Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

He was passing on a message from Matthews.
So Matthews knew enough to suggest to Warren that the police check they were right in belieiveing the GS piece was taken by the killer but they didn't bother to clue him in about the nature of the apron pieces?

But we dont know how much Matthews knew to draw that inference.

Of course it was natural thinking by the police to suspect it was placed there by the killer, but the question we now ask is was it? Sometimes in investigations the obvious does not turn out to be so obvious.

All it is now safe to say is that a piece of apron found in Goulston Street was linked to Catherine Eddowes.

The questions are

1. How did it get there?
2. When was it left there?
3. Who left it there?

These questions become even more important if you rule out the graffiti as having been written by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is. .

This is one of the major flaws ! the officer being shown "a piece of apron" and him saying it is the one she was wearing.

The questions he then should have been asked are

"How are you certain that what is produced is the apron she was wearing?"

"What made it identifiable to you at the time for you to positively identify it now?"

He could have been shown any old piece of white apron and he still would have said it was the one. Like I said in a previous post some witnesses were clearly "too helpful"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

Oh yes because they sound alike dont they? Duh

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, they sound enough alike two get confused. Two syllables, the first ones being "cor" versus "por", so you are quite right. Given the fact that it WAS spoken about a bloodied CORNER too, one can easily see how the mistake came about.

If they were NOT alike, how is it that all the reporters got it wrong? I take it you won´t accept that the clerk did...

[DJA]

This is one of the major flaws ! the officer being shown "a piece of apron" and him saying it is the one she was wearing.

The questions he then should have been asked are

"How are you certain that what is produced is the apron she was wearing?"

"What made it identifiable to you at the time for you to positively identify it now?"

He could have been shown any old piece of white apron and he still would have said it was the one. Like I said in a previous post some witnesses were clearly "too helpful"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No doubt this had been gone over with a fine tooth comb before the officer fronted the Inquest.

[Fisherman]

No doubt this had been gone over with a fine tooth comb before the officer fronted the Inquest.

Very true; the involved parties would have discussed it and they would be aware of which exact details that formed the ground for the view that the apron was the one Eddowes had been wearing. The shape, the colour, the needlework, the pattern - many things could have made for the decider. Trevors suggestion that the witness was overly helpful is not a very good one.

[Debra A]

..

Of course it was natural thinking by the police to suspect it was placed there by the killer, but the question we now ask is was it? Sometimes in investigations the obvious does not turn out to be so obvious.

That is exactly the same question Matthews asked Warren in that Oct 3rd memo though isn't it?. He wanted Warren to see if it could be possible to determine that the GS portion got there by any other means and if it could be shown that the GS portion was torn from an apron on the body.
I presume that is why we see Dr Brown telling the inquest jury on Oct 4th that there was a portion of the apron still attached to the body with strings and that the GS portion perfectly matched the portion still with the body. They also produced witnesses who said Catherine usually wore, and was wearing an apron that night These points at the inquest all address Warren's concerns so they were either purposefully made or the investigating officers had also thought about the question themselves independently and set out to show the same. Either way, it is something the police considered and they decided the evidence showed that the killer took a portion of the apron that Eddowes was wearing at the time.

[Trevor Marriott]

No doubt this had been gone over with a fine tooth comb before the officer fronted the Inquest.

You dont know that. Another cop out answer to detract away from the flaws.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Phil Carter]

[QUOTE=Pierre;400911]

Hi Phil,

Could you please elaborate a bit on this?

Regards, Pierre

Hello Pierre,

Without a touch more information, I cannot at the moment.
All I can say is that it almost looks "staged". A set up.


Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

That is exactly the same question Matthews asked Warren in that Oct 3rd memo though isn't it?. He wanted Warren to see if it could be possible to determine that the GS portion got there by any other means and if it could be shown that the GS portion was torn from an apron on the body.
I presume that is why we see Dr Brown telling the inquest jury on Oct 4th that there was a portion of the apron still attached to the body with strings and that the GS portion perfectly matched the portion still with the body. They also produced witnesses who said Catherine usually wore, and was wearing an apron that night These points at the inquest all address Warren's concerns so they were either purposefully made or the investigating officers had also thought about the question themselves independently and set out to show the same. Either way, it is something the police considered and they decided the evidence showed that the killer took a portion of the apron that Eddowes was wearing at the time.

