Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

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.

My understanding was inquests didn't have shorthand recorders. You then claimed they did and was willing to reconsider. Now I find out you citation was for law courts, so irrelevant.

Can you prove there were shorthand records made for the inquests we are concerned with? Where are those records? See, in the end, what is important is the versions we have are in longhand. Either taken that way, or maybe you want to suggest those are the translations from the original shorthand? Either way, they have not recorded as much as the reporters did (who captured the questions and additional statements).

I'm not claiming expertise on the workings of the various institutions, and happy to be corrected. Wickermans explanation how the law and inquest worked differently fits with how Whitechapel didn't even have a proper mortuary. So, unless you can cite relevant evidence, I'll stick with that. I'm assuming it was an honest error to cite something that didn't apply to inquests, and not you being the one making false claims.

- Jeff

[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

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

[JeffHamm]

You tell me how the two pieces could have made up an apron with how they were described you clearly dont know anything about seams and borders on garments again I refer to this photo again which I have edited to show the seams and the borders in red and how the two pieces were matched

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

[Trevor Marriott]

So how could they have decided to all conspire to perjure themselves by claiming she was wearing it? They only had 1/2 an apron, something unwearable, but they consistently testify that she was actually wearing it. And the doss house owner also testifies she was wearing an apron that day.

How can there not be even a hint of concern by those at the inquest that the police are showing them 1/2 an apron, saying she was wearing it, and yet not indicating they are looking for the rest of it? Why does nobody ask how she could possibly wear 1/2 an apron, and so how can they be sure the 1/2 they have is the one she was wearing? Should they be looking for the one she was wearing? Do they think JtR dropped the other 1/2 somewhere? etc.

But what do we get? Crickets.

Because the two pieces, when shown at the inquest, didn't create any of those types of concerns because the two pieces made up a whole apron.

And you can repeat all you want that you've presented your explanations, but that won't make them true, even if you say them three times and tap your heels together. Any explanation that starts off with the apron being unwearable, as you claim it was, is an explanation that is refuted by the evidence.

- Jeff

You tell me how the two pieces could have made up an apron with how they were described you clearly dont know anything about seams and borders on garments again I refer to this photo again which I have edited to show the seams and the borders in red and how the two pieces were matched

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet, the testimony I posted said the apron was produced (in court) in two pieces.

Not that there were two pieces of an apron.

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The source you provided was only concerned with Q.C., not local inquests.
What I do know is, had you taken the time to research the subject you would have arrived at the same explanation I gave you.

[harry]

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.

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.
Exactly

If I am right there was ever only two pieces at the time she was killed. The mortuary piece and the Gs piece. These I say were the remains of an old white apron which had been in her possesion at some time before she was killed and had been cut up. The two pieces referred to were all that remained and were left in her possession for whatever purpose.

The Gs and the mortuary pieces did not make up, and could not have made a full apron. There was no third or fourth pieces of missing apron relative to her murder only the two we know about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So how could they have decided to all conspire to perjure themselves by claiming she was wearing it? They only had 1/2 an apron, something unwearable, but they consistently testify that she was actually wearing it. And the doss house owner also testifies she was wearing an apron that day.

How can there not be even a hint of concern by those at the inquest that the police are showing them 1/2 an apron, saying she was wearing it, and yet not indicating they are looking for the rest of it? Why does nobody ask how she could possibly wear 1/2 an apron, and so how can they be sure the 1/2 they have is the one she was wearing? Should they be looking for the one she was wearing? Do they think JtR dropped the other 1/2 somewhere? etc.

But what do we get? Crickets.

Because the two pieces, when shown at the inquest, didn't create any of those types of concerns because the two pieces made up a whole apron.

And you can repeat all you want that you've presented your explanations, but that won't make them true, even if you say them three times and tap your heels together. Any explanation that starts off with the apron being unwearable, as you claim it was, is an explanation that is refuted by the evidence.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

Exactly

If I am right there was ever only two pieces at the time she was killed. The mortuary piece and the Gs piece. These I say were the remains of an old white apron which had been in her possesion at some time before she was killed and had been cut up. The two pieces referred to were all that remained and were left in her possession for whatever purpose.

The Gs and the mortuary pieces did not make up, and could not have made a full apron. There was no third or fourth pieces of missing apron relative to her murder only the two we know about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Added to this Trevor’s suggestion assumes a missing piece which is not mentioned by anyone. As the Goulston Street piece was treated as evidence surely a missing piece would have been considered in the same way and therefore a search would have been undertaken to try and recover it if the killer had discarded it like the GSP. There’s no mention of any search.

