Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    No-one contests the fact Collard was present, the question is did he make the list at that time.

    At commencement of the undressing, if Dr Brown placed the victims hat on a table, removed the jacket placing beside the hat. Remove the Chintz skirt placing that beside the Jacket, then the bodice, the petticoat, the Alpaca skirt, etc. All items beside each other across the length of the table for ease of inspection.
    Collard could, at any time permitted by Dr Brown, then make his List of Possessions.

    Wouldn't that end up with the same results regarding Collards list?
    It is accepted that the body was taken to the mortuary and stripped soon after arrival

    Dr Brown "The clothes were taken off carefully"

    That is police procedure to remove clothes and make a list at the time, as they did with her possessions. Someone questioned why the other items taken posession of by Collard at the crime scene were not listed among her possessions. The answer is that they did not form part of the items taken from her at the mortuary and so there would have been no need to list them among her possessions.

    Becasue we have no direct evidence as to when the list was compiled we must draw a proper inference that the list was compiled at that time because "carefully" denotes a detailed examination of each item of clothing as is set out on the list and not simply cut off as you previoulsy suggested.

    It doesnt matter how you and others keep huffing and puffing about this issue there is no evidence to show that at the time the body was stripped she was found to be wearing an apron.

    Playing devils advocate to appease you and the others if you are suggesting the old white piece of apron described amongst her possessions had been the remains of her apron why was is not so described as an apron with piece missing was it because it was not the remains of her apron but simply a piece of old white apron she had in her possessions which is how the list describes it?


    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • How can you say there is "no evidence to show that at the time the body was stripped she was found to be wearing an apron", when Collard, who wrote the contentious list, actually said that he believed that she was wearing it outside her dress? Also Halse said at the undressing that he noticed "a portion of the apron she wore was missing". That's two witness statements that say she was wearing an apron. Both of these statements under oath.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
        How can you say there is "no evidence to show that at the time the body was stripped she was found to be wearing an apron", when Collard, who wrote the contentious list, actually said that he believed that she was wearing it outside her dress? Also Halse said at the undressing that he noticed "a portion of the apron she wore was missing". That's two witness statements that say she was wearing an apron. Both of these statements under oath.
        You need to re read Halse is statement which is ambiguos

        Halse was present when the body was stripped but at that time he would not have been aware of the GS piece having been found, or that it was alleged to have been cut by the killer. So there was no reason for him at the time to have specifically noticed a portion of her apron missing. His statement is another example of misplaced continuity. He doesnt refer to an apron she was wearing, he refers to a portion of the apron was missing. which we know was a portion matched to the GS piece but did not make up a full apron.

        You and others are so keen to accept the police evidence as read but it has been proved all throughout these murders that some is unsafe to rely on.

        Collard is unsure so you cannot rely on him to conclusively prove she was wearing an apron, if she had been wearing an apron it would have been clearly visible and would have appeared on the list of clothing she was wearing. You need to look at his testimony in detail and again by what he said he is trying to prop up the belief that the killer cut the Gs piece from an apron she was wearing.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk


        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
          That is police procedure to remove clothes and make a list at the time, as they did with her possessions.
          Thus may have been desirable, but I'm not sure how you can say this was procedure with certainty. It certainly didn't happen in earlier murders - in both Chapman and Nichols case the clothes were described while they were still on the bodies (subsequently being removed by mortuary staff before the PM). This was how Spratling discovered Polly's abdominal wounds, when itemising her undergarments.



          Comment


          • Trevor, you didn't previously say there was no "proof", you wrote "no evidence". I wrote that there is evidence, and demonstrated it. You now ask for "conclusive proof", and say that Halse doesn't refer to "an apron she was wearing", when he did clearly say "a portion of the apron she wore was missing". You seem to claim that the list, which is just a list and nothing more, is proof that she wasn't wearing an apron, when it says nothing of the sort, you are making an assumption, and the man who wrote that list made it clear under oath that he believed she was wearing the apron.

            Let us stop arguing, it is pointless. I, and many others will continue to refer to numerous statements from many people which suggest very strongly that she wore an apron. You know you can't change that. We fully understand that you will continue to say that the mountain of evidence is unsafe, and that a list of items produced by Collard proves she wasn't wearing an apron. We are filling up these pages over and over again with the same disagreements, and we all know that we won't change anything by arguing. Ripperology is much bigger than this one issue.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
              Trevor, you didn't previously say there was no "proof", you wrote "no evidence". I wrote that there is evidence, and demonstrated it. You now ask for "conclusive proof", and say that Halse doesn't refer to "an apron she was wearing", when he did clearly say "a portion of the apron she wore was missing". You seem to claim that the list, which is just a list and nothing more, is proof that she wasn't wearing an apron, when it says nothing of the sort, you are making an assumption, and the man who wrote that list made it clear under oath that he believed she was wearing the apron.

