PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

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

It is a very integral part of this mystery

Prove that Eddowes was not wearing an apron then it dispels the theory that the killer cut or tore it to either take away the organs in ,wipe his hands or knife on it. Therefore there then has to be other plausible explanations as to how it got to GS.

The description of the GS piece in any event is not consistent with organs being carried away in it, nor is it consistent with hands being wiped on it, with smears only on one side of the piece. So that casts a doubt about the killer removing the organs at the crime scene.

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,

Then we go to Kellys murder same killer, different killer? If the same then as no organs were removed for her and taken away that kind of adds more weight to believing the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were not taken away by the killer.

Take a look at what the public perceptions have been over the years based on these previously accepted facts. A man in a black hat, black cape carrying a bag, murdering and mutilating women in the dead of night and harvesting organs.

What are we left with if all those integral parts are dispelled. Nothing more than a series of similar unsolved murders, which had it not been for the aforementioned, coupled with the name Jack the Ripper would have drifted into obscurity years ago.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

No its you that cannot understand the evidence !

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’.

He says no such thing read pages 231 250 sourcebook

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’.

We are not talking about this issue are we

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.

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.’

Dr Phillips didn't arrive at the mortuary until many hours later with the GS piece

So Brown was present when Eddowes was undressed.

This isnt in question

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.

You are another one who doesn't read all the posts thoroughly. When the body was stripped at the mortuary the GS piece hadn't even been found. The GS piece was no taken to the mortuary for several hours later so the above statement is wrong.

If she was wearing it then why did Collards lists fail to show that ?

Also note that the term string appears in Browns inquest testimony which after making his statement before the coroner he would have been asked to read and then sign. If there had been any errors they would have been rectified

Beyond any shadow of doubt.

Yes that she wasn't wearing an apron.

Now unless you and others have anything new to add to all of this I would suggest that you desist from keep posting the same old same, its getting boring now. You believe what you want to believe. I am sure the unbiased members of this forum who have no hidden agendas will come to their own conclusions based on what has been put before them as evidence, and by evidence I don't just mean newspaper reports which you seem to hold in high esteem.

[Garry Wroe]

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, according to your logic, then, Roy, the only authors who have contributed anything of value to the Ripper case are those listed earlier in your post.

That’s an insult, I would suggest, to those who over many years have worked quietly yet tirelessly in the pursuit of new case-related information. What about Neal Shelden? Or Richard Whittington-Egan? Robin Odell? Colin Wilson? Stephen Ryder? Robert McLaughlin? Dan Farson? Viper? Alexander Kelly? Chris Scott? There are many more. And this is to say nothing of the legion of researchers who have contributed articles, dissertations or even Casebook posts down the years.

It’s the quality of the information or idea that counts, not the perceived status of the person who offers it up.

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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?

[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.

[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