So we have another explanation which requires no missing piece. It has to be far more likely.

Hi Herlock

I have read some of Trevor's posts about how many pieces the apron was divided into, but I am unsure I fully understand the argument he makes. I am in the mainstream here and can see no reason to conclude the apron was divided into more than two pieces.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

In Doctor Brown's report he states



I read 'seams of the borders' to mean the hems as you suggest, though it could be read differently. I have long had a picture in my mind of the apron portion being a corner piece of the apron, but I don't think that is stated anywhere and it could well have been cut in the way you describe.

Hi Eten,

I don’t think that we can be anything like confident that Dr Brown would have been able to distinguish between a hem and a seam when a hem is part that had been folded over and sown. This could have been how the apron was originally made or Catherine herself might have performed some repairs. Brown even mentions that repairs had taken place. In the absence of a photograph we can only try and interpret from what we have. Trevor assumes that his explanation is the only one and so treats it as a fact. I don’t think that this is the case.

Added to this Trevor’s suggestion assumes a missing piece which is not mentioned by anyone. As the Goulston Street piece was treated as evidence surely a missing piece would have been considered in the same way and therefore a search would have been undertaken to try and recover it if the killer had discarded it like the GSP. There’s no mention of any search.

So we have another explanation which requires no missing piece. It has to be far more likely.

[etenguy]

I’m no expert in sewing to put it mildly and I tend to assume that neither was Dr Brown, but there are the two terms ‘hem’ and ‘seam.’


“In context|sewing|lang=en terms the difference between seam and hem

is that seam is (sewing) a folded back and stitched piece of fabric; especially, the stitching that joins two or more pieces of fabric while hem is (sewing) the border of an article of clothing doubled back and stitched together to finish the edge and prevent it from fraying.”

Now I don’t know what everyone else thinks but these two sound very similar to me. So if Catherine’s apron had a hem down the edge where the material had been folded over and sown either to prevent it fraying or maybe to make it look tidier because it had already begun to fray, surely the GS piece could have been made by two horizontal cuts across the hem and one vertical one. And Brown matched them up by the 2 cuts across the hem (which he understandably called a seam?)

Hi Herlock

In Doctor Brown's report he states

the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.

I read 'seams of the borders' to mean the hems as you suggest, though it could be read differently. I have long had a picture in my mind of the apron portion being a corner piece of the apron, but I don't think that is stated anywhere and it could well have been cut in the way you describe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m no expert in sewing to put it mildly and I tend to assume that neither was Dr Brown, but there are the two terms ‘hem’ and ‘seam.’


“In context|sewing|lang=en terms the difference between seam and hem

is that seam is (sewing) a folded back and stitched piece of fabric; especially, the stitching that joins two or more pieces of fabric while hem is (sewing) the border of an article of clothing doubled back and stitched together to finish the edge and prevent it from fraying.”

Now I don’t know what everyone else thinks but these two sound very similar to me. So if Catherine’s apron had a hem down the edge where the material had been folded over and sown either to prevent it fraying or maybe to make it look tidier because it had already begun to fray, surely the GS piece could have been made by two horizontal cuts across the hem and one vertical one. And Brown matched them up by the 2 cuts across the hem (which he understandably called a seam?)

[Wickerman]

I am not suggesting there was more than 2 pieces what I am saying is that as there were only two pieces which when matched did not make up a full apron
what I do offer is an explanation for the two pieces not making up a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron

do you not accept that how the two pieces were matched and described they could not have made a full apron which then negates the belief that she was wearing one

its not rocket science to understand you have to step back an re asses the validity of what I have postulated

So you didn't say the apron comprised of more than two pieces, only that the two pieces in evidence did not make a complete apron?
A Rose by any other name?

Yet, the testimony I posted said the apron was produced (in court) in two pieces.
Not that there were two pieces of an apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

I really wish that you’d stop stating this piece of conjecture on your part as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

A creation to try and keep a sinking theory afloat.

we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

Yes they could.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again Trevor…….it’s very simply…..as Jeff says…….no one mentions her apron being incomplete. That nails it. Your theory is a dead theory. It’s a non-theory. The Goulston Street piece was treated a a clue so any other missing piece would also have been treated as a potential clue. But no mention is made of it. No search was made for it. Why? Because it didn’t exist. Because the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece when matched together made up a complete apron. The same apron that numerous witnesses including police officers said that she was wearing on the night of her death. None of whom mentioned a big chunk being missing!

Why won’t you just give this one up Trevor. It’s a long lost cause and no matter how many times you move the goalposts or commit offences to logic and reason it will remain a lost cause.