Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Fisherman]

Joshua and Trevor!

The Daily Telegraph quote Joshua makes is revealing:

"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."

Strings. Plural. Both strings were still on the part of the apron that was left on the body. So the suggestion that the lower part of the apron was taken fits very well with that.

The suggestion that it could not be so because lower apron parts have no corners is pretty amusing, though, so thanks for that Trevor! However, there is no need to go looking for any corners, apparently.

There was once a Swedish footballer about whom many jokes were made on account of him not being very clever. A malicious (but funny) joke was made about how he was always so fit on account of the manager of the team putting him in a round and telling him to run to the corner and rest....

Maybe a round apron is what you are envisaging, Trevor?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Joshua Rogan;400654]

Where do you get the corner from?

Here are several of the more illustrative newspaper reports of Dr Brown's testimony about the apron pieces. As far as I can see, none of them mention a corner.

Trevor is right. The excerpt, containg the statement about the corner which Trevor refers to, is in the original inquest source.

So you can not use the newspapers for this.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Joshua and Trevor!

The Daily Telegraph quote Joshua makes is revealing:

"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."

Strings. Plural. Both strings were still on the part of the apron that was left on the body. So the suggestion that the lower part of the apron was taken fits very well with that.

The suggestion that it could not be so because lower apron parts have no corners is pretty amusing, though, so thanks for that Trevor! However, there is no need to go looking for any corners, apparently.

There was once a Swedish footballer about whom many jokes were made on account of him not being very clever. A malicious (but funny) joke was made about how he was always so fit on account of the manager of the team putting him in a round and telling him to run to the corner and rest....

Maybe a round apron is what you are envisaging, Trevor?

Trevor is right and you are wrong, Fisherman. Trevor uses the original inquest source, you use any newspapers you like.

Pierre

[Pierre]

Brown doesnt have to specify the size you can work it out for yourself a corner piece.

Three different descriptions of the apron pieces here is a pic to make it easier to understand the various descriptions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The black is meant to be the overlapping piece. The bit with the string attached is the one here marked MP. The GSG is the bit found in Goulston Street.

No problem.

The killer cut away a piece of the apron from another piece of it and from the string(s).

May it also have been an oblique cut?

Regards, Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

Trevor is right. The excerpt, containg the statement about the corner which Trevor refers to, is in the original inquest source.

So you can not use the newspapers for this.

Regards, Pierre

I see. Would you be so kind as to point out where I can view the original inquest source, please.

[Pierre]

I see. Would you be so kind as to point out where I can view the original inquest source, please.

You find the transcription of it in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, p. 231.

Regards, Pierre

[Joshua Rogan]

You find the transcription of it in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, p. 231.

Regards, Pierre

I see. Does the sourcebook give any idea where the transcription comes from originally?

[Pierre]

"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.- I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips, and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

No anomalies there ! he clearly talking about the two different pieces of apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I enjoy reading your discussion about the apron. Some people think that the murders escalated with Kelly and they are right. But the first escalation was on the night of the double event. The killer produced extermely important information this night and he was extremely well organized. You see it on the face of Eddowes, you see it in cutting the apron and writing the GSG.

It was only when the murders in September did not have the right effect that the killer started to plan for Lord Mayor´s Day. Kelly was not yet the target.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I see. Does the sourcebook give any idea where the transcription comes from originally?

Of course. The transcription was done by the authors.

[Joshua Rogan]

Of course. The transcription was done by the authors.

But what document was it transcribed from? And does this source still exist?

[Harry D]

Convenient how? Convenient for whom?

For PC Long, of course. Funny how he can't remember other details but suddenly has an eidetic memory when it comes to the apron. How would it look if he stated that he couldn't remember if it was there or not? That would suggest that he didn't carry out his duties properly and may have missed a vital piece of evidence.

You certainly led it on. And for a poster who is willing to claim that I work with sock puppets, why would I expect anything better? You still have not explained yourself on that point, nor have you apologized, the way a grown man ought to.

It's a theory. It hasn't been disproven. I take nothing back.

[Elamarna]

You find the transcription of it in The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook by Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, p. 231.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre, Trevor, Joshua and Fisherman,



Pierre is correct in that we do have some actual inquest testimony in this case, all in the Ultimate source book as he says.

One needs to actually read it very carefully:


"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 –"




Brown is talking about the piece of apron with string attached. he is also talking about what was found in Mitre Square, that is clear from the preceding statements, in the testimony in the ultimate source book.


It seems that there may be blood spots on this part.

He was talking about Mitre square, mentions an apron with string, then goes on to the next section:






" I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood."





It certainly reads like Brown is talking about another piece of apron, separate from that which he first mentioned.

It seems as if he is talking about something from a separate location, Goulston street, as opposed to his first statement which read like Mitre Square.






Brown goes on:

" 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. "




He fitted the bit from Goulston street to the piece he had, the first piece he spoke about one assumes, the one with the string, he has not mentioned any other piece of apron in his testimony, Yes it is somewhat confusing I must say.


"The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.”"
FGordonBrown


Apparently the two bits fitted.

However he mentions blood again, this could read as seperate from the first mention of blood spots, as there is now mention of:

"apparently faecal matter"


Which is not mentioned before, again reinforcing the idea this is another piece of apron, separate from the piece he first mentioned.

It is easy to understand why people can get confused, it does need to be carefully read, and almost broken down as done above to really understand it.


On the balance of probabilities I would that the piece with string is not the same as the piece produced by Dr Phillips.



Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Where do you get the corner from? Here are several of the more illustrative newspaper reports of Dr Brown's testimony about the apron pieces. As far as I can see, none of them mention a corner.

Dr Browns official inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

I do not debate with Pierre. I see no reason to - he has brought nothing but a quarrelsome ignorance to the boards, and he has an unhealthy attitude to any information concerning Charles Lechmere.

It is therefore not to him I turn in quoting from Evans´and Skinners´book, Gordon Brown speaking:

"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 - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. 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 - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

What is very clear here - though perhaps not to Mr Marriott - is that the part spoken of as having a string attaching to it, was the part found on the body. No other source reports differently.

Now, can we rely on the official inquest report being the correct one, never mistaken and always superior to the paper reports?
Not at all. It is not a taperecording of what was said, it is the work of a clerk who wrote down, as best as he could, what he heard the witnesses saying.

There is absolutely no reason to accept that the official inquest records are more accurate than the paper reportings.

If we scrutinize what is said, what do we get? We get the information that the apron piece left on the body was " a corner" with "a string attached".

Joshua Rogan produced the inquest as it was recorded in six different papers. Two of them did not write down the characterization of the part of apron found on Eddowes, but the four others did: a PORTION of the apron.
As opposed to the inquest clerk´s suggestion: a CORNER of the apron.

So, here we have five sources. Four say "portion", on says "corner". Which is the likeliest to apply? is it more likely that four people got it wrong, than just the one?

Is there any logic to look at? Yes, there is. Would a corner of the apron, with just the one string attaching to it, actually still be on the body?
And how did the killer cut his oiece away?
For the official inquest report to work, he would first have to split the apron halfway down the centre. Then he would have to make a 90 degree turn with the knife, cutting towards the side, leaving just a corner, a quarter of the size of the apron.
After that, he would need to untie the apron so that he could loosen the odd piece of cloth he had cut himself, and walk away with it. After that, he needed to cut his string away, otherwise Brown would have said at the inquest that Phillips´ part of the apron ALSO had a string attaching to it.

It´s either that, or the inquest clerk got it wrong, and all the papers who are in accordance with each other got it right: a PORTION of the apron -arguably the upper one - was left on Eddowes, and the strings kept that portion tied around her in death.

If somebody should be ignorant enough to think that the official inquest files must be a better source than the paper reports from the inquest, then it´s time to think again. The original files are just one out of many reports, all of which must be closely compared before we can say that we are as close to the truth as we can be. The clerk and the reporters alike heard the same inquest, the exact same words from the exact same people at the exact same time.

And I am still not talking to Pierre.

[Trevor Marriott]

Pierre, Trevor, Joshua and Fisherman,



Pierre is correct in that we do have some actual inquest testimony in this case, all in the Ultimate source book as he says.

One needs to actually read it very carefully:


"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 –"




Brown is talking about the piece of apron with string attached. he is also talking about what was found in Mitre Square, that is clear from the preceding statements, in the testimony in the ultimate source book.


It seems that there may be blood spots on this part.

He was talking about Mitre square, mentions an apron with string, then goes on to the next section:






" I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood."





It certainly reads like Brown is talking about another piece of apron, separate from that which he first mentioned.

It seems as if he is talking about something from a separate location, Goulston street, as opposed to his first statement which read like Mitre Square.






Brown goes on:

" 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. "




He fitted the bit from Goulston street to the piece he had, the first piece he spoke about one assumes, the one with the string, he has not mentioned any other piece of apron in his testimony, Yes it is somewhat confusing I must say.


"The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.”"
FGordonBrown


Apparently the two bits fitted.

However he mentions blood again, this could read as seperate from the first mention of blood spots, as there is now mention of:

"apparently faecal matter"


Which is not mentioned before, again reinforcing the idea this is another piece of apron, separate from the piece he first mentioned.

It is easy to understand why people can get confused, it does need to be carefully read, and almost broken down as done above to really understand it.


On the balance of probabilities I would that the piece with string is not the same as the piece produced by Dr Phillips.

Steve

How on earth do you know what he was taking about you are simply guessing and guessing wrongly ?

The balance of probability based on his official inquest testimony is as I have already stated. There are only two pieces of apron The Mortuary piece and the GS piece.

He is quite clear and concise. He talks about the mortuary piece and then refers to The Gs piece. End of story !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk