Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely. And really, whether she was wearing the apron or not, finding part at the crime scene and another in GS is all they needed to have reason to consider it possible JtR was the one to transport it. Trevor has yet to explain how the police could possibly think fudging the evidence could help them.

It's words that he throws out because as long as one doesn't think about it it sounds good. But the moment one stops to consider what it is he suggests it quickly becomes apparent that it is irrational.

And in return, all we get as further clarification is bluster and more dodging of the question. I'm expecting another loud proclamation of how he's explain it all before (he hasn't, he's only repeated the same things without explanation) and how everyone is blinkered (ironic coming from someone who can't seem to see people saying she was wearing an apron) with a few insults thrown in for good measure (numpty seems to be his current favourite, yet I'm hoping he has a new one so at least those are fresh). Generally, when he's backed into a corner that's the case. And, after a while, he'll be back repeating the same thing all over again hoping everyone has forgotten.

- Jeff

Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What question is this? Have you found something new because every single point that you’ve made has be refuted. With evidence, reason. Logic and sense (and a noticeable lack of bias and the desire to defend a theory at all costs)

[Wickerman]

Your interpretation of the testimony leaves a lot to be desired

you nor anyone else cannot explain how the two pieces as decsribed and as shown in my diagram could have made up a full apron.

This is evidnce you choose to ignore "Dr Brown-I have seen a portion on an apron produced by Dr Phillips" Note a portion not two pieces making up an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.

Another plausible interpretation.

[Wickerman]

The coroners court is part of the Justice system.It ,along with law enforcement bodies,enquire into suspected offences,of which murder is one.The evidence gained is used to bring offenders to court.Added to that is the Court system,and the prison system,the three being collectively reffered to as the Justice system.The 'coroners court,like tribunals,are individual parts of the Justice system.The chairman of a tribunal,is akin to a Coroner.They hear evidence,and make recomendations,for use of a better word.Even I,with my limited education and knowledge understands this,and of course I am writing this in a very amateur fashion,the subject as a whole being such,that even lawyers fail to grasp the essentials.
Judge Lumb distinctly said all courts in England.You know which Judge Lumb I am reffering to Jon?

The distinction isn't with the "Justice" system, they are all part of the Justice System, the Coroner's Court is not Judicial, that is the point. This is why a Coroner needs only 5 years Law experience, or to be a Surgeon to preside over an Inquest.
Modern Tribunals function similar to the older Coroner's Court, but there were no Tribunals in the late 19th century.

You will find that the Coroner's Court was funded locally and received no financial support from the government, as I've already pointed out.

[Wickerman]

There is a discrepancy in the reported testimony.

If you notice there is a shift in the focus of Dr. Brown's testimony. The original court records reads:

"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 - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

The Daily Telegraph records this:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes.

Whereas, the Daily News records:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.

In The Morning Advertiser we read:
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.

So, when looking back at the court record we can see that the first three remarks divided by a dash - refer to the mortuary piece found on the body.
"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 -

However, the attention has then shifted to the G.S. piece.
"I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

We also know the G.S. piece was never described by Long as having strings attached.
I mention this just in case anyone was following the Daily Telegraph version - it was edited incorrectly.

What we also see is that Dr Brown had not noticed the piece of apron in the clothing, his attention was called to it by someone.
Likely then, Dr Brown did not actually strip the body himself?

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.

You mention a bib apron it could not have been that type of apron for many reasons so it had to be an apron that tied aroiund the waist.

But if they had cut it from the body as you suggest they would have known the apron was on the body because it would have been clearly visible when cut off the body and it would not have been listed in her possessions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There is a discrepancy in the reported testimony.

If you notice there is a shift in the focus of Dr. Brown's testimony. The original court records reads:

"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 - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

The Daily Telegraph records this:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes.

Whereas, the Daily News records:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.

In The Morning Advertiser we read:
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.

So, when looking back at the court record we can see that the first three remarks divided by a dash - refer to the mortuary piece found on the body.
"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 -

However, the attention has then shifted to the G.S. piece.
"I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

We also know the G.S. piece was never described by Long as having strings attached.
I mention this just in case anyone was following the Daily Telegraph version - it was edited incorrectly.

Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No meaningful responses from Trevor because he knows the game’s up.

[Trevor Marriott]

No meaningful responses from Trevor because he knows the game’s up.

You keep believing that, and that belief is as misguided as your belief that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped at the mortuary.

All you need to do is to say "Ok trevor your right and I am wrong" this can all end and all your sleepless nights worrying about this can end

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep believing that, and that belief is as misguided as your belief that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped at the mortuary.

All you need to do is to say "Ok trevor your right and I am wrong" this can all end and all your sleepless nights worrying about this can end

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet again! No meaningful response. Proof if it were needed that you have no response. It’s over.

Perhaps when you post the quote where Dr Brown or any single Police official agrees with you and states that the GSP and the MP did not make up a full apron I’ll listen. Because the absence of such a quote proves that it was a complete apron. As the witnesses all stated……the one’s that actually saw her…...the ones that you desperately, hopelessly and self-serving lay try to discredit. Wickerman, Jeff, Dr W and myself have no need to stoop to these kind of tactics.

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d also ask of course why this has to be what it looked like? Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?

[Wickerman]

Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Court version only provides the replies, it can be easy to misunderstand replies when we do not know the questions.
Without the press coverage we have no idea what the questions were, this is why they are as necessary as each other.
Taken together they give a more complete story.
By sticking to one source we are likely to form an erroneous interpretation.

[Wickerman]

You mention a bib apron it could not have been that type of apron for many reasons so it had to be an apron that tied aroiund the waist.

Talk to a butcher.

Back in the 70's I was a butcher's apprentice, the female staff wore the apron with the bib up front and the loop around the neck.
Male staff preferred to wear the apron with the bib dropped down behind the waistband. When we wore the apron it only covered us from the waist down, the bib was folded down behind the waistband, so it looked like the sketch I just posted.
The point is, the bib may not have been visible if folded down like I wore it.
We can see women wearing an apron that way, only visible from the waist down, in any number of photographs of the period.

We don't know how Eddowes wore her apron, but the bib may well have been folded down behind the waist so as not to be visible until removed.
Back in the 70's the butchers apron had remained unchanged since Victorian times, it was still even made of Calico as it was then.

But if they had cut it from the body as you suggest they would have known the apron was on the body because it would have been clearly visible when cut off the body and it would not have been listed in her possessions.

Someone else drew Dr Brown's attention to the mortuary piece, but he doesn't say why.
If the mortuary staff were required to strip the body, why would they call Dr Brown over just to see a piece of bloodstained apron?


I suspect, it is quite likely the body was stripped, all the clothing laid out, and some hours later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece.
Phillips likely asked if the piece he carried was connected to their Mitre Sq. murder, at which point one of the staff drew Dr Brown's attention to a remnant of apron they had taken from the body.

[JeffHamm]

Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

HOw in the world did you come up with that as a response? It's completely off the wall. The Ga piece is only mentioned in the context of the police theory you claim is somehow helped by them claiming she was wearing an unwearable garment.

There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, the only mindless conjecture going on here I volved speculating the police thought it a good idea to needlessly tell the inquest she was wearing half an apron, and they hold up half an apron for the witness to see when the witness requested to see the whole thing and all was just fine, nobody bats an eye.

I don't think you thought it through and just thought you could make up any old story and tell your tales. But this one is a whopper, and it's clearly unconnected to the facts, which makes it wrong.

None of us have avoided anything, you have avoided any question put to you. That's evidence of panic and desperation.

- Jeff