Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    Yes but it doesn’t prove that Eddowes wasn’t wearing an apron. Just that during the process of the body being stripped and her clothes and possessions being recorded the piece of apron got mis-identified as just a piece of cloth.
    How can anyone misidentify an apron. they are big white things that go around the waist.

    look again at the list and look to see how the first items that were carefully removed from the body

    1st item removed-Black Cloth Jacket
    2nd item removed -Chint skirt

    Any apron would have been worn under the jacket and over the skirt, and visible to all, if it had been a bib type apron it would have been even more visible because there would have been a lot more of it.

    The list show one old piece of white apron not one old white apron with piece missing.

    The problem with the evidence is that when the body was stripped and the list made up no one at the mortuary was aware that the GS piece had been found it was only when the two pieces were later matched that people suddenly remembered her wearing an apron and Halse recalls seeing a piece missing at the mortuary despite all that was going on at the mortuary with the stripping of the body and listing all the cuts to the clothing he recalls a piece of her apron missing.

    It all stinks more than a skunks arse !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk


    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      How can anyone misidentify an apron. they are big white things that go around the waist.

      look again at the list and look to see how the first items that were carefully removed from the body

      1st item removed-Black Cloth Jacket
      2nd item removed -Chint skirt

      Any apron would have been worn under the jacket and over the skirt, and visible to all, if it had been a bib type apron it would have been even more visible because there would have been a lot more of it.

      The list show one old piece of white apron not one old white apron with piece missing.

      The problem with the evidence is that when the body was stripped and the list made up no one at the mortuary was aware that the GS piece had been found it was only when the two pieces were later matched that people suddenly remembered her wearing an apron and Halse recalls seeing a piece missing at the mortuary despite all that was going on at the mortuary with the stripping of the body and listing all the cuts to the clothing he recalls a piece of her apron missing.

      It all stinks more than a skunks arse !!!!!!!!!!!!!

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      It’s very easy. A apron bunched up looks like a cloth.

      We weren’t there to watch the procedure Trevor so how came we make presumptions as to exactly how the stripping of the body and the compiling of the list occurred? There were other pieces of cloth so it’s hardly surprising if this piece was initially misidentified as just a piece of cloth. Then when Collard picked it up to record it he found that it was actually a piece of apron.

      Of course no one mentioned her wearing an apron before the piece was discovered because it wasn’t an issue then. No one mentioned her wearing shoes either! The pieces were matched up and no one mentions that fact that there was any piece missing which they certainly would have if that was the case. You yourself have said that the GS piece gave a clue as to the killers escape route so how important would a missing piece have been? The police would have been thinking ‘if there’s a piece missing the killer might have dropped it further on.’ Giving them another pointer.

      You are creating a mystery where none exists. Eddowes was wearing an apron. This is an established fact. Unlike your suggestion of a journey back to her lodging house which is pure speculation. Why would she make this pointless journey then turn around and walk back? Why did no one see her at the lodging house where she would have been a familiar figure? Why didn’t she replace the cloth if she was menstruating? Why didn’t she replace the cloth in the privacy of the lodging house? Why didn’t she do it in the cell?

      As Jeff has said Hutt and Robinson had absolutely no motive for lying. A lie makes zero sense.

      Mountains out of molehills Trevor. The tools of the conspiracy theorist I’m afraid.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
        All this knife test and apron was used to carry the organ test are useless if the killer came prepared and had his own material .The blood could have been transferred while cutting and holding the apron in-situ.What if he was using the apron for another purpose who knows.
        The above quote is from thread "Jacks's escape from Mitre Square".

        What if Jack cut himself and needed the apron as a bandage until he could stop the bleeding, at which point he could discard it. An infection from the fecal matter could explain the gap to the next murder?

        Cheers, George

        Comment


        • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
          The above quote is from thread "Jacks's escape from Mitre Square".

          What if Jack cut himself and needed the apron as a bandage until he could stop the bleeding, at which point he could discard it. An infection from the fecal matter could explain the gap to the next murder?

          Cheers, George
          That apron piece was not the size of a bandage. Halse was claimed to have estimated it's size as almost half the apron. These things went all around the waist and down to the ankles.
          Even half of it was a sizable piece of cloth.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

            That apron piece was not the size of a bandage. Halse was claimed to have estimated it's size as almost half the apron. These things went all around the waist and down to the ankles.
            Even half of it was a sizable piece of cloth.
            Hi Jon,

            I used the word bandage, not regarding size but for purpose. A large piece of cloth could be wrapped around a wound on a hand to both stop the flow of blood and prevent a blood trail.

            Cheers, George

            Comment


            • He'd have stuck out like a sore horse blanket, George.

              A serious wound becoming infected in those days with faecal matter would likely result in septicemia and death.

              Okay for theorists who exclude Mary Kelly from Jack's tally.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                That apron piece was not the size of a bandage. Halse was claimed to have estimated it's size as almost half the apron. These things went all around the waist and down to the ankles.
                Even half of it was a sizable piece of cloth.
                Perhaps you could quote where it says the apron was a full length apron and went down to the ankles?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Yes, I recall in the past you offered a maids short pinny.
                  Clearly you have much to learn about the customs & practices of the average East End women of the lower classes.
                  The same apron has remained basically unchanged and made of the same material right up to the 1970's when I was a butcher's apprentice.


                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • An interesting piece of trivia concerning the average apron worn by servants, and why the apron was so large.
                    The lower classes regarded the apron as protection for their own clothes, while the upper classes viewed the apron as a means of protecting their possessions from the dirty servants clothing.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                      Yes, I recall in the past you offered a maids short pinny.
                      Clearly you have much to learn about the customs & practices of the average East End women of the lower classes.
                      The same apron has remained basically unchanged and made of the same material right up to the 1970's when I was a butcher's apprentice.


                      But that doesnt prove Eddowes was wearing that type full length bib apron there was no mention of a bib apron

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	apron 2.jpg
Views:	98
Size:	18.9 KB
ID:	763961 Click image for larger version

Name:	Apron.jpg
Views:	100
Size:	7.0 KB
ID:	763962

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        It’s very easy. A apron bunched up looks like a cloth.

                        We weren’t there to watch the procedure Trevor so how came we make presumptions as to exactly how the stripping of the body and the compiling of the list occurred? There were other pieces of cloth so it’s hardly surprising if this piece was initially misidentified as just a piece of cloth. Then when Collard picked it up to record it he found that it was actually a piece of apron.

                        Of course no one mentioned her wearing an apron before the piece was discovered because it wasn’t an issue then. No one mentioned her wearing shoes either! The pieces were matched up and no one mentions that fact that there was any piece missing which they certainly would have if that was the case. You yourself have said that the GS piece gave a clue as to the killers escape route so how important would a missing piece have been? The police would have been thinking ‘if there’s a piece missing the killer might have dropped it further on.’ Giving them another pointer.

                        You are creating a mystery where none exists. Eddowes was wearing an apron. This is an established fact. Unlike your suggestion of a journey back to her lodging house which is pure speculation. Why would she make this pointless journey then turn around and walk back? Why did no one see her at the lodging house where she would have been a familiar figure? Why didn’t she replace the cloth if she was menstruating? Why didn’t she replace the cloth in the privacy of the lodging house? Why didn’t she do it in the cell?

                        As Jeff has said Hutt and Robinson had absolutely no motive for lying. A lie makes zero sense.

                        No one has said they were lying they could have easily been unsure and gone along with the belief that she was wearing an apron because at the time that what was believed, but now when you come to really look at it, it is not quite so clear cut

                        Mountains out of molehills Trevor. The tools of the conspiracy theorist I’m afraid.
                        No you are stretching the facts to suit

                        Take a look at the list of clothing as it came off the body, if she had been wearing a bib apron as you suggest that would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and easily visible and easily recorded and Collard would not have then said "apparently wearing"

                        You cannot dismiss Collards list which makes no mention of her wearing an apron that was taken down at the time and is prime evidence.

                        But I am not going to go over all of this again its been done to death

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          No you are stretching the facts to suit

                          Take a look at the list of clothing as it came off the body, if she had been wearing a bib apron as you suggest that would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and easily visible and easily recorded and Collard would not have then said "apparently wearing"

                          You cannot dismiss Collards list which makes no mention of her wearing an apron that was taken down at the time and is prime evidence.

                          But I am not going to go over all of this again its been done to death

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          It certainly has. It was a non-issue before and a non-issue it remains (except for you of course)
                          Regards

                          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                            Yes, I recall in the past you offered a maids short pinny.
                            Clearly you have much to learn about the customs & practices of the average East End women of the lower classes.
                            The same apron has remained basically unchanged and made of the same material right up to the 1970's when I was a butcher's apprentice.


                            You’ve a worryingly extensive knowledge of women’s clothing items Wick.
                            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

                              No you are stretching the facts to suit

                              Take a look at the list of clothing as it came off the body, if she had been wearing a bib apron as you suggest that would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and easily visible and easily recorded and Collard would not have then said "apparently wearing"

                              You cannot dismiss Collards list which makes no mention of her wearing an apron that was taken down at the time and is prime evidence.

                              But I am not going to go over all of this again its been done to death

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              That precious, Trevor. "...stretching the facts ...". You're the one ignoring the facts, that include multiple testimonies, from independent people, all stating that Eddowes was wearing an apron that day. You ignore those facts to suit. Also, the list we have you stretch to insist it was done as it would be today, ignoring the fact this was done in 1888. The procedures of the day were nothing like the systematic procedures you would be familiar with - those systems had not yet been developed (look at any of the actions at the crime scenes and you know what was done there is woefully insufficient by today's standards).

                              When we look through records of other victims, some items of clothes are mentioned, but there is no other case where detailing all of the clothes worn by the victim is recorded (even expanding beyond the C5). Those sorts of records were just not done, so expecting the one time we do have a list that they hit upon the procedures used today is stretching the facts.

                              We've hashed this to death, and all of the points that need to be made are in this thread for anyone to read and decide for themselves. But simply restating that others are stretching the facts doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring a large number of recorded statements in the inquest that all tell us she was wearing an apron that day. Ignoring facts simply to make your theory work is not doing you any favours, particularly on such an inconsequential matter that could easily be incorporated into your larger theory. This whole issue is just noise.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by caz View Post
                                He'd have stuck out like a sore horse blanket, George.

                                A serious wound becoming infected in those days with faecal matter would likely result in septicemia and death.

                                Okay for theorists who exclude Mary Kelly from Jack's tally.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X
                                Hi Caz,

                                Working fast with a sharp knife in the dark, a cut is not an unreasonable possibility. Presuming he would have brought something to carry away organs, he could have quickly wiped his hands on her clothing rather than carrying away an incriminating piece of cloth. So had he cut himself, what could he do. Walk away leaving a blood trail? My thinking is he only needed the apron for something he hadn't anticipated.

                                Cheers, George

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X