PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[The Good Michael]

The ‘evidence’, see, is merely a smokescreen – a cover story intended by the cabal to throw us off the scent. It’s what ‘they’ want us to believe. To get to the real facts you simply take this ‘evidence’ and assume the opposite to be true.

Yes, yes, yes! I've been so blind to this! Thanks for consolidating this perspective, Gary....but do these 'opposites' apply to the Lindbergh baby, Lizzie Borden, and others? I mean, is this the same cabal?

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Your time might be best spent not on here constantly trying to discredit what I have put forward and in doing so coming out with feeble explanations to prop up what you have written in your book. But now rewriting that book of yours, which is now misleading to anyone reading it

Right, Trev. I’ll begin by revising the Nichols chapter, because the evidence clearly indicates that the killer took several organs from the body, but that these were replaced by a mortuary attendant whilst a distracted Dr Llewellyn was ordering pizza by mobile phone. The fact that the so-called ‘evidence’ points to none of this happening is proof that it did. The ‘evidence’, see, is merely a smokescreen – a cover story intended by the cabal to throw us off the scent. It’s what ‘they’ want us to believe. To get to the real facts you simply take this ‘evidence’ and assume the opposite to be true. Hence I can say quite categorically that Jack the Ripper (even if he did exist, which he clearly didn’t because he was another invention of the cabal) did take away a number of Polly Nichols’ internal organs. And anybody who says otherwise is ignoring the evidence.

As opposed to the ‘evidence’.

Which, of course, isn’t evidence at all.

Evidently.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's right, Trev. They're the fruit base for the humble pie you'll never consent to eat. Much like your apron theory that no-one appears to be swallowing.

Your time might be best spent not on here constantly trying to discredit what I have put forward and in doing so coming out with feeble explanations to prop up what you have written in your book. But now rewriting that book of yours, which is now misleading to anyone reading it

[Trevor Marriott]

The butchered apron was now lying on the body (she was not actually wearing it at this point as the string had been cut, it was probably lying on her) he said "apparently" - meaning, before it had been cut and she was wearing it, as opposed to just lying on her.

Where does it say anywhere that the apron was butchered?

There is no dispute that Collard prepared the lists but if it’s as you say that the remnant of the apron was just lying on top of her would you not think he or anyone else there would have concluded that she was wearing one and not said apparently? Again according to you and others this remnant you refer to would seem to be three-quarters of a full apron. Now no one could mistake something that size lying on top of a body having come straight from the crime scene as anything other that she was wearing it but he didn’t did he? He uses the term apparently

Then Dr Brown comes into the equation he mentions it being a corner piece with a string attached so out goes the three quarters of an apron does it not? He describes it as being spotted with blood. He mentions no cuts, which had, she been wearing it there would have been cuts having regards to the other clothing and it would have had more blood on it other than spots I would suggest.

Also with the position of the apron, the clothes were drawn up that meant the apron would have been the furthest piece of clothing from the killer and the most difficult to access and it would have come in contact as likely as not with the open wounds and therefore there would have been more blood on it than spots.

Also with regards to the lists Collard goes to great length to describe the cuts and all the blood on the clothing, which was heavily blood stained. If she was apparently wearing the apron then surely he should have noted anything on the old white apron piece as described and it would have showed up on the lists.

You have tried to interpret the term apparently in a way which fits your theory. Even taking his “apparently” in your context he lists the piece in her possessions not amongst the clothing she was wearing, and makes no mention on that list of the term “apparently” in fact he makes no reference at all to the apron being a full apron with piece missing, and we know that the two pieces in any event did not make up a full apron. So that alone kicks the whole apron theory into touch.

I find it strange that with all the people present a definitive decision was not made as to whether she was wearing one or not. After all Collard had over a week to liaise with the other persons and clarify one way or the other before he went to court and used the term apparently.

