Apron placement as intimidation?

[Wickerman]

But the clothes had been removed hours before they came to carry out the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The undressing is a requirement prior to the autopsy. Anything tied to the body is cut loose, not untied. It doesn't matter how much time passes between the undressing and the autopsy.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Michael.
The cut started at the apex of the ribcage (sternum), it did not go any higher.
"The incision" is the direction of the blade when thrust into the body.
The knife was thrust "upwards", not horizontal, and not down, but the direction of the cut was down towards the abdomen.

Hi Jon,

To my knowledge the Enciform Cartilage, or Xiphoid Process as it is now referred to as, is at the apex of the sternum. The quote "The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."

I don't see how that translates to a downward cut Jon.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

Trying to analyze this.

I fitted

A) the piece of apron which

A 1) had (still A, belonging to A)

B) a new piece of material

on it (it = A)

B1) which (new piece of material) had been evidently sewn on to (history of it, its provenance)

C) the piece I have (another piece) or A (the same piece) ?

D) The seams of

E) the borders of

A + C the two (the piece of apron which) + (the piece I have) ?

/ OR the seems of the borders on the patch / material

actually corresponding

and therefore B) is the link to the correspondence?

Pierre

That is not actually that clear to follow, fortunately what you post after makes it clear to me what you are asking.

Steve - is there any way can we exclude that we are not talking about the seems of A and C instead of, as in your hypothesis, B?

Can we con conclusively exclude the edge seams?

Answer no, the language used in the inquest report does not allow for that.

We can however apply knowledge of the use of the English language and see if that gives any indication, which is the action followed

Brown makes the following clear in the following order:

1. He had two pieces of material of the same general appearance and design.

2. Both pieces of apron had a piece of material which had been attached to the original by being sewn on.


3. Having mentioned that the material(patch) had been sewn on He then directly states that the two seams of the boarders fit.

He does not go back to the discuss the two apron pieces, before commenting on the seam,

He does say he has two pieces with a common connecting patch/material and this fits together.


The problem, is how you read what is in reality broken English to a degree. The sentences as produced are not full sentences and this does indeed leave the wording open to a degree of interpretation.

the actual words used say:

"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"

It is certainly ambiguous, and down to interpretation,

to me i see it meaning the two bits of the common patch, i fully accept others will/may read it differently, in which case i am open to listen to thier views.

And indeed in my post I did say:


That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.



Suggests, not proves.

I hope that gives an answer




Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.

If that had been the case the majority of the wounds would all be at the top part of her body and not on the lower abdominal area surely ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I have not included the bib portion, I'm just trying to show why "a string" can really be both strings.
I'm sure you know this already but for those who don't, at an autopsy anything tied to the body is not untied, it is simply cut to preserve the knot intact.



I'm suggesting that Dr. Brown cut the string to remove the article during the autopsy. In consequence the piece of apron entered into evidence had a string attached.

But the clothes had been removed hours before they came to carry out the post mortem.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It appears that the cut went upwards, not down..."The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."

Hi Michael.
The cut started at the apex of the ribcage (sternum), it did not go any higher.
"The incision" is the direction of the blade when thrust into the body.
The knife was thrust "upwards", not horizontal, and not down, but the direction of the cut was down towards the abdomen.

[Wickerman]

Dc Halse
"I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing"

How can this be interpreted? According to Collard, Halse was not present when the body was stripped. When he says he saw the body stripped that could mean that the body was laying on the mortuary table having been stripped.

I'm not disputing whether "I saw deceased stripped" means, being undressed, or after she was undressed.
What I do take issue with is that you are assuming because Collard did not mention Halse, that Halse was not present.
This is what is termed negative evidence. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.
I think you are wrong to make that assumption.

[Wickerman]

If string then it corroborates what has been described all along "A piece" It was described by Brown as the corner of the apron with a string attached. If just one string, then you cant tie an apron with one string. There was no mention of the Gs piece having the other string attached.

I have not included the bib portion, I'm just trying to show why "a string" can really be both strings.
I'm sure you know this already but for those who don't, at an autopsy anything tied to the body is not untied, it is simply cut to preserve the knot intact.



I'm suggesting that Dr. Brown cut the string to remove the article during the autopsy. In consequence the piece of apron entered into evidence had a string attached.

[Pierre]

Yes, do ask yourself some questions about it. For example:

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron, and it was not a skirt or a shirt or a jacket or a shawl - why was it an apron and not another item?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from the apron and the strings, and if you do, do you know any symbolic language connected to such an act?

How can this act be connected to Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

Have you no answers, Fisherman? Do you want me to answer these questions for you?

[Michael W Richards]

These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.

Hi Jon,

It appears that the cut went upwards, not down..."The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."

[Wickerman]

Collards additional list of clothing shows the long cuts to the clothing around the waist and abdominal area, and blood staining, which indicates she was stabbed through the outer clothing several times.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.

[Pierre]

Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"
[/B]

That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.

Steve

Hi Steve,

Trying to analyze this.

I fitted

A) the piece of apron which

A 1) had (still A, belonging to A)

B) a new piece of material

on it (it = A)

B1) which (new piece of material) had been evidently sewn on to (history of it, its provenance)

C) the piece I have (another piece) or A (the same piece) ?

D) The seams of

E) the borders of

A + C the two (the piece of apron which) + (the piece I have) ?

/ OR the seems of the borders on the patch / material

actually corresponding

and therefore B) is the link to the correspondence?

Steve - is there any way can we exclude that we are not talking about the seems of A and C instead of, as in your hypothesis, B?

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Lets stick with what was produced as evidence Collards list of clothing she was wearing and what she had as her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's use all the evidence at our disposal, you know, as if we were real policemen conducting an investigation....

[Pierre]

Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.

Yes, do ask yourself some questions about it. For example:

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron, and it was not a skirt or a shirt or a jacket or a shawl - why was it an apron and not another item?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from the apron and the strings, and if you do, do you know any symbolic language connected to such an act?

How can this act be connected to Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

In actuality there are examples of Victorian era aprons that show the neck string is not tied, it is attached to both upper sides...the wearer slips the neck portion over their head, and then fastens the waist by tying the strings that are attached individually to each side of the apron.


This is why I believe "attached" refers to the neck portion being intact and that string still round her neck. She is not wearing it, but it is attached to her.

Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.