PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[SirJohnFalstaff]

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

It would also explain the fecal matter found on the apron.

I think it might point out that, if JtR lived very close to Goulston Street, he could have brought home the organs, put them in some jar, (and send half a kidney by mail to Lusk later). Then he go out again to get rid of the apron, close but not too close to home, which could also explain the delay between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Just a thought.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Trevor

It is most of all vague.It is also unsafe to say she was not wearing it. But what the policemen saw (and only this) as she was released from jail was credible.They did not observe any part/s missing. It is possible though she could have taken it off after.

She had handkerchiefs, pieces of white rag she could have used for menstruation/defecation purposes. No reason to cut the apron.

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron and left it as such it was connected by a string to the body, about to fall/detached if it had'nt already , would it not be considered as 'she was "apparently wearing" it'?

Would they have classified it as wearing or as a possession?

However the killer moved/disturbed the apron - whatever the position was of the apron on Kate's body,why did'nt they just unanimously simply say that she was just carrying it among her other possessions. Why allude to wearing? Also why not just say the pieces of the apron did'nt fit.
They had time to consider all these.

Insp Collard lists the GS piece amongst her possesdioms not on the list of the clothing she was wearing !

[Trevor Marriott]

It would also explain the fecal matter found on the apron.

I think it might point out that, if JtR lived very close to Goulston Street, he could have brought home the organs, put them in some jar, (and send half a kidney by mail to Lusk later). Then he go out again to get rid of the apron, close but not too close to home, which could also explain the delay between the murder and the finding of the apron.

Just a thought.

Keep thinking !

[Monty]

Insp Collard lists the GS piece amongst her possesdioms not on the list of the clothing she was wearing !

Collard doesn't differentiate the list as items worn and possessions, that is Trevors assumption.

Monty

[Wickerman]

where does it say the two pieces made up a full apron,

The flaws in this testimony have been documented many times I do not intend to keep repeating them but clearly you can't see them or I suspect you don't want to

It says quite clearly that the whole apron was present, in two pieces.

[Wickerman]

Then it wouldn't be a corner piece.

Trevor.
It's a corner piece, a corner is triangular. The mortuary portion was triangular in shape.

Here, this rudimentary sketch should explain how I see the apron divided up..

- The waistband cord was cut at one side for ease of removal.

- The apron was almost divided in half diagonally by the killer.

You duck and dive ...

Thats "Duck & Weave", Trevor.

I think you and Garry ought to book a holiday together on Fantasy Island !

I thought we'd already arrived....

[Bridewell]

Where does it say the two pieces made up a full apron?

Here we go again! Where does it say that they didn't? Trevor, this is becoming a favourite tactic of yours on this thread - you point out something which isn't overtly stated and claim that the absence of such a statement somehow proves that you are right. No-one says, in exact terms, that the two pieces made up the complete apron; no-one says, in exact terms, that they didn't. You highlight only the absence of one assertion, make no reference to the absence of the other, and claim proof that you are right. This is disingenuous at best.

The clear inference is that the apron had been separated, by cutting, into two pieces.

We have also had a debate elsewhere about the significance of Bond's statement that "the (Kelly's) heart was absent". The statement is ambiguous, yes, but all the other organs were accounted for; yet still Abberline sifted through the ashes from which we are told no organ was recovered. What was he looking for, if not the heart?

[Trevor Marriott]

Here we go again! Where does it say that they didn't? Trevor, this is becoming a favourite tactic of yours on this thread - you point out something which isn't overtly stated and claim that the absence of such a statement somehow proves that you are right. No-one says, in exact terms, that the two pieces made up the complete apron; no-one says, in exact terms, that they didn't. You highlight only the absence of one assertion, make no reference to the absence of the other, and claim proof that you are right. This is disingenuous at best.

The clear inference is that the apron had been separated, by cutting, into two pieces.

Yes there is no dispute that the two pieces were cut but not from a full apron

We have also had a debate elsewhere about the significance of Bond's statement that "the (Kelly's) heart was absent". The statement is ambiguous, yes, but all the other organs were accounted for; yet still Abberline sifted through the ashes from which we are told no organ was recovered. What was he looking for, if not the heart?

We don't know what he was looking for and you are speculating we get back to an uncorroborated theory.

Where is your evidence to support the argument that the heart was taken away by the killer? There is none we dont know what was found or not found at the room when they went back but you can bet your life that if the heart was un-accounted for someone would have said either then or over the ensuing years. So are the newspapers wrong as well are they ?

As far as the apron is concerned Its not a favorite tactic its presenting the facts based on Collards three separate lists which as they stand are irrefutable which you and others keep choosing to ignore.

Some of you on here really amaze me you clearly don't take the time to read the previous posts before you rush to the keyboard to write some of these replies.

[Cogidubnus]

Even if there were (and as far as I can see there isn't) in the list, a definitively stated difference between what the victim wore and what was in her possession, and even if it were only a half-length apron, then that could easily be down to an innocent post-mortem change of status...

The Apron is bissected and the killer removes half, leaving the other portion held partly in place by the victims bodyweight on the string (actually two strings knotted together)...

When the body is lifted for removal to the mortuary, the apron piece, no longer secured by the string, slides off to the floor and although it subsequently accompanies the body, it is not therefore being worn when the body reaches the mortuary, where Collard makes his list...

But the simple presumably doesn't appeal? Well they do say that unlikes attract, and likes repel...

All the best

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Even if there were (and as far as I can see there isn't) in the list, a definitively stated difference between what the victim wore and what was in her possession, and even if it were only a half-length apron, then that could easily be down to an innocent post-mortem change of status...

The Apron is bissected and the killer removes half, leaving the other portion held partly in place by the victims bodyweight on the string (actually two strings knotted together)...

When the body is lifted for removal to the mortuary, the apron piece, no longer secured by the string, slides off to the floor and although it subsequently accompanies the body, it is not therefore being worn when the body reaches the mortuary, where Collard makes his list...

But the simple presumably doesn't appeal? Well they do say that unlikes attract, and likes repel...

All the best

Dave

So which one are we going for? Both you and the small minority of naysayers have all manged to come up with different theories about the apron yet there is no argument between yourselves as to which is right.

None of you are looking at the overall picture. There is more to consider when coming to a conclusion that just this specific part.

You cant all be right. But you can all be wrong !

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;303808]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;303808]Trevor.

It's a corner piece, a corner is triangular. The mortuary portion was triangular in shape.

Here, this rudimentary sketch should explain how I see the apron divided up..

- The waistband cord was cut at one side for ease of removal.

- The apron was almost divided in half diagonally by the killer.

You obviously didn't do well in Geometry

Corner "A place or angle where two or more sides or edges meet" There is a difference between a corner and a triangle I would suggest



Yes here we go again yet another explanation to prop up the old theory.

Now we have a triangular piece drawn to make a corner piece would you not have thought had that have been so Brown would have mentioned it as a triangular shaped corner piece. After all what you suggest is unusual. In any event as has been said before why not take a piece from the bottom of the apron much easier. No that's not true much more difficult with the clothes drawn up very difficult

You are way off here again, because you haven't taken into account the cuts to the left side of her body going downwards from her wasitband and therefore according to your drawing the GS piece if you are correct should have shown signs of being cut downwards in several places in line with the other cuts to her clothing and would have been heavily blood stained in line with the rest of her clothes from that area of her body and according to your drawing was almost half the apron.

Where does anyone say The GS piece was half an apron? If it had been that would have been significant would it not?

You also have failed to acknowledge that with your drawing and the way you suggest the apron was removed Collard would have noted it at the time

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

So which one are we going for? Both you and the small minority of naysayers have all manged to come up with different theories about the apron yet there is no argument between yourselves as to which is right.

