Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

    Hi Jon,

    A day or two ago I posted a snippet from the Daily News that mentions Langham wtiting notes as the witnesss answered. Here it is again;

    "He wore the fustian clothes of a market labourer, with a light blue scarf round his neck, and spoke with a clear, deep, sonorous voice, looking composedly round the court while the Coroner was writing down his answers."


    Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.
    That's right, you did, sorry I haven't had my first coffee yet.....

    Coroner's were paid 6/8 (six shillings & eight pence) per inquest, they had to incure all expenses and were only reimbursed after the inquest - by the local authority.
    Last edited by Wickerman; 08-10-2021, 02:09 PM.
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.
      Harry made another argument, that shorthand recorders were provided by the Public Service, and (in another post) that by the 1800's were used in courts across the land.
      Maybe we should wait and ask him which argument he wants to go with?

      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        That's right, you did, sorry I haven't had my first coffee yet.....
        No worries, with so many posts flying about I've been known to miss entire pages.

        Coroner's were paid 6/8 (six shillings & eight pence) per inquest, they had to incure all expenses and were only reimbursed after the inquest - by the local authority.
        Not to stereotype scotsmen, but no wonder Macdonald was happy to end his inquest in one sitting!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post



          It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

          The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

          Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.
          Let me come back to this again

          Lets move forward to the Gs piece what are the possibilities IO know these have been discussed many time before but I think they are now important to debate further.

          1.She was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS

          2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer could not have cut the piece and taken it away which was found at GS

          3. IF she was wearing an apron she could have cut a piece from the apron whilst in custody before her release.

          4. If she had been in possesions of two old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had made part of a full apron the killer could have taken one of the pieces in her possession and deposited it in GS as to why I will expand on shortly.

          5. Eddowes was menstruating and had used one of the two pieces in her possession as a sanitary device and deposited it herself after leaving the police station.

          6. Dc Halse removed one of the two pieces from the crime scene and deposited in GS which was on Met territory Halse being a city detective

          Now I will analyse each of the above

          1-2 There is very little to say on these specific topics which has not alreday been said so I am not going to dwell.

          3. We know she was in possession of a knife and we dont know if that was taken off whilst she was in custody. If it wasnt then as Harry suggests she could have cut a piece from the apron herself. The problem with this scenario is that the evidence from the mortuary tells us that the two pieces when matched did not make up a full apron in any event.

          4. If she has simply been in possession of two pieces of apron and the killer took one we have to ask the question why, to answer that question we have to look at how the Gs piece was described, and we have different descriptions from being wet with blood, to being wet and spotted with blood with traces of feacal matter.

          It has been suggested that the killer took it away with for for three purposes

          To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

          Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

          The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it

          5. Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk



          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Let me come back to this again

            Lets move forward to the Gs piece what are the possibilities IO know these have been discussed many time before but I think they are now important to debate further.

            1.She was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS

            2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer could not have cut the piece and taken it away which was found at GS

            3. IF she was wearing an apron she could have cut a piece from the apron whilst in custody before her release.

            4. If she had been in possesions of two old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had made part of a full apron the killer could have taken one of the pieces in her possession and deposited it in GS as to why I will expand on shortly.

            5. Eddowes was menstruating and had used one of the two pieces in her possession as a sanitary device and deposited it herself after leaving the police station.

            6. Dc Halse removed one of the two pieces from the crime scene and deposited in GS which was on Met territory Halse being a city detective

            Now I will analyse each of the above

            1-2 There is very little to say on these specific topics which has not alreday been said so I am not going to dwell.

            3. We know she was in possession of a knife and we dont know if that was taken off whilst she was in custody. If it wasnt then as Harry suggests she could have cut a piece from the apron herself. The problem with this scenario is that the evidence from the mortuary tells us that the two pieces when matched did not make up a full apron in any event.

            No, the problem is the LIE that you keep propagating that the pieces didn’t make a whole. They categorically did!

