PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

In fact I stand to be corrected here but I don't off the top of my head recall any official who was part of the initial investigation even suggesting that the killer was responsible for cutting or tearing the apron in any event.

Cutting or tearing?

Inspector Edward Collard:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

This portion of the apron is specifically described as having been cut (not torn); if not by the killer then by whom, bearing in mind that the portion referred to was "found outside her dress" i.e. still with the body?

People who are known to have been with Eddowes shortly before her demise and who were in possession of an implement capable of cutting cloth:

Her killer? Definitely.
Someone else? Probably not.

I think Collard's evidence should be seen as "suggesting that the killer was responsible", don't you?

[Wickerman]

Hi everyone,

Auntie Carol would just like to point out that the idea DID take off as I thought this was actually the case until this thread was started. I know I'm getting on a bit (68 last June) but I'm not that ga-ga. I think Trevor is actually talking a lot of sense and how he manages to keep his 'end' up in the face of all the opposition to EVERYTHING he says is remarkable to me.

I haven't made my mind up yet one way or the other, but I can't understand the attitude of many on Casebook who seem to think that we must automatically accept everything that has been written/said before. I really can't get my head around this. My father was a ghost-hunter/writer (amateur) and a member of the Society for Psychical Research. He was very well known in those circles back in his hey-day. A Ripper author, Peter Underwood, even dedicated one of his own books to him ('Ghosts of Kent'). Dad's name was Frederick Sanders. He always taught my brother and myself NEVER to take anyone else's word as 'gospel' (especially with regard to ghosts!) until you had looked into it yourself.

Carol

With regard to ghost stories - of course, NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it to start with (my wife believes in that 'stuff', but not I - I'm the party-pooper that points out the trickery)

All that aside, are you sure it's advisable to write "I'm not that ga-ga" and then follow it with "Trevor talks a lot of sense"?



As far as the "take-off" is concerned I do recall arguing consistently for this interpretation for a number of years after I posted the dissertation and it didn't appear to me to be universally adopted.

While we're on the subject, try your "ga-ga" detector on our latest inspired proposal, a photo of Kelly's lower torso up close (MJK3) is now suggested to be a fake, and lastly, we have a Whitechapel murderer that never existed!
(Bloody-he11)

Where are you Ben Holme, we need to restore some sanity in this place....

[Carol]

With regard to ghost stories - of course, NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it to start with (my wife believes in that 'stuff', but not I - I'm the party-pooper that points out the trickery)

All that aside, are you sure it's advisable to write "I'm not that ga-ga" and then follow it with "Trevor talks a lot of sense"?



As far as the "take-off" is concerned I do recall arguing consistently for this interpretation for a number of years after I posted the dissertation and it didn't appear to me to be universally adopted.

While we're on the subject, try your "ga-ga" detector on our latest inspired proposal, a photo of Kelly's lower torso up close (MJK3) is now suggested to be a fake, and lastly, we have a Whitechapel murderer that never existed!
(Bloody-he11)

Where are you Ben Holme, we need to restore some sanity in this place....

You do have a way with words, Jon!

Carol (shamelessly quoting another poster)

[GUT]

With regard to ghost stories - of course, NEVER take anyone else's word for it. Personally, I wouldn't take anyone's word for it to start with (my wife believes in that 'stuff', but not I - I'm the party-pooper that points out the trickery)

All that aside, are you sure it's advisable to write "I'm not that ga-ga" and then follow it with "Trevor talks a lot of sense"?



As far as the "take-off" is concerned I do recall arguing consistently for this interpretation for a number of years after I posted the dissertation and it didn't appear to me to be universally adopted.

While we're on the subject, try your "ga-ga" detector on our latest inspired proposal, a photo of Kelly's lower torso up close (MJK3) is now suggested to be a fake, and lastly, we have a Whitechapel murderer that never existed!
(Bloody-he11)

Where are you Ben Holme, we need to restore some sanity in this place....

G'day Jon

Isn't it fun?

[GUT]

I hope this works


You can see how the leg looks not unlike a wooden crutch and it adjusts in the same way.

Unfortunately you cannot see the lowest [adjustable] part of the leg.

And 've put this in the wrong thread sorry, so off to try again.

[Trevor Marriott]

Cutting or tearing?

Inspector Edward Collard:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

This portion of the apron is specifically described as having been cut (not torn); if not by the killer then by whom, bearing in mind that the portion referred to was "found outside her dress" i.e. still with the body?

People who are known to have been with Eddowes shortly before her demise and who were in possession of an implement capable of cutting cloth:

Her killer? Definitely.
Someone else? Probably not.

I think Collard's evidence should be seen as "suggesting that the killer was responsible", don't you?

Suggesting but not conclusive, because we don't know who cut the two pieces or when they were cut if she wasn't wearing an apron.

You say killer I say questionable having regards to what we now know.

[Garry Wroe]

When the body was stripped at the mortuary the GS piece hadn't even been found.

This is only of relevance to you, Trev, because you have failed to understand the evidence which remains consistent across a variety of sources.

If she was wearing it then why did Collards lists fail to show that ?

According to the documentation I’ve seen the apron was listed.

Also note that the term string appears in Browns inquest testimony which after making his statement before the coroner he would have been asked to read and then sign. If there had been any errors they would have been rectified

Okay, Trev, let’s try this one more time. Dr Brown was asked about the spots of blood found on the apron he’d examined at the mortuary. He stated that the bloodstains were in the corner by the string.

In other words when referring to ‘the apron’ Brown was talking about the upper section of the garment, not the apron in its entirety. And neither did this mean that the apron had only one string. He mentioned the string only to confirm the location of the bloodstains. Elsewhere he was quoted as referring to the apron ‘with stringS attached’.

