PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

It would also explain the fecal matter found on the apron.

I think it might point out that, if JtR lived very close to Goulston Street, he could have brought home the organs, put them in some jar, (and send half a kidney by mail to Lusk later). Then he go out again to get rid of the apron, close but not too close to home, which could also explain the delay between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Just a thought.

Keep thinking !

[Trevor Marriott]

This is most of what is there,the credibilty of the officers/doctors involved.

Yes but they conflict with each other and are therefore unsafe to totally rely on.

Trevor

It is most of all vague.It is also unsafe to say she was not wearing it. But what the policemen saw (and only this) as she was released from jail was credible.They did not observe any part/s missing. It is possible though she could have taken it off after.

She had handkerchiefs, pieces of white rag she could have used for menstruation/defecation purposes. No reason to cut the apron.

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron and left it as such it was connected by a string to the body, about to fall/detached if it had'nt already , would it not be considered as 'she was "apparently wearing" it'?

Would they have classified it as wearing or as a possession?

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron - whatever the position was of the apron on Kate's body,why did'nt they just unanimously simply say that she was just carrying it among her other possessions. Why allude to wearing? Also why not just say the pieces of the apron did'nt fit.
They had time to consider all these.

Insp Collard lists the GS piece amongst her possesdioms not on the list of the clothing she was wearing !

[SirJohnFalstaff]

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

It would also explain the fecal matter found on the apron.

I think it might point out that, if JtR lived very close to Goulston Street, he could have brought home the organs, put them in some jar, (and send half a kidney by mail to Lusk later). Then he go out again to get rid of the apron, close but not too close to home, which could also explain the delay between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Just a thought.

[Varqm]

This is most of what is there,the credibilty of the officers/doctors involved.

Yes but they conflict with each other and are therefore unsafe to totally rely on.

Trevor

It is most of all vague.It is also unsafe to say she was not wearing it. But what the policemen saw (and only this) as she was released from jail was credible.They did not observe any part/s missing. It is possible though she could have taken it off after.

She had handkerchiefs, pieces of white rag she could have used for menstruation/defecation purposes. No reason to cut the apron.

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron and left it as such it was connected by a string to the body, about to fall/detached if it had'nt already , would it not be considered as 'she was "apparently wearing" it'?

Would they have classified it as wearing or as a possession?

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron - whatever the position was of the apron on Kate's body,why did'nt they just unanimously simply say that she was just carrying it among her other possessions. Why allude to wearing? Also why not just say the pieces of the apron did'nt fit.
They had time to consider all these.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, but if one end comes undone the whole bit of string can be completely pulled to one side or the other?

Yes I knew where you were coming from !

[Debra A]

Yes they do but that one string has two ends does it not which are pulled tight around the waist and then tied back or front ?

Yeah, but if one end comes undone the whole bit of string can be completely pulled to one side or the other?

[Trevor Marriott]

You're welcome. They only have one string though.

Yes they do but that one string has two ends does it not which are pulled tight around the waist and then tied back or front ?

[Debra A]

Thank you for mentioning that

Pic attached

You're welcome. They only have one string though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Michael.

The testimony of PC Robinson suggests the two pieces produced were a full apron.

"The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing".

These issues have been discussed in detail and the flaws in this testimony highlighted I am not going to keep repeating myself it is quite clear that you keep wanting to have the last say by keep posting the same things in an attempt to prove your theory

"The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it."

"Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
PC Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,"

Two pieces made up the whole apron - is there anything ambiguous about that?

where does it say the two pieces made up a full apron,

The flaws in this testimony have been documented many times I do not intend to keep repeating them but clearly you can't see them or I suspect you don't want to

[Trevor Marriott]

Not necessarily a mistranscription Garry.

With an open abdominal wound such as we see on Eddowes I wouldn't imagine the doctors would try turn the body over to untie the apron. My expectation is that they would simple cut the string at one side and pull the portion of apron off.
The end result is section of apron with one long string attached at one side (The string is actually both strings still tied together in the middle).

Then it wouldn't be a corner piece.

What was left would have been cut from the waistband area as one of the photos shows and would have had cuts snd blood stains in line with the rest of her clothing

That meant that the GS piece must have been the remaining three quarters according to your theory to make up a full apron. I spent a lot if time preparing those photos to prove the points which you choose to ignore

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 !

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

I see you keep avoiding the fact that collard prepared the lists no mention of her wearing an apron I suppose you wil say that was a mistake

If as you say the apron was cut the it would have been visîble and had to be physically removed it would have come off bonnet first,jacket second,
Apron third

I told you before there are set procedures at mortuaries as to how murder victims are dealt with with regards to listing clothing etc

You duck and dive with regards to accepting that there is a distinct differnce between an apron piece

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

The reality is that your theory does not stand up to close scrutiny.

I think you and Garry ought to book a holiday together on Fantasy Island !

[Wickerman]

I don't buy most of the speculation here, but I do see how someone might get away with stating we don't know it was a complete apron when paired together.

Hi Michael.

The testimony of PC Robinson suggests the two pieces produced were a full apron.

"The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing".

"The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it."

"Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
PC Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,"

Two pieces made up the whole apron - is there anything ambiguous about that?

[Wickerman]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

Not necessarily a mistranscription Garry.

With an open abdominal wound such as we see on Eddowes I wouldn't imagine the doctors would try turn the body over to untie the apron. My expectation is that they would simple cut the string at one side and pull the portion of apron off.
The end result is section of apron with one long string attached at one side (The string is actually both strings still tied together in the middle).

[Hunter]

This is pitiful. And I wasted 5 minutes after a "Long" hard day to even pull this sh!t up instead of watching a baseball game.

[Monty]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

BOOM as the Lord Madden would say.

Monty

[Michael W Richards]

The inquest reports leave no room for ambiguity, Mike. Time and again reference is made to 'the apron'. Not the 'incomplete apron' or 'those pieces of the apron which were recovered'. The apron. Trevor has built a hypothesis on what in all probability was a simple mistranscription - with string attached. Make that strings and the hypothesis collapses.

Hi Gary,

The use of "The apron" is almost certainly a paraphrase of "The apron in question" in this case, and I don't agree that those two words suggest the apron was in fact completely intact..in fact, the apron might well have been less volume than a store bought version would be due to its overuse by the owner, ....although no-one in Bishopsgate noted an apron that had a section missing when they booked her.

For Devils Advocate sake I made the post....Im not really buying the greater premises made, just noting that in my opinion that specific matter isn't defined precisely.

Cheers