PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Jon Guy]

Besides there is no evidence to show they accompanied the body to the mortuary and the mortuary attendant could have stripped the body and then the lists prepared from there. When they arrived in which case it would explain the term piece of apron being found and Collards comment "Apparently wearing"

Insp Collard : 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

[Trevor Marriott]

iguous

The Times, Friday, 5 October. Inquest testimony of Inspector Edward Collard.

No money was found on the deceased. A portion of the apron produced was found on her, and the other portion, which was picked up in Goulston-street, would also be produced.

The Times, Fri, 12 October. Inquest testimony of PC Robinson.

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.


Inquest testimony of PC Hutt (op cit).

About two minutes before 1 o'clock, when bringing her out of the cell, she asked witness the time, and he replied, "Too late for you to get any more drink." … He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.


Inquest testimony of DC Halse (op cit).

He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.

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.

The police evidence is unsafe, having regards to how the questions were put to them. How could anyone positively identify a piece of apron produced out of a brown parcel in court and say it was the one she was wearing two weeks previous. It was a dirty white apron piece. White aprons dirty or clean were part of the dress code then everyone wore one what made that piece identifiable? Its useless evidence.

And the other two officers what was so special about her apron that they remembered she was wearing one two weeks later when asked when every woman in Whitechapel was wearing one ?

Notice Sgt Byfield was non committal he booked her in, and later released her why didn't he remember when the others apparently did.

Some of this you seem to be making up as you go along. The two pieces did not make a full apron. The mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached that had to be top left or top right corner. The GS piece matched it so that had to be either bottom left or right,You cant get a full apron out of those two pieces.

The statement of Collard and Halse are unsafe because they can be interpreted either way if you read how they are worded. " I saw the deceased undressed" naked or dressed? "Apparently wearing"? "found outside her dress"? The statements are ambiguous

Besides there is no evidence to show they accompanied the body to the mortuary and the mortuary attendant could have stripped the body and then the lists prepared from there. When they arrived in which case it would explain the term piece of apron being found and Collards comment "Apparently wearing"

But then you get back to the mortuary lists which tip the scales in favor of her not wearing one and Dr Brown stating the mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached.

[Trevor Marriott]

Where's the embellishment? Bond's remarks concerning the heart are ambiguous. Nobody disputes this. The heart was absent, but whether absent solely from the pericardium or from the scene entirely is not known. I tend towards the latter view because Bond accounts for the whereabouts of other excised body parts but the matter cannot be proved conclusively either way.

Exactly but you have to consider why Bond didn't mention it and why no one else did after that and why the papers originally sided with the organs being taken and then were told he contarry

And that ambiguous remark by Bond has led to many believing that it was taken away.

[Trevor Marriott]

But Hebbert's name is included in the list doctors present at the 'post-mortem examination-in-chief ' described as commencing 7.30 am on the second day in that newspaper excerpt.
It also supports the idea that something was missing that could not be found among the ashes of the fire.

You are right I read it wrong, but it doesn't detract from the fact that Hebbert wasn't present when they went back to the room and they went back to look for the remaining parts. Which is in line with what is in the newspaper and what the newspapers reported that all parts accounted for.

So I am afraid Dr Hebbert is not someone to be totally relied on in the light of Dr Bond not mentioning it in his report to Anderson, and as i said earlier no no one else mentions it was taken away.

So the against`s far outweigh the for`s I think you can even see that.

[Trevor Marriott]

But then nor does he mention her not wearing one.

But you and others say she was prove it conclusively !

[Garry Wroe]

The Times, Friday, 5 October. Inquest testimony of Inspector Edward Collard.

No money was found on the deceased. A portion of the apron produced was found on her, and the other portion, which was picked up in Goulston-street, would also be produced.

The Times, Fri, 12 October. Inquest testimony of PC Robinson.

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.


Inquest testimony of PC Hutt (op cit).

About two minutes before 1 o'clock, when bringing her out of the cell, she asked witness the time, and he replied, "Too late for you to get any more drink." … He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.


Inquest testimony of DC Halse (op cit).

He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.

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.

[Bridewell]

Well that's what has been accepted as fact from day one. Same killer, organs taken away by killer. Embellished by Ripper researchers over the years and still to this day.

Where's the embellishment? Bond's remarks concerning the heart are ambiguous. Nobody disputes this. The heart was absent, but whether absent solely from the pericardium or from the scene entirely is not known. I tend towards the latter view because Bond accounts for the whereabouts of other excised body parts but the matter cannot be proved conclusively either way.

[Bridewell]

You should no that corroboration is looked for, and far to many of here want to accept reports and facts on face value, and seek to rely on those to prop up their arguments.