Having assessed and evaluated the facts and the report and the inquest testimony I am happy to say that all this points to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron but simply in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point had been part of a full apron. It is also not beyond the realms of possibility that she was in the vicinity of GS at some time between her leaving the police station and meeting her death, and could have deposited it herself for one of the reasons previously discussed.

I don't subscribe to the knife wiping, or the wiping of a hand despite what Dr Brown says. To many factors which put together negate both of these issues.

In the light of what we now have established with regards to the Kelly murder and the fact that no organs were missing, and if it were the same killer then it casts a major doubt also about the killer removing the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the crime scene.

From my perspective I have nothing further to add to this now and I see no point in continuing to argue the same points over and over again. Posters have two choices accept or reject, personally I don’t give a monkeys either way because I know from the exchanges there have been that it is quite clear that a small minority of researchers are never going to accept anything new.

I see all of these new facts as a kick in the teeth for this mystery. For far to long researchers and the public at large have been misled by how this mystery has been documented in books and documentaries. Well I can tell you all from first hand experience with my contact with the public over the past 12 months around the country that they are now changing their perceptions on this case which can only be good.

I see Simon is soon to publish his challenges to this mystery and its good to see that there are others who can see major flaws in this mystery and are prepared to go out on a limb and incur the wrath of the small minority.

Already in some quarters the knives are out for him. Well I am sure that he will be more than a match for this small minority who will no doubt try their best to discredit what he publishes, as they have tried with me.

But the quote below could have been written just for me it’s priceless!

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

[Garry Wroe]

You are doing what others are doing cherry picking.

That's right, Trev. They're the fruit base for the humble pie you'll never consent to eat. Much like your apron theory that no-one appears to be swallowing.

[Garry Wroe]

To suggest that Kate did not, basically in her person/possession/ownership, a cutted piece of apron means the it was mixed up from another source,planted or Halse and Collard and Brown were dreaming/imagining things. Much less likely.
The apron pieces not fitting means the people present in the inquest and police/doctor attesting that they fit were incompetent,all of them.While we are at it include the person who wrote the mortuary list.
Unfortunately short of photographs or highly detailed report it's never 100%.
This is most of what is there,the credibilty of the officers/doctors involved.

Exactly, Varqm. And if we accept that this group conspired to present misinformation regarding the apron, the motivation behind such an act would need to be explained.

Could this have been another cabal?

[Trevor Marriott]

The Daily Telegraph, Friday, 5 October. Inquest testimony of Dr Brown.

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.

You are doing what others are doing cherry picking.

Official inquest testimony

"My attention was called to the apron it was a corner of the apron with the string attached

[Garry Wroe]

Well she either was wearing one or she wasn't. The evidential value is to be found when assessing and evaluating all the facts, which tip the scales in favour of one or the other. At the moment some on here are tipping the scales without doing that.

The Daily Telegraph, Friday, 5 October. Inquest testimony of Dr Brown.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

From which may be drawn several definite conclusions. Kate was wearing an apron in the hours preceding her death. Robinson and Hutt noted that she was wearing the apron on her arrest and subsequent release from Bishopsgate Police Station. Collard saw part of the apron attached to Kate’s body in Mitre Square. Collard and Halse together observed the same garment before Kate was undressed. Two pieces of the apron were presented before the inquest. One was the remnant found by Long in Goulston Street, the other the section left behind in Mitre Square. The inquest depositions make it clear, moreover, that the two pieces constituted the apron in its entirety.

No they don't ! There is no mention that the two pieces made a full apron !

Please read back on some of the previous postings where the inconsistencies in both inquest testimony and newspaper reports are highlighted.

