Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Point out the faults then Trevor. It’s fits the facts better than your biased fantasy.

That's why he finds it painful.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Talking of the compiling of the list...

Collard's list has the "man's white vest" - which I think we're agreed is a waistcoat - after the dress bodice and even after the chemise. This means that either Kate was wearing this item next to her skin, or that the list isn't in order of removal.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Numerous witnesses to her wearing an apron - conveniently ignored.
No one mentioning an incomplete apron - conveniently ignored.
Explanations for the cuts that differ from his theory - conveniently ignored.
Alternative, plausible explanations for the compiling of the list - conveniently ignored.

And Trevor calls others biased

[Wickerman]

The fact is that you cannot show how the two pieces as described made up a full apron.

On that basis it is rigjht to assume that she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron, one found in her possesion when the body was stripped and the second piece found in GS and how that got there is open to debate

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Then why did those present at the inquest describe the two pieces as "an apron"?
Surely it is right to assume that they were able to discern an apron when they see one, as opposed to pieces of an apron.
What value do you place on the ability of a policeman at the inquest to know what an apron looks like, as opposed to a theorist a century later simply reading words on a paper?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh stop please it is painful to see you and others wriggling and jiggling trying to negate what has been stated as the obvious

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Point out the faults then Trevor. It’s fits the facts better than your biased fantasy.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are working on the interpretation that the MP was just a corner piece leaving half of the actual apron absent.

Back to Brown:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood

It doesn’t say that the apron was just a corner piece. Brown is describing a location on the apron. The location of the blood spots which were at the corner of the apron. He mentions the string being attached to distinguish the corner near the waistband from the corner at the bottom.

You’ve just interpreted it as you wanted so that it appears to fit your theory.



So it could have been the case that Brown’s attention was drawn to blood spots at point ‘x.’ At the corner with the string attached as opposed to the bottom left or right hand corners. And he matched up the hem/seam at point ‘y.’ I could also have included the point at the bottom of the apron (point ‘z.’)

This leaves us with the GSP and the MP making up a whole apron which conforms to 2 known facts (not your conjectures)

1. Several people (including Police Officers) all stated that Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed. And none of them mention a chunk being missing.

and

2. Not one single person stated, or even hinted at, any part of the apron being missing. And as they definitely treated the GSP as a piece of evidence that pointed to the killers escape route then they would have treated another piece exactly the same. Constables would have been tasked with the job of searching the streets for a missing piece which, for all that they knew, the killer might have dropped further along his escape route. This didn’t happen of course.

Does this go against any of the known facts? IMO I don’t see how it does.

Also, describing something as a corner piece doesn’t have to mean that it was just a corner. Like a jigsaw piece it could simply mean a piece of apron which included the corner as opposed to a piece taken from the middle.

Oh stop please it is painful to see you and others wriggling and jiggling trying to negate what has been stated as the obvious

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Lovely art work. Pure speculation of course. You clearly have not read the posts as it has been explained in painfully simple language in the past how there are many ways the apron could be cut such that the two pieces shown in court, as evidenced in wickermans post, would make a whole apron and for the descriptions.

But you can't understand that and will just repeat yourself again, making the same irrational collection of self contradictory statements.

Now, instead of re showing your fanciful colouring in, how about you explain how the police came up with the story Eddowes was wearing an apron she could not wear?

The pieces were shown during the inquest. If you are right, that would have raised questions. It didn't, therefore you are wrong, no matter how you draw lines on pictures of aprons.

You just push your agenda, dodging questions you cannot answer, denying evidence you cannot account for, and projecting your use of a blinkered approach onto everyone else.

-Jeff

The fact is that you cannot show how the two pieces as described made up a full apron.

On that basis it is rigjht to assume that she was in possession of two old pieces of white apron, one found in her possesion when the body was stripped and the second piece found in GS and how that got there is open to debate

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

No Jeff,I didn't reconsider anything.I went ahead and found evidence of a judge who said shorthand writers operated in courts in England,in the 1880's.A coroners court was a law court,so not irrelevant.

While a Coroner does require a degree of legal training, at least as a barrister, he does not have the experience or competence of a Judge. The Trial Courts are not the same as the Inquest Court, but they are both Law Courts.

[Joshua Rogan]

Daily News 5 Oct, describing John Kelly giving evidence;

"He wore the fustian clothes of a market labourer, with a light blue scarf round his neck, and spoke with a clear, deep, sonorous voice, looking composedly round the court while the Coroner was writing down his answers."

[Wickerman]

Your post to Harry.

You suggest I check out the coroner's notes, which I would love to do. Are they published in any of the books, or available for viewing online to your knowledge? If they can only be seen in London, well, I'm a bit distant from there so would be unable to do so. If you know of a reliable source that reproduces them, though, I would like to go over them. Cheers.

- Jeff

Jeff.
I bought the Eddowes inquest papers some 20 or so years ago. There are no Coroner's notes, the written record you read with witness signatures underneath each piece of testimony, is all we have.
I've never known for sure if the written record was made by Shelton or someone else. I didn't think it would be by Langham himself, but I simply don't know.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,
Why should you be surprised at my interest in court trivia?.Well one reason is to obtain a sound knowledge.The other is for when you and people like Jeff make false claims.You both declared that shorthand recorders were not used in courts.I have put you right.You now squirm and try to convey the impression that it didn't apply to Coroners courts,and that somehow the recordings in the Eddowes case prove records in shorthand,or lack of,prove a point.I do not know how the recordings in the Eddowes case were taken,and neither does any one else.It doesn't matter.The record that exists,and which I referred to,is the only source,outside of newspapers,that I know.I have told you where it can be found.It was from notes taken by the Coroner himself.If you wish to suggest that newspaper reports are superiour to the Coroner's notes,be my guest.I will back the Coroner,and it differs from the information that is supplied by the newspapers.
Only two pieces of apron were matched,and from the coroner's notes the matching was by the Hem and the seams.Which will prove only that the two pieces COULD be from the same apron,not WERE,and there is no indication that the court did declare they were from the same apron.
Now there are and were dozens of different courts.It was not and is not a practice of the courts to employ their own shorthand writers.The Public Service would employ a pool of such writers,and on application a writer would be seconded for the time needed.If the pool did not have a suitable person,then an outside source could be contracted.The same applied/applies to interpreters.Then there were those that took shorthand notes.
Thats my trivia Jon.