Like I said things that seem obvious dont always turn out to be the obvious as is the case here. I think it is generally called a conflict The police thought lots of things back in 1888 many of which we now know to be almost nonsensical.

The flaws in what you seek to rely on have been documented and gone over many times nothing is going to change is it?

In the grand scheme of things the apron piece is way down the list.My main objective was to show that the organs were not taken away by the killer in that piece found in Goulston Street. I feel I have achieved that objective with my research.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, they sound enough alike two get confused. Two syllables, the first ones being "cor" versus "por", so you are quite right. Given the fact that it WAS spoken about a bloodied CORNER too, one can easily see how the mistake came about.

If they were NOT alike, how is it that all the reporters got it wrong? I take it you won´t accept that the clerk did...

I dont accept your understanding of the English language

Your post is another example of how posters manipulate facts to protect the ripper status quo

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I dont accept your understanding of the English language

Your post is another example of how posters manipulate facts to protect the ripper status quo

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If it was that simple, Trevor! But, you see, I can PROVE my point. The inquest clerk wrote "corner", and the papers wrote "portion", each and every one of them. And they heard the exact same words uttered.

So it cannot be contested that you can misinterpret the two words for each other - it happened, you see. It´s on paper. So I am 100 per cent correct, and you are... well, you know!

Now, how does that translate into my "manipulating the facts", Trevor? If you could kindly explain that, I would be grateful.

[Harry D]

Bring me up to speed, is Trevor still peddling his (second favourite) crackpot theory that the apron was actually a menstrual rag that the victim had already deposited before her death? Time to move on, Trevor. You've been beating this dead horse for years and no one's buying it.

[Elamarna]

Hi All


I see Trevor is still not responding to the suggestion that about interpretation,

The original document can be read, indeed by more than one person apparently, to say that his (Brown's) attention was either drawn by another person, or by his own observation to blood spots on the apron, these were in the area of the apron he describes as being a corner with a string attached.



"The wounds could not have been self inflicted – My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin –"



Trevor if you think such an interpretation is not credible, just explain why?
If you feel such an explanation is credible, but inferior to your interpretation, again please give the reasoning which leads you to that conclusion?

Well articulated reasoning, not just, I don't see it like that, would allow others to see the strength of your argument.



Steve

[Debra A]

Like I said things that seem obvious dont always turn out to be the obvious as is the case here. I think it is generally called a conflict The police thought lots of things back in 1888 many of which we now know to be almost nonsensical.

The flaws in what you seek to rely on have been documented and gone over many times nothing is going to change is it?

In the grand scheme of things the apron piece is way down the list.My main objective was to show that the organs were not taken away by the killer in that piece found in Goulston Street. I feel I have achieved that objective with my research.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Despite what you say, Trevor, Matthews broached the subject of the possibility that the apron piece got to GS by other means to Warren and asked him to check it ut. The inquest shows the police and Dr Brown explaining why they reached their conclusions.
It is impossible 127 years later to try and determine anything by assuming you know the size or shape of the GS apron piece or the pattern of blood left on it. It is impossible to make the conclusion that the pattern of bloodstains made during a modern experiment proves anything if you have nothing to compare it with.

If you feel you have proven that the organs weren't carried in the apron piece then that's good-we should all satisfy ourselves above anyone else.
I'm satisfied that they weren't either, in fact I hadn't heard the theory they were until you highlighted it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Bring me up to speed, is Trevor still peddling his (second favourite) crackpot theory that the apron was actually a menstrual rag that the victim had already deposited before her death? Time to move on, Trevor. You've been beating this dead horse for years and no one's buying it.

Well Harry it is a fact, that that apron piece got there somehow; even you must agree on that?

If she wasnt wearing an apron then the killer could not have cut or torn a piece off and deposited it there.

and the evidence to show she was is not conlcusive !

So taking all of that into account if the killer didnt deposit it there , then it must have got there somehow and there has to be plausible alternatives. Shame you seem to not want to consider them.

Because the description of the condition of the apron piece is consistent with the menstrual rag suggestion.

You might be best served in continuing to dispel Fishermans theory on Lechmere, mine are more believable

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk