Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

...Anyway, just to clarify, where does that statement by DS Halse come from (not the book, which you reference, but the original statement? I can't recall seeing it in any official document found in the books I have. It looks similar to what he says at the inquest though.

- Jeff

The Ripper File, by Jones & Lloyd uses many published statements, though they do not provide a reference for all of them.
The statement by Halse is not referenced, but neither is the sentence above that on the same page which came from Smiths memoirs. Interestingly, the sentence by Smith is not the one that I used. The authors could have used the same one as I did if they had been pushing the size of the apron. However, back in 1975, the question of how large the G.S. piece of apron had been was never an issue.

The size of the apron only became an issue in the late 90's, when I wrote a dissertation:
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html
for Casebook where I proposed that rather than the G.S. piece being used to merely wipe the hands & knife, I suspect is was used to carry away the organs.

By the late 1990's I had owned, at one time or another, every published book on the Ripper murders, and to my astonishment not one author had made this suggestion.
Ever since that dissertation was posted the size of the apron has been an ongoing issue for some theorists. That being the case I know that Jones & Lloyd had no cause to promote the size of the apron piece, otherwise they would have also used the same sentence by Smith. what they wrote preceded my dissertation by almost 25 years.
It must be admitted though, I'm not the only student of the case to look through the press for that same quote, there are some newspapers that are not yet on-line, so it may turn up someday.

[Wickerman]

Jon.
You made the claim on JTR forums.and you were told you were wrong there.

So you keep saying, I get it, you're insisting I made a mistake, ok. I can tell it must have annoyed you which is why you remember it, but I cannot recall saying it, and I can't think of a circumstance where it would have come into question.
If you can provide some context, or just remind me what we were talking about, it would help.

No one has responded to my suggestion there could have been a second apron which she had been wearing.Speculation you might say,and that would be correct,but it allows for Eddowes to have dropped a piece of an apron in Goulstan Street,and an apron piece to have been included in her possessions.

When no-one responds, that's a clue to what posters might think of it.
Isn't there enough speculation in this case as it is?

Do you remember the old days when only the evidence was used to create a theory?
Now the actual evidence plays a small part, we're inundated with "what-if",..."what-if"...."what-if", it's really getting a bit pathetic.

[JeffHamm]

The Ripper File, by Jones & Lloyd uses many published statements, though they do not provide a reference for all of them.
The statement by Halse is not referenced, but neither is the sentence above that on the same page which came from Smiths memoirs. Interestingly, the sentence by Smith is not the one that I used. The authors could have used the same one as I did if they had been pushing the size of the apron. However, back in 1975, the question of how large the G.S. piece of apron had been was never an issue.

The size of the apron only became an issue in the late 80's, when I wrote a dissertation:
https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html
for Casebook where I proposed that rather than the G.S. piece being used to merely wipe the hands & knife, I suspect is was used to carry away the organs.

By the late 1980's I had owned, at one time or another, every published book on the Ripper murders, and to my astonishment not one author had made this suggestion.
Ever since that dissertation was posted the size of the apron has been an ongoing issue for some theorists. That being the case I know that Jones & Lloyd had no cause to promote the size of the apron piece, otherwise they would have also used the same sentence by Smith. what they wrote preceded my dissertation by almost 15 years.
It must be admitted though, I'm not the only student of the case to look through the press for that same quote, there are some newspapers that are not yet on-line, so it may turn up someday.

Hi Wickerman,

Ah, ok. So it perhaps is in a newspaper reporting on the inquest, which makes sense as the flow of it looks very similar to what other documents, official and news, present. Hopefully it will be tracked down again.

And yes, what becomes important information changes over time as new ideas get explored or proffered. I think, though, before we can start on the possible uses of the apron piece it would be best to try and, at the very least, resolve the mystery of the incomplete apron that had no piece missing. I do not feel hopeful.

