PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Jon Guy]

But it still hasn't helped you assess and evaluate it in a logical way

I think this issue has now been put to bed, Trev.

There was only one reason Foster drew up plans of the route from Mitre Sq to Goulston Street.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think this issue has now been put to bed, Trev.

There was only one reason Foster drew up plans of the route from Mitre Sq to Goulston Street.

Yes I cannot be bothered to argue anymore.

Unlike you and others I have a life outside of Ripperology

[Jon Guy]

Yes I cannot be bothered to argue anymore.

Unlike you and others I have a life outside of Ripperology

It`s not really an argument though is it; and even your insults are incorrect sweeping statements.

Nighty night

[Carol]

The official list of the clothing she was wearing which was carefully taken off and each item documented in the order it came off. You will see no mention of her wearing an apron in fact no mention of an apron at all.

She did however have an old piece of white apron in her property. This was a corner piece and had only one string attached so they couldn't have got that mixed up as some will try to tell you.

As you know you cant tie an apron with just one string

Dont be bullied by those on here who will try to come up with all sorts of explanations to negate this. This is good evidence obtained at the time and written down at the time. Not someone coming forward days later saying she was seen wearing an apron at the police station.

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for your reply.

I've looked at the official record of what Eddowes was wearing when she arrived at the mortuary. Certainly no mention of her wearing an apron.

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

It`s not really an argument though is it; and even your insults are incorrect sweeping statements.

Nighty night

Well coming from you that reply shows you do not even have the assessment capability needed to assess and evaluate simple matters let alone complex evidential issues.

Take a vacation go and buy a new anorak !

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for your reply.

I've looked at the official record of what Eddowes was wearing when she arrived at the mortuary. Certainly no mention of her wearing an apron.

Carol

Hi Carol
Well I am glad to see you and I agree on that topic but it trying to convince the remainder who have over the years been brainwashed into thinking something different.

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

This is a genuine request for an explanation to a question I have.

If Eddowes was still wearing an apron when she was murdered (the apron mentioned by the police officers) then I am very confused. Actually 'wearing' an apron requires two strings.

Dr. Brown said (see post 101) 'I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion which was still attached by strings to the body'. Now, if the piece of apron found with her belongings still had a string attached then that makes three strings if the apron itself was attached to the body. I am finding this very confusing. Perhaps it's the heat - it's 29.3 degrees in the shade at the moment!

Thank you.

Carol

[Jon Guy]

you do not even have the assessment capability needed to assess and evaluate simple matters let alone complex evidential issues.

Maybe .... but I still destroyed your apron and organ theories.

I`ll ask again just in case you`ve now sobered up:

1) Why did Foster draw a plan of the route from Mitre Sq to Goulston Street?

2) When were Chapman`s organs taken. Be exact with the time so I can tell you who was supervising the corpse at that precise time.

[Jon Guy]

This is a genuine request for an explanation to a question I have.

If Eddowes was still wearing an apron when she was murdered (the apron mentioned by the police officers) then I am very confused. Actually 'wearing' an apron requires two strings.

Dr. Brown said (see post 101) 'I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion which was still attached by strings to the body'. Now, if the piece of apron found with her belongings still had a string attached then that makes three strings if the apron itself was attached to the body. I am finding this very confusing. Perhaps it's the heat - it's 29.3 degrees in the shade at the moment!

Hi Carol

The apron would have still stayed in place without strings as Eddowes was lying down.

[Monty]

Hi everyone,

This is a genuine request for an explanation to a question I have.

If Eddowes was still wearing an apron when she was murdered (the apron mentioned by the police officers) then I am very confused. Actually 'wearing' an apron requires two strings.

Dr. Brown said (see post 101) 'I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion which was still attached by strings to the body'. Now, if the piece of apron found with her belongings still had a string attached then that makes three strings if the apron itself was attached to the body. I am finding this very confusing. Perhaps it's the heat - it's 29.3 degrees in the shade at the moment!

Thank you.

Carol

It is dependant on the type of apron Carol,

One worn upon the waist, which requires two strings, or a bib style, which requires three (one around the neck, and two waist strings).

Of course, if (and I stress if) Eddowes was not wearing an apron when Watkins found her, it must not be taken as read that she was not wearing one when attacked. The killer could have easily removed it at the scene, took a piece, and thrown the discarded piece aside.

The bottom line we have testimony, at inquest, stating Eddowes was seen wearing an apron less than an hour before she was murdered, yet we do not have testimony stating clearly that she was not wearing one. The evidence is there, it is up to you if you prefer primary contemporary sources, or secondary, 125 years after the event, interpretation from someone who clearly struggles to comprehend the difference between the two.

Now as for bullying, please note that only one person has gotten personal in the last few days. Again, I shall let you interpret that as you wish.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;30033

Of course, if (and I stress if) Eddowes was not wearing an apron when Watkins found her, it must not be taken as read that she was not wearing one when attacked. The killer could have easily removed it at the scene, took a piece, and thrown the discarded piece aside

[B]So now the killer untied her apron and took it off ? you should change to writing fantasy books ! It was only 5 mins ago that you were 100% certain that she was wearing one at the mortuary and telling everyone that.


The bottom line we have testimony, at inquest, stating Eddowes was seen wearing an apron less than an hour before she was murdered, yet we do not have testimony stating clearly that she was not wearing one. The evidence is there, it is up to you if you prefer primary contemporary sources, or secondary, 125 years after the event, interpretation from someone who clearly struggles to comprehend the difference between the two.

[B]Excuse me but even Carol has highlighted the lists form the mortuary which were written at the time that that prime evidence.How can they not be regarded. The inquest testimony is inconsistent, unreliable and unsafe to rely on[/B

Insp Collard refers to the mortuary lists in his inquest testimony

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;300345]

So now the killer untied her apron and took it off ? you should change to writing fantasy books ! It was only 5 mins ago that you were 100% certain that she was wearing one at the mortuary and telling everyone that.


The bottom line we have testimony, at inquest, stating Eddowes was seen wearing an apron less than an hour before she was murdered, yet we do not have testimony stating clearly that she was not wearing one. The evidence is there, it is up to you if you prefer primary contemporary sources, or secondary, 125 years after the event, interpretation from someone who clearly struggles to comprehend the difference between the two.

[B]Excuse me but even Carol has highlighted the lists form the mortuary which were written at the time that that prime evidence.How can they not be regarded. The inquest testimony is inconsistent, unreliable and unsafe to rely on[/B

Insp Collard refers to the mortuary lists in his inquest testimony

Did I state I was 100% certain? Go back and find out where I said that. Then, after wasting an hour or so, come back here and admit you cannot. Also, it seems you have missed the Devils Advocate in brackets.

There is nothing in that list which indicates what was worn. Again, that is your interpretation, nothing more.

Also, again, I ask, is there any testimony which clearly states Eddowes was seen NOT wearing an apron?

You are doing the very same thing you condone others for doing. Do as I say, not as I do huh?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;300347]

Did I state I was 100% certain? Go back and find out where I said that. Then, after wasting an hour or so, come back here and admit you cannot. Also, it seems you have missed the Devils Advocate in brackets.

There is nothing in that list which indicates what was worn. Again, that is your interpretation, nothing more.

Also, again, I ask, is there any testimony which clearly states Eddowes was seen NOT wearing an apron?

You are doing the very same thing you condone others for doing. Do as I say, not as I do huh?

Monty

Let me ask you several questions

Do you accept that there are inconstinces in the inquest testimony and the needs paper reports in relation to the apron ?

If you do then do you accept that the evidence is clearly unsafe and un reliable ?

Do you accept the clothing lists were made at the time the body was stripped ?

Do you accept that the PC who identified the apron in court was asked leading questions ?

[Carol]

Hi Jon and Monty,

Thank you for your feedbacks to my query.

Carol

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

And can I ask where are there any rules about leading questions in inquests, it is perfectly proper for some people to ask leading questions, generally it is called cross examination.