Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Give it a rest your are posting to the point of boredom with the same repetive posts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the man who parrots

And you’re not?

If you post something new I’ll respond with something new. But as you’re posting the same old biased crap I can only respond with the same points.

[Herlock Sholmes]

But another poster quite rightly pointed out to you that she may not have been wearing one at the time she was murdered, and the evidence from the mortuary is conclsuive in as much as no apron was taken off her when she was stripped. A portion of old white apron was found amongst her possessions. and the two pieces when fiited did not make up a full apron.

You have no argument you are relying on unsafe testimony that was never tested,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

1. Your so called mortuary evidence is your biased interpretation. It’s not conclusive. If it was conclusive everyone would be agreeing with you. And they don’t. Quite the opposite in fact.

2. Tested? Christ you come up with some bilge! Everything is ‘unsafe’ if it disagrees with your theory. Try a bit of honesty for once.

[Trevor Marriott]

Quoting from the dissertation by John Smyth aka Wickerman here at Casebook (Casebook: Jack the Ripper - A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour):

We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. [Emphasis added. CG] About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Best regards

Chris

Wickermans posts are about as reliable as chocolate teapot, and besides part of that is not in his official inquest testimony

and he does not mention the fact that she was wearing an apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So the addition of the word ‘carefully’ makes Brown’s presence at the stripping of the body ‘irrefutable?’

Unbelievable.

You dummy, how could he have noticed the clothes being removed carefully if he was not present

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[ChrisGeorge]

Halse was at the crime scene and by his own admiission past by the GS archway after the murder

There has to be a plausible explantion as to how the apron piece got to GS when she was not wearing an apron for the killer to have cut a piece and taken it away

The ones put forward dont really stand uo to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Quoting from the dissertation by John Smyth aka Wickerman here at Casebook (Casebook: Jack the Ripper - A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour):

We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. [Emphasis added. CG] About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Best regards

Chris

[Trevor Marriott]

The press are to be ignored, until they are convenient.

- Jeff

Can you prove me wrong on that point in question?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the 3 witnesses who all saw her wearing an apron.

Give it a rest your are posting to the point of boredom with the same repetive posts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor always says the we should place more weight in signed inquest statements. I agree.

Frederick William Wilkinson - Signed Inquest Testimony - On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron,

Constable Louis Robinson - Signed Inquest Testimony - “The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron.“

Constable George Hutt - Signed Inquest Testimony - “I noticed she was wearing an apron.”

Hold on……do I hear a ‘but’ approaching…..or is it an ‘except for?’

I have a theory on why these 3 said that Eddowes was wearing an apron…….it was because she was wearing an apron.

Robinson arrested her, saw her at close quarters. Probably held her up. Got her to the station and possibly into a cell. He didn’t have a Labrador and a white stick so his eyesight was ok and he wasn’t questioned 2 years later when drunk. He was a serving Police Officer and so expected to be alert and observant. Ditto Hutt who probably also checked on her in the cell and who saw her out and spoke to her (so she wasn't 200 yards away in a pea souper) Neither had the remotest reason to lie. The police in general had absolutely no incentive to propagate a lie about the apron getting to Goulston Street. None at all. So there is zero motive for anyone to have lied and the chances of all three hallucinating about an apron can be dismissed.

Eddowes was therefore wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered. This is confirmed by the fact that one piece was found in Goulston Strert and the other was found on Eddowes. Any suggestion otherwise is an ego-driven manipulation of what is known and an insult to reason, evidence, the English language and common sense.

But another poster quite rightly pointed out to you that she may not have been wearing one at the time she was murdered, and the evidence from the mortuary is conclsuive in as much as no apron was taken off her when she was stripped. A portion of old white apron was found amongst her possessions. and the two pieces when fiited did not make up a full apron.

You have no argument you are relying on unsafe testimony that was never tested,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

What is your point is there any argument against it ever being nothing more than a portion of apron?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, the 3 witnesses who all saw her wearing an apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, why do you keep disagreeing that the portion of apron was recognised at once for what it actually was. It was given to Dr Phillips to take to the post mortem a few hours later.

What is your point is there any argument against it ever being nothing more than a portion of apron?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The press are to be ignored, until they are convenient.

- Jeff

These are the rules apparently Jeff. Signed Inquest Testimony counts though. Oh, unless it’s Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt of course.

What was I thinking.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor always says the we should place more weight in signed inquest statements. I agree.

Frederick William Wilkinson - Signed Inquest Testimony - On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron,

Constable Louis Robinson - Signed Inquest Testimony - “The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron.“

Constable George Hutt - Signed Inquest Testimony - “I noticed she was wearing an apron.”

Hold on……do I hear a ‘but’ approaching…..or is it an ‘except for?’

I have a theory on why these 3 said that Eddowes was wearing an apron…….it was because she was wearing an apron.

Robinson arrested her, saw her at close quarters. Probably held her up. Got her to the station and possibly into a cell. He didn’t have a Labrador and a white stick so his eyesight was ok and he wasn’t questioned 2 years later when drunk. He was a serving Police Officer and so expected to be alert and observant. Ditto Hutt who probably also checked on her in the cell and who saw her out and spoke to her (so she wasn't 200 yards away in a pea souper) Neither had the remotest reason to lie. The police in general had absolutely no incentive to propagate a lie about the apron getting to Goulston Street. None at all. So there is zero motive for anyone to have lied and the chances of all three hallucinating about an apron can be dismissed.

Eddowes was therefore wearing an apron on the night that she was murdered. This is confirmed by the fact that one piece was found in Goulston Strert and the other was found on Eddowes. Any suggestion otherwise is an ego-driven manipulation of what is known and an insult to reason, evidence, the English language and common sense.

[JeffHamm]

The press were waiting outside the mortuary for the arrival of Dr Phillips he had not arrived there by 5am if I recall the press article correctly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The press are to be ignored, until they are convenient.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

How many time do you have to be told Brown was there when the body was stripped " I quote from Dr Browns inquest testimony (official)

"When the body arrived at Golden Lane some blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary.the clothes were carefully taken from the body"

So he was present and took part in the stripping of the body an irrefutable fact accept it and move on

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So the addition of the word ‘carefully’ makes Brown’s presence at the stripping of the body ‘irrefutable?’

Unbelievable.

[Herlock Sholmes]

[Coroner] 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