Garry


To suggest that Kate did not, basically in her person/possession/ownership, a cutted piece of apron means the it was mixed up from another source,planted or Halse and Collard and Brown were dreaming/imagining things. Much less likely.
The apron pieces not fitting means the people present in the inquest and police/doctor attesting that they fit were incompetent,all of them.While we are at it include the person who wrote the mortuary list.
Unfortunately short of photographs or highly detailed report it's never 100%.
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

[Varqm]

From which may be drawn several definite conclusions. Kate was wearing an apron in the hours preceding her death. Robinson and Hutt noted that she was wearing the apron on her arrest and subsequent release from Bishopsgate Police Station. Collard saw part of the apron attached to Kate’s body in Mitre Square. Collard and Halse together observed the same garment before Kate was undressed. Two pieces of the apron were presented before the inquest. One was the remnant found by Long in Goulston Street, the other the section left behind in Mitre Square. The inquest depositions make it clear, moreover, that the two pieces constituted the apron in its entirety.

Garry


To suggest that Kate did not, basically in her person/possession/ownership, a cutted piece of apron means the it was mixed up from another source,planted or Halse and Collard and Brown were dreaming/imagining things. Much less likely.
The apron pieces not fitting means the people present in the inquest and police/doctor attesting that they fit were incompetent,all of them.While we are at it include the person who wrote the mortuary list.
Unfortunately short of photographs or highly detailed report it's never 100%.
This is most of what is there,the credibilty of the officers/doctors involved.

[Trevor Marriott]

I haven't actually said anything of the sort, but that is not the point I was making. Your earlier post implied that the fact that there was no mention of her wearing an apron was of evidential value in supporting your claim that she wasn't. I merely point out that, as there is no mention one way or the other, the evidential value is nil.

Well she either was wearing one or she wasn't. The evidential value is to be found when assessing and evaluating all the facts, which tip the scales in favour of one or the other. At the moment some on here are tipping the scales without doing that.

[Trevor Marriott]

The Official Record by itself is not a good source. We find considerably more coverage via the press, except the Times and Morning Post who's coverage of that part of Collard's testimony is quite inadequate.

Section of Insp. Collard's testimony.

* * *
(Official Record of the City of London) the body was examined and Sergeant Jones picked up on the left side of Deceased 3 small black buttons generally used for womens boots small metal button common metal thimble a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets which were handed to me

(Daily Telegraph) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me.

(Times) The medical gentlemen then examined the body,...

(Daily News) The medical gentleman examined her, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway, on the left side of the deceased, three small black buttons of the kind generally used for women's boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, a small mustard tin containing two pawn tickets.

(Morning Advertiser) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing two pawntickets. They were handed to me.

(Morning Post) The medical men examined the body, and Sergeant Jones picked up some small buttons and other articles, including a small mustard tin, which contained two pawntickets.

(Standard) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing two pawntickets. They were handed to me.

(Evening News) The medical gentlemen examined the body in my presence. Sergeant Jones picked upon the footway on the left side of the deceased three small black buttons generally used for women's boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, a small mustard tin containing two pawn tickets. They were handed to me.

(Echo) The medical gentleman examined the body, and Sergeant Jones afterwards picked up, on the left side of the deceased three small black boot buttons, a small metal button, a metal thimble and a small mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets.

* * *

(Official Record of the City of London) the Doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance and saw the body placed in a Conveyance It was then conveyed to this mortuary – and the body was stripped – I produce the list of articles found on her – she had no money whatever on her

(Daily Telegraph) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found.

(Times) ...and remained until the arrival of the ambulance, when the body was taken to the mortuary. No money was found on the deceased.

"Up until now you have include nothing relative to the apron piece or the apron"

(Daily News) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it.

This has already been mentioned but you forgot to highlight the fact that this doesn't mention Halse !

(Morning Advertiser) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her?-No; no money whatever was found.

Again no mention of Halse being present

(Morning Post) The body was conveyed to the mortuary. No money was found about it,..

(Standard) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her?-No; no money whatever was found.

Again no mention of Halse

(Evening News) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in it. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by the mortuary keeper in the presence of the two doctors and myself. There was no money whatever about the clothes.

Again no mention of Halse

(Echo) The body was afterwards removed to the mortuary. There was no money in her pockets. There was some tea and sugar, a piece of flannel, some soap, a cigarette case, and an empty match-box in her pocket.
* * *

Use all the sources together Trevor, stop cherry-picking those which provide inadequate coverage.
I have broken down the entire Eddowes Inquest, sentence by sentence, across nine sources.
It's the only way to appreciate what was said by every witness, that is what you should be doing.

Yes and you have not succeeded. You have in fact added more weight to show the inconsistencies in the reports and the witness testimony. In addition to higlighting the flaws in the evidence you seek to rely on.

[Stewart P Evans]

Nice Guy

I would suggest you consider going on e bay to see if anyone has a spare brain for sale, because the one you have is clearly dead, as your rants suggest to me that in fact you are already dead from the neck up !
You never know you might find a new one capable of allowing you to apply sensible logical reasoning.

I always did say what a really nice guy Trevor is.

[Wickerman]

Not in official inquest testimony he doesn't ! Nor is it the Times

The Official Record by itself is not a good source. We find considerably more coverage via the press, except the Times and Morning Post who's coverage of that part of Collard's testimony is quite inadequate.

Section of Insp. Collard's testimony.

* * *
(Official Record of the City of London) the body was examined and Sergeant Jones picked up on the left side of Deceased 3 small black buttons generally used for womens boots small metal button common metal thimble a small mustard tin containing 2 pawn tickets which were handed to me

(Daily Telegraph) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me.

(Times) The medical gentlemen then examined the body,...

(Daily News) The medical gentleman examined her, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway, on the left side of the deceased, three small black buttons of the kind generally used for women's boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, a small mustard tin containing two pawn tickets.

(Morning Advertiser) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing two pawntickets. They were handed to me.

(Morning Post) The medical men examined the body, and Sergeant Jones picked up some small buttons and other articles, including a small mustard tin, which contained two pawntickets.

(Standard) The medical gentlemen examined the body, and in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the footway by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small mustard tin containing two pawntickets. They were handed to me.

(Evening News) The medical gentlemen examined the body in my presence. Sergeant Jones picked upon the footway on the left side of the deceased three small black buttons generally used for women's boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, a small mustard tin containing two pawn tickets. They were handed to me.

(Echo) The medical gentleman examined the body, and Sergeant Jones afterwards picked up, on the left side of the deceased three small black boot buttons, a small metal button, a metal thimble and a small mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets.

* * *

(Official Record of the City of London) the Doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance and saw the body placed in a Conveyance It was then conveyed to this mortuary – and the body was stripped – I produce the list of articles found on her – she had no money whatever on her

(Daily Telegraph) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found.

(Times) ...and remained until the arrival of the ambulance, when the body was taken to the mortuary. No money was found on the deceased.

(Daily News) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. The body was then taken to the mortuary. It was stripped in the presence if the two doctors and myself. No money was found on it.

(Morning Advertiser) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her?-No; no money whatever was found.

(Morning Post) The body was conveyed to the mortuary. No money was found about it,..

(Standard) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut. Was there any money about her?-No; no money whatever was found.

(Evening News) The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in it. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by the mortuary keeper in the presence of the two doctors and myself. There was no money whatever about the clothes.

(Echo) The body was afterwards removed to the mortuary. There was no money in her pockets. There was some tea and sugar, a piece of flannel, some soap, a cigarette case, and an empty match-box in her pocket.

* * *

Use all the sources together Trevor, stop cherry-picking those which provide inadequate coverage.
I have broken down the entire Eddowes Inquest, sentence by sentence, across nine sources.
It's the only way to appreciate what was said by every witness, that is what you should be doing.

[Bridewell]

The butchered apron was now lying on the body (she was not actually wearing it at this point as the string had been cut, it was probably lying on her) he said "apparently" - meaning, before it had been cut and she was wearing it, as opposed to just lying on her.

That's how I see it too, Jon.