Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Harry D View Post
    Is Trevor beating his dead hobbyhorse again?

    Groundhog day.
    No he is trying to make those who are blind see again but as he is not Jesus he is wasting his valuable time.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      But she was wearing a hat and it was still attached to the back of her head

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk




      Don't be mad at him, he only tried to give an example






      The Baron

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        By the time the post mortem took place it had been genarally "accepted" that the GS piece had been cut from an apron she was wearing the police officers in my opinion simply went along with that by miraculaosly remebering days previous that she was wearing an apron.

        As we have seen with other aspects of the police evidence in this case from contables to senior officers some of which is unsafe this is another unsafe part, especially when you have the custody Sgt who books her in and releases her making no mention of her wearing an apron.

        And even if you accept there evidence it doesnt confirm that when she was killed she was still wearing an apron because the list from the mortuary tells us she wasnt.

        There is no point or nothing to be gained by labouring this issue you and others are at liberty to believe she was wearing an apron despite the weight of evidence to suggest she was not myself and others can look at it in a different way.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Oh god, are you back to implying the police all lied when they testified to her wearing an apron when they saw her? Did they bribe the doss house owner, who knew her for 7-8 years when they also testified she was wearing an apron when she went out? Do you honestly believe witnesses can't remember what people were wearing? Are you seriously trying to claim that any time a witness claims to recall someone was wearing a jacket, or a hat, or some other common item, that it is a miracle of momentous mental fortetude? Are you still trying to convince everyone that the statements of people who actually saw Eddowes know less about what she was wearing than you do, who has gleaned her attire by simply reversing what they said? C'mon Trevor, even you must see how unsafe your suggestions are in comparison to the amount of information recorded that all indicate she was wearing an apron when she was killed. You keep returning to the list, which we have no idea as to when it was compiled exactly, or under what conditions. From the cases before Eddowes we know it was not standard procedure - no other victim has such a list from the autopsy (see Nichols, re stays) so to expect them to follow modern protocols is wishful thinking. There is a good chance they only recorded her clothes in detail because of the piece found in GS, so they may only have decided to preserve her items after it was found, brought to the mortuary, and compared because they knew this would be important to present to the court should they ever arrest someone. But who knows? I don't, neither do you, but it is absolutely clear that she was wearing the apron when killed and that the list order does not mean what you want it to mean.

        - Jeff
        Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-01-2021, 11:18 AM.

        Comment


        • If the position of the apron piece on the list from the mortuary is the only evidence to suggest that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron when she was killed, there is nothing "safe" as evidence, and it is stretching credibility to refer to this as "the facts tell us ..". I believe that the remaining piece of her apron was kept separate from everything else, and thus listed last, because it was the only item that was to be used at the post mortem - it was put to one side, separate from everything else, in order to check that it matched perfectly with its other half.

          The witnesses I previously mentioned saw a woman they believed was Eddowes wearing a white apron minutes before she was killed. Are we to believe that for some reason she cut her apron, with a sharp knife which she didn't have, took half of it to Goulstone Street, dumped it, and rushed back to Mitre Square to be murdered, all in a few minutes?

          Remember what the Coroner's officer reported - the police were looking for witnesses who saw a woman in a white apron.
          Last edited by Doctored Whatsit; 08-01-2021, 12:09 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            But they were not present the list was given to the press some time later after the post mortem by the police.
            We know the body was stripped after it's arrival, about 3:00 am, at the mortuary.
            We have no statement that I know of telling us what time the list was made, nor the time the list was issued to the press.
            What is clear, by means of pure comparison is, the two official lists are not identical.

            The list was clearly compiled as the clothes were being taken off the body.
            We can't be sure about that. The items could have been laid out side by side on a table as single items, as opposed to being dumped in a pile. That depends on how particular Dr Brown was about considering the clothing as evidence.
            If the items were placed side by side on a table Collard could have come and made his list at any time.

            If she had been wearing an apron they could not have failed to see it because as I said previous it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt and they could not have failed to notice the top part of a bib apron because it would have still beem in situe where she wore it.
            Yes, but the remaining piece didn't look like an apron, it was just a misshaped piece of cloth at that time. The nearest guess they had was it being used as a neckerchief, alt. handkerchief, hanging round her neck.