Trevor, facts can be accepted at face value. it is only opinions, theories and (especially) opinions disguised as facts which cannot be accepted. If a so-called fact is proven to be untrue, it was never a fact in the first place! The facts are what they always were. It is only opinions which vary.

People "seek to rely on those (reports and facts) to prop up their arguments."

What is the world coming to?!

[Debra A]

Well that's what has been accepted as fact from day one. Same killer, organs taken away by killer. Embellished by Ripper researchers over the years and still to this day.

Why are people so adamant why doesn't anyone have the balls to come out and say yes there is a major doubt about some of this we have relied on?

If you are going to make valid counter points then you need to tailor your opposing arguments to an individuals specific beliefs, Trevor. We haven't all made the same conclusions from the facts and evidence. In fact, I can't think of any two posters who have exactly the same views!

[Bridewell]

He doesn't mention her wearing an apron!

But then nor does he mention her not wearing one.

[Debra A]

The Echo, 10th November 1888...
The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.

Also note the names of the police officers present, none of them even mention missing organs thereafter.

According to report Dr Hebbert was not present the second time presumably when they finally accounted for all the parts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

But Hebbert's name is included in the list doctors present at the 'post-mortem examination-in-chief ' described as commencing 7.30 am on the second day in that newspaper excerpt.
It also supports the idea that something was missing that could not be found among the ashes of the fire.

[Trevor Marriott]

I've read others' in depth evaluations of the evidence for and against the heart being taken away and am more convinced by the 'fors' at this present time. I'm not even convinced MJK was a Ripper victim so what theory am I propping up by believing the heart was probably taken?!

Well that's what has been accepted as fact from day one. Same killer, organs taken away by killer. Embellished by Ripper researchers over the years and still to this day.

Why are people so adamant why doesn't anyone have the balls to come out and say yes there is a major doubt about some of this we have relied on?

[Debra A]

I've read others' in depth evaluations of the evidence for and against the heart being taken away and am more convinced by the 'fors' at this present time. I'm not even convinced MJK was a Ripper victim so what theory am I propping up by believing the heart was probably taken?!

[Trevor Marriott]

I am making other people aware of the previously discussed source that you chose not to mention because it contradicts your theory.

I have posted the first newspaper report the later articles by the Echo and The Times confirm no parts missing. i posted them yesterday and am not going to do it again.

The Echo, 10th November 1888...
The investigation made by the doctors yesterday was not the final one, mainly because the room was ill-adapted for the purpose of carrying out a complete autopsy. The post-mortem examination-in-chief was only commenced this morning, at the early hour of half-past seven, when Dr. Phillips, Dr. Bond, Dr. Hibbert, and other experts attended. Some portions of the body are missing, and, says an Echo reporter, writing at two o'clock this afternoon, Dr. Phillips and Dr. Bond, accompanied by Inspector Moore, Inspector Abberline, and Inspector Reid, are again paying a visit to Miller's-court, in order to examine the ashes found in the grate, as it is thought small parts of the body may have been burnt.

Also note the names of the police officers present, none of them even mention missing organs thereafter.

According to report Dr Hebbert was not present the second time presumably when they finally accounted for all the parts !!!!!!!!!!!!!

And now for the coup de grace !!!!!!!!!!!!

In his report to Anderson, Bond mentions nothing of a missing organ, Now isn't that strange? Such an important issue for him to comment on and not a word

[Trevor Marriott]

I am making other people aware of the previously discussed source that you chose not to mention because it contradicts your theory.

No I don't have a theory I keep telling you and others I seek to prove or disprove the facts and arguments put forward in respect of the whole mystery. Because right from the start coming into this with no preconceived thoughts or theories, it soon became apparent that there were major flaws in much of this mystery, which I have gone to great lengths to highlight far to many times.

In this case I am playing devils advocate as I have done previously showing the for`s and againt`s. It is not me making up the against`s its the facts and the evidence and assessing and evaluating those facts in an unbiased fashion.

Just look at all the other officials who have made statements. which researchers swear by as being gospel. Most have been proved to be incorrect or simply made up. Anderson, Macnagthen, Swanson. That`s naivety or being brainwashed by spending years on here on a daily basis trying to prop up the old theory.

So you want to accept on face value as being gospel something said 6 years later which is uncorroborated and yet newspaper reports at the time suggest otherwise. Coupled with the facts no one else official, or medical can categorically say the heart was taken away by the killer. Where were the quotes then ?

Its like the organ removal and the apron they didn't think it was connected. Same here do you not think that such an important part would have had much more publicity having regards to the Chapman murder it got nothing why because nothing was taken and that was confirmed by the press, and the fact that the police never mentioned it. That the press information may have been spot on. Again look at the for`s and against`s.