Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    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?
    Because it is clear that the city police did things different from the Met Police

    And I mention one final thing seeing as this is being used to prop up the belief that she was wearing an apron, and this relates to Halses inquest testimony which i have I say again was days after the murder and why he at the time out of all that was going on remebered a piece of apron god knows

    In his testimony he uses the term "I saw a portion of the apron was missing" he makes no mention of her wearing that apron, furthermore the only portion that was visble at the mortuary was the portion described as being in her possessions which we know had a piece cut from it, and why he noticed this mortuary piece in any event amazes me because at that time it was totally insignificant

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Sorry, Trevor, you keep repeating Halse's statement wrongly, because it helps your argument. He noticed "that a portion of the apron she wore was missing" - The Times, 12th October 1888.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

        Hi Harry,

        Could you please post the official statement where it says Collard made the list while the clothes were being removed? Not just that he made a list of her clothes, but where it specifically states he did it as the clothes were being removed. All I see on the version of the inquest testimony here on the site is "...It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut." And all that says is that he was there while Mr. Davis stripped the body. And that he has a list of the clothing. It doesn't say, or even imply, he made the list while the clothes were being taken off, and the list could very well have been made after the body was fully stripped. If he is there to observe the removal of the evidence, he would be wanting to see each garment while on the body, so there is every reason to suspect he made the list after all the clothes have been removed and the actual medical examination, in which he could not contribute, began. And that means, there is no reason to assert the order of the items on the list reflect the order in which they were removed. And we have not even considered the possibility that itemizing all of her clothing was not decided upon until the piece found in GS was brought to the mortuary for comparison. If so, that more than suggests he may have started on the list at that point, and adds the apron piece after the doctors have finished their examination of it.

        There are multiple people, some of whom knew Eddowes for over 7 years (so no mistaken identity), all telling us she was wearing an apron. Nothing in the documents tell us the list was made as each item came off, so the list is not evidence of the order the items were removed, that is only Trevor's opinion, it's not a fact.

        - Jeff
        If the clothes were indeed meticulously logged in the order that they were removed from the body as Trevor suggests, surely the brown lindsay bodice with black velvet collar and brown buttons down the front would have been listed BEFORE the man's white vest with matching buttons, as it would have been worn OVER the vest?

        I find it hard to imagine a woman choosing to wear a vest over the top of a bodice with collar etc....

        FWIW I think Wick's suggestion that the clothes were carefully laid out on a table or bench is a possibility.





        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Because it is clear that the city police did things different from the Met Police

          And I mention one final thing seeing as this is being used to prop up the belief that she was wearing an apron, and this relates to Halses inquest testimony which i have I say again was days after the murder and why he at the time out of all that was going on remebered a piece of apron god knows

          In his testimony he uses the term "I saw a portion of the apron was missing" he makes no mention of her wearing that apron, furthermore the only portion that was visble at the mortuary was the portion described as being in her possessions which we know had a piece cut from it, and why he noticed this mortuary piece in any event amazes me because at that time it was totally insignificant

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          No one needs to use anything to ‘prop up’ the ‘belief’ that she was wearing an apron Trevor because it’s a FACT proven beyond all doubt and only you appear to question it which you do because you simply cannot bring yourself to admit that you are wrong on this one. Which you are. 100% wrong. The sea is wet, London is the capital of England, 1 + 1 = 2 and Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron the night that she was killed.
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



          "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

          ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

            If the clothes were indeed meticulously logged in the order that they were removed from the body as Trevor suggests, surely the brown lindsay bodice with black velvet collar and brown buttons down the front would have been listed BEFORE the man's white vest with matching buttons, as it would have been worn OVER the vest?

            I find it hard to imagine a woman choosing to wear a vest over the top of a bodice with collar etc....

            FWIW I think Wick's suggestion that the clothes were carefully laid out on a table or bench is a possibility.




