Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    ...

    Halse then indicates he went back to Mitre Square, passing through GS by the area the GS piece was later found, at 2:20. His actual testimony reads like this "I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."....

    So it appears Major Smith was also at the mortuary. It also could be misinterpreted that DO Halse and Major Smith only left the mortuary and returned to Mitre-Square when they were informed about the apron piece being found in G.S., however, he indicates he passed G.S. at 2:20, well before it was found. As such, it is clear the "when we heard ..." portion refers to an event after they had arrived back at Mitre-Square.
    - Jeff
    Indeed, Smith was at the mortuary, Smith & Halse gave an observation of the apron.

    Halse is quoted to have said:
    'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
    - (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

    Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:
    'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
    - (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

    https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Thats your interpretation not mine and I am not going to go over this again

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You've been going over this on a regular basis since your book was published, but you just refuse to listen. Not a good trait for a detective, or ex-detective.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ms Diddles
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    I think you could be right

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Agreed, that would make sense.

    I have always thought of a vest as an undergarment, but sure enough when I google imaged " mans vest with buttons", a load of waistcoats appeared......

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Trevor is back to pushing the notion that when the two pieces were put together they did not make up a whole apron. I've asked him the past where does he think the third piece is, but he claims there is no third piece. Trevor either does not understand fractions, or he has not thought through the implications of what he is suggesting.

    Trevor also dismisses all of the police testimony where officers, under oath, testify that Catherine was wearing an apron as reflecting a police agreement to say that because somehow that will "help" their case with regards to the direction JtR fled the scene. How that would make a difference has never adequately been explained given one piece was found in Mitre Square and the other in G.S. Whether she was wearing the piece in Mitre Square or not makes no difference to their case.

    Now let's just take a moment and do some thinking about what Trevor is suggesting.

    Despite it making absolutely no whit of difference to the ability to make a case that JtR fled from Mitre Square to G.S., either directly or indirectly, by saying Catherine was wearing the apron as opposed to having just found it in her possessions (which is Trevor's contention), they all decide to do so anyway; they all decide to perjure themselves, and somehow get Catherine's doss house owner (who has known her for over 7 years) to also get in on the fun. And yet, because they have the two pieces, that means, according to Trevor, they thought it a really good idea to say she was wearing an apron that wasn't even a whole apron. If it is not a whole apron, then it has some third bit missing. You know, a third bit must be missing if the two bits don't make a whole. That third bit he won't admit about (check earlier in this thread, he directly says there was no third bit missing all in the same breath as claiming the two bits don't make a whole - but you know, fractions). Nobody during the inquest, despite being shown the apron, has a problem with this and wonders why she's wearing an apron with a section missing. Nobody asks if they found the portion missing. Never is it mentioned that a portion is missing, but Trevor knows. This is the desperate flailing of a dead idea.

    None of this idea makes any kind of sense once you move out and look beyond the position of the apron on a list composed under conditions we do not know. That's why Trevor desperately labels every other statement "unsafe", but his pure speculation about how the list came to be is shielded from that labeling because he needs that to serve his agenda. But it is all irrational, incomprehensible, and it totally flies in the face of the very clear testimonies of people who actually saw what Catherine was wearing. I can't believe this has gone on for 62 pages.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • JeffHamm
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    With regards to the removal of clothes, list making, and so forth, one idea is that the clothes were removed, with the apron set aside in order for it to be compared with the G.S. piece. This would suggest that the recording of the items was done after the stripping. We know that in the previous cases there was no list making during the removal of the clothes, which is manifestly obvious in the confusion over the stays in the Nichols case. Notwithstanding the different police forces involved, there is no evidence to suggest that how post-motems were conducted were that different between forces. Certainly to assert that would require pretty specific evidence.

    It doesnt require specific evidence it requires you an others to apply some common sense to how the list was compiled and how the clothes were removed. That common sense seem to have been clouded by the need to prop up the old accpeted theory
    Trevor, the problem with your suggestion is that it makes no sense, common or otherwise. Your need to hold on to your theory at all costs, to what purpose I don't know, but it's clear you have an agenda to stitch up a discredited idea.


