PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[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

[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.

[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

[Monty]

Crap,

Wroe is on to us.

Quick, eat the real marginalia which names her Majesty the Queen's, God bless her, dog, Fifi.

The public must never know.

The Cabal.

[m_w_r]

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?

Mike,

There appear to be reasons to believe that many of the previously accepted facts surrounding certain well-known myths and mysteries can be dispelled, in public, for a fee.

The list includes: "The Bermuda Triangle", "The Lost City of Atlantis", "The Mary Celeste", "The UFO Phenomenon", "The Apollo 11 Moon Landing", "The Abominable Snowman", "Mermaids", "The Shergar Mystery", "Lord Lucan" and many more. It's not just Jack the Ripper the public have been misled about.

Regards,

Mark

[Trevor Marriott]

Mike,

There appear to be reasons to believe that many of the previously accepted facts surrounding certain well-known myths and mysteries can be dispelled, in public, for a fee.

The list includes: "The Bermuda Triangle", "The Lost City of Atlantis", "The Mary Celeste", "The UFO Phenomenon", "The Apollo 11 Moon Landing", "The Abominable Snowman", "Mermaids", "The Shergar Mystery", "Lord Lucan" and many more. It's not just Jack the Ripper the public have been misled about.

Regards,

Mark

The truth is out there as they say, but here in "Troglodyte Towers" that word is banned

[Jon Guy]

Where does it say anywhere that the apron was butchered?)

Are you now saying the apron wasn`t cut at all ?

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? ?)

Insp Collard obviously has better command of the English language than me and you, sorry .. you and I .

Again according to you and others this remnant you refer to would seem to be three-quarters of a full apron.

Hey ?
What`s a three-quarter apron ?
Which others ?

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

Agreed !!!! :-)

but he didn’t did he? He uses the term apparently

Yes, technically, he was correct.

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?

I don`t what a three quarter apron is, mate. Is this part of your theory ?

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.

What do you mean by "cuts" ?
Are you saying the apron was torn apart using hands and not a knife ?

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..

Not necessarily, in the darkness it might have stood out against her other dark clothing, and he might have felt around for a fabric that would cut easily.

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..

I don`t follow you ?

You have tried to interpret the term apparently in a way which fits your theory. .

My theory ? What`s my theory. You mean the common sense observation.

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..

I don`t think, then and now, that anyone had the slightest doubt as to whether she was wearing an apron.

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.)

Oh, I see plural, who agreed with your Kelly` heart theory ?

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.

Fair enough, I won`t expect a reply.

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.)

Good on you, Trev, but don`t forget Ghandi was shot dead whilst he was out preaching to the masses

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..)

I`m sure Mr Wood is hoping that is exactly what happens. He loves it.

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.

I look forward to it. I know I`m not the only one who hopes Mr Wood has some new facts or evidence to present to us, rather than yet another interpretation of the same old facts. I`m sure he has, as he wouldn`t go to the trouble of producing a book without new facts or evidence.

[Garry Wroe]

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?

The dark force is among us, Mike, and is more powerful than you will ever comprehend.

[Garry Wroe]

Wroe is on to us.

Your first big mistake was involving Armstrong in the faked Moon landing. He could never keep his mouth shut. After that, everything else fell into place.

[Cogidubnus]

The degree to which that portion of the apron which remained with the body, could be regarded as attached by the string to the body, surely depends upon the type of apron...

Today in the 21st century the term "apron" tends to apply solely to a garment tied off at the waist alone, stretching down towards the knees...itself it's an old-fashioned sort of garment...I would contend, however, that this is a largely "second-half of the twentieth century" interpretation...

Back in the 1880's, and until far later, I believe the term "apron" could also generally imply a more full-length garment, more akin to an overall, stretching from just above the bust down towards the knees...it would be secured at it's highest point by a looped cotton cord stretching from the bust around the neck, back to the bust, and then in a secondary fashion, by cotton cords from the waistline round to the back and knotted in the small of the back...a "full length" garment...

Thus, depending upon personal interpretation, a large area of the apron south of the waistline might well be cut away without the remainder becoming detatched...

Alternatively, even with a merely waist length apron, the detatchment of approximately half of the garment, surely does not predicate that the remnant is no longer "worn"? (particularly if the half still attached to the body is secured by a knotted cord stretching from the waistband, around the back (knot still present) and forwards towards the opposite waistband...the weight of the body alone securing the attachment...

Sorry Trevor, I really can't see much in the way of logical grounds for your argument in this respect...

All the best

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

The degree to which that portion of the apron which remained with the body, could be regarded as attached by the string to the body, surely depends upon the type of apron...

Today in the 21st century the term "apron" tends to apply solely to a garment tied off at the waist alone, stretching down towards the knees...itself it's an old-fashioned sort of garment...I would contend, however, that this is a largely "second-half of the twentieth century" interpretation...

Back in the 1880's, and until far later, I believe the term "apron" could also generally imply a more full-length garment, more akin to an overall, stretching from just above the bust down towards the knees...it would be secured at it's highest point by a looped cotton cord stretching from the bust around the neck, back to the bust, and then in a secondary fashion, by cotton cords from the waistline round to the back and knotted in the small of the back...a "full length" garment...

