Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Certainly I recall you saying this before, but I don't see how that changes anything. The witness is still expected to remember the actual words used, even if the witness decides to change what is recorded.

    Where I take issue with the signature is, for the witness to read a verbatim transcript will take almost as long as his testimony. In Brown's case if he was on the stand for 40 minutes answering questions, it is going to take him almost the same amount of time to read what was transcribed. The number of words is the same, it's like reading the script for a play. If it takes you 15 minutes to read your part, it still takes 15 minutes to do it on stage.
    I can't see the inquest being halted after every witness for this to take place.

    What you are suggesting is the proceedings of the inquest have to halt while each witness reads, or has it read back to them word for word. My experience in a number of courts today this has never happened.
    I think they were simply handed the transcript to sign as a means of certification, not that they re-read it, word for word.


    This next point is one I'm glad you raised.


    I think I already explained how the clothes will (in my view) have been cut from the body, in order to preserve the evidence, you don't untie knots, and with extensive abdominal mutilations, you can't risk rolling the body over to remove her clothes - the abdominal organs could spill out.
    The solution then is, you cut her clothes from the body.
    This apron was tied by both strings, but only one string is cut to remove the piece of apron. So, it is a corner piece (because the cut was diagonal?), but it was attached by the string - which is true.

    Here's another point.
    A couple of days ago I mentioned various press reports where, in some cases a handkerchief was noted around the neck, but no apron. Yet other reports mention the apron, but no handkerchief.
    Where I was going with that point, though I never actually got there, was to suggest the reporters who attended the mortuary were not all there at the same time.

    If reporter 'A' was among the first to arrive and saw the body stripped & heard some comment about this handkerchief around the neck, and also witnessed the pile of clothes & possessions, then left. He wouldn't be aware of the fact that handkerchief-looking-cloth turned out later to be part of an apron.

    After reporter 'A' leaves, Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. portion, and Dr Brown seeing it is part of an apron, selects a piece of cloth of the same material among her pile of clothing, and fitted the two pieces of material together - realizing that handkerchief-looking-cloth was actually the other half of the G.S. apron.

    This is when reporter 'B' arrives and witnesses the pile of clothes and an apron (in two halves), which he lists for his report. Reporter 'B' has no knowledge of the handkerchief-looking-cloth.

    This explains what appears at first to be a conflict in the newspaper reporting. Traditionally we have automatically assumed all the reporters arrive at the same time. This incorrect? assumption has caused us to draw the wrong conclusion.
    and while on the same topic which I forgot to ask why would they just cut an apron and not any of the other items of clothing? because clearly they were removed carefully in order for the list to be fully documented and also to list the cuts to the various items of clothing,

    and to show i can corroborate what I say yet again I refer to ---

    Dr Browns official inquest testimony " The clothes were taken off carefully from the body"

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      I have not spent any time looking for clues, but the first paper I looked into carried this report...

      After a very careful examination of the body where it was found, it was at three o'clock removed to the City mortuary in Golden-lane, and here Drs. Brown and Sequeira continued their investigation for a considerable time. The police were of course quickly on the alert, and when our representative reached the neighbourhood every avenue leading to Mitre-square was closely guarded. At the police-station in Bishopsgate Chief Superintendent Major Henry Smith most courteously informed the Editor that the reports furnished to Lloyd's of the two murders having been committed this morning were unhappily true. On proceeding to Mitre-square, Inspector Edward Collard was found in command, but the orders to deny admission to the scene of the murder were so absolute that one constable assured us he should not allow any plain-clothes men to pass unless he knew them. At twenty minutes past five, when we left the mortuary, after the interview most kindly accorded by Dr. Gordon Brown, there was an expectation on the part of the police that Dr. Phillips, who gave the important evidence in connection with the case of Annie Chapman, would speedily arrive there.
      Lloyds Weekly News, 30 Sept. 1888.

      Which shows that not only were the press permitted at the mortuary, Dr Brown actually gave them an interview.
      No it shows the press were waiting outside the mortuary not inside.

      It also shows that Dr Phillips had not yet arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece so again it shows the pieces could not have been matched until after the body was stripped. It also in my opinion highlights Dr Browns comments to the press about the time it would have taken the killer to carry out the injuries as he found the body "At least 5 mins" but of course at that time the postmortem had not been conducted and the organs were not found to be missing.

      you are clutching at straws you are sinking faster than the Titanic

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • You keep inventing these scenarios
        More classic irony

        That Kate was menstruating and dropped the cloth at GS.......an invented scenario.
        The Kate went back to her lodging house.......an invented scenario.

