Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The two pieces didnt make up a full apron

This is quite simply a lie!

[Trevor Marriott]

PC Long reported that he found a portion of an apron in Goulston Street. Trevor's view is that this portion was merely a bottom corner not of "any significant size", representing maybe one quarter of an apron or less, with no strings attached to it. Would such a piece be immediately identifiable as a portion of apron? I think it would probably have been called a blood spotted rag, unlikely to be recognized positively as from an apron. Halse's report also shows that it was at once recognized as a piece of an apron, and then handed to Dr Phillips.

You are entiled to think what you want, and you are wrong with what you have posted. Pc Long took the piece to Leman St Poloice station where he handed it to Dr Phillips who the following morning took it to the mortuary.

Halse had no involvement in the GS piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Look, Trevor, Collard said he was present when the body was stripped, he doesn't say that this was when he made the list - two separate issues.

It doesnt matter when or who made the list the fact is that there is no record of an apron either being found on her or removed from her body. This you cannot dispute it is fact!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, Dr Brown had his attention drawn to the piece of apron, which means he likely wasn't aware of any piece of apron until that point.
Finally, the person stripping the body was not called to the inquest, this person may well have recognised what it was, but at that point it was not important.

The GS piece did not become an issue until it was taken to the mortuary the followoing morning by Dr Phillips

You are assuming no-one knew it was part of an apron - the fact is, Dr Brown apparently didn't know, that's all.
The attendant stripped the body, he knew he removed a piece of apron, but he placed it on the bench with all the other clothes.

Of course someone knew it was part of an apron thats what the list tells us

Sometime later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece, ONLY NOW is the issue of a piece of apron so important.
The attendant calls Dr Brown's attention to the piece of apron among the clothes, this is the first Dr Brown knew about it, and that apparent fact is why you argue NO-ONE KNEW, but as you can see, that is not true if Dr Brown did not undress the body himself.
I think most of us had assumed he did, but as it turns out he probably didn't, he had staff to do menial work like that.
Your argument rests on that misunderstanding.

But Dr Brown was present when the clothes were carefully removed from the body, thats what he says in his inquest testimony

Huh?
In my recollection of the English language, "1 piece of old white apron" assumes something is missing.

Thats not difficult to deduce, but what happened to the rest of the apron because the two pieces didnt make up a full apron?

So, Dr Brown does not say HE stripped the body, so just revise your theory to allow for his attendant stripping the body, and only the attendant recognised what it was, but as it was not an issue at 3:00am in the morning, it was just placed in the pile with everything else.

he was there when the body was stripped and the clothes carefully removed, why were they carefully removed if they were not examing them and listing the items and describing all the cuts and blood stains to the clothing?

Later in the day, along comes Dr Phillips with the GS piece looking for a matching piece of apron, the attendant calls Dr Brown over and hands him the mortuary piece........ and they were matched we know all of that

Sometime after this, Collard makes his list, where the mortuary piece has been placed at the end of the line of clothes.

Whatever way you look at this and its not going to change the facts, The two pieces didnt make up a full apron and there is no evidence for anyone present that they did. You and others are conjecturing that they did

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I did answser that question by saying that if as you suggest the apron strings were cut at the mortuary to remove the triangular piece of apon you so describe then they must have seen that it was the remains of an apron and still around her waist, with a piece missing,.....

Look, Trevor, Collard said he was present when the body was stripped, he doesn't say that this was when he made the list - two separate issues.

Also, Dr Brown had his attention drawn to the piece of apron, which means he likely wasn't aware of any piece of apron until that point.
Finally, the person stripping the body was not called to the inquest, this person may well have recognised what it was, but at that point it was not important.

You are assuming no-one knew it was part of an apron - the fact is, Dr Brown apparently didn't know, that's all.
The attendant stripped the body, he knew he removed a piece of apron, but he placed it on the bench with all the other clothes.

