Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

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a full apron and an explanation as to how she could have simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that had originally made up a full apron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

And we're back to "two pieces don't make a whole, but there's not more than two pieces".

Yes, Trevor, you are saying there is at least a third piece. You even described it being cut in half, then one of those halves cut in half again, with one of the latter found in G.S. and the other found in Mitre Square. The missing half of an apron you suggest was discarded. That's 3 pieces. That's how maths work.

Look, here's you, your post, describing what you're talking about (post 993). Here, you even describe a minimum of three pieces!

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, [me, ok, two pieces] this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, .... [ and then there were three!]

So there are three pieces at the very least, one of them is half an apron. Now you suggest we don't know what happened to one of the first halves of the apron, so it could have been cut into many pieces, or not, but at the very least there are 3 pieces required to make up the whole apron. And one of the first halves is missing. So half the apron is missing.

This is because what was recovered, you are claiming, is just the latter two pieces, here suggested to be half an apron cut roughly in half again. So, the two pieces, roughly a quarter of an apron each, is what was recovered - in your theory.

So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

Yet your theory also then goes on to suggest that multiple police officers decide to say she was wearing this 1/2 apron. That's irrational, and the bits you're cobbling together to try and justify one statement end up making your other statements fall apart. That is what a refuted theory looks like, it just keeps self destructing.

Moreover, they show everything they have a the inquest (as per Wickerman's post), and nobody wonders how she could be wearing half an apron. It's an inquest, people are asking questions. One of the pieces they found was in a different location than the body. The police are telling everyone she was wearing the apron, which if they accepted that, means everyone would expect the apron to be, you know, wearable. But half an apron is not wearable. Yes nobody asks where the other half it? Another indication the theory is flawed. It leads to predictions of information that should be found - we should see questions about the half an apron that is clearly not there, but nobody bats an eye, people ask to see the whole of it, are shown what they have, and don't say "where's the rest"? Clearly, they were shown the whole apron, refuting your idea.

Collard, making his list, knowing that what they have is a quarter of an apron, also seems fine to say she was apparently wearing it. An irrational answer if we hold your theory to be true, or he's giving a rational answer because what he saw was the majority of a whole apron - the theory is what is wrong.

It doesn't work. The theory, while worth exploring, does not withstand examination by the evidence.


- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

And we're back to "two pieces don't make a whole, but there's not more than two pieces".

Yes, Trevor, you are saying there is at least a third piece. You even described it being cut in half, then one of those halves cut in half again, with one of the latter found in G.S. and the other found in Mitre Square. The missing half of an apron you suggest was discarded. That's 3 pieces. That's how maths work.

Look, here's you, your post, describing what you're talking about (post 993). Here, you even describe a minimum of three pieces!

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, [me, ok, two pieces] this leaves two halves she the disposes/Uses one half, she then cuts the remaining half into two pieces retaining both, .... [ and then there were three!]

So there are three pieces at the very least, one of them is half an apron. Now you suggest we don't know what happened to one of the first halves of the apron, so it could have been cut into many pieces, or not, but at the very least there are 3 pieces required to make up the whole apron. And one of the first halves is missing. So half the apron is missing.

This is because what was recovered, you are claiming, is just the latter two pieces, here suggested to be half an apron cut roughly in half again. So, the two pieces, roughly a quarter of an apron each, is what was recovered - in your theory.

So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

Yet your theory also then goes on to suggest that multiple police officers decide to say she was wearing this 1/2 apron. That's irrational, and the bits you're cobbling together to try and justify one statement end up making your other statements fall apart. That is what a refuted theory looks like, it just keeps self destructing.

Moreover, they show everything they have a the inquest (as per Wickerman's post), and nobody wonders how she could be wearing half an apron. It's an inquest, people are asking questions. One of the pieces they found was in a different location than the body. The police are telling everyone she was wearing the apron, which if they accepted that, means everyone would expect the apron to be, you know, wearable. But half an apron is not wearable. Yes nobody asks where the other half it? Another indication the theory is flawed. It leads to predictions of information that should be found - we should see questions about the half an apron that is clearly not there, but nobody bats an eye, people ask to see the whole of it, are shown what they have, and don't say "where's the rest"? Clearly, they were shown the whole apron, refuting your idea.

Collard, making his list, knowing that what they have is a quarter of an apron, also seems fine to say she was apparently wearing it. An irrational answer if we hold your theory to be true, or he's giving a rational answer because what he saw was the majority of a whole apron - the theory is what is wrong.

It doesn't work. The theory, while worth exploring, does not withstand examination by the evidence.