    Anyway, we do have the testimony of Halse, who stays he went to the mortuary and saw the body stripped, at which time he noticed there was a piece missing from the apron. Trevor is flabbergasted that he would make such an observation, which is understandable because Trevor does not consider the possibility the apron was being worn by Eddowes. However, Halse was a detective, and his job is to note things about crimes and victims, and if, laying out in front of him, is a murder victim, wearing an apron with a very sizeable section of it missing, I suggest it is not asking for a huge leap of faith to consider the possibility he might just have spotted that.

    But he does not say she was wearing an apron, do you not read other posts I have covered this previous?
    Nobody ever says she wasn't. Do you not read the inquest testimonies? Find anyone who states she was not wearing an apron, anyone. You might find people who don't mention her clothes, or mention some but not the apron, but find anyone who actually says she was not wearing an apron. Anyone Trevor, anyone at all.

    Halse then indicates he went back to Mitre Square, passing through GS by the area the GS piece was later found, at 2:20. His actual testimony reads like this "I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."....

    Again you are wrong Halse does not say he saw a portion of her apron missing he says he saw a portion of "the" apron was missing and we know the MP had been cut as it was matched later to the GS piece
    That's a direct copy and paste from the inquest statements found here on Casebook.

    So it appears Major Smith was also at the mortuary. It also could be misinterpreted that DO Halse and Major Smith only left the mortuary and returned to Mitre-Square when they were informed about the apron piece being found in G.S., however, he indicates he passed G.S. at 2:20, well before it was found. As such, it is clear the "when we heard ..." portion refers to an event after they had arrived back at Mitre-Square.

    Lets stick to the facts as they are known
    I present a direct quote, and more or less just rephrase it. There's a few bits that might be ambiguous, so I clarify. It is the facts, Trevor, you know, those things you hate because they refute your theory?

    Now, one thing that occurs to me is, DO Halse, having observed a large portion of missing cloth from the apron, which would be readily apparent if she was wearing it as when they went to remove it well, some of it just isn't there and they're all, you know, looking at it while it is being removed carefully, is probably wondering if they've overlooked some portion of the square and there's physical evidence still to be recovered (i.e. the missing portion of the apron). I think that would be a reasonable thing for a detective to possibly consider, although of course I can't know that for sure as he does not testify directly to that.

    Again you are making it up this para is full of conjecture Halss never mentioned anyhting about a large portion missing
    No, but there have been a few times you have pointed out the piece found in G.S. was large, about half the apron, etc. Are you now saying it was small? Do things get big and small at your convenience? No wonder your theory has no legs to stand upon, it's made of silly putty.

    Now, given he's also previously spotted that the apron Eddowes was wearing had a big chunk absent,

    Come on Jeff stop making it up as you go along there was no big chunk described as being missing
    You yourself drew a diagram illustrating half the apron cut away. That would qualify as a big chunk. Do you not understand what a big chunk is? Half an apron would be a big chunk of an apron. It's my description, and one that corresponds to what we've all described in the past, you included. But your need to be obstinate and confrontational overrides your ability for comprehension.

    While of course I don't know if that's what happened, and I'm certainly not saying there aren't other viable scenarios, it kind of feels like a natural flow of events to me. I accept, I can't refer to evidence that PC Collard did observe while the doctors conducted an examination of the body, and that is entirely a conjecture on my part, but given there is no documentation of what was going on exactly, I guess it boils down to whether or not that seems like a reasonable possibility (again, reasonable possibility does not mean it's proven).

    - Jeff
    This thread is showing signs of desparation on the part of those who readily accept that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Nobody readily accepts it Trevor. But people have taken the time to examine the evidence, and are concluding that your suggestion to the contrary is incomprehensible, irrational, and totally disconnected from the evidence, but you continue to rage and lash out insults, as is your wont, and argue at one point the piece was large and now it's small, and soon there might be no piece at all, but when there is it's still not whole but there's not a third one don't be droll, but it is unsafe if it refutes your tale, then you close your eyes and loudly scream how I'm the one who now can't see.

    - Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    So apparently a reporter passed it to a newspaper.Still leaves the question,did the police check for a match?
    Dr Brown was tasked with that job Harry and he confirmed the match.

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    We also have to consider that even if we accept a possibility that the killer didn’t take away the GSP then we need another load of unsubstantiated conjecture to explain how it got there. This includes her using the apron for sanitary reasons for which there is no evidence. Also that she left Bishopsgate Police Station and went back to her lodging house for some unexplained reason for which there is no evidence then she immediately returned to the area of Mitre Square, with no one seeing her either on her journey or when she arrived back, for which there is no evidence. Then we would also ask why she didn’t complete her sanitary arrangements indoors (an outside loo perhaps?) but used a doorway. Is this more believable than the killer wanting a police of cloth for a clean up when he got somewhere safe?

    Trevor says that we should follow the evidence. But we can’t do that because in his scenario there is none. But he’d rather, on the one had, propose this baseless speculation (something that he criticises others for doing), whilst on the other he attempts to sideline the inconvenient actual evidence. Hutt, Robinson, Halse, Brown etc.

    There’s no problem at all with the issues being raised and questioned (by Trevor) but there surely comes a point when the white flag should finally appear as there can be no doubt that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night that she met her death. And that a piece was cut from it by the killer which ended up in Goulston Street. It’s an ‘old established theory’ because the facts have been examined over and over again and they are completely consistent with that theory to the exclusion of other ‘theories.’
    Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-04-2021, 09:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    So apparently a reporter passed it to a newspaper.Still leaves the question,did the police check for a match?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Why was Brown in possession of the apron pieces?.It in no way was part of the medical evidence, so I presume he coud not include it as evidence.There is no indication the information was passed to,and checked by a police officer.So it was not police evidence.All we have is newspaper information that a match between two pieces of cloth did in fact take place.Who informed the newspaper?
    Its mentioned by Brown at the Inquest Harry.

    “I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.”

    It wasn’t medical evidence but the police needed to check that the GSP matched the MP because it gave a hint to the killers route after leaving Mitre Square.

    Leave a comment:


  • harry
    replied
    Why was Brown in possession of the apron pieces?.It in no way was part of the medical evidence, so I presume he coud not include it as evidence.There is no indication the information was passed to,and checked by a police officer.So it was not police evidence.All we have is newspaper information that a match between two pieces of cloth did in fact take place.Who informed the newspaper?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But they could not have physically made up a whole apron because of how the two pieces were described !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You should go back and read previous posts on this very topic and see where your and the others theories fall apart


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Because you only accept your interpretation of what the apron looked like. The apron piece at the mortuary and the GS piece very clearly and obviously made up a complete apron. You talk about using ‘common sense’ in your response to Jeff’s post but what could be more ‘common sense’ than this.

    If the police considered the GS piece a clue (to the killers escape route) then very obviously if the apron wasn’t complete when the 2 parts were matched up then officers in charge would have immediately issued orders to Constables on the beat “you’re looking for another piece of white cloth” as the missing piece would also have been a clue which could have taken the police further along the killer’s escape route.

    Its unthinkable that the police would have ignored this or failed to mention it. The only explanation is that the MP and the GSP fitted together to make up a complete apron.

    I fail to see how you can’t see this as entirely common sense and reasonable and based on what we actually know

    1. That there was a piece missing from the MP (Halse)
    2. That the GSP and the MP fitted together (Brown)
    3. And that no one mentions an incomplete apron or a missing piece.

    How can anyone not concede this?

    Leave a comment:


  • Herlock Sholmes
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    Oh god, no please. Not the "it's not a full apron but there's no piece missing" again. That is so agonizingly irrational that it almost hurts to recall.