I will, however, have a look at the article you wrote. As I've said a few times, my general feeling is that the apron piece was probably not used for organ transport, but I have not fully explored that idea. I'm not convinced it wasn't though, so will be interested to see what you have to say. Probably best we shelve that discussion for now, though, as I don't feel well informed enough to contribute much beyond my own subjective ideas at this point.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

Ah, ok. So it perhaps is in a newspaper reporting on the inquest, which makes sense as the flow of it looks very similar to what other documents, official and news, present. Hopefully it will be tracked down again.

And yes, what becomes important information changes over time as new ideas get explored or proffered. I think, though, before we can start on the possible uses of the apron piece it would be best to try and, at the very least, resolve the mystery of the incomplete apron that had no piece missing. I do not feel hopeful.

I will, however, have a look at the article you wrote. As I've said a few times, my general feeling is that the apron piece was probably not used for organ transport, but I have not fully explored that idea. I'm not convinced it wasn't though, so will be interested to see what you have to say. Probably best we shelve that discussion for now, though, as I don't feel well informed enough to contribute much beyond my own subjective ideas at this point.

- Jeff

Sorry, I corrected my post, the dissertation was posted in the late 90's, not 80's.

[DJA]

Well no wonder I, and many others don’t post much here anymore, when two pieces of apron that don’t make a full apron equals something other than there being at least a third -ice of apron, sheesh, I thought I’d seen it all with Van Gogh and “I know things I won’t tell” (the one whose name I won’t eve. Mention)

There are a handful of posters who clog the site with ridiculous petty arguments,insults and self promotion.

Avoid them and there is bugger all content.

[Wickerman]

And yes, what becomes important information changes over time as new ideas get explored or proffered. I think, though, before we can start on the possible uses of the apron piece it would be best to try and, at the very least, resolve the mystery of the incomplete apron that had no piece missing. I do not feel hopeful.

- Jeff

I take that to be a touch of sarcasm

The Morning Post reported that the apron was produced in two pieces, not half an apron, or two-thirds, but an apron.

When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).

The Scotsman likewise published a similar description:

She was wearing an apron.
The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it.

Short of being there.....it seems to me, there were two pieces.

[JeffHamm]

Its like trying to converse with someone in a foreign language isn’t it?

Surely Trevor can’t be saying “the apron had been incomplete from long before the murder?” Can he? That would be a stunner! Yet again he’s stating his opinion as fact....no change there though - Marriott Rules Of Ripperology No 37b sub-section 3 - All evidence is unsafe except for Trevor Marriott’s opinion......which is to be treated as fact.)

Even if the apron had been incomplete from long before the murder the Police couldn’t possibly have known that and so to them, when the pieces were matched up, there was just a piece missing and they would have mentioned it and they would have wanted it found if possible.

BUT THEY DIDNT MENTION IT OR LOOK FOR IT BECAUSE THIS INCOMPLETE APRON IS JUST A FIGMENT OF TREVOR’S IMAGINATION.

Hi Herlock,

That's exactly what Trevor is saying, that she wasn't wearing the apron but that she was in possession of an apron that she had cut the G.S. piece from to provide her with a sanitary napkin. Because there is no evidence to support those claims, if the two pieces made up a whole apron that would make it harder to argue she wasn't wearing it (she's wearing every other piece of clothing she had on her after all). So, to bolster his speculation that she's not wearing the apron, like everyone who testifies about her says she was, he needs to make that article of clothing something she would not be wearing. Given she has 12 pieces of rags, he also has to speculate on why she would not resort to using those but would choose to cut up an article of clothing that is otherwise intact. So he speculates again that the apron was cut, or damaged with a piece missing, prior to her removing another piece to create the sanitary napkin that he speculates she was wearing because she both required it at one point in the night but then didn't require at another. She also only chose to remove it at G.S. rather than while she had at least some privacy in the gaol cell. To justify all of that creative thinking, he has to argue that when the two pieces were brought together it was not a whole apron, otherwise she would have used the rags as a sanitary napkin (he'll argue they were too small, of course, but that just adds another layer of speculation because if they were too small, she would have worn underwear etc). But he knows that having to explain where the missing portion goes just looks like making up stuff, which is what he's doing but he doesn't want to admit he's doing it. So when asked to clarify where the missing piece is, he refuses to admit that his very own explanation created that missing piece in the first place, and instead tries to deflect that back on the people asking him to explain himself using derogatory language in the hope that by degrading the question asker that will rub off and make people presume it was a silly question and therefore not worry that he won't answer it. This is what is known as sophistry as apposed to reason - to use emotive language to try and win over the audience rather than logic and fact based reasoning. I admit, I've been adopting a bit of that myself in my responses to Trevor, in part hoping that perhaps this is what he thinks a debate needs to look like before he gives it credence. His responses, however, clearly show that my hope was without foundation. I expected as much, but I prefer to have actual evidence before I claim to know as much.

