Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

But when the lower portion of the bib apron (where the strings would be) has been cut off and taken away, how can it be attached to the body?

But the mortuary piece was the piece that had the string/strings attached. The GS piece did not

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

But the mortuary piece was the piece that had the string/strings attached. The GS piece did not

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry, I'm not only tired but focusing on another thread. Yes, the mortuary piece was suggested as a corner piece with strings. Do we really have to re-hash this again, Trevor? You have your opinion, I have mine. You think I can't understand the testimony based on your interpretation and you're correct.

By the way. I don't think organs were carried away in the apron and I don't have a suspect. So no horse in the race on this one. Several witnesses saw her wearing an apron before the murder. Dr. Brown describes her wearing one after her death. Good enough for me. Any questions beyond that, I refer you to the good Dr. F. Gordon Brown.

[Elamarna]

But as you know there is other evidence to show this statement maybe wrong.

Dr Browns official inquest testimony
“My attention was called to the apron, it was the corner of the apron with the string attached”

Trevor, again you refuse to even consider that YOUR interpretation of what is written could be wrong.


If one really understands the English language, it is clear that Brown Could be referring to an area with blood on it, which his attention was drawn to, not the piece of cloth as a whole.

It is truly astounding that you have refused to consider this or even discuss it.
Or is it simply that you do not understand?

Finally the mortuary piece was described as one piece of old white apron. If she had been wearing it, might we have expected it it have been described as one old white apron with piece missing?

No why should we?

It is what it says a piece(part of) an old white apron.

The piece from GS makes a whole as confirmed at the inquest :

"Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
PC Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it.
A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron."
The Times.


Further to support the idea that only one piece was missing:

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



That is very clear A Portion was missing, singular. not more than one piece!



Steve

[Elamarna]

And, for what it's worth, if you don't mind I'd like to point out that the court recorder wrote in long-hand, so the official record only provides the gist of the exchange. We have no questions, only replies, and the replies are often copied down in brief, rarely verbatim. The recorder will merely summarize the witness testimony as opposed to copy word for word, which he clearly has not the time to do.

The press used short-hand which permitted them to capture both questions and answers, and in most cases the replies by the witness were more complete and in many cases verbatim.

It is demonstrably foolish to limit our knowledge by only using the court records. While press coverage varied, and also carried minor errors, the intelligent researcher compiles all the press versions and compares the individual testimonies with each source, and with the original court record.

The intent is, and should always be, to gain a deeper and broader understanding of all the exchanges at the inquest. Not...look for a narrow interpretation which tends to suit a preferred theory, while dismissing contradictory testimony found in the press as, untrustworthy.

With respect to covering crime in the press, the inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of sources at our disposal.

All good points Jon


Steve

[Wickerman]

Are you not forgetting that the official depositions made by the witnesses at the inquest were signed by them afterwards. If they could not read then they would have been read over to them before they signed or made there mark.

So I think that process alone would rule out errors does it not?

I didn't recall suggesting the court record contained errors. I did suggest it is more of a summary of the witness testimony than a verbatim account.
The court record is not as complete as the press coverage - that is the important point.

So any contentious issues, which have arisen between the official testimony and the press reports, might suggest that it was the press that got it wrong.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The issues of contention usually stem from more detail being provided by the press. There are numerous examples where one or two lines are recorded by the court, yet the press are able to provide several lines of exchange between the witness and Mr. Crawford.

[Wickerman]

Finally the mortuary piece was described as one piece of old white apron. If she had been wearing it, might we have expected it it have been described as one old white apron with piece missing?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

On the contrary, the last item will be the G.S. piece - "1 Piece of old White Apron".

Collard made a list of her possessions at the mortuary, and you of all people should know that a policeman uses his pocketbook when taking notes in the field.
The paperwork deposited for the inquest are not pages from his pocketbook.
Clearly, his pocketbook notes were re-transcribed on to a larger notepad for presentation at the inquest.

This being the case we do not know what the last item was in his pocketbook - presumably the ball of hemp.
Naturally the G.S. piece when it turned up was determined to be from Eddowes, therefore Collard would naturally append the G.S. piece to the bottom of this list he is making for the inquest.
Whether it was actually recorded in his pocketbook or not we will never know.

The smaller piece of the apron found on the body was already listed in his pocketbook. As this piece of cloth was unrecognizable as part of an apron in its present (as found) condition, the Inspector could only identify it in general terms, either:
"1 piece of white coarse linen", or
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

[Wickerman]

The Times, Oct. 1st provides this description of her possessions:

The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings,

A piece of apron was around her neck.

[Fisherman]

The Times, Oct. 1st provides this description of her possessions:

The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings,

A piece of apron was around her neck.

An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.
The neck string can be either a noose that is not tied but simply hung over the neck, or it can be divided in two strings, that are tied behind the neck.
Then there will be two strings that are tied around the waist.

This link:

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CEYAAOSwOyJX9kk1/s-l1600.jpg

...goes to show what I mean. There are varying types, but this would be the basic idea.

