PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

I'd like to know just why the Ripper didn't wipe his hands on the victim's clothes that she was wearing. Why did he go to the trouble of cutting off a piece of her apron in order just to wipe his hands? Seems a bit too 'fussy' to me.

I think it possible that the Ripper had nothing to do with that bit of cloth. If he had intended to take away body parts then I'm sure he would have had some sort of container on his person.

Carol

Hi Carol
I am glad to see someone else applying sensible reasoning to all of this because many of the seasoned posters on here seem to be devoid of that valuable commodity

At the risk of stirring up the natives I can tell you that she wasn't even wearing an apron at the time she met her death and official records prove that.

[The Good Michael]

The other day I was making meatballs for volunteer teachers. The errand people didn't buy ground beef, so I had to chop it all up with a dull knife and then mix it all together with pork, and other stuff. I had tiny hand towels to wipe my hands with and no hot water, just cold. Yet, every time I used a little hand towel (hanky-sized) it got rid of the mess in a few seconds from my hands. Granted, they weren't sanitized, but a little towel did the trick each time, and that would have been about 10 times I needed to wipe. I thought if I'd only had half an apron, I could have wiped in a few seconds, put the meatballs inside the apron, closed it up for transport, and then just wiped a little on the outside of the bundle.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor



Very true, which is why I hastened to add that it was only my personal belief - but it is backed by the balance of probabilities...if you wish to support a contrary view, then that too is just a personal belief, but mayhap not so well backed by probability, unless it was a very literate dog who happened to have it's false teeth out that night...



As per the learned answers above...any case where the evidence was largely circumstantial has to have been decided on the personal beliefs of twelve jury members...

All the best

Dave

Dave
You are still missing the point if a person tells the police I think it is AB or C had committed the crime based on that persons personal belief with nothing else other than that, would not be sufficient on its own to convict anyone not even enough to charge someone. Not even if you add your balance of probabilities to it.

What you allude to to is a classic case of ripperologists using the line of thinking and reasoning to prop up their own personal beliefs and to try to make either a case against someone or to prop up the old perceptions surrounding this case.

[Carol]

What if he cut himself, Carol - would he have anticipated that too?

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

Yes, I see your point.

Carol

[Carol]

Hi Carol
I am glad to see someone else applying sensible reasoning to all of this because many of the seasoned posters on here seem to be devoid of that valuable commodity

At the risk of stirring up the natives I can tell you that she wasn't even wearing an apron at the time she met her death and official records prove that.

Hi Trevor,

Can you point me in the direction of those official records? I'm very interested!

Thank you.

Carol

[Carol]

I own a facsimile of 'The Victorian Catalogue of Household Goods' which was first published in 1883 as 'The Illustrated Catalogue of Furniture and Household Requisites'. It is 328 pages long, full of extremely interesting items for anyone interested in social history (as I am). On page 308 are various 'toiletry' items, including a sponge bag. This sponge bag is waterproof. I am of the opinion that it would make a very good container for certain body parts. Here it is (hopefully);

[Hunter]

At the risk of stirring up the natives I can tell you that she wasn't even wearing an apron at the time she met her death and official records prove that.

Don't worry, Trevor. Not going to stir up this "native." You can have the place.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Can you point me in the direction of those official records? I'm very interested!

Thank you.

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.

[Wickerman]

Last three items of Eddowes personal belongings:

"1 piece of Red Flannel containing Pins & Needles"
"1 ball of hemp."
"1 piece of old White Apron".

Dammit your right Trevor, no mention of any piece of apron.



It just so happened to have the same string attached as was described when the other half had been cut off.

This is good evidence obtained at the time and written down at the time.

Good evidence is only usable when it is not misinterpreted in order to bolster a theory.

Not someone coming forward days later saying she was seen wearing an apron at the police station.

Be honest Trevor, your "someone" was none other than a policeman.

PC Lewis Robinson - witness.
Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - 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, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

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

Two policemen, not good enough, eh?

Then Det. Halse tells us:
"He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Ah, hence the, "1 piece of old White Apron", listed among her belongings.

I can see your difficulty Trevor.

[c.d.]

If she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her death then why were the police so interested in the GSG? Was it simply the message itself or was its importance derived from the nearby apron as well? And why would the police attach importance to an apron if it did not come from the victim?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

If she wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her death then why were the police so interested in the GSG? Was it simply the message itself or was its importance derived from the nearby apron as well? And why would the police attach importance to an apron if it did not come from the victim?

c.d.

The apron piece was in the possession of the victim sometime prior to her death but sh was not wearing it she had two old pieces of white apron in her posession.

[Trevor Marriott]

Last three items of Eddowes personal belongings:

"1 piece of Red Flannel containing Pins & Needles"
"1 ball of hemp."
"1 piece of old White Apron".

Dammit your right Trevor, no mention of any piece of apron.



It just so happened to have the same string attached as was described when the other half had been cut off.



Good evidence is only usable when it is not misinterpreted in order to bolster a theory.



Be honest Trevor, your "someone" was none other than a policeman.

PC Lewis Robinson - witness.
Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - 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, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

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

Two policemen, not good enough, eh?

Then Det. Halse tells us:
"He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Ah, hence the, "1 piece of old White Apron", listed among her belongings.

I can see your difficulty Trevor.

Firstly the police testimony to which you refer was given two weeks after the event at the inquest. How did the officers come to remember this so accurately two weeks later?

How can you misinterpret what they wrote down at the time that's the best evidence you can get "At the time" not two weeks later in the case of the police

Two pieces of white apron were produced which could have matched thousands of white aprons in London yet two officer say yes that the one she was wearing and you want to accept that as being good evidence.

Its also a bit leading to the officers is it not by producing two pieces of apron which they clearly know is connected to the murders. One officer says that the two pieces were the apron she was wearing. How could he know those two pieces came from the same apron. they were both found in different locations

The two pieces although matched did not make a full apron one was a top right or left corner piece the other the lower part.

Yes piece of old white apron. Not old white apron big difference

In fact one of your so called reliable police officers who you failed to mention the Station Sgt does not recall whether she was wearing one or not.

But we have been through all of this before and I am not going to argue it all again.

So you have huffed and puffed again where is your explanation to negate the list made "At the time" and the old piece of white apron (emphasis on piece) being listed amongst her possessions and not on the body?

[Wickerman]

Firstly the police testimony to which you refer was given two weeks after the event at the inquest. How did the officers come to remember this so accurately two weeks later?

Two possibilities.
1 - Well,..if humankind were demonstrably unable to recall specific's, even two weeks later, then inquests would not be conducted two weeks later, would they?
How did everyone else manage?

2 - These officers were related to Hutchinson?

Two pieces of white apron were produced which could have matched thousands of white aprons in London yet two officer say yes that the one she was wearing and you want to accept that as being good evidence.

PC Robinson was specifically shown both halves of the apron:

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - 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, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

The critical point would be to see if both pieces match at the point of separation.
Two pieces that didn't match could hardly be accepted as the same apron.

The two pieces although matched did not make a full apron one was a top right or left corner piece the other the lower part.

By what means have you determined this?

In fact one of your so called reliable police officers who you failed to mention the Station Sgt does not recall whether she was wearing one or not.

Correct, anybody, policeman or citizen, who does not recall if she wore an apron provides no clarification to the question.
Not remembering, does not mean she did not wear an apron.
Are you sure you were in the police Trevor?

But we have been through all of this before and I am not going to argue it all again.

Well, you raised the subject in the first place.

So you have huffed and puffed again where is your explanation to negate the list made "At the time" and the old piece of white apron (emphasis on piece) being listed amongst her possessions and not on the body?

Ok, so this list of possessions do not include her clothing, just what was in her pockets?
Lets see....
A black straw bonnet, was in her pocket?
A black cloth jacket, was in her pocket?
A chintz skirt, was in her pocket?
A Brown Linsey Dress Bodice, was in her pocket?
.
.
A pair of Men's lace up boots, was in her pocket?

I tell you what Trevor, my guess is, that this is a list of her possessions compiled from the pile of clothing, etc., on the floor AFTER she had been undressed for the autopsy.
What do you think?

[GUT]

G'day Jon

Ok, so this list of possessions do not include her clothing, just what was in her pockets?
Lets see....
A black straw bonnet, was in her pocket?
A black cloth jacket, was in her pocket?
A chintz skirt, was in her pocket?
A Brown Linsey Dress Bodice, was in her pocket?
.
.
A pair of Men's lace up boots, was in her pocket?

She must have had bg pockets

And surely

Then Det. Halse tells us:
"He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing."

Puts an end to the issue.

[Trevor Marriott]

Two possibilities.
1 - Well,..if humankind were demonstrably unable to recall specific's, even two weeks later, then inquests would not be conducted two weeks later, would they?
How did everyone else manage?

2 - These officers were related to Hutchinson?




PC Robinson was specifically shown both halves of the apron:

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - 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, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.

The critical point would be to see if both pieces match at the point of separation.
Two pieces that didn't match could hardly be accepted as the same apron.



By what means have you determined this?




Correct, anybody, policeman or citizen, who does not recall if she wore an apron provides no clarification to the question.
Not remembering, does not mean she did not wear an apron.
Are you sure you were in the police Trevor?



Well, you raised the subject in the first place.



Ok, so this list of possessions do not include her clothing, just what was in her pockets?
Lets see....
A black straw bonnet, was in her pocket?
A black cloth jacket, was in her pocket?
A chintz skirt, was in her pocket?
A Brown Linsey Dress Bodice, was in her pocket?
.
.
A pair of Men's lace up boots, was in her pocket?

I tell you what Trevor, my guess is, that this is a list of her possessions compiled from the pile of clothing, etc., on the floor AFTER she had been undressed for the autopsy.
What do you think?

A question to prove the point

Can you remember what coloured shirt you were wearing two weeks ago on a specific day,was it a shirt or a jumper or a tee shirt? The answer would be no,unless you had made a written record of it at the time. In the absence of official police officers statements made at the time or as soon as practicable we can only assume that at the inquest was the first time they were questioned about the events.

We are talking here about pieces of white apron. White aprons were part of everyday life. Why would that apron stand out to an officer specifically at the time, as against any other item of clothing or anything else. The officers were simply trying to be too helpful with their testimony. The inquest lacks questions asked of them which should have been asked about their testimony on this issue.

The two pieces although matched did not make up a full apron. (read the inquest testimony) work it out the mortuary piece "A corner piece with one string attached. The Goulston street piece another piece that matched, it doesn't say anything about the Goulston st piece having strings attached so there could not have been a full apron.

In any case if you are correct, which you are not, you are suggesting that both pieces matched, they did but not as you suggest, If that were the case according to you then the two pieces must have come from the top half of the apron. If that's the case what happened to the bottom portions?

Pc Robinson was shown the 2 pieces how could he say that was the apron she was wearing when it was not a full apron. How could he distinguish one white apron from another ? Which is one question he should have been asked.

It matters not what was in here pockets the list of her possessions says she was in possession of one piece of old white apron------- not one old white apron with piece missing which is what you would have expected if she had been wearing one

You have clearly lost the plot here stop guessing this isn't a guessing game

The List of clothing she was wearing shows the clothing was removed carefully piece by piece at the mortuary. The other mortuary list also complied at the same time shows the cuts to the clothing caused by the knife.

The apron piece at the mortuary was not described as having any cuts in it, and it would have had she been wearing an apron because cuts were found to the waistband area of other items of clothing

CLOTHING SHE WAS WEARING

“Black Straw Bonnet .
“Black Cloth Jacket.
???????? If she was wearing an apron this is where it would have been
under the jacket and over the skirt
“Chintz Skirt
“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice.
“Grey Stuff Petticoat
“Very old green Alpaca Skirt
“Very old ragged blue skirt
“White Calico Chemise
“Mans white vest
“No drawers or stays
“Pair of men lace up boots
“One piece of red gauze silk