Trevor's experience with courts of law will have exposed him to adversarial approaches to debate, between that of the prosecutor and that of the defense. And almost never will either side concede a point, it's against the nature of court cases. Trevor clearly views the original police explanation as the crown's case, and so views it as the case put forth by the prosecution. The prosecution has to reach a level of proof "beyond all reasonable doubt", while the defense only has to establish a much lower criterion of "establishing doubt". It is also not the job of the defense to prove their alternative must have happened, only to establish that there is a reasonable possibility it could have. When viewed like that, Trevor's behaviour is entirely understandable. He is presenting what he feels is an explanation that establishes doubt, and that to him means he has met the victory conditions of the defense.

But he doesn't need to present anything at all to do that. I think every one of us all recognize that the evidence we have available to us is no where near sufficient to establish things to that very high bar of "beyond reasonable doubt." If I were a prosecuting attorney, and the evidence we have is what I had to decide about taking this into a court or not, there is no way in a million years I would touch this case. There is far too much work that would have to be done to close off all the various possible lines that might create reasonable doubt. Basically, viewed as a court case, the defense always wins here. Look at it this way, the original police explanation is enough to establish reasonable doubt in Trevor's idea, and he is arguing that his idea is enough to establish reasonable doubt in the original police explanation. The defense, therefore, always wins because the victory conditions are so much lower for the defense case.

While defense might always win, some "prosecutors" have cases that get closer to that ideal of "beyond all reasonable doubt". They may never grasp the bar and get over it, but they get closer to it. What Trevor also does not realize is that he doesn't get to be the defense all the time. When he is presenting his ideas, it is he who is the prosecution, and his idea is evaluated not in terms of "does he establish all reasonable doubt" (which he can't anymore than anyone else, remember, the defense always wins), but we can compare how close to that ideal his presentation comes compared to another, in this case the original police explanation. And after all of this discussion, it is clear that the original police explanation gets closer to that goal than does Trevor's explanation.

If Trevor ever comes to realize that when he presents his alternative ideas he is agreeing to take up the challenge of being the prosecutor, and it becomes his responsibility to show that his explanation gets the prosecution closer to the ideal than whatever explanation he is offering an alternative to, then he may be able to accept that he's taken on a challenge that will always fail to grasp the ideal, but really, all he has to do is show he gets closer. Everyone, absolutely everyone, has ideas and explanations about this case that are wrong with regards to what actually unfolded in 1888. We will never see into the past with perfect clarity. What we hope and try to do, though, is see through the window of evidence that we have to get at least a pretty good sketch of the events even if it's not a full scale 3D movie of those events.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I take that to be a touch of sarcasm

The Morning Post reported that the apron was produced in two pieces, not half an apron, or two-thirds, but an apron.

When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).

The Scotsman likewise published a similar description:

She was wearing an apron.
The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it.

Short of being there.....it seems to me, there were two pieces.

Hi Wickerman,

I fully agree, and am dumbfounded by the fact that this thread's discussion is actually taking place.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There are a handful of posters who clog the site with ridiculous petty arguments,insults and self promotion.

