Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    As for the shorthand, we don't have those preserved, and having a short hand set of recordings doesn't change the fact we only have the long hand ones, and those were signed then and there. So they may have had them at one time, but we only have the ones we have. Still, good to know.

    - Jeff
    I had to wonder if this was a case of using a newspaper report to criticize newspaper reports?
    Isn't it strange how suddenly a press report can be accepted as reliable.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Trevor, I remain confused by your explanation, and I really wish to understand it. You quote Smith as saying that the first discovery was that about one half of the apron was missing, then you draw a diagram to explain this, by illustrating that three quarters of the apron was missing. That is surely wrong. How could she be "apparently wearing" about one quarter of an apron?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
        Trevor, I remain confused by your explanation, and I really wish to understand it. You quote Smith as saying that the first discovery was that about one half of the apron was missing, then you draw a diagram to explain this, by illustrating that three quarters of the apron was missing. That is surely wrong. How could she be "apparently wearing" about one quarter of an apron?
        Ok lets asssume that at some time there was an old white full apron which had been in the possesion of Eddowes being old and unwearable she cuts it into two pieces down the centre, this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, the remaining pieces would then show it had been cut down the centre and would then match the GS piece as was described and would be a piece with a string attached creating half of an apron

        As to Smith I have used this examaple to explain his so called observation, which may or may not be totally reliable bearing in mind the time it was written in 1910

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          Ok lets asssume that at some time there was an old white full apron which had been in the possesion of Eddowes being old and unwearable she cuts it into two pieces down the centre, this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, the remaining pieces would then show it had been cut down the centre and would then match the GS piece as was described and would be a piece with a string attached creating half of an apron

          As to Smith I have used this examaple to explain his so called observation, which may or may not be totally reliable bearing in mind the time it was written in 1910

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Why is your conjecture correct? Why does the cut have to have been through the waistband as you claim?
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • .
            “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin
            Are you assuming that the use of the word ‘corner’ means that it was only a corner piece? Whereas it appears that he was talking about the corner of the apron being the location of the blood spots.
            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

              Why is your conjecture correct? Why does the cut have to have been through the waistband as you claim?
              well if you are cutting and apron into 4 pieces where would you start to make the first cut down the middle from the top, the top being the waist band i would suggest thus creating two halves and then cutting again to make 4 pieces two of those pieces would match via the seams and the borders and each of the tops would each have a string attached. Simple to understand

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                Are you assuming that the use of the word ‘corner’ means that it was only a corner piece? Whereas it appears that he was talking about the corner of the apron being the location of the blood spots.
                he says a corner piece with a string attached

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  well if you are cutting and apron into 4 pieces where would you start to make the first cut down the middle from the top, the top being the waist band i would suggest thus creating two halves and then cutting again to make 4 pieces two of those pieces would match via the seams and the borders and each of the tops would each have a string attached. Simple to understand

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  So you are deliberately making this 4 pieces. My description and sketch shows 2 pieces. Because there were only 2 pieces. Simple to understand.
                  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

                    he says a corner piece with a string attached

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it was only a corner piece. It means that the corner was where the blood was found.
                    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

                      So you are deliberately making this 4 pieces. My description and sketch shows 2 pieces. Because there were only 2 pieces. Simple to understand.
                      There was only two pieces as we know but if they didnt make up a full apron then there has to be an explantion as to what happened to the rest of the apron.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                        Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it was only a corner piece. It means that the corner was where the blood was found.
                        read it again "It was a corner piece with a string attached"

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Thank you, Trevor, I now understand your point of view. I was confused by your introduction of Smith and his "half an apron", which would have made the Goulston Street portion all or part of the other half, which I knew you hadn't previously been suggesting.

                          I remain a doubter, because of the numerous references to her wearing an apron, and the apparent acceptance by the police that the new witnesses were valid because their sighting was of a woman in a white apron etc. But thank you for explaining your viewpoint.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            There was only two pieces as we know but if they didnt make up a full apron then there has to be an explantion as to what happened to the rest of the apron.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            But there’s no evidence that it didn’t make up a full piece. No one mentions any part of the apron being missing which they would have done if there was a piece missing. There was no piece missing. You’re just making this up to suit your theory.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                            Comment


                            • Trevor knows that in any investigation you let the evidence speak. From the evidence you draw conclusions, from the conclusions you create a theory.
                              There is no evidence the apron was divided up in to more than two pieces, in fact specifically 'two' pieces are mentioned.

                              Trevor has speculated that the apron could have been divided in to more than two pieces, and chooses to view all the evidence to fit that interpretation. This is an example of making the evidence fit the theory whereas a legitimate investigation derives theory from the evidence.

                              The apron was in two pieces.

                              Testimony of PC Robinson.
                              Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron.
                              Robinson - Yes, she was.
                              Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
                              Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
                              Times, 12 Oct.


                              When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
                              Morning Post, 12 Oct.

                              She was wearing an apron.
                              The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it. The ghastly reminder of the crime quite upset Mrs. Phillips, the deceased's daughter, who sobbed bitterly on seeing the blood-smeared rag.

                              Star, 11 Oct.

                              Regardless of the variety in coverage, no-one in the courtroom saw more than two pieces of apron.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                                Trevor knows that in any investigation you let the evidence speak. From the evidence you draw conclusions, from the conclusions you create a theory.
                                There is no evidence the apron was divided up in to more than two pieces, in fact specifically 'two' pieces are mentioned.

                                Trevor has speculated that the apron could have been divided in to more than two pieces, and chooses to view all the evidence to fit that interpretation. This is an example of making the evidence fit the theory whereas a legitimate investigation derives theory from the evidence.

                                The apron was in two pieces.

                                Testimony of PC Robinson.
                                Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron.
                                Robinson - Yes, she was.
                                Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it?
                                Robinson - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.
                                Times, 12 Oct.


                                When he last saw her in the police cell at 8.50 p.m. on the Saturday evening he noticed she was wearing the apron produced (in two pieces).
                                Morning Post, 12 Oct.

                                She was wearing an apron.
                                The apron was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it. The ghastly reminder of the crime quite upset Mrs. Phillips, the deceased's daughter, who sobbed bitterly on seeing the blood-smeared rag.

                                Star, 11 Oct.

                                Regardless of the variety in coverage, no-one in the courtroom saw more than two pieces of apron.
                                I am not suggesting there was more than 2 pieces what I am saying is that as there were only two pieces which when matched did not make up a full apron
                                what I do offer is an explanation for the two pieces not making up a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron

                                do you not accept that how the two pieces were matched and described they could not have made a full apron which then negates the belief that she was wearing one

                                its not rocket science to understand you have to step back an re asses the validity of what I have postulated

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X