Kate's Apron

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

When the body was being stripped no-one was looking for an apron, that only occurred when Phillips arrived sometime after.

Collard said the victim was "apparently wearing" the apron, Dr Brown said "my attention was called to the piece of apron", which means NEITHER gentlemen saw the body stripped.

An attendant MUST have stripped the body and laid the clothes out at a time before the importance of an apron was acknowledged.

Just change your theory and the sequence works, your theory might not survive, but at least you'll be nearer the truth.

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Ah, DoctorEd.
I'm aware Smith said it was "about half", and Halse said "about half", but I must have missed Reid saying that.
Could you point me in the direction where you read it?

Thanks.

Halse makes no mention of half an apron in his official signed inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, Trevor, I was writing #1136 whilst you were editing #1133. I was suggesting that it must have been a fairly large portion of apron in order for it to be identified as a portion of an apron, and not just a blood spotted rag. As to you suggesting that it became common knowledge that it was a portion of the apron by the time of the inquest, I have to point out that the testimony of Halse shows that it was identified as such at Leman St when it first appeared there shortly after being discovered. It seems that it was recognised as a portion of an apron at once.

I have to disagree the term portion can have no specific interpretation as to size the dictionary states "a part or share of something larger"

Halse official testimony makes no mention of what you allude to above

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

When PC Long left Goulston st. he first took the piece to his inspector at Commercial Street station, he was told to take it to Leman Street headquarters, where he met Dr Phillips, who he presumably passed it to. By this time it was after 4:00 am, Long returned to Goulston St. by 5:00am.
Leman street police must have enquired if the piece of apron was missing from the Berner street crime, presumably this was denied, in which case Phillips, accompanied by a constable?, took the piece to Golden Lane Mortuary to make enquiries about the Mitre Sq. murder.

What we don't know is if this was Phillips first arrival with Dr Brown, or his second, because Brown had requested his presence shortly after the discovery of Eddowes. The timing here needs to be sorted out.
I think it was his second visit that morning.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

...

As for her not wearing an apron, as it was only part of an apron, Reid says about half was missing,...

Ah, DoctorEd.
I'm aware Smith said it was "about half", and Halse said "about half", but I must have missed Reid saying that.
Could you point me in the direction where you read it?

Thanks.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Sorry, Trevor, I was writing #1136 whilst you were editing #1133. I was suggesting that it must have been a fairly large portion of apron in order for it to be identified as a portion of an apron, and not just a blood spotted rag. As to you suggesting that it became common knowledge that it was a portion of the apron by the time of the inquest, I have to point out that the testimony of Halse shows that it was identified as such at Leman St when it first appeared there shortly after being discovered. It seems that it was recognised as a portion of an apron at once.

[Wickerman]

It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

When the body was being stripped no-one was looking for an apron, that only occurred when Phillips arrived sometime after.

Collard said the victim was "apparently wearing" the apron, Dr Brown said "my attention was called to the piece of apron", which means NEITHER gentlemen saw the body stripped.

An attendant MUST have stripped the body and laid the clothes out at a time before the importance of an apron was acknowledged.

Just change your theory and the sequence works, your theory might not survive, but at least you'll be nearer the truth.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, now that you have accepted that the Goulston St portion was a substantially sized item, large enough to be instantly recognized as part of an apron, and nothing else, surely you also accept that at the inquest PC Robinson said that he would recognise the apron she wore if he saw the whole of it. He was then shown two portions, and no-one suggested that this was not the whole apron. It would have been an odd thing for him to say if he didn't know that the whole apron, in two parts, was available. If two parts only of an incomplete apron were available, he would have known, and would not have asked specifically for the whole apron. PC Hutt also said that "the apron shown" was what he believed she was wearing, so no-one at the inquest refers to an incomplete apron.

As for her not wearing an apron, as it was only part of an apron, Reid says about half was missing, it was perfectly correct for Collard to say she was "apparently wearing" it. The point about what he said was that he believed she was wearing it, even though it was incomplete.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

And it wouldn’t have mattered if someone had mentioned her wearing it because you would have called them liars as you do with Hutt, Robinson and Wilkinson (the 3 witnesss that prove that your theory is nonsense.)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Prove it, put up or shut up !!!!!!!!!!!

It’s your theory. The onus is on you.

Prove that it’s a 100% fact that the 2 pieces couldn’t have made up a complete apron.

Stop claiming that your biased opinions are facts!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you have once again ignored what was actually written. The evidence of PC Long was that he found a portion of apron, and Halse confirmed that it had been identified as a piece of apron in his statement when he said that he went back to Leman St and was shown the place where the (portion of) apron was found. The small piece of blood stained rag - as you seem to think it was - was positively identified as a portion of an apron, so it must have been a substantially sized piece.

It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

and why must it have been a sizeable piece? as an experiment cut a large piece of apron like material and try screwing up for disposal you will see that such a sizable piece will simply unfold making it a flat piece of material laying on the ground.

As to Long describing it as a piece of apron by the time the inquest took place and he gave his testimony it would have been common knowledge that a portion of apron was found in GS so why would he not say a portion of apron?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, you have once again ignored what was actually written. The evidence of PC Long was that he found a portion of apron, and Halse confirmed that it had been identified as a piece of apron in his statement when he said that he went back to Leman St and was shown the place where the (portion of) apron was found. The small piece of blood stained rag - as you seem to think it was - was positively identified as a portion of an apron, so it must have been a substantially sized piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is quite simply a lie!

Prove it, put up or shut up !!!!!!!!!!!

[Wickerman]

The GS piece when found was first taken to Leman St Polioce station where Dr Phillips was still present. It was he who took it the following day prior to the post mortem to the mortuary where Dr Brown records it was matched to the mortuary piece.

When PC Long left Goulston st. he first took the piece to his inspector at Commercial Street station, he was told to take it to Leman Street headquarters, where he met Dr Phillips, who he presumably passed it to. By this time it was after 4:00 am, Long returned to Goulston St. by 5:00am.
Leman street police must have enquired if the piece of apron was missing from the Berner street crime, presumably this was denied, in which case Phillips, accompanied by a constable?, took the piece to Golden Lane Mortuary to make enquiries about the Mitre Sq. murder.

What we don't know is if this was Phillips first arrival with Dr Brown, or his second, because Brown had requested his presence shortly after the discovery of Eddowes. The timing here needs to be sorted out.
I think it was his second visit that morning.