Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

Why you're waiting is beyond me. There have been quite a few posts explaining to you how the apron could be cut as described and end up being two pieces that make up a whole apron. Not my fault you don't read them or don't understand them.

i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

Again, it's not my fault you don't understand your own statements. You described the apron being cut into 3 pieces. Two pieces are in the possession of the police. 3 -2 = 1, there is one piece still unaccounted for. It's your theory, you need to account for it. People are asking you to account for the missing piece you yourself introduce without justification.

Now, let me help you. You recently did account for it, though you seem to have forgotten that. That's not surprising as it is easy to forget something you made up on the Spurr of the moment. Anyway, what you speculated at that time was that half the apron was thrown away, or cut up and used for other purposes, by Kate long before the night if the murder. So while it technically would exist, it's been lost/discarded long before the night in question.

And what people have pointed out is that there was no way for the police, or the inquest, to know that at the time. Since the police were saying she was wearing the apron, and you are describing an unwearable garment, then the inquest would have to presume the rest of the apron is still unaccounted for and so may be in the street somewhere offering further evidence about JtR s flight path. Yet nowhere is this concern indicated. Your explanation for the missing piece is irrational. Perhaps that is why you are back to saying two pieces do not make a whole but nothing is missing. One irrationality is as good as another I suppose.

Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

Do you not think if the list was made after she was stripped, and while the two pieces were being compared, the apron might appear near the end of the list?
.

You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There's no battle here. The statements you are making form an irrational self refuting collection. Nobody has to offer an alternative to know that what you are suggesting is wrong because what you are suggesting doesn't make sense, let alone fit the evidence.

None of us are claiming to know for sure what happened or how. We offer a number of different possible ways things could go, and fit the evidence. You are claiming you know exactly how this GS happened, despite the fact your suggestions conflict with the statements of people who were actually there and despite the fact your descriptions conflict with each other.

THis isn't a battle of ideas, it's an attempt to keep misinformation like what you are suggesting from going unchallenged. JtR is filled with errors derived from incorrect assumptions being pushed as facts, and your assumptions are being presented as facts and so they must be flagged as such.


- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, I see you're back to repeating that irrationality.

So, let's go back over all the unsafe assumptions you've made and the errors if fact you made.

First, signing the inquest document does not magic away any errors made during the transcribing if verbal testimony. What it does is confirm the person stated as being the witness acknowledges they were the witness. Moreover they are leagally indicating the written transcripts are a fair representation of their spoken testimony, they are not saying it is word for every word exactly what they said. That would be an impossible task. In reality, most just sign and accept that is the case, so while there is the potential for them to re-read the written version, it is highly unusual for someone to do so. Therefore your claim there won't be mistakes is an unsafe assumption.

Second, referring to the transcripts published in the newspapers as clearly incorrect is factually inaccurate. You have no way of knowing if slight differences between wordings are due to a transcription error in the inquest document, the newspaper transcript, or both. Given the large degree of overlap, however, where we can compare common text there is no discrepancy if consequence to meaning in the vast majority of cases

The newspaper transcripts, however, also document the questions asked, and also detail additional testimony that was not recorded in the official document. Therefore, the newspaper transcripts are a valuable source of information pertaining to what was actually said and in what context. There is no rational reason to ignore them.

You are the only one with an agenda to ignore as many facts as possible because the only way your theory can be presented is when the facts do not get in the way if a good speculation.

This has been explained to you numerous times, but you out your blinkers on and pretend not to understand. But it is trivially simple to comprehend, so you are not fooling anybody and you have raised no argument if substance to counter this. The only objection you raise boils down to "but the newspaper transcripts don't support my theory", which is the problem - for the theory not the papers.

- Jeff

100% correct. It’s simply a case of finding ways of sidelining the inconvenient. Usually done by trying to reset the ‘rules’ to suit.

[JeffHamm]

I dont know what you want me to answer

The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok, I see you're back to repeating that irrationality.

So, let's go back over all the unsafe assumptions you've made and the errors if fact you made.

First, signing the inquest document does not magic away any errors made during the transcribing if verbal testimony. What it does is confirm the person stated as being the witness acknowledges they were the witness. Moreover they are leagally indicating the written transcripts are a fair representation of their spoken testimony, they are not saying it is word for every word exactly what they said. That would be an impossible task. In reality, most just sign and accept that is the case, so while there is the potential for them to re-read the written version, it is highly unusual for someone to do so. Therefore your claim there won't be mistakes is an unsafe assumption.

Second, referring to the transcripts published in the newspapers as clearly incorrect is factually inaccurate. You have no way of knowing if slight differences between wordings are due to a transcription error in the inquest document, the newspaper transcript, or both. Given the large degree of overlap, however, where we can compare common text there is no discrepancy if consequence to meaning in the vast majority of cases

The newspaper transcripts, however, also document the questions asked, and also detail additional testimony that was not recorded in the official document. Therefore, the newspaper transcripts are a valuable source of information pertaining to what was actually said and in what context. There is no rational reason to ignore them.

You are the only one with an agenda to ignore as many facts as possible because the only way your theory can be presented is when the facts do not get in the way if a good speculation.

This has been explained to you numerous times, but you out your blinkers on and pretend not to understand. But it is trivially simple to comprehend, so you are not fooling anybody and you have raised no argument if substance to counter this. The only objection you raise boils down to "but the newspaper transcripts don't support my theory", which is the problem - for the theory not the papers.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witness testimony on those witnesses was never tested as to its accuracy or reliabilty for the reasons previoulsy stated.

You have to deal with the facts from when her body was found and the events thereafter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope. That’s a dishonest cop out purely to dismiss something inconvenient to your theory. You don’t get to just dismiss 4 witnesses who all saw the same thing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

It comes from you.

You keep saying that the 2 pieces didn’t make a complete apron when they were fitted together. How hard can this be?

[Varqm]

he said "Apparently wearing" that statement creates a doubt, and certainly does not confirm that she was wearing an apron.

he also states " A portion" thats a far cry from saying "An apron" so the mortuary piece could not have been the remains of a full apron otherwise he would have described it an apron.

also the mortuary piece was described as an old piece of apron. if she had been wearing an apron why was it not described as an old white apron with piece missing?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

This has been said a couple of times,"Apparently wearing"..

The apron was cut in half or almost,the clothes and body were "messed" around with enough, and because of this "apparently wearing "
was the more precise observation/description - see the "mess" of the clothes and body in Frederick Foster's drawings
of Kate based on Dr. Brown's sketch.

Even Watkins,Morris, Holland ,Harvey, who were there at the crime scene first were silent about it,as the body and layers of clothes were a mess,it probably was not so obvious.

It was left it to Brown/Collard to tell/describe the "wearing of the apron", as they were present when the body was stripped carefully by mortuary keeper Davis. We have to go to the Brown/Collard's observations, they were there, they eyeballed it and knew the "exact/precise" position/size of the apron/string in her body/clothes.

Trevor/co cannot tell us the "exact/precise" position of the apron/string in relation to the mess that was Eddowes's body/clothes in the mortuary , just guessing and in no way to be believed.

Collard was not cross-examined as to how he put that list and accounted for the apron, so it is vague and unreliable and irrelevant
as to the wearing of the apron.The eyeballing as the body was stripped was more important.

[Trevor Marriott]

But she was seen wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing one. End of story.

The witness testimony on those witnesses was never tested as to its accuracy or reliabilty for the reasons previoulsy stated.

You have to deal with the facts from when her body was found and the events thereafter.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But she was seen wearing an apron. Therefore she was wearing one. End of story.

[Trevor Marriott]

There’s nothing in the Inquest depositions that support your theory that there was a piece missing. So why do you claim that there is?

There was no piece missimg because if she was not wearing an apron when killed but been in possession of two old pieces of white apron.

That fits with the evidence, one piece found in her possessions, and the other found in GS.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Post 1086

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

- Jeff

And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I dont know what you want me to answer

The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There’s nothing in the Inquest depositions that support your theory that there was a piece missing. So why do you claim that there is?

[Trevor Marriott]

You do like to find reasons to avoid evidence. Newspapers which report the inquests as transcripts provide a lot more context, as in what was asked. But you want to make up the context so you can twist their responses to mean either the opposite, it just so you can claim doubt and think that justifies ignoring it completely.

So, rather than dodge yet another question, why don't you answer it? Because you can't, dodging is your answer.


- Jeff

I dont know what you want me to answer

The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.

Fair points Joshua

On your first point though, if the string had been pulled from one end couldn’t it have been that the string was only then sticking out from one corner?

On your second, couldn’t the apron have been pulled aside or just become twisted to one side so that it avoided the vertical cuts that were found on the rest of her clothing?

On your third, can we be sure that the apron was loose when it was cut. Wouldn’t it have been easier to have pulled from the bottom corner to make the apron taut then to cut in from the side and then doubt.

On point 4, a question….can we be sure that Long knew at the time that it was part of an apron? I know that he says this at the Inquest but can we be sure that he didn’t just pick it up as a piece of cloth only to find out that it was part of an apron later on?

Im certainly not saying that you’re not right though Joshua. You could well be.

So alternatively it could have been….



Again, I haven’t a clue why it’s uploaded this way up or if it can be changed?

So it could have been a single diagonal cut (thin broken line) or 2 cuts, vertical and horizontal (thick broken line)? With point A being the possibility of the string being pulled through from the left. No suggestion of any missing piece though?

[JeffHamm]

Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.

Hi Joshua,

That's possible, but Trevor's version then has half long gone, and his cut is to sever half an apron into quarters, etc. And that's not required.

We don't know for sure how the cut was done, and most versions I've seen have been along the lines of a horizontal cut, or starting high on the side then diagonally downwards, etc, sort of removing a triangle section. Your suggestion of how Trevor's vertical halving might work is interesting, but Trevor's presentation goes beyond that which obscures the issue. I could, however, see how what you suggest might fit with the "apparently" modifier, though I'm not entirely sure we should over emphasize one word, your suggestion does make it feel natural. And, your suggestion also has her wearing the apron, which fits with all of the other evidence.

Overall, yes, I think what you suggest could be added to the list of possible ways the apron could be cut into two pieces and still fit the descriptions given at the inquest, and still have her wearing an apron that was even possible to wear. Trevor keeps repeating that none of that is possible, but it's been demonstrated so many times that what he says is impossible and what is actually impossible must be viewed as different things entirely.

- Jeff