No contradiction there.

As the questioning continued Brown detailed his findings with regard to the lower section of apron – that which he stated had been discarded in Goulston Street. He noted bloodsmears and possible faecal contamination, then went on to describe the patch sewn into both the upper and lower sections of the apron, a repair which confirmed that the two portions constituted a single garment.

And that’s it. Eminently straightforward. But you have failed to understand the evidence, and in so doing have convinced yourself that you’ve discovered something which turns conventional wisdom on its head.

You haven’t.

Now unless you and others have anything new to add to all of this I would suggest that you desist from keep posting the same old same, its getting boring now.

You might try taking your own advice, Trev. Your ‘evidence’ is nothing of the kind.

I am sure the unbiased members of this forum who have no hidden agendas will come to their own conclusions based on what has been put before them as evidence, and by evidence I don't just mean newspaper reports which you seem to hold in high esteem.

I thought they’d done just that, Trev. No-one, absolutely no-one, has come out in support of your ‘evidence’. Maybe that should be telling you something.

And really, as one who is attempting to use the apron as substantiation for the theory that the East End was overrun with viscera-snatching mortuary attendants, you ought to think carefully before hurling around accusations of ulterior motives.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is only of relevance to you, Trev, because you have failed to understand the evidence which remains consistent across a variety of sources.


According to the documentation I’ve seen the apron was listed.


Okay, Trev, let’s try this one more time. Dr Brown was asked about the spots of blood found on the apron he’d examined at the mortuary. He stated that the bloodstains were in the corner by the string.

In other words when referring to ‘the apron’ Brown was talking about the upper section of the garment, not the apron in its entirety. And neither did this mean that the apron had only one string. He mentioned the string only to confirm the location of the bloodstains. Elsewhere he was quoted as referring to the apron ‘with stringS attached’.

No contradiction there.

As the questioning continued Brown detailed his findings with regard to the lower section of apron – that which he stated had been discarded in Goulston Street. He noted bloodsmears and possible faecal contamination, then went on to describe the patch sewn into both the upper and lower sections of the apron, a repair which confirmed that the two portions constituted a single garment.

And that’s it. Eminently straightforward. But you have failed to understand the evidence, and in so doing have convinced yourself that you’ve discovered something which turns conventional wisdom on its head.

You haven’t.


You might try taking your own advice, Trev. Your ‘evidence’ is nothing of the kind.


I thought they’d done just that, Trev. No-one, absolutely no-one, has come out in support of your ‘evidence’. Maybe that should be telling you something.

And really, as one who is attempting to use the apron as substantiation for the theory that the East End was overrun with viscera-snatching mortuary attendants, you ought to think carefully before hurling around accusations of ulterior motives.

Gary

I would increase your medication if I were you.

You have become delusional yet again

[The Good Michael]

Cutting or tearing?

Inspector Edward Collard:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

This portion of the apron is specifically described as having been cut (not torn); if not by the killer then by whom, bearing in mind that the portion referred to was "found outside her dress" i.e. still with the body?

People who are known to have been with Eddowes shortly before her demise and who were in possession of an implement capable of cutting cloth:

A small point:Collard may have used the term 'cut' simply because the murderer had a knife. There is no description of how it was determined that the apron was cut. I suggest we can't know this. If the apron had separate holes in it and the cuts were uneven and not along a seam, then it could have been, or probably was a knife. If it was a clean rip down a seam, it was probably a tear, though it could have been a cut that struck in just the right place. I don't know if it matters much. Perhaps a cut would have been done during the initial process and a tear could have been done at a later time, but that's also something that can't be answered.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Remember, though, Mike, that the apron had been patched and that this patch spanned both portions of the apron. I tend to think that a tear wouldn't have divided this repair - leastways not if it had been effected in the traditional way with a seam running around its border.

[Bridewell]

Suggesting but not conclusive, because we don't know who cut the two pieces or when they were cut if she wasn't wearing an apron.

Trevor, I used the word "suggesting" in response to your posting of the following:

In fact I stand to be corrected here but I don't off the top of my head recall any official who was part of the initial investigation even suggesting that the killer was responsible for cutting or tearing the apron in any event.

(my block type).

"Suggesting" was your choice of word, not mine. What is Collard's evidence "suggesting"?

You say killer I say questionable having regards to what we now know.

The killer's involvement in this process is questionable having regards to what you think - not quite the same thing.

[Garry Wroe]

You have become delusional yet again

Perhaps, Trev. But then I'm not the one proposing that mortuary attendants were responsible for the theft of the victims' internal organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps, Trev. But then I'm not the one proposing that mortuary attendants were responsible for the theft of the victims' internal organs.

And if you knew half of what you think you know. then you would know that I have not suggested that mortuary attendants were responsible

[Garry Wroe]

Go on, then,Trev, educate me.

[The Good Michael]

Remember, though, Mike, that the apron had been patched and that this patch spanned both portions of the apron. I tend to think that a tear wouldn't have divided this repair - leastways not if it had been effected in the traditional way with a seam running around its border.

good point Garry. The tear (if it was) could have started at the patch. Or it could have started as a tear and then was cut through the patch in irritation or something. Again, I don't know if it matters. If something is threadbare, it's much quicker to tear than to cut. My case in point would be when making a kite tail, that I would tear strips as it's just so much easier and even straighter. Cutting into cloth produces a jagged effect. It's my experience anyway. I just make the point that for Collard it may have made sense to cut as he assumed the killer had a knife in his hand and perhaps a woman in the other.

Mike