Now, if the apron was a bib apron that was still "tied loosely around her neck", and if the lower part was cut away, then why is it only tied around her neck? Surely, it should have been tied around neck and waist?

Or was it untied at the waist? If so, how and why? Did the killer reach in under her and untie the apron? Or did he do so as she was on her side, then rolling her over afterwards? Why is it not mentioned that the apron was untied at the waist - it would have been quite remarkable.

Or was the apron cut so high up that the killer took the waist strings with himself, attached to the piece of apron he carried away? Then why was not that mentioned? And surely, the portion taken away would not have been half of the apron in such a case, it would be most of it.

There is something odd going on here. Is there any way this can be reconciled inbetween the sources?

[Pierre]

An apron with a bib is put on by tying it around the neck and around the waist.
The neck string can be either a noose that is not tied but simply hung over the neck, or it can be divided in two strings, that are tied behind the neck.
Then there will be two strings that are tied around the waist.

This link:

http://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/CEYAAOSwOyJX9kk1/s-l1600.jpg

...goes to show what I mean. There are varying types, but this would be the basic idea.

Now, if the apron was a bib apron that was still "tied loosely around her neck", and if the lower part was cut away, then why is it only tied around her neck? Surely, it should have been tied around neck and waist?

Or was it untied at the waist? If so, how and why? Did the killer reach in under her and untie the apron? Or did he do so as she was on her side, then rolling her over afterwards? Why is it not mentioned that the apron was untied at the waist - it would have been quite remarkable.

Or was the apron cut so high up that the killer took the waist strings with himself, attached to the piece of apron he carried away? Then why was not that mentioned? And surely, the portion taken away would not have been half of the apron in such a case, it would be most of it.

There is something odd going on here. Is there any way this can be reconciled inbetween the sources?

Fisherman,

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from it?

Pierre

[Fisherman]

Fisherman,

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from it?

Pierre

Do you agree with me that it would seem that I do not debate with you?

[Pierre]

Do you agree with me that it would seem that I do not debate with you?

Yes, I partly agree with it. But let´s not go off topic, since the questions I asked you are important. Let´s see if you can gain something to your theory by trying to answer the questions. I will make them more detailed.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

The Times, Oct. 1st provides this description of her possessions:

The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings,

A piece of apron was around her neck.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, I'm not only tired but focusing on another thread. Yes, the mortuary piece was suggested as a corner piece with strings. Do we really have to re-hash this again, Trevor? You have your opinion, I have mine. You think I can't understand the testimony based on your interpretation and you're correct.

By the way. I don't think organs were carried away in the apron and I don't have a suspect. So no horse in the race on this one. Several witnesses saw her wearing an apron before the murder. Dr. Brown describes her wearing one after her death. Good enough for me. Any questions beyond that, I refer you to the good Dr. F. Gordon Brown.

Where in the official inquest testimony does Brown say she was wearing an apron?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I didn't recall suggesting the court record contained errors. I did suggest it is more of a summary of the witness testimony than a verbatim account.
The court record is not as complete as the press coverage - that is the important point.

No you are wrong in this case it is the most important point Brown says that the mortuary piece was the corner of the apron with a string (singular) attached. If he then signed that document as being correct after reading it then there can be no misunderstanding and that has to be accepted

The issues of contention usually stem from more detail being provided by the press. There are numerous examples where one or two lines are recorded by the court, yet the press are able to provide several lines of exchange between the witness and Mr. Crawford.

But that isnt the case here there, there is a direct conflict, one is right and the other is wrong. To see which one you have to look deeper in the surrounding facts if you dont accpet Browns official signed inquest testimony.

If strings were correct then the apron would have still been tied around the body and the apron would have been documented as something she was wearing, and would have had to have been removed before any other clothing came off.

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.

The deciding factor in determining where the truth lies comes from the matching of the two pieces which were matched by the seams. We know that the mortuary piece was a corner and so for the two pieces to have been matched in the way described they must both have come from the same side of the apron. So how could effectively half and apron turn into a full apron?

When later the GS piece and mortuary piece were matched it is then that I would suggest the inference was drawn that she had been wearing one, and thus prompted Collard to make the statement containing the words “apparently wearing”

We know that the killer inflicted several wounds to the body of Eddowes through here outer clothing mainly in and around the waist and abdominal area, and in the descriptions of her clothing these are clearly evident. The mortuary piece was only described as being spotted with blood. Had she been wearing an apron I would have expected that items of clothing to have shown signs of cuts and be perhaps heavily blood stained in line with the other clothing and would have been noted at the time the body was stripped.

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.

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 first 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 shows an old piece of white apron in her possessions. The matching of the two pieces did not take place until the next morning.

So I would suggest that Halse is mistaken, because he does say he went to Leman street police station and then went back to the mortuary so at that time he would have known about the Gs find not when the body was stripped after its arrival at the mortuary.

I am sorry to say that you have to go with the official inquest testimony of Dr Brown which was signed by him as being correct.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

We know that the killer inflicted several wounds to the body of Eddowes through here outer clothing mainly in and around the waist and abdominal area, and in the descriptions of her clothing these are clearly evident.

Can you show where the doctors have mentioned this ?