              Let us stop arguing, it is pointless. I, and many others will continue to refer to numerous statements from many people which suggest very strongly that she wore an apron. You know you can't change that. We fully understand that you will continue to say that the mountain of evidence is unsafe, and that a list of items produced by Collard proves she wasn't wearing an apron. We are filling up these pages over and over again with the same disagreements, and we all know that we won't change anything by arguing. Ripperology is much bigger than this one issue.
              You are right arguing is pointless but this issue is just one on many contentious issues with the murders that some will not accept because they are so immersed in the old accpted theories and languish in the belief that all the police officers told the truth and nothing but the truth, and if that is there belief then thet might as well beleive that elephants can fly.

              i am not going to argue any further I have made my point and backed up my belief. to be totally honest i dont give a rats arse whether the panel of resident numpties agree or not.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • You mean to say Collard stood by and watched the undressing before making a list.Why wait? I am not impressed by the small number that,from memory,says she was wearing an apron.What of all the others that made no comment.It appears that Collard was tasked with making a list.The fact that so many items were listed,suggests a serious approach by Collard to do the job correctly,and at the earliest opportunity.A question I have asked before.How did she carry the Items listed as possessions.Probably in her pockets?So who searched the pockets?Not likely the one that removed the clothing,more likely Collard,and the contents are listed after the clothes,as one would expect.So as I see it,Collard oversaw and listed the clothes as they were removed,then himself searched the pockets,and I cannot visualise him hanging around doing nothing,thereby putting himself in a position where he would have to rely on memory.
                When deciding on what and when to put a list together,I would expect Collard,an inspector,to apply plice policy.That is to get things down on paper as soon as possible.Now when was the first opportunity Collard had?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  You need to re read Halse is statement which is ambiguos

                  Halse was present when the body was stripped but at that time he would not have been aware of the GS piece having been found, or that it was alleged to have been cut by the killer. So there was no reason for him at the time to have specifically noticed a portion of her apron missing. His statement is another example of misplaced continuity. He doesnt refer to an apron she was wearing, he refers to a portion of the apron was missing. which we know was a portion matched to the GS piece but did not make up a full apron.

                  You and others are so keen to accept the police evidence as read but it has been proved all throughout these murders that some is unsafe to rely on.

                  Collard is unsure so you cannot rely on him to conclusively prove she was wearing an apron, if she had been wearing an apron it would have been clearly visible and would have appeared on the list of clothing she was wearing. You need to look at his testimony in detail and again by what he said he is trying to prop up the belief that the killer cut the Gs piece from an apron she was wearing.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  You remind me of The Black Knight in Monty Python’s The Holy Grail. He’s on the ground with no arms and legs shouting “come back you coward and fight like a man.”

                  Halse said that there was a piece missing. That utterly and completely destroys your theory on its own. Nothing else is required. This is an absolutely game over clincher. Disputing this point is the definition of desperation.

                  You keep stating your opinion as if it’s a fact and it’s something that you do all of the time. You think that because you’re an ex-police officer then your opinion should automatically be accepted as fact. You keep stating that Collard wrote his list as the body was being stripped. This is conjecture which may or may not be true (as Jeff and Wickerman have pointed out numerous times) but as long as there are plausible alternatives (and there are) then it cannot be stated as a fact. There’s nothing difficult about this concept but you refuse to accept it.

                  Remember your Sherlock Holmes “When you eliminate the impossible…..” So is it ‘impossible’ (and I mean IMPOSSIBLE) that the body might have been stripped (while Collard was there) and the clothes and possessions put into some kind of pile from which he then did his list? No, it’s not ‘impossible’ therefore we cannot eliminate it. Therefore we cannot assume that Collard made the list as the body was stripped. You simply WANT it to be the case I’m afraid.

                  The piece of apron found in Goulston Street 100% certainly came from the mortuary piece. It could only have gotten to the GS doorway by being carried by the killer. I know that you’re desperation to overturn this idea (not because you believe it to have been false but because you want to be the one that’s found something new) but you haven’t and you won’t because we know for a fact that it’s what happened.

                  We have a witness saying that there was a piece missing, a Doctor matching up the pieces and witness stating that Catherine was wearing an apron when they’d seen her less than 24 hours earlier.

