Tweet
Originally posted by Fisherman
View Post
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 Evansīand Skinnersībook, 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 clerkīs 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 Phillipsī part of the apron ALSO had a string attaching to it.
Itīs 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 itīs 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.
It is therefore not to him I turn in quoting from Evansīand Skinnersībook, 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 clerkīs 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 Phillipsī part of the apron ALSO had a string attaching to it.
Itīs 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 itīs 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.
Comment