I thought it necessary last night to remind you of earlier discussions here on Casebook where my point about shorthand NOT being employed at local inquests was raised. You seem to think I revised my argument, but as you will see it has remained unchanged since at the very least 2016.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/general-suspect-discussion/9764-inquest-notes?p=516047#post516047

A poster by the name 'Sally' thought shorthand was used at inquests, but her evidence came from the C.C.C. (Old Bailey), which employs Queens Council and do employ shorthand recorders. 'Sally', and others, often confuse a Trial with an Inquest, these functions are not the same.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/suspects/hutchinson-george/491-the-red-handkerchief?p=473417#post473417

I have also discussed this detail with David Barratt (Orsam) who it turned out was also aware that local inquests did not employ a shorthand recorder, only at Central Criminal Courts.

https://forum.casebook.org/forum/ripper-discussions/witnesses/8829-inquest-reports-of-mizen-cross-evidence?p=462085#post462085

So when you accuse anyone of suddenly changing their argument (squirm?), it may be advisable that you check the archives just in case you missed something.

All that said, it cannot be taken as an absolute that no inquest anywhere in the country, at any time, ever used a shorthand recorder. And that is not what is being argued here. As a general rule it was not an expense that a local coroner could afford, and the actual wording used by a witness was not so critical in an inquest as no person's life was in jeopardy - the court did not have an accused person to point the finger at. A Coroner cannot turn his inquest into a trial, the trial is the next step following the inquest where actual testimony will be recorded accurately.
There is no evidence, nor expectation, that a shorthand recorder was used at either the Eddowes inquest or the Kelly inquest.

[Wickerman]

There was no apron produced in court just reference to the two pieces

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, these two 'references' were pulled out of a brown paper parcel.

[JeffHamm]

Hi harry,

Well, having viewed the inquest statements (via the MET archives online), they are written in long hand, with the witness signatures at the bottom, and then the next statement begin. I suppose they could have also had someone recording the entire proceedings in shorthand, but those documents, if they existed, were not preserved. Having never heard of such documents, nor any mention of them, my conclusion was that they never existed. I'm more than happy to be corrected on that if you can demonstrate they did actually exist at some point. However, references to how things were done in other courts isn't evidence that is how it was done at inquests, in particular the ones in the Whitechapel area.

You suggest I check out the coroner's notes, which I would love to do. Are they published in any of the books, or available for viewing online to your knowledge? If they can only be seen in London, well, I'm a bit distant from there so would be unable to do so. If you know of a reliable source that reproduces them, though, I would like to go over them. Cheers.

- Jeff

[harry]

No Jeff,I didn't reconsider anything.I went ahead and found evidence of a judge who said shorthand writers operated in courts in England,in the 1880's.A coroners court was a law court,so not irrelevant.
I have already told you, I nor anyone else know what method was used in the inquests we are concerned with.Wickerman tends to think the newspaper reporters might have used shorthand.Where you get the idea that long hand was used I do not know,but perhaps you should prove that point,before considering what I should do.
There is little difference in how inquests worked.It consisted of witnesses giving evidence under oath.That is all that needs to be known.There was a jury and a determination.Evidence was recorded.
There was as much,if not more detail in the Coroner's notes.What is important is that there were differences in some details regarding the apron pieces.You want to rely on what Wickerman writes,fine,but a better option,in my opinion, would be to seek out and read the Coroner,s notes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

well you show me how the seams and the borders could have been matched with the two apron pieces to make up a whole apron?

bearing in mind the starting point with any excercise is the corner piece with a string attached that has to be left or right

www.trevormarriott.co.ok

You are working on the interpretation that the MP was just a corner piece leaving half of the actual apron absent.

Back to Brown:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood

It doesn’t say that the apron was just a corner piece. Brown is describing a location on the apron. The location of the blood spots which were at the corner of the apron. He mentions the string being attached to distinguish the corner near the waistband from the corner at the bottom.

You’ve just interpreted it as you wanted so that it appears to fit your theory.



So it could have been the case that Brown’s attention was drawn to blood spots at point ‘x.’ At the corner with the string attached as opposed to the bottom left or right hand corners. And he matched up the hem/seam at point ‘y.’ I could also have included the point at the bottom of the apron (point ‘z.’)

This leaves us with the GSP and the MP making up a whole apron which conforms to 2 known facts (not your conjectures)

1. Several people (including Police Officers) all stated that Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she was killed. And none of them mention a chunk being missing.

and

2. Not one single person stated, or even hinted at, any part of the apron being missing. And as they definitely treated the GSP as a piece of evidence that pointed to the killers escape route then they would have treated another piece exactly the same. Constables would have been tasked with the job of searching the streets for a missing piece which, for all that they knew, the killer might have dropped further along his escape route. This didn’t happen of course.

Does this go against any of the known facts? IMO I don’t see how it does.

Also, describing something as a corner piece doesn’t have to mean that it was just a corner. Like a jigsaw piece it could simply mean a piece of apron which included the corner as opposed to a piece taken from the middle.