        I repeat...you apply rules to everyone else which don’t appear to apply to yourself.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • . No it shows the press were waiting outside the mortuary not inside
          Where does it state this?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • PC Long was dismissed in 1889 from the police force for being drunk on duty.

            IMO this makes him unreliable and means he could've easily been drunk less than a year earlier when he found the apron.

            Occam's razor seems to be he simply missed the apron at 2:20am and only discovered it when passing again at 2:55am.

            The whiteness of the apron caught his eye which led to it's discovery and the graffito. What this suggests it that the apron wasn't in an obvious position. Another explanation could be in 35 minutes the apron moved slightly into view which could be explained by a gust of wind or a rat moving it. Since it was in a dark alley to the side of the street it could've been easily missed especially by an intoxicated person.

            Comment


            • . you are clutching at straws you are sinking faster than the Titanic
              And that’s why everyone agrees with you

              Oh....hang on a minute....they don’t.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                and while on the same topic which I forgot to ask why would they just cut an apron and not any of the other items of clothing?
                I'm suggesting they cut the string, it's what is done today in similar cases. I don't know if they were so careful in 1888, but as you say "the clothes were taken off carefully", which is quite consistent in Davis not wanting to disturb the body for the reason's I already gave. Cutting the clothes off, all the clothes, is treating the body, which is evidence, with care.

                And no, Collard would not be required to make a note of the cuts to the jacket, skirts, petticoat, etc. to aid in their removal. Cuts in the clothes made by the doctor or his assistant, are not 'evidence', much the same as the cuts to the body during autopsy are not part of the evidence.

                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  No it shows the press were waiting outside the mortuary not inside.

                  Pure conjecture; straw 1

                  It also shows that Dr Phillips had not yet arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece

                  Where does it say Dr. Pilllips is the one who brought the G.S. piece? Straw 2

                  so again it shows the pieces could not have been matched until after the body was stripped.

                  Where is stripping of the clothing even mentioned? More conjecture; Straw 3

                  It also in my opinion (a breath of fresh air, I do wish you would use that phrase more often) highlights Dr Browns comments to the press about the time it would have taken the killer to carry out the injuries as he found the body "At least 5 mins" but of course at that time the postmortem had not been conducted and the organs were not found to be missing.

                  the last conclusion is more speculation; Straw 4

                  The paragraph opens telling us that the body was carefully examined at the scene by the doctors. Given the mutilations, highlighting the similarity with the Chapman case, it would far more likely that the doctors would check to see if the uterus had been taken away. Given how the coroner at Chapman's case suggested the taking of the uterus might have been the motive, and the amount of time available at the scene, and the indications the doctors did a careful examination, there's no way they didn't check and discover the uterus was missing. The kidney they might not have checked as it had not been missing before. And we also know that Dr. Brown conducted the post-mortem on Sunday, against the normal protocol, because he felt it an urgent case. The mutilations combined with knowledge the uterus was missing would certainly raise his concern to that level. So once again, the evidence is more than sufficient to create doubt in your story, making it entirely unsafe.

                  you are clutching at straws you are sinking faster than the Titanic

                  There are no straws left for anyone to clutch, for you are holding the lot.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  None of my above responses need to be proven, remember, because you are presenting a case, you are taking on the role of the prosecution whether you want to or not, making me the defense. I only have to show doubt about your case. That's been done with trivial ease, so you have not proven anything let alone proven beyond all reasonable doubt - your case is unsafe. Moreover, your case goes down like the Hindenburg, because your very own criterions and definitions cause your whole approach to self immolate - you've proven yourself wrong by your standards.


                  - Jeff
                  Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-31-2021, 07:36 PM.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                    Jack was headed for Dorset Street on Michaelmas.
                    Interesting assertion.

                    Michaelmas was the day before the murders of Stride and Eddowes.

                    Or are you referring to the Michaelmas daises shawl, that probably wasn't a shawl, definitely wasn't worn by Catherine Eddowes, and has nothing to do with her death.


