Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

This was the pic. posted by Cris.



Though the thread discussion primarily concerned the body of Chapman, not Eddowes - mea culpa.
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...light=mortuary

That was to keep out the public and the press not bona fide medical personel

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not sure that's true Jon....Halse is reported as being there when the body was stripped, before hearing that the Goulston St piece had been found;

Times
He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing. He accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, where they heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street

Morning Advertiser
I came through Goulston street, where the apron was found, about 20 minutes past two. I then went to the mortuary, saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre square, and heard that a portion of the apron had been found

Daily News
I came through Goulston street about twenty minutes past two, where the apron was found, and then went back to Mitre square. I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to the station, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston street.

Look at his official inquest testimony !!!!!!

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

How can this be interpreted? It is clear that Halse was not present when the body was stripped. Collard conforms that. Halse went to the mortuary after the body had been stripped and the lists prepared. When he says he saw the body stripped that means the body was laying on the mortuary table having been stripped.
What he then says tends show that his evidence was a combination of the events at the time and afterwards made to read in real time. At the time he went to the mortuary there was no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron let alone the fact that a piece was missing. The list showed an old piece of white apron in her possessions. The matching of the two pieces did not take place until the next morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

Outside = above ?

She was dressed in layers of clothing. Would an apron be on the outside of the clothing, or the inside of the clothing? If you think of the purpose of an apron, you have your answer. By above I meant on top of, but I think you knew that already.

[Joshua Rogan]

Look at his official inquest testimony !!!!!!

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

How can this be interpreted? It is clear that Halse was not present when the body was stripped. Collard conforms that. Halse went to the mortuary after the body had been stripped and the lists prepared. When he says he saw the body stripped that means the body was laying on the mortuary table having been stripped.
What he then says tends show that his evidence was a combination of the events at the time and afterwards made to read in real time. At the time he went to the mortuary there was no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron let alone the fact that a piece was missing. The list showed an old piece of white apron in her possessions. The matching of the two pieces did not take place until the next morning.

For once, I was actually agreeing with you Trevor.
However, not in this instance. If the reports are interpreted the way you suggest, it is effectively saying that he saw the body naked, which seems irrelevant. I prefer the more sensible interpretation that he witnessed the clothes being removed.
The fact that Collard didn't mention Halse doesn't 'confirm' he wasn't present, only that the named people were. Are you saying the Times was lying when it says Halse accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Pierre,

Apparently = Purportedly, Supposedly, Seemingly etc.

I was rather hoping you might tell me.

Regards,

Simon

[Trevor Marriott]

For once, I was actually agreeing with you Trevor.
However, not in this instance. If the reports are interpreted the way you suggest, it is effectively saying that he saw the body naked, which seems irrelevant. I prefer the more sensible interpretation that he witnessed the clothes being removed.
The fact that Collard didn't mention Halse doesn't 'confirm' he wasn't present, only that the named people were. Are you saying the Times was lying when it says Halse accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary?

So many anomalies, but the official inquest statements are what sets the benchmark.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

Hi Pierre,

Apparently = Purportedly, Supposedly, Seemingly etc.

I was rather hoping you might tell me.

Regards,

Simon

She seemed to have been wearing it.

1. Did the killer bring the two pieces with him on the night of the double event?

2. Did the killer plan to place a portion of the apron by (beside/upon/outside the dress of) a victim?

3. Did the killer plan to place the other portion of the apron beside a wall?

4. Did the killer plan to write on the wall?

5. If yes on every question:

WHY?

Regards, Pierre

[Elamarna]

So many anomalies, but the official inquest statements are what sets the benchmark.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes

I agree with you 100%

We are back to how we interpret what is recorded in the inquest source document.

You chose to see it one way and the majority see it differently.

That does not mean they are right are you are wrong; but it does clearly show you are in a minority on the interpretation the official inquest documents. That is something you have to live with Trevor.

If your theory is to be proven correct then you must find a different approach, this continual selective quoting of sources to push your position has not advanced that theory at all.

For every quote you give, others give 2 back or just interpret what you post differently to yourself.


The sources and details have been posted and reposed, and yet there is still a refusal to see any view but one.

As I have said to you before this can carry on as long as you like, the positions will not change dramatically.

There is little point in debating with someone who continually runs away, when confronted with questions he does not like, and who then says he will not talk about such as they are off topic, or worse still, someone who says all the answers are in my books.

Actually they are not, far from it.



For my part, I am doing some real research on the subject at present, which is forcing me not to post as often, if i want that research to be taken seriously.


Perhaps that approach, getting the support for an ideas as airtight as possible, so that it is not based on personal viewpoints would be beneficial.



steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes

I agree with you 100%

We are back to how we interpret what is recorded in the inquest source document.

You chose to see it one way and the majority see it differently.

That does not mean they are right are you are wrong; but it does clearly show you are in a minority on the interpretation the official inquest documents. That is something you have to live with Trevor.

If your theory is to be proven correct then you must find a different approach, this continual selective quoting of sources to push your position has not advanced that theory at all.

For every quote you give, others give 2 back or just interpret what you post differently to yourself.


The sources and details have been posted and reposed, and yet there is still a refusal to see any view but one.

As I have said to you before this can carry on as long as you like, the positions will not change dramatically.

There is little point in debating with someone who continually runs away, when confronted with questions he does not like, and who then says he will not talk about such as they are off topic, or worse still, someone who says all the answers are in my books.

Actually they are not, far from it.



For my part, I am doing some real research on the subject at present, which is forcing me not to post as often, if i want that research to be taken seriously.


Perhaps that approach, getting the support for an ideas as airtight as possible, so that it is not based on personal viewpoints would be beneficial.



steve

Those who choose to interpret the facts, and look at it from a different perspective are those it would seem that prop up the old accepted theories.

Can we really be expected to believe that every single part of this mystery from 128 years ago is as we have been led to believe. That every police officer was telling the truth, that every doctors opinion is correct. That the anomalies regarding newspaper reports that conflict with the official statements are correct, and that the official statements are wrong because of someone mis hearing words.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Those who choose to interpret the facts, and look at it from a different perspective are those it would seem that prop up the old accepted theories.

Can we really be expected to believe that every single part of this mystery from 128 years ago is as we have been led to believe. That every police officer was telling the truth, that every doctors opinion is correct. That the anomalies regarding newspaper reports that conflict with the official statements are correct, and that the official statements are wrong because of someone mis hearing words.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

As for your last question, yes, we can certainy conclude that the more probable thing is that the official statement got the apron business wrong, working from the idea that Browne had said "corner" instead of "portion". It all boils down to the fact that a good many people, one of them the inquest clerk and the rest reporters, were all present at the same event, seated in the same room, listening to the same testimony. So if all save one are of the meaning that the word "portion" was what was said by Browne, then it makes little difference that the inquest clerk had it "corner". All of these sources are primary sources, and all of them derive from the exact same event, and so the more likely thing is that the papers were correct.

[Pierre]

As for your last question, yes, we can certainy conclude that the more probable thing is that the official statement got the apron business wrong, working from the idea that Browne had said "corner" instead of "portion". It all boils down to the fact that a good many people, one of them the inquest clerk and the rest reporters, were all present at the same event, seated in the same room, listening to the same testimony. So if all save one are of the meaning that the word "portion" was what was said by Browne, then it makes little difference that the inquest clerk had it "corner". All of these sources are primary sources, and all of them derive from the exact same event, and so the more likely thing is that the papers were correct.

Says he who hasnīt got the original inquest source for the murder of Polly Nichols.

[Elamarna]

Those who choose to interpret the facts, and look at it from a different perspective are those it would seem that prop up the old accepted theories.

My whole argument made for me by yourself Trevor, those who disagree with you are wrong and somehow inferior!

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with backing any theory so long as there is data to back such a theory. However at present for much of what you propose this is lacking, and your continued chant of that the old ideas are flawed and discredited is Purely YOUR view, it is not backed by the history, or by even a sizable minority of those researching the subject. just you!

The continued repeating of this chant "old discredited theories" does not strengthen your case, rather it severs to expose the belief you hold is not based on evidence, but on the fact that your IDEAS are new, and others have failed to solve the case so must be wrong.

However, the views you put forward are not entirely original and have all been raised by others previously.

Can we really be expected to believe that every single part of this mystery from 128 years ago is as we have been led to believe. That every police officer was telling the truth, that every doctors opinion is correct. That the anomalies regarding newspaper reports that conflict with the official statements are correct, and that the official statements are wrong because of someone mis hearing words.

No we cannot believe it is all has we have been told, I am finding possible new evidence all the time, but it needs to be asses fully before publishing it, to allow one to see if it holds up.

Of course not every police office was telling the truth, something you know I agree with you about, and which incidentally most others do as well, but it suites you to claim the contrary view is held.


With regards to medical opinions, much as changed and it is now accepted that determining TOD is far more complicated than was believed in 1888, however the basics such as how cuts are made and performed has not changed.
And the advantage the medics on the spot had over modern experts is very simple and very important, they the 1888 medics are not relying on 128 year old reports to make medical observations; they were actually in place.

For that reason alone their views which are based purely on observation, such as length of cuts, depth of cuts, possible strangulation and any other injuries should be held in higher regards than those of a present day medic.

Again can I ask why you have not had the common decency to thank me for replying to your list of questions, its very simple, it goes ...Thank you.


As for your last question it works both ways, we had no recording devices, the court reporter was just as likely to make an error in hearing and recording testimony as the newspaper reporters, and that is the reason why a good researcher compares all the primary sources of an inquest in this case, in an attempt to get a fuller view of what was actually said.


Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;401761]

As for your last question, yes, we can certainy conclude that the more probable thing is that the official statement got the apron business wrong, working from the idea that Browne had said "corner" instead of "portion". It all boils down to the fact that a good many people, one of them the inquest clerk and the rest reporters, were all present at the same event, seated in the same room, listening to the same testimony. So if all save one are of the meaning that the word "portion" was what was said by Browne, then it makes little difference that the inquest clerk had it "corner".

All of these sources are primary sources, and all of them derive from the exact same event, and so the more likely thing is that the papers were correct.

Wrong. Learn this, Fisherman, and everyone else here:

1) A handwritten paper from an inquest is a primary source. A transcription from such a source is not a secondary source but a transcribed primary source which can be compared to the handwritten source.

2) An article is edited. It is composed using handwritten primary sources for what journalists thought and wrote. Its position as primary or secondary can therefore be extermely difficult to determine.

3) Both primary sources in handwriting or transcription and edited material can be narrative sources. But the narrative in edited material is less reliable than the narrative in non edited material.

4) There is a source hierarchy. A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process but journalists from various newspapers may have specific interests in the issues presented. Therefore the source produced by the clerk is more reliable.

Do not again give us the very ignorant an uneducated idea that newspaper articles per definition are "correct primary sources".

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Itīs a pity Pierres posts are not primary sources.

If they were, they would be handwritten.

And then I could use them to wipe my behind.

[Pierre]

Itīs a pity Pierres posts are not primary sources.

If they were, they would be handwritten.

And then I could use them to wipe my behind.

As I expected you can not even distinguish historical sources from toilet paper. And that is why your theory is as it is.