- Jeff

What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Of course the two pieces found could make up a whole apron. And how they are described is perfectly capable of describing such a situation. People have presented various very plausible suggestions about how the apron could have been cut to fit the descriptions given and, when put back together, still form a complete apron. It's been presented in the past a few times, but you play the "speculation" card, and then, without batting an eye, speculate it was done in a way that creates irrationality all over the place.

What bit of creating irrational scenarios do you not understand constitutes refutation of a theory?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

There was no piece missing. We know this for a fact. Therefore you’re explanation about the apron is wrong.

Simple.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What bit do you not understand she had two pieces of apron the gs piece and the mortuary piece they could not have made up a full apron

I really wish that you’d stop stating this piece of conjecture on your part as if it’s a fact. It’s not.

so those two pieces had to have come from a full apron at some time in the past she could have cut them from an old apron in the past and kept them in her possessions for whatever purpose

A creation to try and keep a sinking theory afloat.

we know the gs and mortuary pieces matched but how they were described they could not have made up a full apron

Yes they could.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again Trevor…….it’s very simply…..as Jeff says…….no one mentions her apron being incomplete. That nails it. Your theory is a dead theory. It’s a non-theory. The Goulston Street piece was treated a a clue so any other missing piece would also have been treated as a potential clue. But no mention is made of it. No search was made for it. Why? Because it didn’t exist. Because the Goulston Street piece and the Mortuary piece when matched together made up a complete apron. The same apron that numerous witnesses including police officers said that she was wearing on the night of her death. None of whom mentioned a big chunk being missing!

Why won’t you just give this one up Trevor. It’s a long lost cause and no matter how many times you move the goalposts or commit offences to logic and reason it will remain a lost cause.

[Wickerman]

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

So you didn't say the apron comprised of more than two pieces, only that the two pieces in evidence did not make a complete apron?
A Rose by any other name?

Yet, the testimony I posted said the apron was produced (in court) in two pieces.
Not that there were two pieces of an apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I’m no expert in sewing to put it mildly and I tend to assume that neither was Dr Brown, but there are the two terms ‘hem’ and ‘seam.’


“In context|sewing|lang=en terms the difference between seam and hem

is that seam is (sewing) a folded back and stitched piece of fabric; especially, the stitching that joins two or more pieces of fabric while hem is (sewing) the border of an article of clothing doubled back and stitched together to finish the edge and prevent it from fraying.”

Now I don’t know what everyone else thinks but these two sound very similar to me. So if Catherine’s apron had a hem down the edge where the material had been folded over and sown either to prevent it fraying or maybe to make it look tidier because it had already begun to fray, surely the GS piece could have been made by two horizontal cuts across the hem and one vertical one. And Brown matched them up by the 2 cuts across the hem (which he understandably called a seam?)

[etenguy]

I’m no expert in sewing to put it mildly and I tend to assume that neither was Dr Brown, but there are the two terms ‘hem’ and ‘seam.’


“In context|sewing|lang=en terms the difference between seam and hem

is that seam is (sewing) a folded back and stitched piece of fabric; especially, the stitching that joins two or more pieces of fabric while hem is (sewing) the border of an article of clothing doubled back and stitched together to finish the edge and prevent it from fraying.”

Now I don’t know what everyone else thinks but these two sound very similar to me. So if Catherine’s apron had a hem down the edge where the material had been folded over and sown either to prevent it fraying or maybe to make it look tidier because it had already begun to fray, surely the GS piece could have been made by two horizontal cuts across the hem and one vertical one. And Brown matched them up by the 2 cuts across the hem (which he understandably called a seam?)

Hi Herlock

In Doctor Brown's report he states

the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding.

I read 'seams of the borders' to mean the hems as you suggest, though it could be read differently. I have long had a picture in my mind of the apron portion being a corner piece of the apron, but I don't think that is stated anywhere and it could well have been cut in the way you describe.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

In Doctor Brown's report he states



I read 'seams of the borders' to mean the hems as you suggest, though it could be read differently. I have long had a picture in my mind of the apron portion being a corner piece of the apron, but I don't think that is stated anywhere and it could well have been cut in the way you describe.

Hi Eten,

I don’t think that we can be anything like confident that Dr Brown would have been able to distinguish between a hem and a seam when a hem is part that had been folded over and sown. This could have been how the apron was originally made or Catherine herself might have performed some repairs. Brown even mentions that repairs had taken place. In the absence of a photograph we can only try and interpret from what we have. Trevor assumes that his explanation is the only one and so treats it as a fact. I don’t think that this is the case.

