The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Trevor Marriott]

..2 cents..I focused mostly on Mary Kelly..


"The we have Insp Collards testimony which again is unsafe. He produces the lists of clothing and then he says "I produce a piece of the apron the deceased was "apparently" wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress"
Why does say apparently? Either she was wearing it or she wasn't. This was never clarified. However was clarification needed, when he has used the words "piece of the apron" and "found outside her dress" No mention of a full apron, or her wearing what was described."

Trevor Marriott

First the only relevant time was when Eddowes left the police station, on whether she was wearing it or not and not before becuase she could have taken it off."Apparently was used,"IMO,because the apron was not "normally placed" like a woman alive who was wearing one,but it was moved/disturbed,either by the killer or during the transporting of Eddowes body from the crime scene to the mortuary.Collard saw something we do not know and he did not elaborate on but the position of the apron was such that-including the string(s) attached-, he assessed, she was apparently wearing it.Was it possible that she had it in her "possession" and the apron was moved that it appeared that she was wearing it,sure,but I doubt it,I believe more in the doctor's assessment.


It seems that the fitting of the 2 apron piece was done when the body was being or about to be stripped - per Brown below -and Phillips and Brown were present per Collard below.Since the apron was not "normally placed",weared completely,it was placed under "possession" rather than clothes weared.


Inspector Collard: "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 {Phillips and Brown} and myself."

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

"Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased
carefully."

[Coroner] 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.

You clearly have not been following my posts on this thread

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Steve
There are as many points to suggest that she was not wearing an apron as there are to suggest she was. So isnt it about time you stopped asking for sources in almost every post, when you know that there is not going to be specific sources. If there was it would be more clear cut, its about analysing the evidence and the witness statements and identifying flaws weighing up the evidence from both sides. Not as you and others seem to be doing accepting without question the old accepted theories

Look at it another way if the evidence and the witness statements were being tendered in a criminal trial, how they would stand up? Many clearly would not stand up to close scrutiny as they clearly dont now, and I have given the reason why they dont, and that they are unsafe. All evidence in any court has to be tested, and not readily accepted as being correct. Sadly at the inquest very little testing of evidence was done, and we are left wondering why, when clearly ambiguities arose from what evidence was given.

I am not being unkind to you when I say something isnt clearly getting through to you. Because you keep coming back with the same old comments, propping up the old accepted theory, and you totally disregard what I have put forward.

All of this is now wearing thin with me, as it is with you, and no doubt others on here. I can add nothing more to this specific issue, and wait to read you reports in great detail next year.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok so it's just your opinion, Nothing more, that's fine Trevor. We disagree lets leave it there for now.
We can revisit it next year and see if either of us has changed our views.

Cheers

Steve

[Wickerman]

and where did you get all those quotes from ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Where do we get the idea she wasn't wearing an apron from???

Legitimate sources please.

[Wickerman]

Yes we know there was a match. But the point is, that the match was not made before the body was stripped after arriving at the mortuary and the lists made up. It could not have been !

Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September.

"At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary . . . there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there."

Which part of this do you not understand ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor.

You are using what you deem to be a "secondary source", presumably meaning 'unreliable'. If you can use press reports, why not others?

And, to compound your problem, what you have is also hearsay.
Double standards, anybody?

[Wickerman]

I'm not sure about that, Jon. Hutt says in his evidence that when Kate was taken into custody;
"I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief."

"Wrapper", was another name for an apron Joshua.

[etenguy]

and where did you get all those quotes from ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Are you seriously suggesting the verbatim reports in the press were deliberately fabricated across a range of witnesses to convince readers that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron?

[Sam Flynn]

Are you seriously suggesting the verbatim reports in the press were deliberately fabricated across a range of witnesses to convince readers that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron?

Trevor Marriott = Much Ado About Clothing

[etenguy]

Trevor Marriott = Much Ado About Clothing

To be fair, it is not unreasonable to question whether journalists have made a mistake or have deliberately embellished what they are reporting. I think, though, on the balance of probabilities, in this instance, there is no motive for the journalists to embellish the apron testimony and it is too statistically improbable for the same mistake to be made across a range of witnesses.

[Joshua Rogan]

"Wrapper", was another name for an apron Joshua.

Could I trouble you for a reference? I've only been able to find it used for a type of Victorian dressing gown. Besides, would Hutt have needed to loosen her dress to notice an apron? Unless...Trevor is right and she was using an old piece of apron as a scarf?

[Joshua Rogan]

Inspector Collard: "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 {Phillips and Brown} and myself."

Are you sure the two doctors at the mortuary with Collard weren't Brown and Sequeira?

[Hunter]

It was Brown and Sequeira. Phillips arrived later.

[harry]

I am not entirely satisfied an apron was classified as part of clothing,or reported as such.Dr Brown? states cuts and stabs were made through the clothes,but we find no mention of any of the apron pieces being so cut or stabbed through,even though the apron ,in full,must have covered a considerable area of her body.

[Joshua Rogan]

I am not entirely satisfied an apron was classified as part of clothing,or reported as such.Dr Brown? states cuts and stabs were made through the clothes,but we find no mention of any of the apron pieces being so cut or stabbed through,even though the apron ,in full,must have covered a considerable area of her body.

All the skirts and petticoats worn by Eddowes had been cut through their waistbands. Likewise the strings of her pockets tied around her waist had also been cut. Presumably her killer did this in order to make them loose enough for him to expose her whole abdomen when thrown up. Given that everything around her waist had been cut, it seems likely that the apron she was wearing would similarly have been cut through the waistband. And if the killer wanted a piece of cloth, he needed only to extend this cut the whole length of the apron, dividing it vertically into two parts, and cut one string. With one piece removed, the other would remain in place - apparently worn - but no longer actually attached, possibly leading to it being easily dislodged by the time the body arrived at the mortuary.
That's my take.

[etenguy]

I am not entirely satisfied an apron was classified as part of clothing,or reported as such.Dr Brown? states cuts and stabs were made through the clothes,but we find no mention of any of the apron pieces being so cut or stabbed through,even though the apron ,in full,must have covered a considerable area of her body.

The evidence I find most convincing (though there are a number of references) in identifying that an apron was reported as a piece of Catherine's clothing, came from Collard's statement at the inquest.

"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. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

[Trevor Marriott]

To be fair, it is not unreasonable to question whether journalists have made a mistake or have deliberately embellished what they are reporting. I think, though, on the balance of probabilities, in this instance, there is no motive for the journalists to embellish the apron testimony and it is too statistically improbable for the same mistake to be made across a range of witnesses.

Well clearly there are mistakes and I dont think for one minute they were deliberate, but one wrong word can change the whole context of a sentence as has been shown.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk