Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Pierre]

But Brown at some point would have had to read and signed his deposition as being correct.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Do you know if it was mandatory that every witness signed their own deposition?

Regards, Pierre

[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

Hi Steve,

I do not think that his testimony is confusing or need probability-thinking to be understood.

Brown talks about the Goulston Street piece as a "portion" twice, and he once also talks about it as the "piece of apron" (this is the Goulston Street bit)

being fitted to the "piece I have", which also is called "the apron", "the corner of the apron with a string attached". (This is the bit left on Eddowes).

So bit E (Eddowes) is "the apron", "the corner of the apron..." and "the piece I have", whereas bit GS (Goulston Street bit) is a "portion" and a "piece of apron".

Note that both parts of the apron are called "piece" but only the GS is called "portion".

So if we use the concept GS and E we have GS= a portion/piece and E=an apron consisting of a corner with string. The GS was produced to Brown by Phillips and the E was found on the victim.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

Yes, no problem with that at all.

It seems to be your view that the apron at the mortuary has only one corner with attached string, is that correct?


Steve

A corner with a string attached !!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve,

I do not think that his testimony is confusing or need probability-thinking to be understood.

Brown talks about the Goulston Street piece as a "portion" twice, and he once also talks about it as the "piece of apron" (this is the Goulston Street bit)

being fitted to the "piece I have", which also is called "the apron", "the corner of the apron with a string attached". (This is the bit left on Eddowes).

So bit E (Eddowes) is "the apron", "the corner of the apron..." and "the piece I have", whereas bit GS (Goulston Street bit) is a "portion" and a "piece of apron".

Note that both parts of the apron are called "piece" but only the GS is called "portion".

So if we use the concept GS and E we have GS= a portion/piece and E=an apron consisting of a corner with string. The GS was produced to Brown by Phillips and the E was found on the victim.

Regards, Pierre

Pierre

Which ever way we do it we have arrive at the same position.

however it seems that some have been confused.



I have reread the posts and it seems the issue may be just how big we think "E" was?

Trevor sees it I think, I am awaiting his reply, so i am not sure, as a quarter piece, others see it different I think.

I can see two ways of interpreting what Brown says:


"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 –""



Either the apron is just a corner, in which case one may want to ask where is the rest?
Assuming that when GS is joined we do not get a whole?


or when he says his attention was drawn to the apron, is he saying it was drawn to a part of it which had blood on it, the corner by the string?


Its a shame that he is not more specific.



Steve

[Elamarna]

A corner with a string attached !!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

A simple yes would do.

That does explain the confusion, it does not however say who is correct.


Where is the other corner Trevor?



Steve

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;400714]

or when he says his attention was drawn to the apron, is he saying it was drawn to a part of it which had blood on it, the corner by the string?

OK,

there is "the apron" and there is the corner "of" the apron.

So the apron is one concept. The corner is another concept. And "of" is pointing to a specific aspect or feature.

of:

"used for saying who or what has a particular feature, aspect, or quality".

So the apron has the feature of a corner. The corner is "owned" by the apron. It is part of it.

I will not draw any conclusions from my suggestions here.

Regards, Pierre

[Michael W Richards]

Just posted this pic on another thread, its Victorian, and likely very much like Kates. Plus its from the waist down, which would have been an issue when her skirts were raised..maybe it was cut and ripped because of that reason?

[Harry D]

So it΄s just a theory? Not proven, therefore? And you think it is okay to throw such an unsavoury suggestion out with no evidence at all?

What if I was to say that I have a theory that you are a rapist, a small time crook and a closet transvestite? How would that sound to you? Preposterous, false and extremely insulting, perhaps?

Is that how we should conduct ourselves in a debate out here? Or should we take great care not to tarnish people with no evidence at all?

For my part, I don΄t think you are a rapist, a small time crook or a closet transvestite. All I see is a very immature character who has not yet arrived at the stations of decency we all need to arrive at sooner or later if we expect to be taken seriously.

You have some serious soulsearching before yourself, Harry. I wish you the best of luck with it for the simple reason that I have to deal with you on a frequent basis. I would much prefer if you managed to debate along a more mature line, therefore.

Please seek professional help.

[Fisherman]

Please seek professional help.

So that was all you could come up with?

You accuse me of using a sock puppet on no grounds at all, you refuse to retract the accusation, you say it is a theory, and when I say that I could in such a case theorize anything about YOU that I want to, you tell me to seek professional help.

Pathetic and cowardly. Congratulations.

[Harry D]

You accuse me of using a sock puppet on no grounds at all, you refuse to retract the accusation, you say it is a theory, and when I say that I could in such a case theorize anything about YOU that I want to, you tell me to seek professional help.

No grounds? Other than the fact he's right behind your ass on the Lechmere bandwagon and that he has a strangely inconsistent posting style? And believe me, I'm not the only one who's picked up on it.

Anyway, you are certainly not doing anything to allay my suspicions with these neurotic outbursts.

[Fisherman]

No grounds? Other than the fact he's right behind your ass on the Lechmere bandwagon and that he has a strangely inconsistent posting style? And believe me, I'm not the only one who's picked up on it.

Anyway, you are certainly not doing anything to allay my suspicions with these neurotic outbursts.

I don΄t care if you are alone or not. You are certainly alone about being rude, slippery and unsavoury enough to make these filthy allegations.

You should be really proud of yourself.

[drstrange169]

You think a closet transvestite is akin to a rapist and a small time crook?

A closet transvestite shouldn't be considered something derogatory at all?

I think you owe the boards an unreserved apology.

Surely we've should have moved past the Victorian attitudes against women, gays, minorities, the mentally and physically different?

It's a sad world that we still have situations like Michelle Obama being publicly called an "ape in heels".

[Trevor Marriott]

A simple yes would do.

That does explain the confusion, it does not however say who is correct.


Where is the other corner Trevor?



Steve

There would be no other corner if at the time of her murder she had not been wearing an apron but simply had in her possession two old pieces of apron, which at some point in the past had formed part of a full apron, and had been cut up for whatever purpose. Hence the match for the mortuary and Goulston pieces.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[jerryd]

There would be no other corner if at the time of her murder she had not been wearing an apron but simply had in her possession two old pieces of apron, which at some point in the past had formed part of a full apron, and had been cut up for whatever purpose. Hence the match for the mortuary and Goulston pieces.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There are no ifs in the fact that several witnesses testified to her WEARING an apron on that night.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

The Times, Thursday 11 October 1888—

"Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke Street, Aldgate, a few minutes' walk from Mitre Square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o'clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing."

It sounds like Eddowes was famed for wearing a white apron.

Regards,

Simon