Sometime later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece, ONLY NOW is the issue of a piece of apron so important.
The attendant calls Dr Brown's attention to the piece of apron among the clothes, this is the first Dr Brown knew about it, and that apparent fact is why you argue NO-ONE KNEW, but as you can see, that is not true if Dr Brown did not undress the body himself.
I think most of us had assumed he did, but as it turns out he probably didn't, he had staff to do menial work like that.
Your argument rests on that misunderstanding.

.......and it would have been listed as "One old white apron with piece missing" and not listed in her possessions as "piece of old white apron" or "remains of old white apron"

Huh?
In my recollection of the English language, "1 piece of old white apron" assumes something is missing.

So, Dr Brown does not say HE stripped the body, so just revise your theory to allow for his attendant stripping the body, and only the attendant recognised what it was, but as it was not an issue at 3:00am in the morning, it was just placed in the pile with everything else.

Later in the day, along comes Dr Phillips with the GS piece looking for a matching piece of apron, the attendant calls Dr Brown over and hands him the mortuary piece........

Sometime after this, Collard makes his list, where the mortuary piece has been placed at the end of the line of clothes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my queries.

I have to admit to not following the details of this thread as they seem interminable, but I do recall one of your youtube presentations where you suggested that the organs were removed after the body had been taken to the morgue. I can only say that I have yet to form an opinion on that theory.

Of your three options, I have difficulty with your option 2 as, even if the blood could be attributed to a sanitary napkin, the faeces would remain unexplained. Your option 3 is too conspiratorial even for me. I would have to go with your option 1, and my question remains - why did he need to take the cloth unless for some unanticipated reason.

Cheers, George

And why did 3 witnesses, including 2 police officers who were in her company for an extended period, all say without equivocation that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she died. Trevor tries to dismiss these inconvenient witnesses.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that.

No Trevor, what’s annoying you is that I and others have read everything that you’ve posted but we don’t accept your interpretations as fact and you, as ever, feel that your opinions should be treated as such. You’re the one positing the theory therefore the onus is on you to defend by answering specific questions and not spouting the same old dismissive generalities which is exactly what you’re doing.

All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

We have considered the alternatives and see no value in them as they are speculative interpretations on your part which have been skewed by your own bias. So much so that you dismiss inconvenient witness on zero grounds except for your desperation to shoehorn your theory into place.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS.

Of course but as the evidence shows that she was wearing an apron your point is moot.

I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

Yes you’ve gone to great lengths to try and shoehorn the theory in to place. The reason that we don’t accept it isn’t because we haven’t read what you’ve said, it isn’t because we haven’t understood what you’ve said, it’s because we don’t accept that you’re correct. I realise that you struggle to cope with the notion that someone believes you to be wrong but that’s life.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Three witnesses saw her wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing an apron.

[GBinOz]

The problem is George,the many differing accounts there are.

Not from Adelaide are you George?

Hi Harry,

You're not wrong on the differing accounts statement. It seems that no evidence can be accepted - everything has a connotation to support one theory or another. But if it were easy it wouldn't be a billion dollar industry inhabited by fanatics like us.

I live just outside the little town of Narooma on the far south coast of NSW.

Cheers, George

[GBinOz]

You are right this thread has become long boring and tiresome for me having to keep going over the same points.

In answer to your question yes the evidence points to her not wearing an apron "at the time" she was killed. The evidence from the mortuary points to her simply being in possession of two old pieces of an apron which had come from an original apron. One found in GS and the other listed amongst her possessions.

How the Gs got to that location is another contentious issue there are three options

1. The Killer took one of the pieces she had in her possesion for whatever purpose and disposed of it in GS
2. She deposited it herself after leaving the police station and before she met her killer
3. The City police removed it from the crime scene and planted it in GS

If you have been following the you will know that I dont subscribe to 1 or 3 and dont subscribe to the killer removing and taking away the organs for the reasons which are fully documented

i hope this help with clarification

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Thank you for taking the time to answer my queries.

I have to admit to not following the details of this thread as they seem interminable, but I do recall one of your youtube presentations where you suggested that the organs were removed after the body had been taken to the morgue. I can only say that I have yet to form an opinion on that theory.

Of your three options, I have difficulty with your option 2 as, even if the blood could be attributed to a sanitary napkin, the faeces would remain unexplained. Your option 3 is too conspiratorial even for me. I would have to go with your option 1, and my question remains - why did he need to take the cloth unless for some unanticipated reason.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

PC Long reported that he found a portion of an apron in Goulston Street. Trevor's view is that this portion was merely a bottom corner not of "any significant size", representing maybe one quarter of an apron or less, with no strings attached to it. Would such a piece be immediately identifiable as a portion of apron? I think it would probably have been called a blood spotted rag, unlikely to be recognized positively as from an apron. Halse's report also shows that it was at once recognized as a piece of an apron, and then handed to Dr Phillips.

[Varqm]

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that. All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS. I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

He could have cut the apron even if it was one of her possessions and not wearing it. Same. But she was wearing it.

So PC Long was wrong, the apron was there in Goulston at around 2:20 AM? It would have been there if Eddowes placed it there.
Halse did not look inside the dwelling in Goulston in his first pass and said it "diplomatically" in the inquest.If he planted it why would
he testify in the inquest that he passed there at around 2:20 AM and expose himself. Planting that apron was a big deal.

In Mitre Square there were policemen guarding the body and nobody could have stolen it. The body was accompanied by the 2 doctors, Halse,Collard as it was brought to the mortuary. Charles Warren and Matthews were concerned if there was a possibility of somebody stealing a piece of the apron and placing it in Goulston.

Tell you what lets just get rid of Dr. Brown's testimony including his post-mortem report, he was unreliable. Also disregard the testimonies of Collard ,PC Long and Halse.

[Trevor Marriott]

Does it actually say that Herlock?Who gave it to him? It should have been in posession of the police after being taken from the body.Doesn't seem to be clear evidence of anything.

Harry
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.

We do not have a recorded size of either piece but if she had been only wearing an apron that simply tied around the waist then we must assune that neither piece was of any significant size, and this is why I say that the two pieces when matched by reason of how they were matched could not have made up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Does it actually say that Herlock?Who gave it to him? It should have been in posession of the police after being taken from the body.Doesn't seem to be clear evidence of anything.

[Trevor Marriott]

Please don’t try suggesting that they were doing this to prove that Halse didn’t plant it there?

Even if they could think of no reason for the killer to have taken it away ‘creating’ a reason serves no purpose. You are hopelessly clutching at straws. The apron piece being at Goulston Street was next to useless as evidence. It showed that the killer went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Hardly a clincher is it? He could have gone anywhere after that. So there was absolutely no reason for lies to show that he did this. A motive for this deception doesn’t exist.

The apron was dropped by the killer. All else is conspiracist nonsense.

You need to take the blinkers off and read and digest fully what has been posted on this topic because your posts and replies clearly suggest you are not doing that. All you are doing is keep spouting the same old same that you believe she was wearing an apron and you dont seem to be able consider alternatives.

If the killer didnt cut it becasue he could not have done if she was not wearing an apron then there has to be another explantion as to how it got to GS. I have gone to great lengths to explain other explantions and to negate the suggestions that the killer cut it and took it away to wipe his hands on or to wipe the knife but you have your head buried in the sand and are oblivious to anything outside of what you believe, and not what the facts and the evidence tells us

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Please don’t try suggesting that they were doing this to prove that Halse didn’t plant it there?

Even if they could think of no reason for the killer to have taken it away ‘creating’ a reason serves no purpose. You are hopelessly clutching at straws. The apron piece being at Goulston Street was next to useless as evidence. It showed that the killer went from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. Hardly a clincher is it? He could have gone anywhere after that. So there was absolutely no reason for lies to show that he did this. A motive for this deception doesn’t exist.

The apron was dropped by the killer. All else is conspiracist nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t see how we’re ‘skating on thin ice’ in accepting Brown, Harry? He was given the piece to see if it matched up to the apron piece at the mortuary, which it did.