None of you are looking at the overall picture. There is more to consider when coming to a conclusion that just this specific part.

You cant all be right. But you can all be wrong !

No Trevor, I don't need to firmly commit myself to one solution or another...Unlike you I'm not pissing in the wind and making a guess which way it's blowing...all I'm doing is exploring possibilities and trying to ensure that those I personally regard as most likely aren't dismissed.

In the absence of so much of the contemporary evidence, other people will always have different views from mine...I accept that...but as long as they put them as tentatively as I try to put mine, I'm not fussed...it's when certain folk (and in this respect I'm not exclusively pointing at you Trevor) post total speculation as certainty that I get miffed...I'm sure you'll understand

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

You obviously didn't do well in Geometry

Corner "A place or angle where two or more sides or edges meet" There is a difference between a corner and a triangle I would suggest

Not to a doctor, the corner of an apron is a triangle - a simple and basic right-angle triangle.

Now we have a triangular piece drawn to make a corner piece would you not have thought had that have been so Brown would have mentioned it as a triangular shaped corner piece.

If a corner is not a right-angle triangle Trevor, what is it?

You are way off here again, because you haven't taken into account the cuts to the left side of her body going downwards from her wasitband and therefore according to your drawing the GS piece if you are correct should have shown signs of being cut downwards in several places in line with the other cuts to her clothing and would have been heavily blood stained in line with the rest of her clothes from that area of her body and according to your drawing was almost half the apron.

Her clothes, incl. the apron, were thrown up over her upper torso.
Where do we read he cut his way through her outer clothes?

You also have failed to acknowledge that with your drawing and the way you suggest the apron was removed Collard would have noted it at the time

Why?

[GUT]

Trevor obviously didn't do too well at maths and geometry if he thinks a corner isn't a triangle.

I wonder why he thinks builders and setting up form work for concreting use Pythagoras rule to ensure there corners are square. ie 4 ft one side 3 ft the other of the diagonal is 5 ft you have a perfect right angle, if you have 4ft 11 or 5 ft 1 it's not square.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor



No Trevor, I don't need to firmly commit myself to one solution or another...Unlike you I'm not pissing in the wind and making a guess which way it's blowing...all I'm doing is exploring possibilities and trying to ensure that those I personally regard as most likely aren't dismissed.

In the absence of so much of the contemporary evidence, other people will always have different views from mine...I accept that...but as long as they put them as tentatively as I try to put mine, I'm not fussed...it's when certain folk (and in this respect I'm not exclusively pointing at you Trevor) post total speculation as certainty that I get miffed...I'm sure you'll understand

All the best

Dave

I am sorry to say that it is you and a small minority that is pissing in the wind

you don't even want to accept the evidence that is proper evidence and that is collards lists

You and others also won't accept that had she been wearing an apron the top left waistband area would have been cut down and heavily bloodstained. No mention of that is there ?

You and others also won't accept that using collards lists no one saw her wearing an apron so that fact corroborates collards lists (for this excercise forgetting the unsafe police evidence previously highlighted)

You and the other naysayers have desperately tried to prop the old theory up by firstly suggesting spelling mistakes letters missing off of words,and now a variety of different explanations to show how she had the apron cut from her and how the remaining piece stayed with the body

You don't seem to understand that 126 years later we are better equipped to look at this mystery and can see the flaws in the evidence people have relied on and draw new conclusions.

I would be interested to know out of all the new conclusions different people have come forward with as to what you are now prepared to accept .

From what I have seen and read I bet its going to be zero ! Because as soon as anyone suggest something outside the box what do get the handful of posters who seem to sit here day and night and hold court putting them to the sword

If you really think that everything that is supposed to have happened in 1888 did happen as we have been led to beleive and that we should beleive every police officer simply because they are the police and not capable of making mistakes or just lying, or that witnesses were wrong or mistaken the you and others are very naieve and in desperate need of a reality check