            There is no mention of a neckerchief when the body was stripped and the list compiled
            You are assuming the list was made at the time the body was stripped - that is not a fact. Collard may not have been permitted by Dr Brown to investigate her clothing until after the autopsy for fear of destroying the evidence.

            Notes made at the time are regarded as prime evidence.
            Of course, but the issue is 'what time was it made', and 'when was it released'?

            It should also be noted that the piece of apron so described was not blood stained, and did not have any cuts through it whereas the rest of her clothing was described as having cuts and bloodstains significant with a knife being thrust into her abdomen several times and being drawn down and across.
            There were no cuts "through it", the cut was clean across, and it was stained with blood. Are you trying this "spots" & "smears" argument again? None of her clothing had been severed in two, her clothes had holes cut with a knife, neither apron piece had any holes cut by a knife.
            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              But she was wearing a hat and it was still attached to the back of her head

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Ok Trevor, that was a bad choice of example from me. I made it without reading the list.
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by The Baron View Post





                Don't be mad at him, he only tried to give an example






                The Baron
                Ladies and Gentleman of the Forum. I’ve mentioned in the past about The Baron just arriving out of nowhere purely to have a dig at me and low and behold…….

                I just hope that this further example is remembered by certain posters who doubt this happens and try to blame me.

                No further comment required.
                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

                  By the time the post mortem took place it had been genarally "accepted" that the GS piece had been cut from an apron she was wearing the police officers in my opinion simply went along with that by miraculaosly remebering days previous that she was wearing an apron.

                  It would be a strange world if every time someone recalled that someone was wearing a certain item of clothing on the previous day it was hailed as ‘miraculous’ Trevor. When you were on the Force and you were interviewing a witness or a suspect and you needed to know what someone had been wearing the previous day would your attitude have been “well there’s no point in asking this bloke what she was wearing because it happened yesterday and no one can possibly remember that kind of thing that far back?” Or if they’d said “she was wearing a brown coat” would you have said “come on! How can you possibly remember that?”

                  There’s nothing to suggest that Hutt and Robinson were saying anything other than what they both knew to have been true. It’s inconvenient for your theory but true nonetheless.


                  As we have seen with other aspects of the police evidence in this case from contables to senior officers some of which is unsafe this is another unsafe part, especially when you have the custody Sgt who books her in and releases her making no mention of her wearing an apron.

                  How do we identify why should be classed as ‘unsafe.’ It appears to be everything that disagrees with your opinion to be honest Trevor.

                  And even if you accept there evidence it doesnt confirm that when she was killed she was still wearing an apron because the list from the mortuary tells us she wasnt.

                  Now of course that list is perfectly ‘safe.’ Collard couldn’t possibly have mistaken a piece of apron for something else. We know how this works by now.

                  There is no point or nothing to be gained by labouring this issue you and others are at liberty to believe she was wearing an apron despite the weight of evidence to suggest she was not myself and others can look at it in a different way.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  The weight of evidence screams that she was wearing an apron. Only you on the whole planet appears to disagree with this Trevor. You’ve taken a minor discrepancy added a ‘well Hutt and Robinson might have just been going along with things’ then spiced it up with fantasies about sanitary towels, pointless, non-existent journeys and a sleeping night watchman.

                  You really should give this one up because you’re wrong, but you won’t because you’re the only person who can’t see that you’re wrong.


                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    The weight of evidence screams that she was wearing an apron. Only you on the whole planet appears to disagree with this Trevor. You’ve taken a minor discrepancy added a ‘well Hutt and Robinson might have just been going along with things’ then spiced it up with fantasies about sanitary towels, pointless, non-existent journeys and a sleeping night watchman.

                    You really should give this one up because you’re wrong, but you won’t because you’re the only person who can’t see that you’re wrong.

                    Its not a minor discrepancy is it, Collards list was produced as evidence at the inquest and is shows she was not wearing an apron when the body was stripped on its arrival at the mortuary, and now this is futile to pursue these arguments to which you and others are clearly fixated in the belief that she was wearing an apron when killed. So I have nothing more to say and wont waste my valuable time arguing.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      but it is absolutely clear that she was wearing the apron when killed and that the list order does not mean what you want it to mean.