Thus, depending upon personal interpretation, a large area of the apron south of the waistline might well be cut away without the remainder becoming detatched...

Alternatively, even with a merely waist length apron, the detatchment of approximately half of the garment, surely does not predicate that the remnant is no longer "worn"? (particularly if the half still attached to the body is secured by a knotted cord stretching from the waistband, around the back (knot still present) and forwards towards the opposite waistband...the weight of the body alone securing the attachment...

Sorry Trevor, I really can't see much in the way of logical grounds for your argument in this respect...

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave
I am fully aware of the different types of apron and I have carefully studied both types in relation to the evidence available to us.

Right from the outset I am happy to say she was not wearing a bib apron for the following reasons or in fact any kind of apron but I will deal with your bib apron first.

1.Had she been then the top part with the loop would still have been around
her neck, and a large portion of the remaining apron still attached and
that would have been clear to all and sundry at the mortuary. They would
have had to have taken it off her before they could remove the rest of her
clothes and then Collard would have documented that she was wearing it
and also any cuts or bloodstains upon it

2. Brown describes the mortuary piece as a corner piece with a string
attached (emphasis on corner) so had she been wearing a bib apron how
could it have finished up as just one corner ?

3. If you look at the cuts in the rest of her clothing relative to the knife
being drawn down and the amount of blood described on those clothes.
Had she been wearing an apron then you would have expected any apron
she was wearing to be cut and bloodstained in similar fashion and the
mortuary piece to have been described as being cut and bloodstained in
similar fashion it wasn't Brown simply says it just had blood spots on it!

4. Because we have a corner piece with a string attached as you know you
cant tie an apron with just one string.

5. The mortuary piece was a corner piece so top left or top right. The GS
piece matched so that would have had to have been bottom left or right
would it not ? So getting back to your bib theory how do you finish up
with a corner piece from a full length apron ?

6. Had she been wearing an apron then if the killer drew the knife down say
to half way or even starting down the middle the bulk of the apron would
have still been present and clearly noticeable that it had been cut.

7. There is no evidence that the two pieces of apron ever made up a full
apron,

8. You mention personal interpretations and yes they are what everyone
does.However my concern is that some of these personal interpretations
are being made without careful consideration of all the facts, and clearly
to suit that persons particular view.

9. I accept that one of the problems is trying to establish the sizes of both
pieces. Again we go back to the descriptions both Brown and Collard who
describe the MP as simply a "piece",,and as we know Brown says it was a
corner piece so from that we can perhaps assume that it was small in size
otherwise he would have mentioned that it was half or three quarters or
even a full apron. You cannot mis-interpret the word piece

"A portion of an object or of material, produced by cutting, tearing, or
breaking the whole"

"A portion or part that has been separated from a whole"

Given that the GS piece matched it therefore perhaps of similar in size ?

In an attempt make this issue clearer I have prepared some photos of aprons. I apologize for the distinct and noticeable lack of artistic talent with the writing but I am sure they will be of great assistance

Pic 1 Shows you bib apron with the cuts to the clothing. I hope you can see why she wasn't wearing this type of apron.

Pic 2
Shows a corner piece of an apron based on Dr Brown,if this is correct then that would have meant that the GS piece would have to have been made up of the rest of it would it not ?

Pic 3
Shows how the two pieces would have matched but not making a full apron.

You cannot ignore the fact that Collard made three lists at the mortuary describing clothing she was wearing, and describing the cuts and the blood stains on that clothing. Btt no mention of her wearing an apron. Now I know we have questioned official statements made by police before i,e Anderson, Macgaghten, Swanson, but they all appeared to have hidden agendas behind their embellishing the facts. Collard was doing his job. The lists were prepared at the time that's the best evidence anyone can have.

So as I have said before it suggests that she wasn't wearing an apron but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron, which at some point in the past had been part of a full apron.

[Debra A]

Close encounters

There's probably a third kind.
Drawstring.

[Trevor Marriott]

There's probably a third kind.
Drawstring.

Thank you for mentioning that

Pic attached

[Wickerman]

Hi Trevor.

So I posted a few sentences of Insp. Collard's Inquest testimony and you complained that Collard never mentioned Halse?
Yet Halse does mention Collard - and that is not enough for you?
You think Halse is lying?

Regardless, you make this comment below:

7. There is no evidence that the two pieces of apron ever made up a full
apron,

Do you contest that Maj. Henry Smith was present at the mortuary?

"By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut".
From Constable to Commissioner, Sir Henry Smith, pg 152.

Not good enough?

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Trevor.

So I posted a few sentences of Insp. Collard's Inquest testimony and you complained that Collard never mentioned Halse?
Yet Halse does mention Collard - and that is not enough for you?
You think Halse is lying?

Regardless, you make this comment below:



Do you contest that Maj. Henry Smith was present at the mortuary?

"By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut".
From Constable to Commissioner, Sir Henry Smith, pg 152.

Not good enough?

Worth mentioning Jon that by all the evidence we have it can be said that the severed piece of apron matched the piece remaining on the victim, based on a old repair line that both portions had. It doesn't say anywhere, to my knowledge, that the complete apron was recovered...just that the Goulston piece was at least a part of the apron she was wearing.

I don't buy most of the speculation here, but I do see how someone might get away with stating we don't know it was a complete apron when paired together.

Cheers