            The other obvious question is why a woman in custody would start cutting up her clothing? It might be normal behaviour in your world Trevor but nowhere else.


            4. If she has simply been in possession of two pieces of apron and the killer took one we have to ask the question why, to answer that question we have to look at how the Gs piece was described, and we have different descriptions from being wet with blood, to being wet and spotted with blood with traces of feacal matter.

            It has been suggested that the killer took it away with for for three purposes

            To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

            You can ‘expect’ all you like but if the killer had wiped his hands on it you can’t know that it wasn’t folded at the time explaining the blood on one side.

            Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

            Yes, because that’s what he did.

            And how was it incriminating? Did it have his name on it? The killer could have lived 2 miles away so it was hardly a vital clue.


            The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in i

            Do you know what ‘consensus’ means? I know of no such consensus.

            5. Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

            Why didn’t she change it in the privacy of the cell? Why didn’t she use one of the 12 pieces of white rag or the piece of flannel or the piece of coarse linen? If she’d cut up her clothing every time she menstruated she’d have been walking around naked.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk


            You’ve proved nothing but you bias. That no missing piece of apron was mention PROVES that it was a complete apron. Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt PROVE that she was wearing an apron when she was killed. You’re just clutching at straws. The train has long left the station and you’ve been left on the platform jumping up and down shouting “I’m right.”

            You’re wrong. The evidence shows this conclusively. Eddowes was wearing an apron. All points against it are manipulations.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

            Comment


            • It has been suggested in this thread that a Coroner's court is part of the Criminal Court System. There are two separate courts in the UK. The Criminal court & the Civil/Common Law Court. The Coroner's Court is part of the Common Law Circuit, quite separate from the Criminal Law Circuit. Here is a page from the Coroner's Act 1887, where we read that distinction in print.



              The section deals with the fact a Coroner's Court is non-adverserial, meaning there is no Prosecution or Defender presenting both sides of a case - this was termed a "trial of issues", which is what a Criminal, Civil or Common Law trial is.
              An Inquest is not a Trial.

              Specifically:
              "There is in this respect no analogy between a Coroner's Inquest and a Trial of issues".

              There is also a sentence at the bottom which appears to mean that although newspapers are publishing the testimony heard at an inquest - should any testimony be given that will lead to the direct accusation of an individual, that testimony will not be allowed by law to be reproduced.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • A quote from David Orsam on Inquest Records vs Newspaper Reports:

                “So if Trevor is trying to say that a witness couldn't have said something reported in the press because it wasn't in the deposition, he is wrong. If what was reported in the press conflicts with what is in a deposition then I would have thought the deposition is more likely to be accurate although I would certainly want to check if multiple reporters heard the same thing before reaching a conclusion.”
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                Comment


                • And to echo a quote used by David in his Oh To Be In The Forum Now That Apron Time Is Here article:

                  “The answer to the Home Secretary's question about whether the piece of apron had been worn by Eddowes was, incidentally, contained in a report by City police inspector McWilliam who recorded in a report dated 27 October 1888, provided to the Home Office, that the piece of apron found in Goulston Street was 'compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded'. “

                  And as he says after taking into consideration Robinson and Hutt (which Trevor disgracefully tries to label as unsafe)….

                  So there is overwhelming proof that Eddowes was wearing an apron and that the piece of an apron found in Goulston Street matched the remaining piece of the apron she was wearing at the time of her death.
                  A more open and shut case one could not imagine.


                  I agree.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                  “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                    You are another one (to join The Baron) who’s content in connection to me is based on personal acrimony. A past disagreement between us led to your patronising post claiming that I ‘don’t understand the argument.’

                    Your ‘understanding’ has to be seriously questioned with that post about the blank time between 1.00 and 2.20. Your suggestion was that she might have taken off her apron after leaving the station but she was found dead at 1.44 so that chops 36 minutes from that time range. The suggestion that she took of her apron after leaving the station makes no sense unless the basis of your point is that it’s not physically impossible that she might have done so.

                    So your suggestion can safely be eliminated.
                    We'll your post/answers says it. that you do not understand. Yeah try to evade your answers. It does not matter what your sense says it's the info that counts. I'm moving on.
                    Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                    M. Pacana

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                      You’ve proved nothing but you bias. That no missing piece of apron was mention PROVES that it was a complete apron. Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt PROVE that she was wearing an apron when she was killed. You’re just clutching at straws. The train has long left the station and you’ve been left on the platform jumping up and down shouting “I’m right.”

                      You’re wrong. The evidence shows this conclusively. Eddowes was wearing an apron. All points against it are manipulations.
                      You as normal are out with the fairies, why dont you just stop posting the same old same your replies are always the same no matter what topic is being discussed.

                      I am not now going to entertain you further or reply to any more of your posts

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                        Fair post!

                        And of course if she went looking for a client, an apron is not that attractive or appealing is it?! let alone an old dirty oder sewn one




                        The Baron
                        Yeah, I wonder why Lawende/co did not see the apron, Eddowes was facing them, she must have covered it up.
                        But the point is we just do not know and have to rely first on what's available, the testimonies.
                        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                        M. Pacana

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                          Yeah, I wonder why Lawende/co did not see the apron, Eddowes was facing them, she must have covered it up.
                          But the point is we just do not know and have to rely first on what's available, the testimonies.
                          She was facing away from Lavende;
                          ​​​​​​
                          "She was standing with her face towards the man. I only saw her back"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by The Baron View Post



                            Your argument that she doesn't have reasons to take off her apron that night has been smashed and defeated and teared into pieces just like that old apron.





                            The Baron
                            I missed this post. Unfortunately I’ve seen it now and it’s the usual nonsense.

                            She had no reason. You are clueless.
                            Regards

                            Sir Herlock Sholmes



                            “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                            “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Varqm View Post

                              We'll your post/answers says it. that you do not understand. Yeah try to evade your answers. It does not matter what your sense says it's the info that counts. I'm moving on.
                              Yup move on. Your last nonsense has been dealt with.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                                Yes, I know what's written, but it was not followed in each case, as evidenced by the Kelly papers. So, "not mandatory" meaning not always followed.



                                It's also possible, incentive for the witnesses to stay was the fact the coroner, on termination of the inquest (you'll find this in the Act too) must pay the fee to the witness. Yet, there are some witnesses who never received their fee. It's reported in the press, I'll try to find it.



                                Maybe, but that's not proof. You 'think' it was ordered from above.
                                You can't insist signatures were mandatory, when you admit it was not done in the Kelly case - regardless of the reason.
                                All I pointed out was it couldn't have been mandatory if it wasn't done in a different case - I don't care what the reason was.

                                Waiting till the end to sign? - do you mean end of day, or end of inquest?
                                The coroner only pays the witness at the end of the inquest, so expecting them to remember what they said is a little unrealistic. But if they had to read it all through again to refresh their memory days? later, that's another unrealistic expectation.
                                I think they were just told to sign, so they did, but as to 'when', that is still an open question.
                                --Waiting till the end to sign? - do you mean end of day, or end of inquest?

                                Of course the end of the inquest day, that group of witnesses testifying that day.They just sign it, for those who insist on reading their testimonies before signing they could. Why would they not remember? They are just recalling what they saw/heard.
                                I think all witnesses stay until the end of the inquest day, all sign it,, one by one. and leave as such was the normal procedure.

                                --You can't insist signatures were mandatory, when you admit it was not done in the Kelly case

                                We'll law is law, it was a duty. But I have to find other murder/manslaughter inquests of Mcdonald and Baxter.
                                Without signatures is one of the proof to me, but i'll see from the results above. It's hard to pay or research
                                when the Covid hits, if it's not online. As I said the Kelly inquest was hurried up to conclude and was not a normal inquest.
                                Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                                M. Pacana

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X