Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Debra A]

I tend to think it was the kind of apron that went from the waist down. I believe it is all very simple - the killer grabbed the apron at the foot end, collected it´s width into his one hand, stretched it, using Eddowes´ body as a counterweight, and then cut it straight off in the middle, leaving himself with the lower portion, making up about half the apron.

But it´s anybody´s choice - even Trevors!

That's right. Interpretions vary and no one can be proved wrong with the scant details available. I do like mine though

It's just I'm interested in what Trevor thinks of the bib in the official memo as he held this up as a primary source worth noting because it involves police being asked to make certain the apron piece didn't get to GS by alternative means. He told me there was definitely no bib when I suggested it a few months back.

[Fisherman]

That's right. Interpretions vary and no one can be proved wrong with the scant details available. I do like mine though

It's just I'm interested in what Trevor thinks of the bib in the official memo as he held this up as a primary source worth noting because it involves police being asked to make certain the apron piece didn't get to GS by alternative means. He told me there was definitely no bib when I suggested it a few months back.

Trevor´s a flexible man, Debra. It borders on contortionism.

[jerryd]

I cant believe that the policeman held the apron in court, surely it would be a bit smelly ? However this picture was published that may or may not be accurate.

Pat....

Thank you for posting this , Pat. Wonder if that is PC Long holding the apron during his testimony?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Phil Carter;400830]

Hi Phil,

you write:

The whole planting of that apron piece looks set up. Almost staged. The idea is controversial perhaps... but I see it as a very real possibility.

Could you please elaborate a bit on this?

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

It is possible, Fisherman; but be it corner or portion, we don't know anything about the exact size, shape, or where and what type of blood stains were on either of the two portions or how many strings it had. I just thought that worth mentioning as it is coming across in some people's posts as though there is a definite official description of the apron pieces and the bloodstains on them.

Maybe Trevor would like to comment of the issue of the bib now?

Of course I will comment, seeing as I have been accused of not replying to posts.

The bib was mentioned in a letter from Warren to James Frazer, and is the only mention of a bib. Warren did not visit the crime scene, nor did he go to the mortuary, and as is known the murder did not fall under his jurisdiction, so I would suggest he is mistaken. But it is interesting nevertheless because it shows that from what he knew, that he had a suspicion that perhaps the killer did not take it and dispose of it in Goulston Street.

If Brown is correct and he was referring to a corner piece with a string attached please explain how a corner piece with one string attached can come from a bib type apron.

You know the saying size doesnt matter well it does in the case. Bib aprons were almost full length so for the killer to have cut a portion it would either have had to have been almost 75% of the apron and taken it away with him.
Because if he had have cut a small piece from the bottom (and there would be no need to take a large piece even to carry the organs,or to wipe his hands/knife) that would have left the remainder still in place and when the body was stripped the remainder would still be round the neck and draped around the body, and would be one of the first items of clothing to be taken off the body significantly seen and duly and noted.

I again refers to Collards list, and to his testimony where he uses the term "apparently wearing" such a large piece left behind would cause no doubt but a small corner piece with one string I would suggest causes that doubt.

The pic shows a portion of the apron at the inquest which part is not clear but on another note it shows the flaws in the evidence whereby she was supposedly identified by the apron she was wearing

I hope this satisfies your troubled mind now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I think she could have hawked a whole apron for more money than some bloodstained rags, however. nicely folded they were.

She didnt know they were bloodstained she was dead. Please pay attention

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I actually believe that the word "corner" was a mishearing of "portion" on behalf of the clerk writing down the inquest. He seems to have been more or less alone about using "corner" - the papers voted more or less unanimously for "portion".

Oh yes because they sound alike dont they? Duh

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, a lot of reports refer to the apron / piece being produced, so someone was holding it up for everyone to see.
Good find.

Duplicate post

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, a lot of reports refer to the apron / piece being produced, so someone was holding it up for everyone to see.
Good find.

Yes but look at the size ! not very big at all.

If its the GS piece and it was a bib apron then that rules out a bib apron because of the size that would have been left behind.

If it was the mortuary piece then again it rules out a bib apron because its too small.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Debra A]

The bib was mentioned in a letter from Warren to James Frazer, and is the only mention of a bib. Warren did not visit the crime scene, nor did he go to the mortuary, and as is known the murder did not fall under his jurisdiction, so I would suggest he is mistaken. But it is interesting nevertheless because it shows that from what he knew, that he had a suspicion that perhaps the killer did not take it and dispose of it in Goulston Street.

[Elamarna]

If Brown is correct and he was referring to a corner piece with a string attached please explain how a corner piece with one string attached can come from a bib type apron.

Trevor, its not "if Brown is correct," there is no reason for not believing him.

What you are either failing or refusing to see, is that it is your interpretation of what is written which may not be correct.

Two people have offered you roughly the same interpretation, that being Debra (post#1452) and myself (1429), we have not discussed this at all, but suggested basically the same possibility I believe.

A third alternative interpretation as been made by Fisherman, and yet you do not even consider any but your own can hold true.



Steve

[DJA]

[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
[Coroner] What is the distance from Mitre-square to your station? - About 400 yards.
[Coroner] Do you know the direct route to Flower and Dean-street? - No.
A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous. I loosened the things round the deceased's neck, and I then saw a white wrapper and a red silk handkerchief.

[Debra A]

.

The bib was mentioned in a letter from Warren to James Frazer, and is the only mention of a bib. Warren did not visit the crime scene, nor did he go to the mortuary, and as is known the murder did not fall under his jurisdiction, so I would suggest he is mistaken. But it is interesting nevertheless because it shows that from what he knew, that he had a suspicion that perhaps the killer did not take it and dispose of it in Goulston Street.

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?

[Joshua Rogan]

She didnt know they were bloodstained she was dead. Please pay attention

Do you know if the bloodstains on the rags were recent? Was anything else on the list of possessions described as bloodstained?

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes but look at the size ! not very big at all.

If its the GS piece and it was a bib apron then that rules out a bib apron because of the size that would have been left behind.

If it was the mortuary piece then again it rules out a bib apron because its too small.

I don't really see your logic here.