Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    On what basis would you assume that?

    Its not a case of knowing different. It’s just an acceptance of a possibility. Surely you know that levels of education were poor. It seems likely that Mary Kelly couldn’t read after all. As Wick said, Eliza Gold couldn’t read so why is it unlikely that one or more of the more important witnesses couldn’t read? And even if they could read some might have been very poor readers. No one’s saying that we know this to have been the case about anyone specifically but it’s a reasonable possibility.

    A signature on a statement doesn’t make them completely error-free.
    We are discussing the main witnesses not those on the perifery if a witness could not read it would be read to them and they would be asked to make their mark

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • . I have to correct you there the goal of a police investigation is all about establishing the truth
      The Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four might disagree with you on that one.

      Comment


      • .
        Again I disagree we can determine that there were only two pieces of an apron, and by how they were described would not physically make up a full apron.

        Simply not true.

        One of those two pieces was found among her possessions the other in GS. These are in my opinon irrefutable facts, which show that when the body was stripped there was no apron recorded on her clothing list


        Simply not true.
        What is an irrefutable fact though Trevor is that Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt all saw her wearing an apron hours before she was killed and all the twisting, ducking, diving, manipulating and offences to logic you continue to come up will not change that fact. These are strong witnesses by anyone’s standards except someone so riddled with bias toward a theory that he can’t see the wood for the trees.

        Comment


        • .
          Maybe because I have almost 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases and still do to this very day, and you dont
          The stupidest thing ever written on this case was written by a former police officer.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            why do you persist in referring to newspaper reports when we have the official signed testimony?

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            If you read the section just before the presentation of the first transcript, from the Daily Telegraph, you will find your question was already addressed.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
              Hi Trevor,

              The goal of a police investigation is also to secure a conviction, in a court of law. But that is not our goal.

              I have to correct you there the goal of a police investigation is all about establishing the truth



              Yes, of course the goal is to uncover the truth, but the truth also needs to cut off any lines of speculation that allow for some doubt. Reasonable doubt does not require the jury to think the prosecution's case isn't the more likely to be true, only that there is a plausible level of doubt raised. The Scottish courts have the verdict "Not Proven" which exemplifies this. It's basically saying "The prosecution has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that you're guilty, but don't do it again."


              What we now have to accept is that the evidence we have is it, as it is. Our goal is to make sense of what we have, and to interpret it as best we can, knowing full well that no interpretation can, or should, be viewed as 100% correct. We can't get to the specifics of the events, but to some extent we can narrow things down to categories of explanations.

              Her wearing of the apron is a category of explanation, as there are many specifics we cannot know (the exact detail of how it was cut, the exact dimensions of the apron, the style of the apron, and so forth). When we switch to the alternative category of explanations, the "not wearing an apron", the evidence we do have either directly contradicts that, or requires the speculation of details for which we have no evidence.

              Again I disagree we can determine that there were only two pieces of an apron, and by how they were described would not physically make up a full apron. One of those two pieces was found among her possessions the other in GS. These are in my opinon irrefutable facts, which show that when the body was stripped there was no apron recorded on her clothing list.


              Seriously Trevor, this is getting tired. You cannot say the two pieces did not make up a full apron in one breath and then say there wasn't a piece missing. That's physically impossible. If there is no piece missing, then the two bits made up a whole, if they didn't make up a whole, there is at least one more piece unaccounted for. If your theory is based upon physically impossible situations that's a pretty good sign it's dead in the water.

              And there is an apron recorded on the list that includes her clothing worn. It's the position on that list that you are making a mountain out of a mole hill over. And you have no basis in fact for your insistence that the list was compiled in the way you speculate it was. That's a theoretical conjecture, which you're free to make, but you are not free to claim it is a fact. And if it's not a fact, it is open to alternative explanations, which means your conjecture is unsafe to entirely rely upon, and yet you do.


              Would it be enough for court? of course, not, in a court of law we would need those details. Would a defense like you're offering about not wearing an apron work? No, it would be easily demonstrated by a prosecutor that your explanation is so self-contradictory that it cannot be said to constitute reasonable doubt given the evidence we have. Now, if it were an active police investigation and you could go out and actually test your ideas, and in the process found some real evidence that could not be easily explained if she was wearing an apron, then fine, you would have a case. But you can't do that, so you do not have a case.

              Now I have a question for you.

              You say above the evidence "is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason", and since we're all working with the same evidence set (though you cull it quite severely), why is the evidence unsafe when someone like me interprets it, but apparently rock solid when you do? - Jeff
              Maybe because I have almost 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases and still do to this very day, and you dont

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              No, but I have over 30 years of experience analyzing data and drawing inferences from them. I am well aware of the errors in logic that are often made in terms of interpretation, and how it is easy to overstep from a supported inference and into the realm of overinterpretation. Your paradoxical claim that the data is unsafe when others interpret it but rock solid when you do, is indefensible. Either the data is unsafe, or it is not. The "safeness" is independent of whom is making an inference from it. Your expertise is with respect to evidence interpretation in the role of an active police investigation, and you would be well aware of how to follow up the investigation to answer the issues we debate here. But those investigative options are closed to us, and the task we have is different as a result. The best we can do is that of the historical researcher, trying to piece together as much as we can, knowing we cannot address the bits that fall into the void where the necessary bits of evidence would have been found. You do not have that experience, and your experience as a homicide investigator, while it could be a very helpful source of experience, is hindering you because you are failing to adapt to the reality of the situation. This is not an active homicide investigation. You are not a defense lawyer, and other posters are not the prosecution. You cannot claim to know something just because you think it is possible, you can only point out, what everyone acknowledges, which is the evidence is insufficient to establish with absolute certainty, the entire sequence of events. You could bring your experience in and point out how, because of the gaps in the evidence, we mustn't think it had to go the way it appears. To avoid illustrating my point with aspects relating to the apron directly, we do not know that Lawende et al actually saw Eddowes, despite their testimony to have recognized her clothing. And, even if one makes that assumption, we cannot even know for sure that once Eddowes went into Mitre Square the man she was seen with went with her. It could be that they parted ways and Eddowes and JtR came into contact in Mitre Square itself (or, of course, that they entered from some other way, if Lawende et al are mistaken). There are some, not myself, who insist that the Church Passage Couple must be Eddowes and JtR, and your experience could easily point out how that is not necessarily the case, and how alternatives must be considered. But you don't do that, you don't suggest alternatives to be considered, you present alternatives as if they are the established truth and nothing you have suggested can in any way be viewed as established. At best, they are simply alternatives, and less evidenced ones than what they purport to be alternatives too. That is the crux of the issue.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                why do you persist in referring to newspaper reports when we have the official signed testimony?

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Because........(for the umpteenth time) the "official signed testimony" is only part of the evidence.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • Hi all,

                  Just grabbed a couple of screen shots of the original inquest documents (well, from the online presentation of them found at the London Metropolitan Archives). The first two are official statements about the witnesses, and Long's official summary indicates the G.S. piece of apron he found corresponds with the part (or portion) found on the body. Not found with the body, as it would be if it was part of her possessions, or found next to the body, if it was scattered from her possessions, but on the body, as it would be if she was wearing it.

                  After that, as we've been talking about how the testimony was recorded and signed, I grabbed a couple of shots showing the breaks between witnesses and where a signature, or mark (for Eliza Gold), was made. As we can see, the statements are recorded in long hand, not short hand. Moreover, the next witness statement begins right after the previous witness signed off. So these are the "official" versions, taken in longhand. And by the looks of how there's a signature, then the next statement begins, it appears that upon completing their testimony, the witness must have just gone over to where the court recorder is sitting, signed the document (or put their mark), and once that was completed, the next witness would begin. Presumably the signing would be happening while the next witness is sworn in (do they do that at an inquest? Or would something like that be done prior to them getting up to present their statements?). Anyway, it doesn't look to me like the witnesses would go to a separate room to sign off, but more like they just signed upon completion.

                  And I also grabbed a screen shot of Collard's testimony where he describes the apron she was "apparently wearing", and how he describes it as being found outside her dress, as it would be if she's wearing it, and not "amongst her possessions", or some other phrase that would suggest it was just something she had in one of her pockets.

                  The "pockets", I think there's two described? Are these like waist packs people wear? They are described as having strings, etc. I presume they would be tied around the waist, and worn outside the clothing (under a jacket of course but something that would probably worn as the outter most garment around her waist?) It's interesting to note that the "strings" for these were cut. An earlier post had suggested maybe the apron was cut vertically, as Trevor has suggested, then also had one of the strings cut to remove that section, which later gets deposited at GS. If JtR was just cutting through things tied around her waist to get them out of the way as they would interfere with him getting access to her abdomen, then that could explain why anything tied around her waist was cut differently than her skirts, etc, which could then be just flipped upwards. Not suggesting that has to be the case, of course, but it's something I've not seen considered before (though maybe it has been suggested and I've missed it).


