported it as such. It was a common, well known fact at the time. Nothing has changed in the intervening years to alter that. This is really quite simple. The overall picture is the event of 1888 and the unanimous agreement of what transpired.

There is no disagreement from anyone except you, Trevor, for 126 years right up to this Saturday night.

Roy

[Tom_Wescott]

This is an extract from a post in which Trevor condemns me (and others) for speculating. O tempora! O mores!

Trevor sticks to the facts the way water sticks to oil.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor.

You are misrepresenting Collards list.

I am not misrepresenting anything. I am referring to three official police lists from 1888. Lists that were prepared by a police Inspector at the time. This evidence is not hearsay its primary evidence.

How can anyone misrepresent three separate lists all made at the same time, all recorded in writing at the same time,all showing she had in her possession an old white apron piece, all showing that when the body was stripped she was not wearing an apron, had she been so then it would have been recorded as such.

Again in trying assess and evaluate the evidence look at it another way when the body was stripped the GS piece had not been found. So no reason to suggest at that time the MP was anything other than a piece of old white apron which is how it was described.

Then the GS turns up and is matched to the MP. The official line thereafter is that the killer dropped the GS piece, so therefore the inference is that she must have been wearing the apron for him to have cut or torn it. and take it away, hence Collards later inquest testimony where he say "apparently wearing"

Had the GS piece not appeared the MP would have still remained a piece.

[Wickerman]

How can anyone misrepresent three separate lists all made at the same time, all recorded in writing at the same time,all showing she had in her possession an old white apron piece, all showing that when the body was stripped she was not wearing an apron, had she been so then it would have been recorded as such.

You keep mentioning 'three' lists.

- We do have one list spread across two pages among the inquest records.
- We also have another version published in the press on Oct. 1st.

But the only time I recall you identifying 'three' sources is in an older post:

I did say serious doubt but

There have been varying descriptions of the apron piece that she was supposedly wearing and has been described in the following ways in various reports.
1. “Piece of old white apron” (Jack the Ripper A-Z)

2. “Piece of old white apron with repair” ( Casebook lists this under possessions and not clothing worn.)

3. “Piece of White apron (As described by Inspector Collard who listed her clothes and possessions at the mortuary when the body was stripped shortly after 3am on arrival at the mortuary)

In his inquest testimony he states "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

None of the above suggests to me that Eddowes was actually wearing an apron.

Piece is open to interpratation

So which are your 'three' preferred lists?

And, just out of interest. When Collard produced his list at the inquest, where are we told that he made up that list himself, as opposed to Dr. Brown, or Dr. Sequeira, or even Mr Davis?

[Varqm]

Trevor's explanations/view are interesting and it does create doubt that she was wearing the apron. But it is still vague/incomplete.
Collard was there. He saw the body and the apron. We can only imagine what he saw. Plus he have access to the data we have today.His decision/"theory" that Kate was apparently wearing the apron is better than whatever people can come up with today. At that time when they could nobody disagreed with him.

[Wickerman]

Trevor's explanations/view are interesting and it does create doubt that she was wearing the apron.

What doubt?

Testimony of PC Hutt, as recorded in the top seven sources who covered the Inquest.

"I noticed she was wearing an apron"

"[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is."

"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

"Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron? - I did."

"I have seen the apron produced, and to the best of my belief it is the one she was wearing when she left the station."

"He recognised the apron produced as the one she had been wearing."

"He noticed she was wearing an apron."

Please point out where any doubt exists, except in Trevor's mind.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well I knew it wouldn't be long before casebooks most prolific poster surfaced. I see you have posted over 5000 posts since 2008. You simply can help yourself can you. Talk about serial killers I am beginning to think you are a serial poster !

[QUOTE=Wickerman;303992]You keep mentioning 'three' lists.

- We do have one list spread across two pages among the inquest records.
- We also have another version published in the press on Oct. 1st.

But the only time I recall you identifying 'three' sources is in an older post:

Let me answer several questions in one go. It is normal police procedure for a person, police or otherwise to produce their own exhibits for obvious reasons in this case the three lists. If any of the others wrote the list they would have made the statement as they were all there it was Collards job.

Now if you want to split hairs then there might have been one sheet which contained the three lists, but nevertheless that still make three separate lists.

1. Clothes she was wearing
2. Clothes showing cuts and bloodtains, to clothes she was wearing
3. Possessions.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;304060]What doubt?

Testimony of PC Hutt, as recorded in the top seven sources who covered the Inquest.

"I noticed she was wearing an apron"

"[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is."

Best of my belief

"He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one."

Best of my belief

"Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron? - I did."

"I have seen the apron produced, and to the best of my belief it is the one she was wearing when she left the station."

Best of my belief

"He recognised the apron produced as the one she had been wearing."

The below answer sums it all up but you again can and wont accept it

Alll white aprons were the same. What was so special about hers for any of them to take notice on the night and then identify it two weeks later.

That evidence is worth the paper its written on !

"He noticed she was wearing an apron."

And besides, playing devils advocate here. If she had have been wearing an apron or even part of an apron when she left the police station no one knows what if anything may have happened to it between police station and her murder.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor's explanations/view are interesting and it does create doubt that she was wearing the apron. But it is still vague/incomplete.
Collard was there. He saw the body and the apron. We can only imagine what he saw. Plus he have access to the data we have today.His decision/"theory" that Kate was apparently wearing the apron is better than whatever people can come up with today. At that time when they could nobody disagreed with him.

Exactly everyone accepted the lists then without question.

In fact I stand to be corrected here but I don't off the top of my head recall any official who was part of the initial investigation even suggesting that the killer was responsible for cutting or tearing the apron in any event. They did suggest that the killer could have dropped it but that leaves the door still wide open to other explanations both with regards to the apron piece, the organs, and the killers motives, if that's what he did?

It also leaves the door open as we have discussed that in any event the organs were not taken away in the apron piece. Again no official raised this issue back then

I mention officials in both case because I am sure our mutual friends on here will come back quoting newspaper reports to the contrary

[Roy Corduroy]

we have discussed that in any event the organs were not taken away in the apron piece. Again no official raised this issue back then

Not we. You discussed. We knew no official raised the issue of the organs being taken away in the apron piece back then. We knew the idea doesn't appear in any of the major rippers books. Here's the list again of books where that idea is not mentioned. Cullen, Knight, Rumbelow, Howell & Skinner, Fido, Begg, Sugden, Evans & Gainey, Tully, Evans & Rumbelow.

You're the one discussing it as if it matters one way or the other. That the idea even existed. Trevor, you're the one who said and I quote " the apron piece being used to carry the organs is an important and integral part of the case."

But you won't say where you got that idea. I've asked you and you won't answer. Because I think its dawned on you now, you've been arguing against something which never existed.

To tie in with your theory the killer did not remove the body parts, you made up this 'extension' to the apron caper. That the police and everyone since suggested it was used to carry the organs. You imagined in your mind that this happened in order for you to dispel it to make your theory work.

Then, we saw right here on this thread that, oops it dawned on you, no the police didn't say that. You figured that out. Good on you.

And I assume you'll never read any of the ripper books I listed above, so you'll have to take my word for it that carrying the organs away in the apron piece is not and never was "an important and integral part of the case." Because it's NOT IN A SINGLE ONE of those books.

So where does that leave us. You 'imagined' or 'dreamed up' something to argue against because you thought that would help your theory. Now I think you're finally realizing the whole bit didn't exist.

Kind of an empty feeling. Come on Trev, let's all go to Denny's for breakfast.

Roy

[Wickerman]

Ah Trevor.
So PC Hutt did see her wearing an apron, but it wasn't the same apron introduced at the Inquest?

Curiouser and curiouser...

And besides, playing devils advocate here. If she had have been wearing an apron or even part of an apron when she left the police station no one knows what if anything may have happened to it between police station and her murder.

But of course, with the illusive Bishopsgate apron thief on the loose, no woman was safe.

Here's a thought, do you think its possible the apron thief and the kidney thief knew each other?

[GUT]

But of course, with the illusive Bishopsgate apron thief on the loose, no woman was safe.

Here's a thought, do you think its possible the apron thief and the kidney thief knew each other?

G'day Jon

Thanks.

I can't tell you how much I needed a laugh this morning.

[Garry Wroe]

Then it wouldn't be a corner piece.

Once again, Trev, you appear to have misunderstood the evidence.

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 !

Brown did not state that a corner of the apron was taken away. He stated that a corner of the remnant discovered in Goulston Street bore signs of bloodstaining. No mention of a ‘corner piece’.

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

What has been suggested, Trev, is that a simple transcriptional error could have led the plural ‘strings’ being recorded as the singular ‘string’. Somewhat predictably, you dismiss this out of hand. You seem to be forgetting that on the night of the Eddowes murder the Goulston Street message was copied by policemen, a task that resulted in at least five spelling variants of the word ‘Jews’.

Here’s how the Daily Telegraph of Friday, 5 October, recorded Brown’s inquest deposition: ‘Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.’

Strings. Plural.

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

Well, here’s what Brown said, again sourced from the Daily Telegraph. ‘Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.’

So Brown was present when Eddowes was undressed.

And then: ‘Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.’

Thus Eddowes was wearing the apron in the mortuary.

Beyond any shadow of doubt.