                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      No it shows the press were waiting outside the mortuary not inside.
                      Do you have anything to say one way or the other?
                      I have not began to look yet, I have to renew my subscription to the BNA, when I do I will be looking. What we do read from various sources is that the City authorities were a great deal more obliging with the press, than their contemporaries over at the Met. Yet, if we switch to the coverage of the Stride murder, we read:

                      "As the body lies in the mortuary the head seems to be almost severed, the gash being about three inches long and nearly the same depth."
                      Daily News, 1 Oct. 1888.

                      Which reads as if the reporter saw the body himself.


                      It also shows that Dr Phillips had not yet arrived at the mortuary with the Gs piece so again it shows the pieces could not have been matched until after the body was stripped.
                      Yes, Dr Phillips had not arrived by the time the Lloyds reporter left the mortuary, but then the Lloyds reporter makes no mention of an apron.
                      Lloyds published their newspaper by 12:00pm on Sunday so their reporter had to leave to get his coverage to press. Whereas, the regular dailies only published on Monday morning, so the daily reporters, or agency reporters, had no need to leave so early.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Astatine211 View Post
                        PC Long was dismissed in 1889 from the police force for being drunk on duty.

                        IMO this makes him unreliable and means he could've easily been drunk less than a year earlier when he found the apron.
                        Ok, so maybe his experience on this murder case is what helped drive him to drink?

                        What he does after-the-fact, has no bearing on his conduct 6 months beforehand.

                        In order to accuse PC Long of being unreliable, possibly due to drink?, you need to find him displaying such conduct 'before' the GSG incident, not 6 months after.



                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Ok, so maybe his experience on this murder case is what helped drive him to drink?

                          What he does after-the-fact, has no bearing on his conduct 6 months beforehand.

                          In order to accuse PC Long of being unreliable, possibly due to drink?, you need to find him displaying such conduct 'before' the GSG incident, not 6 months after.
                          True.

                          A tentative, though not conclusive, argument might be built around his copying of the G.S. graffiti. He is sent to fetch his notebook during the inquest, and upon his return, what he had copied down differed from other copies in that he had the word not in a different place, and he did not misspell Jews.

                          This could be used to suggest he did not have the attention to detail that one would require to put faith in his statement the apron was not there at 2:20. However, without the photograph of the graffiti to compare to, we cannot examine for ourselves the graffiti to be completely sure that it was PC Long who got it wrong. The counter argument would be that he was the one to record it properly. I think on the balance of probabilities that seems unlikely, but as we cannot verify the graffiti and we have multiple versions, it boils down to a question of whom we think the more reliable transcriber was.

                          Generally, as PC Long comes out on the losing end of that, then it does raise the question of what other details of that night he may have overlooked, but as the foundation for that extension is not solid, the next step in the argument likewise becomes that much more debatable as well. Just because he made one mistake does not necessitate he made two; and we cannot even demonstrate that he had to be the one to make the first mistake.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            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.
                            Dr Brown's Inquest testimony was that the piece of apron found in Goulston street was part of the same apron in Eddowes possession.

                            [Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Or, what has often been the case here, to use only those sources that support a particular theory, and reject the rest.
                              A number of posts here don't even hit the low bar. There are plenty of posts that only use those parts of a source that support a particular theor, and reject the rest of that same source.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                                True.

                                A tentative, though not conclusive, argument might be built around his copying of the G.S. graffiti. He is sent to fetch his notebook during the inquest, and upon his return, what he had copied down differed from other copies in that he had the word not in a different place, and he did not misspell Jews.

                                This could be used to suggest he did not have the attention to detail that one would require to put faith in his statement the apron was not there at 2:20. However, without the photograph of the graffiti to compare to, we cannot examine for ourselves the graffiti to be completely sure that it was PC Long who got it wrong. The counter argument would be that he was the one to record it properly. I think on the balance of probabilities that seems unlikely, but as we cannot verify the graffiti and we have multiple versions, it boils down to a question of whom we think the more reliable transcriber was.

                                Generally, as PC Long comes out on the losing end of that, then it does raise the question of what other details of that night he may have overlooked, but as the foundation for that extension is not solid, the next step in the argument likewise becomes that much more debatable as well. Just because he made one mistake does not necessitate he made two; and we cannot even demonstrate that he had to be the one to make the first mistake.

                                - Jeff
                                A big consideration about the GS graffito is that it was written in a "round hand", which would be cursive writing. Considering that, the multiple ways that the "Juwes" was transcribed is unsurprising.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X