                  Click image for larger version

Name:	Inquest01.jpg
Views:	55
Size:	138.1 KB
ID:	765122 Click image for larger version

Name:	Inquest02.jpg
Views:	49
Size:	95.9 KB
ID:	765123

                  This is Collard's testimony. Starting on the 3rd line, at the inserted text “I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress – "

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    I think you will find that they sign the depositions at the time.

                    You all have tried and failed with the apron now you are trying to question how the depositions were taken its getting a tad painful to watch

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    If you know, just explain it in clear detail.
                    If you don't, why start an argument over it?
                    As far as I know, no-one knows. There may be an obscure inquest covered somewhere in the national press where mention is made of a witness signing his testimony. Thats about the only way we are likely to find out.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Lets take Chris post first.My mother Chris was a Victorian who wore Victorian style aprons.So were my aunts and my grandmother.Sure they wore large aprons,but they also wore large coats,and when the coats were worn over the aprons,they hid the aprons from sight.So i speak from experience Chris.Eddowes was wearing a coat over her clothing.
                      Now Herlock.How much time,while Eddowes was in the cells was she under personnel surveilance of Hutt.All the time,part of the time,or what. If she had started her periods while in the cells,and Trevors explanation is correct,and allows for that,,then she could have a reason to remove and cut the apron there.Not saying it happened,but it is as much a possibility as any of the sarcastic comments you have put forward.

                      Comment


                      • Now to Wickerman post 1184.
                        I gave the name of the judge,and the comments he made about shorthand being used in court.Scroll back you will find it.So that is a false claim of yours.I am not writing from memory,another false claim of yours.It was from an article I copied from the internet.That you cannot find it is your problem.It exists.
                        There are no coroner's notes you claim.There are.You can find a reference to them in 'Jack the Ripper A to Z,under Dr Brown.It tells where they can be read.So another false claim of yours. I do not bluff and I am not badly ill-advised.That title is yours.

                        Comment


                        • Jeff,
                          That doesn't seem to be the actual testimony off Long,as given by Long,more like a summary of events described by another person.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            Jeff,
                            That doesn't seem to be the actual testimony off Long,as given by Long,more like a summary of events described by another person.
                            Hi harry,

                            Yes, that's why I referred to it as "Long's official summary", because it is a summary of Long's testimony recorded by the court on the official document, which must be correct, because it's official.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              After that, as we've been talking about how the testimony was recorded and signed, I grabbed a couple of shots showing the breaks between witnesses and where a signature, or mark (for Eliza Gold), was made. As we can see, the statements are recorded in long hand, not short hand. Moreover, the next witness statement begins right after the previous witness signed off.
                              Thankyou yes, I'd forgotten about that, different statements on the same sheet of paper.
                              It seems unlikely then that longer examples of testimony like those given by Kelly, Wilkinson, Watkins, Collard, Gordon-Brown, etc. would be read in their entirety before signing. It seems likely they just came up to the recorder and signed where the officer pointed.

                              Presumably the signing would be happening while the next witness is sworn in (do they do that at an inquest?
                              Each witness was sworn-to prior to questioning, it would only take a minute for the last witness to sign their testimony while the next is being sworn in.

                              And I also grabbed a screen shot of Collard's testimony where he describes the apron she was "apparently wearing", and how he describes it as being found outside her dress, as it would be if she's wearing it, and not "amongst her possessions", or some other phrase that would suggest it was just something she had in one of her pockets.

                              The "pockets", I think there's two described? Are these like waist packs people wear? They are described as having strings, etc. I presume they would be tied around the waist, and worn outside the clothing (under a jacket of course but something that would probably worn as the outter most garment around her waist?)
                              Today, people working at a market stall wear a belt around their waist with two pouches, some call it a fanny-pack, what Eddowes wore sounds very similar.



                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                ...
                                Today, people working at a market stall wear a belt around their waist with two pouches, some call it a fanny-pack, what Eddowes wore sounds very similar.
                                Hi Wickerman,

                                Yah, that's what I was thinking too, but wanted to ask in case I was mistaken.

                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X