            So does every reasonable person Ms D
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

            ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

            Comment


            • . Because it is clear that the city police did things different from the Met Police
              And what also is clear to everyone but yourself Trevor is that the Victorian Police didn’t have the same knowledge of the importance of how to handle evidence and things like crime scene preservation that the police have today. They also weren’t as strict in adhering to best practices. The same guidelines that exist today just weren’t in place so we can’t say “well they couldn’t have done that because it’s not the procedure that we use.” So unless you can find a statement from Collard saying “I made a list of the clothes and possessions as they were being removed from the body,” (and you can’t) then you can’t just conveniently assume it. The possibility exists (and it’s completely plausible) that the body was stripped and the items were placed onto a table from which Collard made a list.

              And although Collard made the list I’ll ask this: can we be certain that another officer didn’t help him by going through the items, describing them and with Collard just writing down what the other officer/person said?
              Regards

              Sir Herlock Sholmes



              "The most confused you will ever get is when you try to convince your heart and spirit of something your mind knows is a lie.”

              ”The absence of doubt is not necessarily a sign of the presence of truth.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                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
                Your projecting again Trevor.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                  If the clothes were indeed meticulously logged in the order that they were removed from the body as Trevor suggests, surely the brown lindsay bodice with black velvet collar and brown buttons down the front would have been listed BEFORE the man's white vest with matching buttons, as it would have been worn OVER the vest?

                  I find it hard to imagine a woman choosing to wear a vest over the top of a bodice with collar etc....

                  FWIW I think Wick's suggestion that the clothes were carefully laid out on a table or bench is a possibility.




                  Hi Ms Diddles,

                  Yes, good point. The order of the items on the list even when not considering the apron, do not really conform the order they would have been removed. That also points to the list being composed after the body had been fully stripped, and puts the lie to the hypothesis the list was made during the process of clothing removal. And yes, that would be consistent with Wickerman's table/bench suggestion.

                  Trevor will just argue that it's an assumption she wore the vest underneath, of course, while simultaneously arguing it's a fact the list was made the way he assumes.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                    And although Collard made the list I’ll ask this: can we be certain that another officer didn’t help him by going through the items, describing them and with Collard just writing down what the other officer/person said?
                    That's what took place in Annie Chapman's case - Sgt Badham making notes as Sgt Thicke described the body and clothing (with a pair of women assisting with the clothing). Except that the clothing wasn't removed at that time, but later.

                    Also, as I posted earlier, Spratling discovered Polly's mutilations when he lifted her skirts in order to describe her undergarments. So clothing still on the body.

                    Whether the list was made before, during or after removal, it's pretty certain that Eddowes' clothing had been removed by 03:45 as that is the time Foster made his mortuary sketch of her wounds.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                      Sorry, Trevor, you keep repeating Halse's statement wrongly, because it helps your argument. He noticed "that a portion of the apron she wore was missing" - The Times, 12th October 1888.
                      I am not wrong read his official inquest testimony !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ms Diddles View Post

                        If the clothes were indeed meticulously logged in the order that they were removed from the body as Trevor suggests, surely the brown lindsay bodice with black velvet collar and brown buttons down the front would have been listed BEFORE the man's white vest with matching buttons, as it would have been worn OVER the vest?

                        I find it hard to imagine a woman choosing to wear a vest over the top of a bodice with collar etc....
                        But it wasnt a vest in the true sense and as we imagine. Since when do vests have pockets in them and buttons down the front I would imagine the person compiling the list was not that familiar with womens clothing.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk





                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But it wasnt a vest in the true sense and as we imagine. Since when do vests have pockets in them and buttons down the front I would imagine the person compiling the list was not that familiar with womens clothing.
                          It was a man's waistcoat

                          Comment


                          • Trevor, which list of clothing and belongings are you using?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              And although Collard made the list I’ll ask this: can we be certain that another officer didn’t help him by going through the items, describing them and with Collard just writing down what the other officer/person said?
                              For one I agree with you, but that still doesnt detract from the list. and the order of the clothes as taken from the body, and before I forget the most important part the absence of any evidence to show she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                                Trevor, which lost of clothing and belongings are you using?
                                The official list from the inquest

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X