    - Jeff
    Sorry Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    The fact that when Brown matched up the two pieces he didn’t mention that it didn’t make a whole apron shows that they made up the whole.
    But they could not have physically made up a whole apron because of how the two pieces were described !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    You should go back and read previous posts on this very topic and see where your and the others theories fall apart


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
    With regards to the removal of clothes, list making, and so forth, one idea is that the clothes were removed, with the apron set aside in order for it to be compared with the G.S. piece. This would suggest that the recording of the items was done after the stripping. We know that in the previous cases there was no list making during the removal of the clothes, which is manifestly obvious in the confusion over the stays in the Nichols case. Notwithstanding the different police forces involved, there is no evidence to suggest that how post-motems were conducted were that different between forces. Certainly to assert that would require pretty specific evidence.

    It doesnt require specific evidence it requires you an others to apply some common sense to how the list was compiled and how the clothes were removed. That common sense seem to have been clouded by the need to prop up the old accpeted theory

    Anyway, we do have the testimony of Halse, who stays he went to the mortuary and saw the body stripped, at which time he noticed there was a piece missing from the apron. Trevor is flabbergasted that he would make such an observation, which is understandable because Trevor does not consider the possibility the apron was being worn by Eddowes. However, Halse was a detective, and his job is to note things about crimes and victims, and if, laying out in front of him, is a murder victim, wearing an apron with a very sizeable section of it missing, I suggest it is not asking for a huge leap of faith to consider the possibility he might just have spotted that.

    But he does not say she was wearing an apron, do you not read other posts I have covered this previous?

    Halse then indicates he went back to Mitre Square, passing through GS by the area the GS piece was later found, at 2:20. His actual testimony reads like this "I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."....

    Again you are wrong Halse does not say he saw a portion of her apron missing he says he saw a portion of "the" apron was missing and we know the MP had been cut as it was matched later to the GS piece

    So it appears Major Smith was also at the mortuary. It also could be misinterpreted that DO Halse and Major Smith only left the mortuary and returned to Mitre-Square when they were informed about the apron piece being found in G.S., however, he indicates he passed G.S. at 2:20, well before it was found. As such, it is clear the "when we heard ..." portion refers to an event after they had arrived back at Mitre-Square.

    Lets stick to the facts as they are known

    Now, one thing that occurs to me is, DO Halse, having observed a large portion of missing cloth from the apron, which would be readily apparent if she was wearing it as when they went to remove it well, some of it just isn't there and they're all, you know, looking at it while it is being removed carefully, is probably wondering if they've overlooked some portion of the square and there's physical evidence still to be recovered (i.e. the missing portion of the apron). I think that would be a reasonable thing for a detective to possibly consider, although of course I can't know that for sure as he does not testify directly to that.

    Again you are making it up this para is full of conjecture Halss never mentioned anyhting about a large portion missing


    Now, given he's also previously spotted that the apron Eddowes was wearing had a big chunk absent,

    Come on Jeff stop making it up as you go along there was no big chunk described as being missing

    While of course I don't know if that's what happened, and I'm certainly not saying there aren't other viable scenarios, it kind of feels like a natural flow of events to me. I accept, I can't refer to evidence that PC Collard did observe while the doctors conducted an examination of the body, and that is entirely a conjecture on my part, but given there is no documentation of what was going on exactly, I guess it boils down to whether or not that seems like a reasonable possibility (again, reasonable possibility does not mean it's proven).

    - Jeff
    This thread is showing signs of desparation on the part of those who readily accept that Eddowes was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by harry View Post
    Joshua,in reply to your post 895,very few.In particular Watkins who found the body and could see by the light of his lantern.Dr Brown,at the murder sight,who had a clear vision of the body.You see,it does not matter if a hundred persons had seen Eddowes wearing an apron in the 24 hours preeceeding the finding of the body,the arguement centres on what she was wearing when found by Watkins.Unless,as one author claims,the clothing was interfeered with before reaching the Mortuary,but after discovery of the body.
    Exactly, and it should be noted that she was in possession of a knife !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X