PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Sam Flynn]

Then you simply trot on, hands sticky with blood and smelling with feces

Really? Don't think so. Much better to have a rag you can use for that purpose.

[Trevor Marriott]

She must have had bg pockets

And surely



Puts an end to the issue.

Yes lets

Dr Brown doesnt say she was wearing an apron does he and it was he who produced the mortuary piece at the inquest.

[Monty]

That is because Dr Brown wasn't at the mortuary when Eddowes was stripped, and therefore did not see what she was wearing exactly.

As for the scene, Brown states that her clothes were thrown up,, clearly indicating the disarray, and naturally, for a medical man focuses more on the wounds than attire.

Numerous witnesses state Eddowes was wearing an apron. More than any who claim she was not.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

That is because Dr Brown wasn't at the mortuary when Eddowes was stripped, and therefore did not see what she was wearing exactly.

As for the scene, Brown states that her clothes were thrown up,, clearly indicating the disarray, and naturally, for a medical man focuses more on the wounds than attire.

Numerous witnesses state Eddowes was wearing an apron. More than any who claim she was not.

Monty

But the written facts cant lie with regards to the clothing and property list and I beg to differ on Dr Brown being present

Insp Collard prepared the lists as referred to and is quoted

Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph “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”

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced”

Notice he refers to portion not an apron there is a massive difference. If she had been wearing an apron it would have been described as an apron with a portion missing

All of the witnesses according to the various newspaper reports of the inquest all appear to have said things differently in which case they cannot be readily accepted as being correct. So that is why the lists are important and reliable and accurate because they were written at the time

Now you should know the value of notes made at the time in legal proceedings, and also the negative evidential value of a witness referring to notes made two weeks after the event.

[The Good Michael]

Notice he refers to portion not an apron there is a massive difference. If she had been wearing an apron it would have been described as an apron with a portion missing

Half an apron is a portion. If the apron portions hadn't been matched up yet, he'd especially use the word 'portion'. Oh look, I used the plural and it fits well, pun intended. You can't make things fit where they don't.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Half an apron is a portion. If the apron portions hadn't been matched up yet, he'd especially use the word 'portion'. Oh look, I used the plural and it fits well, pun intended. You can't make things fit where they don't.

Mike

It couldn't have been half an apron, firstly it would have been so described as half of the apron and not a portion. Secondly the two pieces when matched did make up a full apron.

The mortuary piece was either top left or right because that had the string attached.The GS piece matched to it but must have been the opposite bottom piece.

The apron could not have been severed horizontaly across in the centre , otherwise the top half would have still been tied around her waist and would have been shown on the list of clothing removed.

You can make things fit, which clearly you are trying to do as are others. I simply present the facts as they are, and don't look at them through tinted glasses.

[Monty]

Seeing as we are resorting to newspaper accounts, you seem to have omitted Inspector Collards statement reported in The Times, dated 5th October 1888, within which he states that "A portion of apron produced was found on her...", therefore she had an apron.

Allowing for the inevitable rebuttal which shall undoubtedly manifest in a quibble over the context of the word 'on', it is best that the primary inquest testimony, the official transcribing, be used, rather than rely on whatever press recording one can find to bolster ones argument. Therefore I cite the following official testimony -

City Constable 91 Louis Robinson stated - "She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing"

City Constable 968 George H Hutt stated - "I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the station".

Again, to reiterate, this is not a newspaper recording, this is an official transcription of what was said at inquest.


Now you will, as you have done, claim that this testimony is fabricated, however you will not, because you cannot, provide a valid reason as to why. The City constables mentioned have no reason to concoct a story, there would be no reprimand if they, or even one of them, stated she was certainly NOT wearing an apron.

Again, have you testimony stating quite clearly Catherine Eddowes was not wearing an apron? Because if not, you are presenting an assumption based on your interpretation of the evidence, in other words, you are making things fit.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Seeing as we are resorting to newspaper accounts, you seem to have omitted Inspector Collards statement reported in The Times, dated 5th October 1888, within which he states that "A portion of apron produced was found on her...", therefore she had an apron.

Allowing for the inevitable rebuttal which shall undoubtedly manifest in a quibble over the context of the word 'on', it is best that the primary inquest testimony, the official transcribing, be used, rather than rely on whatever press recording one can find to bolster ones argument. Therefore I cite the following official testimony -

City Constable 91 Louis Robinson stated - "She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing"

City Constable 968 George H Hutt stated - "I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the station".

Again, to reiterate, this is not a newspaper recording, this is an official transcription of what was said at inquest.


Now you will, as you have done, claim that this testimony is fabricated, however you will not, because you cannot, provide a valid reason as to why. The City constables mentioned have no reason to concoct a story, there would be no reprimand if they, or even one of them, stated she was certainly NOT wearing an apron.

Again, have you testimony stating quite clearly Catherine Eddowes was not wearing an apron? Because if not, you are presenting an assumption based on your interpretation of the evidence, in other words, you are making things fit.

Monty

I am not going to keep going over the salient pints which clearly show she was not wearing an apron.

The newspaper reports and the inquest testimony on this topic are unsafe to rely on because they contradict each other in the various reports that is fact

City Constable 91 Louis Robinson stated - "She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing" How can he say it was the one she was wearing what distinguished it from the other thousands of white apron?