                      - Jeff
                      Well you are so sure please tell what it does mean?

                      Do you not accpet that the clothes were taken off the body as described
                      Do you not accpet that the list was made at the time the body was stripped because it had to bee for the clothes to be listed in the order described
                      Do you not accept that if she was wearing an apron it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt and clearly visible
                      Do you not accept that there was no blood or cuts on the piece of apron decsribed as being in her possessions
                      Do you not accept that there was no cuts to the GS apron piece

                      And yet the killer cut through her outer clothing and stabbed her with a long bladed knife several times yet there are no signs of cuts to any of the apron pieces consistent with that and if she was wearing an apron there should have been seen signs of that taking place.

                      You need to think again and dont be so hasty in rejecting things outright just becasue it suits your purpose.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Its not a minor discrepancy is it, Collards list was produced as evidence at the inquest and is shows she was not wearing an apron when the body was stripped on its arrival at the mortuary, and now this is futile to pursue these arguments to which you and others are clearly fixated in the belief that she was wearing an apron when killed. So I have nothing more to say and wont waste my valuable time arguing.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        She was wearing an apron. There is no argument on the subject.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Collard's list is just a list, it isn't a statement. The meaning of the order on the list is an assumption not a fact. The claim that the apron piece was the last item because she wasn't wearing it, is an opinion, not, as is claimed, a fact. I have suggested that the apron was placed separate from everything else because it was to be used at the post mortem - another assumption, but logical.

                          It is more logical than suggesting it is proof from Collard that she wasn't wearing an apron, because Collard said in the same statement, "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing, which had been cut through and was found outside her dress". So Collard himself, far from saying she wasn't wearing the apron, actually states on oath that he believed she was wearing it.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            which ever way you look at it, if anything was around her neck it was not the remains of an apron she had been wearing, according to reports you seek to rely on it was decsribed as a neckerchief/handkerchief
                            Only the bib of an apron ties around the neck. The bib is generally square, a neckerchief is often square, a handkerchief is square.
                            You are trying to insist on a difference in a period when people used any old misshapen piece of cloth for a variety of uses.
                            A destitute woman uses a old piece of cloth as a neckerchief looped around her neck, and you want to insist that cloth couldn't have come from an apron.
                            In our case it was the remnants of her apron, but the police didn't know that at the time.

                            We also know one of the pieces had been described as a bib, it turned out to be the wrong piece as it happens, but it isn't the only time Warren confused things.

                            This fits with the mortuary piece having been listed amongst her possessions
                            So you would mix evidence from two different crime scenes?

                            If Collard did that then why didn't he list the buttons & mustard tin?
                            You know why, but you can't admit it.

                            Either Collard couldn't mix evidence - which means the old piece of white apron he listed last was not the G.S. piece.
                            Or, he forgot the buttons & mustard tin with pawn tickets that he had in his pocket - which means his list is not complete so not as reliable as you insist.

                            Either way your argument crumbles.

                            The reason why the "1 Piece of old white apron" is listed last, I suggest, is because when the GS piece arrived, the remnant was pulled out of the clothes and fit with the GS piece brought to the mortuary by Phillips. When established what it was, a piece of apron not a neckerchief, it was placed back on the table, last.
                            Only after the post-mortem, sometime in the late afternoon, did Collard write his List.

                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              As we have seen with other aspects of the police evidence in this case from contables to senior officers some of which is unsafe this is another unsafe part, especially when you have the custody Sgt who books her in and releases her making no mention of her wearing an apron.
                              Henry Hutt was the Gaoler at Bishopsgate when Eddowes was released.

                              [Coroner] Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron?
                              [Hutt]- I did. I have seen the apron produced by the last witness, and to the best of my belief that is the one she was wearing when she left the station.



                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Henry Hutt was the Gaoler at Bishopsgate when Eddowes was released.

                                [Coroner] Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron?
                                [Hutt]- I did. I have seen the apron produced by the last witness, and to the best of my belief that is the one she was wearing when she left the station.


                                What a ridiculous statement by that officer he could have been shown any old white piece of apron and he would still say it was from the one she was wearing his evidence is not worth the paper it is written on

                                Can you not see now how I suggest the police were fitting the facts to suit a theory

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X