                  Game over. Or to be more accurate….the game never existed in the first place.
                  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

                    You are right arguing is pointless but this issue is just one on many contentious issues with the murders that some will not accept because they are so immersed in the old accpted theories and languish in the belief that all the police officers told the truth and nothing but the truth, and if that is there belief then thet might as well beleive that elephants can fly.

                    i am not going to argue any further I have made my point and backed up my belief. to be totally honest i dont give a rats arse whether the panel of resident numpties agree or not.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Everyone else is a numpty but Inspector Clouseau cannot be wrong.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by harry View Post
                      I am not impressed by the small number that,from memory,says she was wearing an apron.
                      Just out of interest, what number of witnesses would it take to impress you?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        You are right arguing is pointless but this issue is just one on many contentious issues with the murders that some will not accept because they are so immersed in the old accpted theories and languish in the belief that all the police officers told the truth and nothing but the truth, and if that is there belief then thet might as well beleive that elephants can fly.
                        Should anyone believe the word of a policeman when he claims that you shouldn't believe the word of a policeman?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                          Should anyone believe the word of a policeman when he claims that you shouldn't believe the word of a policeman?
                          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

                            [B]It is accepted that the body was taken to the mortuary and stripped soon after arrival

                            Dr Brown "The clothes were taken off carefully"

                            That is police procedure to remove clothes and make a list at the time, as they did with her possessions...
                            You know that for sure?
                            I don't think you even know police procedure the Met. followed in 1888, but this was the City police, not the Met.

                            Someone questioned why the other items taken posession of by Collard at the crime scene were not listed among her possessions. The answer is that they did not form part of the items taken from her at the mortuary and so there would have been no need to list them among her possessions.
                            It wasn't a question Trevor, it was an observation.
                            Items of evidence picked up at the crime scene are kept separate from items which were clearly her possessions.
                            The police could not know for sure if the killer, or someone else, had dropped those items found in Mitre Square - so they had to be kept separate - THAT is the reason (your 'answer').

                            Becasue we have no direct evidence as to when the list was compiled we must draw a proper inference that the list was compiled at that time because "carefully" denotes a detailed examination of each item of clothing as is set out on the list and not simply cut off as you previoulsy suggested.
                            Isn't the focus of the autopsy to assess the wounds, and the overall state of the body?
                            You don't think he would need to remove the clothes 'carefully', in order to avoid loosing any organs from the open abdomen?
                            How do you suggest they do that, just imagine a body on its back with the abdomen sliced from breastbone to pubes. How do you get the clothes off, you can't roll it over or sit it upright.

                            Just use your imagination, too much turning to the left or right and organs may spill out all over the floor.
                            You think 'carefully' shows concern for the clothes, yet the focus is retaining the evidence of the body, the clothes are of secondary concern.


                            Regards, Jon S.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              You know that for sure?
                              I don't think you even know police procedure the Met. followed in 1888, but this was the City police, not the Met

                              I doesnt matter if it were King Kong who removed the clothes the list cleary shows the body ewas stripped in order og the clithing starting at the top and working down. Brown woud not say carefully if the were simply cut off and dumped in a pile

                              Isn't the focus of the autopsy to assess the wounds, and the overall state of the body?
                              You don't think he would need to remove the clothes 'carefully', in order to avoid loosing any organs from the open abdomen?
                              How do you suggest they do that, just imagine a body on its back with the abdomen sliced from breastbone to pubes. How do you get the clothes off, you can't roll it over or sit it upright.

                              And to examine the clothing which cleary they did as the list tells us

                              Just use your imagination, too much turning to the left or right and organs may spill out all over the floor.
                              You think 'carefully' shows concern for the clothes, yet the focus is retaining the evidence of the body, the clothes are of secondary concern.

                              I am and I am relating to procedures I personally was invloved in in stripping victims at mortuaries
                              You like the others only see what you want to see and reject out of hand anything that goes against what you want to belive I am done here now

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • I am and I am relating to procedures I personally was invloved in in stripping victims at mortuaries
                                In 19th century Whitechapel?

                                Would a police officer in 2021 have allowed 20 or 30 club members to have tramped around Dutfield’s Yard?

                                Would a police officer in 2021 have rubbed out the graffito?

                                Would a modern day mortuary have employed random paupers?

                                As you’ve been told Trevor we can’t assume that they would have been as rigorous about procedures as the modern day police. Why is this an issue for you?
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-03-2021, 03:18 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X