Kate's Apron

[ChrisGeorge]

Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.

I am a poet and do a lot of open mics on Zoom these days with fellow writers from around the world. Even when I read my own poems displaying them on screen using "Screen Share" I know I don't always read the identical words that I had written. So you can't tell me that even if the witness signs a statement they would know exactly what they testified to.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Harry
I have touched on that by reason of the fact that she was in possession of a knife but the naysayers come up with an explantion that the knife would not have been sharp enough to cut. Any excuse to prop up the old theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And why would Eddowes, sitting in her cell sobering up, think “what can I do to pass the time?” “Shall I have a kip so that I can sober up and get out of here quicker?” “Nah, even though I’m desperately poor I think I’ll destroy my clothing“

Couldn’t you just occasionally visit Earth?

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason

Which part of your theory is ‘tested’ and ‘safe’ then. Are you ‘safe’ in dismissing 3 perfectly good witnesses for zero reason. And do bother saying that you’ve explained your reason for doing so because it holds no water. The 3 witnesses cannot dismissed and they destroy your theory.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.

It is a fact that there is no transcripts that either you or I can say are word for word exactly what the witnesses said. It is an opinion that the inquest version is somehow error free due to the witnesses signing them

Its possible that a witness could sign for a statement as being correct but it’s ludicrous to suggest that he or she would be signing to say that it was an exact transcription of what he or she had said. If the witness signed they were saying that the general facts were correct but there could have been some difference in wording that he or she felt was insignificant but us, looking into it 130 years later, might see as relevant.

So in that respect, everything written in connection with the case is ‘unsafe’ to some extent. We use our own judgment in assessing them. We should simply try to dismiss things because they are inconvenient to some theory.

[Wickerman]

Again you are not prepared to consider alternative as to what happened to the apron

I think you could be accused of the same.

....and despite all of that the clothes were taken off carefully and had she been wearing an apron in that carefull process it should have been clearly visible

We don't have a statement from the person who actually stripped the body. So you can't say it wasn't noticed.
Halse saw it, neither Brown or Collard did, that's all we can assume at this point.

On the topic of the apron and the sugestion that the killer cut a piece taking it with him. The evidence shows that all her clothes were drawn up above her waist at the crime scene, had she been wearing an apron then that apron would have been nearest to her abdomen and furthest away from the outside., If the killer wanted to cut a piece of material there were countless other garments much closer to the outside

You're not allowing for the killer removing the apron piece first, before he mutilates the body.

[Wickerman]

....
Provide information Jon.That's exactly what I did do.I said the case I referred to was a conducted in a Coronial Court.I gave the name of the victim and of the murderer.I gave the result they arrived at.I found that out by research,which I suggest you do if you want to contradict me.
I gave the name of the Judge regarding the use of shorthand in court.That you remarked on the status of that judge,then confessed you had the wrong judge,shows either a lack of ability,or you deliberately construct false information.I do not need to read the act,when I can produce evidence of what a coronial court can do.

Your post made no mention of shorthand, why can't you provide the press article instead of trying to remember the details yourself.
If I can post press articles, so can you.

I gave a location where the Coroners notes in the Eddowes case can be found.I have held nothing back,except how I found the information.You too should be able to do the same,if you are as good as you make yourself out to be.

No, you didn't. There are no Coroner's notes. I have a copy of the original paperwork.
You're bluffing, & sadly ill informed.
I'll tell you what, don't bother with anymore idle accusations until you can post something with any substance.

[ChrisGeorge]

Well said Trevor.It is murder cases we are examining.The fact that they were many years ago,is neither here nor there.It is evidence from those cases we are writing about. Now here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron could therefor be seen.

Are you kidding? These aprons were big. Not like the apron your mum wore. See this famous photograph of Dorset Street in 1902 from Jack London's People of the Abyss.

[Trevor Marriott]

I do understand the argument.

Why would Catherine remove her apron between leaving the Police Station at 1.00 and the time of her death around 1.35? She was outdoors so why take it off to carry it? It makes no sense. When Watkin, Holland, Harvey etc saw her her clothing was in disarray and they were distracted by the fact that she’d been horribly mutilated.

Again you are not prepared to consider alternative as to what happened to the apron

and despite all of that the clothes were taken off carefully and had she been wearing an apron in that carefull process it should have been clearly visible

On the topic of the apron and the sugestion that the killer cut a piece taking it with him. The evidence shows that all her clothes were drawn up above her waist at the crime scene, had she been wearing an apron then that apron would have been nearest to her abdomen and furthest away from the outside., If the killer wanted to cut a piece of material there were countless other garments much closer to the outside

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do not understand the argument.

From Wilkinson to Hutt brings us to 1:00 AM that Kate was wearing an apron. But what about after? For arguments sake, there was more than 30 minutes unaccounted for. Kate could have taken off the apron then. At 1:35 Am seen by Lawende and co., then at 1:44/after (at this point the body/clothings was a mess) by Watkin and Morris with lamps,then Harvey, Holland, there was no mention of Kate wearing an apron.
The crucial time that determined Kate was wearing an apron when she was murdered was when the body was stripped carefully (the layers of clothing and the position of the apron then could be seen) at the mortuary (better lighting?), not before or after. The two that said Kate was wearing an apron were present at the stripping and saw it, Brown and Collard.

I do understand the argument.

Why would Catherine remove her apron between leaving the Police Station at 1.00 and the time of her death around 1.35? She was outdoors so why take it off to carry it? It makes no sense. When Watkin, Holland, Harvey etc saw her her clothing was in disarray and they were distracted by the fact that she’d been horribly mutilated.

Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt show that she was wearing an apron that night.

[Varqm]

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What we have is what we have.
The inquests was not a trial. In a normal trial testimonies have to be open to "cross-examination" which is a right/must, but there is a suspect defending himself/herself.
In a lot of inquests there is no suspect like all the c5 inquests but the inquests can go on, the testimonies were under oath and valid lawful evidence.


Wilkinson Pc Hutt/Robinson supported the slightly more important testimonies by Brown/Collard. To conclude the killer dropped the apron in Goulston, the portion he took from Eddowes.

[Trevor Marriott]

But all you're doing is saying what everyone knows, the evidence we have is not ready for trial. Just because one can think of questions that still would need to be investigated doesn't mean the evidence is wrong, which is what you are arguing for. You are arguing that because you can think of something that makes the evidence wrong. it doesn't. You haven't proved the evidence is in error, you are simply presenting a very complex story because our incomplete evidence has gaps in it. That is where your story becomes unsupportably complicated, because those gaps in the evidence are also gaps in your story - your story is increasingly "unsafe" because the points that people are arguing about have nothing at all in the evidence behind them. The position of the apron on the list isn't support for your idea, it's a bit of evidence that has been widely over interpreted, piled upon with heaps of speculation and conjecture about details of how and when the list was compiled and for we have no information about at all. It's speculation to the nth degree, and that is what is making it fall apart. Your story doesn't have any support for how you fill in the blanks with all this incredible minute detail, none of which can be called safe. The story that involves her wearing the apron has support in the evidence because multiple people testify she was wearing it. How the list was compiled, everyone says we don't know but offer various ideas about how it might have been done given she was wearing it and the apron appears last. Nobody but you is claiming to know exactly how and when it was done, everyone else admits we don't know, and only offers tentative suggestions about various ways it could have been done - we admit the blanks are voids but we can see that there are many ways those voids could be filled easily given the bits we can see. Your approach is to effectively imagine anything at all in those voids, and then use that imagined event to come back out and say all you can see is lies. That's not interpreting the data and evidence, it's interpreting the void.

- Jeff

But you dont understand in order for you and others to satsify your beliefs, you should be asking yourself those questions and not readliy accepting the evidence as conclusive, and after you have asked yourself those questions a normal reasonable person who is unbiased must agree that the evidence is unsafe, and the evidence from the mortuary should also raise concerns about the reliabilty of those officers statements, because there is no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But all you're doing is saying what everyone knows, the evidence we have is not ready for trial. Just because one can think of questions that still would need to be investigated doesn't mean the evidence is wrong, which is what you are arguing for. You are arguing that because you can think of something that makes the evidence wrong. it doesn't. You haven't proved the evidence is in error, you are simply presenting a very complex story because our incomplete evidence has gaps in it. That is where your story becomes unsupportably complicated, because those gaps in the evidence are also gaps in your story - your story is increasingly "unsafe" because the points that people are arguing about have nothing at all in the evidence behind them. The position of the apron on the list isn't support for your idea, it's a bit of evidence that has been widely over interpreted, piled upon with heaps of speculation and conjecture about details of how and when the list was compiled and for we have no information about at all. It's speculation to the nth degree, and that is what is making it fall apart. Your story doesn't have any support for how you fill in the blanks with all this incredible minute detail, none of which can be called safe. The story that involves her wearing the apron has support in the evidence because multiple people testify she was wearing it. How the list was compiled, everyone says we don't know but offer various ideas about how it might have been done given she was wearing it and the apron appears last. Nobody but you is claiming to know exactly how and when it was done, everyone else admits we don't know, and only offers tentative suggestions about various ways it could have been done - we admit the blanks are voids but we can see that there are many ways those voids could be filled easily given the bits we can see. Your approach is to effectively imagine anything at all in those voids, and then use that imagined event to come back out and say all you can see is lies. That's not interpreting the data and evidence, it's interpreting the void.

- Jeff

[harry]

Well explained Trevor.Evidence is what is being discussed,and unless that has changed,historical has little meaning.Here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron would be exposed?
Provide information Jon.That's exactly what I did do.I said the case I referred to was a conducted in a Coronial Court.I gave the name of the victim and of the murderer.I gave the result they arrived at.I found that out by research,which I suggest you do if you want to contradict me.
I gave the name of the Judge regarding the use of shorthand in court.That you remarked on the status of that judge,then confessed you had the wrong judge,shows either a lack of ability,or you deliberately construct false information.I do not need to read the act,when I can produce evidence of what a coronial court can do.
I gave a location where the Coroners notes in the Eddowes case can be found.I have held nothing back,except how I found the information.You too should be able to do the same,if you are as good as you make yourself out to be.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, "one white apron is the same as another". No, this was a distinctive apron with a repaired patch on it, and thus easily recognized.

But they never stated that, thats why it was important to ascertain how they were positive about her wearing an apron.

There were two portions produced at the inquest, none of the witnesses mentioned the repair if they had have done that would add weight to their testimony and would likley as not prove their testimony to be accurate. But as another poster stated, there is a time gap between those witnesses and what they saw between then and the time the body was stripped.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Well said Trevor.It is murder cases we are examining.The fact that they were many years ago,is neither here nor there.It is evidence from those cases we are writing about. Now here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron could therefor be seen.