How can he remember with certainty whether or not she was wearing an apron when asked two weeks later?

The station Sgt was asked and he said he couldn't remember and he had as much to do with Eddowes as the others.

The testimony to prove this is in the form of the clothing lists and the descriptions of the two pieces of apron those are irrefutable facts.

[Monty]

I am not going to keep going over the salient pints which clearly show she was not wearing an apron.

The newspaper reports and the inquest testimony on this topic are unsafe to rely on because they contradict each other in the various reports that is fact

City Constable 91 Louis Robinson stated - "She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing" How can he say it was the one she was wearing what distinguished it from the other thousands of white apron?

How can he remember with certainty whether or not she was wearing an apron when asked two weeks later?

The station Sgt was asked and he said he couldn't remember and he had as much to do with Eddowes as the others.

The testimony to prove this is in the form of the clothing lists and the descriptions of the two pieces of apron those are irrefutable facts.

I asked a simple question, who stated Catherine Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

There are at least two witnesses who said she was, yet none who state she was not. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that she was indeed wearing an apron.

It is also logical to assume that the apron Robinson saw her in hours before she was found murdered, is the very same apron produced at inquest, hence Robinsons "I believe".

As you are very much aware, the Coroner will read through all the witness statements prior to the inquest, this is how he ascertains which witnesses should be called, therefore Robinsons testimony, though given on the 11th October, was taken prior to the inquest opening on the 4th October. Therefore it is a misnomer to state that Robinsons testimony wasn't given until the 11th October, as it was handwritten, and signed by Robinson, prior to that date.

Now those are indeed irrefutable facts.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

I asked a simple question, who stated Catherine Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

There are at least two witnesses who said she was, yet none who state she was not. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that she was indeed wearing an apron.

It is also logical to assume that the apron Robinson saw her in hours before she was found murdered, is the very same apron produced at inquest, hence Robinsons "I believe".

As you are very much aware, the Coroner will read through all the witness statements prior to the inquest, this is how he ascertains which witnesses should be called, therefore Robinsons testimony, though given on the 11th October, was taken prior to the inquest opening on the 4th October. Therefore it is a misnomer to state that Robinsons testimony wasn't given until the 11th October, as it was handwritten, and signed by Robinson, prior to that date.

Now those are indeed irrefutable facts.

Monty

Do you have the original officers statements then ? No you wont have because the practice way back then was different to how it is today.

Witnesses gave their verbal statements at the inquest and as they were doing so the depositions were taken down in writing and they signed them afterwards.

This corroborates the above and is taken from this website

https://www.londonlives.org

"Witnesses were called to give an account of any circumstances relevant to the death being examined, and the depositions of their evidence are preserved for most of the inquests reproduced on this website. These depositions are a valuable source as they appear to have been taken down rapidly and in a form that was near to the actual words spoken by the witness. Although some legal expressions are present, these tend to bracket phrases of a more unusual and descriptive kind. They are normally signed or marked by the witness at the bottom"

[The Good Michael]

Henry Hutt: In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

PC Robinson: 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.

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.

But this is no proof of an apron?

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Henry Hutt: In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

PC Robinson: 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.

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.

But this is no proof of an apron?

Mike

If you are going to post something post the other connecting facts

The body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Doctor Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20am so Dr Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Dr Browns inquest testimony now you can see the inconsistencies

"My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached.

[Trevor Marriott]

I asked a simple question, who stated Catherine Eddowes was not wearing an apron?

There are at least two witnesses who said she was, yet none who state she was not. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that she was indeed wearing an apron.

It is also logical to assume that the apron Robinson saw her in hours before she was found murdered, is the very same apron produced at inquest, hence Robinsons "I believe".

As you are very much aware, the Coroner will read through all the witness statements prior to the inquest, this is how he ascertains which witnesses should be called, therefore Robinsons testimony, though given on the 11th October, was taken prior to the inquest opening on the 4th October. Therefore it is a misnomer to state that Robinsons testimony wasn't given until the 11th October, as it was handwritten, and signed by Robinson, prior to that date.

Now those are indeed irrefutable facts.

Monty

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed:
Annie Phillips stated
Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed
Frederick William Wilkinson deposed:
Eliza Gold deposed

[Monty]

Do you have the original officers statements then ? No you wont have because the practice way back then was different to how it is today.

Witnesses gave their verbal statements at the inquest and as they were doing so the depositions were taken down in writing and they signed them afterwards.

This corroborates the above and is taken from this website

https://www.londonlives.org

"Witnesses were called to give an account of any circumstances relevant to the death being examined, and the depositions of their evidence are preserved for most of the inquests reproduced on this website. These depositions are a valuable source as they appear to have been taken down rapidly and in a form that was near to the actual words spoken by the witness. Although some legal expressions are present, these tend to bracket phrases of a more unusual and descriptive kind. They are normally signed or marked by the witness at the bottom"

It still does not alter the fact that the coroner would be aware of Robinsons testimony before the inquest was opened, how else does he determine who to call to inquest?

Ergo, it is misleading to state Robinsons recall was not fresh.

Monty

[Monty]

Henry Hutt: In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

PC Robinson: 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.

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.

But this is no proof of an apron?

Mike

Indeed Mike,

The evidence leans heavily to one conclusion, Eddowes wore an apron.

Monty