Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If he cut his hand he would have wrapped the cut from the corner around his hand to stop the bleeding and prevent a blood trail. He would only have needed it until the bleeding stopped and he then disposed of it, which happened to be in Goulston St. Does this fit your stain theory?

Cheers, George

The apron piece was not heavily bloodstained or the blood localised, and does not account for the traces of faecal matter and the absence of blood on the reverse side.

If the killer as suggested had both his hands inside her blood filled abdomen gripping and removing organs which he would have to have done then he would have had blood on both hands and when either cutting a piece of apron or simply using it to stem blood flow residue would be deposited on both sides of the apron none was seen on the reverse side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Goulstonian Lecture - Wikipedia

[The Baron]

Because you only accept your interpretation of what the apron looked like. The apron piece at the mortuary and the GS piece very clearly and obviously made up a complete apron. You talk about using ‘common sense’ in your response to Jeff’s post but what could be more ‘common sense’ than this.

If the police considered the GS piece a clue (to the killers escape route) then very obviously if the apron wasn’t complete when the 2 parts were matched up then officers in charge would have immediately issued orders to Constables on the beat “you’re looking for another piece of white cloth” as the missing piece would also have been a clue which could have taken the police further along the killer’s escape route.

Its unthinkable that the police would have ignored this or failed to mention it. The only explanation is that the MP and the GSP fitted together to make up a complete apron.

I fail to see how you can’t see this as entirely common sense and reasonable and based on what we actually know

1. That there was a piece missing from the MP (Halse)
2. That the GSP and the MP fitted together (Brown)
3. And that no one mentions an incomplete apron or a missing piece.

How can anyone not concede this?

Then take this and smoke it while you are scratching your head looking for words:


"A clue discovered during the investigation into the murder of Catherine Eddowes (a piece of her blood-stained clothing) indicates that the murderer travelled north-east from where she was murdered, whereas Druitt's chambers, and the railway station, were to the south-west"


You see Herlock, it is not setting well with you no matter how you spin it, it won't fit!


Gotcha




The Baron

[GBinOz]

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?

Hi Trevor,

If he cut his hand he would have wrapped the cut from the corner around his hand to stop the bleeding and prevent a blood trail. He would only have needed it until the bleeding stopped and he then disposed of it, which happened to be in Goulston St. Does this fit your stain theory?

Cheers, George

[harry]

Yes Jeff,It is a side issue,and should be discontinued,but as long as Wickerman will not let it go,and keeps quoting me I have to put him straight.

It was not my claim that shorthand was used in every court in England.False again on Wickerman's part.It was Justice Lumb.I made that very clear.Neither I nor Wickerman,attended every court in England to observe if this statement was true or false so it's a statement on the part of Justice Lumb that cannot be disproved.
Obviously it was not a directive ,not part of the acts,or an admendment to the acts, and neither Lumb nor I have said it was.Quite possibly it was a policy decision allowing shorthand to be used.
All Wickerman has done in posting items from newspapers,and quotes from acts, and if those posts are read properly,is to show that in some cases,in court,shorthand was used.
The one opposition at the time.was to the effect,that if a shorthand writer made a mistake,no one except that person would know. Of course it would be hard to find an example of a hearing printed in shorthand symbols.They were transcribed back into longhand or text,and when a trial ended,the shorthand edition ceased to have any value.Another opposition to believeing that all courts would employ shorthand writers in the 1800's.is the demand for their services,and the shortage of qualified persons.
So Wickerman and his cronies,can submit as many paper examples as they wish,I am happy to announce that while I cannot prove the Ripper coronial hearings were taken by shorthand,there will be no evidence to show they weren't.

[Varqm]

I've said it before ,I believe he was going to the Spitalfields Market as buyers come at 3:00 Am.,the apron was discovered at 2:55 am..There he will be lost in the crowd.

March 16 1888 - Per Robert Horner lease holder of Spitalfields Market, to the effect "buyers come at 3:00 am during the summer time."
I believe it was the same during autumn.

[Wickerman]

After I answered the reply today.

You made it obvious which answer you were looking for - we can't know for sure what she did after leaving jail - but we can't leave out those who provide sworn testimony as if they don't exist. So that is why the scenario you posed is invalid.

Glad to see you didn't mean it

[Varqm]

And I’m not disputing that that’s what you’ve always believed. The reason that I feel the need to mention Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt is because Trevor keeps trying to label these witnesses as ‘unsafe’ so that he can attempt to bolster his theory. You haven’t labelled them as unsafe of course.

They helped in the fact Kate was wearing apron that night and the early next morning 9/29-30.But if questioned as to was the apron worn by Kate in the mortuary the "exact" apron worn by her earlier when they saw it, a reasonable doubt could be had. But for our discussion that it was very similar is enough. I learned re-reading the inquest testimonies of Collard/Brown/Halse/Watkin/Morris/Harvey but I do not know how did I get sucked in debating whether Kate was wearing the apron when killed or not.
Wearing it or one of her possessions did not matter.
It was the direction the Ripper was escaping that was important as PC Long helped prove,this is useful.

[Varqm]

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

-The picture of the original apron is what will make it convincing, we do not know how the ripper handled the apron.
I have seen pictures of your experiments somewhere. Your experiment on the organ carrying blood stains was good .

-Pc Long's and Halse's timing of 2;20 am were not obviously accurate. A difference of 2 minutes was enough that they could not see each other, or even 1 minute ,even 30 seconds if Halse went through New Goulston St. or depending how fast he was moving. Halse already knew of the Mitre Square murder and was looking for people to stop and question. I think he stopped/questioned 2 in Wentworth. Since one was from the Met and the other from the City they did not confer as their testimonies conflict.

--My first initial thought is the ripper's "temporary" bolt hole or hiding place was too close to drop the apron nearby, or he did not want to drop it along the way to his bolt hole/hiding place, for obvious reasons. He bided his time,35 minutes at least from the records. When he decide to move he dropped it along the way, further from his hiding place.
He could also have been holding on to the apron and planning to drop the apron and write the graffito.
I've said it before ,I believe he was going to the Spitalfields Market as buyers come at 3:00 Am.,the apron was discovered at 2:55 am..There he will be lost in the crowd.
But of course,Spitalfields,Norton Foldgate,Shoreditch,Mile End NewTown,Behtnal Green were direct destinations from wherever he was hiding from.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I'm saying is stick to the 1st fact first, we do not know, we do not have info on what Eddowes actually did between after 1:00 am and 1:30ish, when it comes down to it. She could have taken it off and put it back in for all we know. Our onlly inference was Hutt, not really really good. But it was Collard/Brown that proved she was wearing it when she was killed - not Hutt, which is what this debate is about. Hutt's testimony was 44 minutes before the murder.
I have always believed she was wearing it all the time from her release to her death, most likely, for years and never changed my mind. I never believed in the apron as sanitary device and Eddowes dropped it in Goulston for one second.

And I’m not disputing that that’s what you’ve always believed. The reason that I feel the need to mention Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt is because Trevor keeps trying to label these witnesses as ‘unsafe’ so that he can attempt to bolster his theory. You haven’t labelled them as unsafe of course.

[Varqm]

Rarely is there ever one single fact that proves a case. More often a decision is made on an accumulation of evidence.
You've heard the expression, 'by a preponderance of the evidence' - that means more than one fact was considered.
Likewise, circumstantial evidence as a rule implies one than one circumstance.

You want to ask for a decision on one detail - that simply is not done.
And, it shows clearly you find yourself in a corner with no way out.



Promise?

After I answered the reply today.

[Varqm]

Ive already answered that one Varqm. As I’ve said, of course it’s not physically impossible that she took her apron off. But when we’re trying to suggest a possible conclusion to any issue would you simply list as alternatives everything that’s not impossible? As I sarcastically said, it’s not impossible that someone attacked her a stole her apron. It’s not impossible that she bumped into a woman who desperately needed an apron and so Catherine sold hers. Neither of these are impossible but would anyone consider them at all likely or plausible? And that’s what we’re talking about with your suggestion. Not that it’s physically impossible but that it’s unlikely and not plausible. No matter how hard we think what plausible reason can we think of that might have led her to take off her apron at between 1.0- and 1.30. If she didn’t take it off in the station why would she when she got outside.

Surely you can see that we are talking about likelihood’s and plausibility?

What I'm saying is stick to the 1st fact first, we do not know, we do not have info on what Eddowes actually did between after 1:00 am and 1:30ish, when it comes down to it. She could have taken it off and put it back in for all we know. Our onlly inference was Hutt, not really really good. But it was Collard/Brown that proved she was wearing it when she was killed - not Hutt, since the body was not interfered with when she was killed up to the stripping in the mortuary, which is what this debate is about. Hutt's testimony was 44 minutes before the murder.
I have always believed she was wearing it all the time from her release to her death, most likely, for years and never changed my mind. I never believed in the apron as sanitary device and Eddowes dropped it in Goulston for one second.

[Wickerman]

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not a 'fact', and you know it.

[Wickerman]

But I said forget the rest, you included Collards/Brown/Halse's testimonies but without them? We are talking about 1:05 am and 1:30 am..
That's what I'm saying it was those trio's testimonies that clinched it, not before.

Rarely is there ever one single fact that proves a case. More often a decision is made on an accumulation of evidence.
You've heard the expression, 'by a preponderance of the evidence' - that means more than one fact was considered.
Likewise, circumstantial evidence as a rule implies one than one circumstance.

You want to ask for a decision on one detail - that simply is not done.
And, it shows clearly you find yourself in a corner with no way out.

Enough of this thread.

Promise?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you do realise that you can’t make something true by simply repeating it don’t you?

Ill say it again, if the 2 pieces didn’t make up a full apron someone would certainly have mentioned it and as no one did mention this then this means that the 2 pieces did make up a full apron. The apron that she was wearing when Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt saw her. No matter what you say the evidence is against you.