Added to this Trevor’s suggestion assumes a missing piece which is not mentioned by anyone. As the Goulston Street piece was treated as evidence surely a missing piece would have been considered in the same way and therefore a search would have been undertaken to try and recover it if the killer had discarded it like the GSP. There’s no mention of any search.

So we have another explanation which requires no missing piece. It has to be far more likely.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten,

Added to this Trevor’s suggestion assumes a missing piece which is not mentioned by anyone. As the Goulston Street piece was treated as evidence surely a missing piece would have been considered in the same way and therefore a search would have been undertaken to try and recover it if the killer had discarded it like the GSP. There’s no mention of any search.

So we have another explanation which requires no missing piece. It has to be far more likely.

Hi Herlock

I have read some of Trevor's posts about how many pieces the apron was divided into, but I am unsure I fully understand the argument he makes. I am in the mainstream here and can see no reason to conclude the apron was divided into more than two pieces.

[Trevor Marriott]

So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.

Exactly

If I am right there was ever only two pieces at the time she was killed. The mortuary piece and the Gs piece. These I say were the remains of an old white apron which had been in her possesion at some time before she was killed and had been cut up. The two pieces referred to were all that remained and were left in her possession for whatever purpose.

The Gs and the mortuary pieces did not make up, and could not have made a full apron. There was no third or fourth pieces of missing apron relative to her murder only the two we know about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
So you are claiming the police were only in possession of about 1/2 an apron.
Exactly

If I am right there was ever only two pieces at the time she was killed. The mortuary piece and the Gs piece. These I say were the remains of an old white apron which had been in her possesion at some time before she was killed and had been cut up. The two pieces referred to were all that remained and were left in her possession for whatever purpose.

The Gs and the mortuary pieces did not make up, and could not have made a full apron. There was no third or fourth pieces of missing apron relative to her murder only the two we know about.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So how could they have decided to all conspire to perjure themselves by claiming she was wearing it? They only had 1/2 an apron, something unwearable, but they consistently testify that she was actually wearing it. And the doss house owner also testifies she was wearing an apron that day.

How can there not be even a hint of concern by those at the inquest that the police are showing them 1/2 an apron, saying she was wearing it, and yet not indicating they are looking for the rest of it? Why does nobody ask how she could possibly wear 1/2 an apron, and so how can they be sure the 1/2 they have is the one she was wearing? Should they be looking for the one she was wearing? Do they think JtR dropped the other 1/2 somewhere? etc.

But what do we get? Crickets.

Because the two pieces, when shown at the inquest, didn't create any of those types of concerns because the two pieces made up a whole apron.

And you can repeat all you want that you've presented your explanations, but that won't make them true, even if you say them three times and tap your heels together. Any explanation that starts off with the apron being unwearable, as you claim it was, is an explanation that is refuted by the evidence.

- Jeff

[harry]

Wickerman,
Why should you be surprised at my interest in court trivia?.Well one reason is to obtain a sound knowledge.The other is for when you and people like Jeff make false claims.You both declared that shorthand recorders were not used in courts.I have put you right.You now squirm and try to convey the impression that it didn't apply to Coroners courts,and that somehow the recordings in the Eddowes case prove records in shorthand,or lack of,prove a point.I do not know how the recordings in the Eddowes case were taken,and neither does any one else.It doesn't matter.The record that exists,and which I referred to,is the only source,outside of newspapers,that I know.I have told you where it can be found.It was from notes taken by the Coroner himself.If you wish to suggest that newspaper reports are superiour to the Coroner's notes,be my guest.I will back the Coroner,and it differs from the information that is supplied by the newspapers.
Only two pieces of apron were matched,and from the coroner's notes the matching was by the Hem and the seams.Which will prove only that the two pieces COULD be from the same apron,not WERE,and there is no indication that the court did declare they were from the same apron.
Now there are and were dozens of different courts.It was not and is not a practice of the courts to employ their own shorthand writers.The Public Service would employ a pool of such writers,and on application a writer would be seconded for the time needed.If the pool did not have a suitable person,then an outside source could be contracted.The same applied/applies to interpreters.Then there were those that took shorthand notes.
Thats my trivia Jon.

[Wickerman]

The source you provided was only concerned with Q.C., not local inquests.
What I do know is, had you taken the time to research the subject you would have arrived at the same explanation I gave you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet, the testimony I posted said the apron was produced (in court) in two pieces.

Not that there were two pieces of an apron.

There was no apron produced in court just reference to the two pieces

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk