The fact that Collard made his statement on oath means that he honestly believed it. It was "a portion" because we know it was cut. He says "apparently wearing" because he wasn't present when it was removed, and therefore had to accept the word of others present at the time. He was being honest. He therefore said exactly what he should have said under the circumstances. If he says on oath that she was "apparently wearing" the apron, it is quite ludicrous to suggest that his list proves that she wasn't wearing it. He said that he believed that she was wearing it. So your comment "if she had been wearing an apron" is a non-starter.
I don't have a theory or a book to defend, so I don't feel obliged to argue for no purpose.
I don't have a theory or a book to defend, so I don't feel obliged to argue for no purpose.
Comment