Avoid them and there is bugger all content.

Hi DJA,

While I agree there can be a lot of noise compared to signal, I have personally found quite of bit of interesting facts and ideas here. Sometimes, like currently, the topics go on far longer than perhaps necessary. Given there is no adjudicator to the debates that get started here, who could call time, give an outline of where the evaluation of the cases presented stand, and allow for a final single summing up of the various sides, well, they continue for as long as both sides are willing to continue. That can be rather annoying, though, when one reads a thread that ends up in an endless cycle of repetitive posts.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Ok Harry, here we see a few rules on the subject of questioning prisoners.

These points are taken directly from The 1889 Police Code.

Page 38 deals with Cautioning a Prisoner.
The entry insists that a prisoner cannot be questioned until he/she is read their rights, but also adds that the code ..."does not permit persons charged with offences to be interrogated as to their guilt".

Alternately, page 104 deals with Interrogation of Prisoners.
- "Prisoners must not be interrogated by police with respect to the offence for which they are in custody".

Do they ring any bells?

Are you sure you are talking about questioning prisoners, or was it questioning witnesses?

[DJA]

Hi Jeff,

Precisely.

The interesting facts and ideas,the latter often being viewed from a mental health position,are too well hidden in the garbage.

Some of these are adjudicated when one particular poster cries foul and the thread is paused and shut down.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

Precisely.

The interesting facts and ideas,the latter often being viewed from a mental health position,are too well hidden in the garbage.

Some of these are adjudicated when one particular poster cries foul and the thread is paused and shut down.

Hi DJA,

Yah, I get where you're coming from, and at times I do agree. I tend to think it's a bit of human nature that works against us at times, where a debate has reached a point where we're having to establish if there must be a missing piece if two pieces do not make up a whole, that it pretty much indicates the evaluation of the presented cases. That would be a rational result. But despite that, nobody wants to be the one to leave, as they are worried that will be viewed as surrendering (which is, I admit, to give in to sophistry, but I think that illustrates how it's a very powerful spin doctoring tool because it hits at the very core of our emotional world while distracting from the more rational and logical conclusions that should be drawn).

- Jeff

[DJA]

Hi DJA,

Yah, I get where you're coming from, and at times I do agree. I tend to think it's a bit of human nature that works against us at times, where a debate has reached a point where we're having to establish if there must be a missing piece if two pieces do not make up a whole, that it pretty much indicates the evaluation of the presented cases. That would be a rational result. But despite that, nobody wants to be the one to leave, as they are worried that will be viewed as surrendering (which is, I admit, to give in to sophistry, but I think that illustrates how it's a very powerful spin doctoring tool because it hits at the very core of our emotional world while distracting from the more rational and logical conclusions that should be drawn).

- Jeff

Meh.

I've worked with two of Oz's top psychologists ,one of whom treated others and was a Criminologist who Scotland Yard asked for help.He went over there.

Much of what is posted here is tripe.

We have all the evidence required,however ignore most of it.

What happened to Eddowes reeks of clues.

[JeffHamm]

Meh.

I've worked with two of Oz's top psychologists ,one of whom treated others and was a Criminologist who Scotland Yard asked for help.He went over there.

Much of what is posted here is tripe.

We have all the evidence required,however ignore most of it.

What happened to Eddowes reeks of clues.

Hi DJA,

No worries. It is a topic of interest that draws a lot of different people, with different backgrounds and points of view. It's hardly surprising that if any two of us were to be put in the same room, there would be at least three opinions being put forth.

- Jeff

[DJA]

Hi DJA,

No worries. It is a topic of interest that draws a lot of different people, with different backgrounds and points of view. It's hardly surprising that if any two of us were to be put in the same room, there would be at least three opinions being put forth.

- Jeff

Oddly,my IQ is in the top half percentile.

Some people reckon if in a room of 200 that would make me the smartest.

Probably not.