Kate's Apron

[Joshua Rogan]

Now, don't forget to consider the fact that at 1:20 there hadn't been a murder, so there would be less reason for him to take note of a discarded piece of cloth. Also, we do not know if PC Long was aware of the murder during his 1:50 round, so again the same applies. It's not clear to me if he was aware of the murder by 2:20, but by that time it does appear many police in the vicinity were informed of this, so the chances are PC Long had been informed, but again, we (or at least I) am not aware of anything that indicates he knew of the murder until his 2:55 patrol.

The Daily News inquest testimony does provide an indication that Long knew before finding the apron, via another juror's question;

"A Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir."

[JeffHamm]

Christ on a slice Jeff! Do you have to be so rational and reasonable all the time? We'd love to argue the toss with you, but your so damn likeable. And knowledgeable. And willing to share that knowledge with others. Essentially, a nice guy. The voice of reason in Ripperology.

You'll make me blush. ha ha!

We're all interested in this case, otherwise we wouldn't be here sharing our knowledge and beliefs. We all have a curiosity, and desire, to understand what is, essentially, not understandable. Trevor is entirely correct in pointing out that the evidence base we have is not ideal, and it is not up to the standards of a modern police investigation. He is entirely correct in suggesting we go back and reconsider the explanations on offer. Where we differ, however, is in how we do that. I am loath to throw out information without pretty compelling reasons to do so. Not because I think the information we have is infallible, but because we have so little to begin with. If we threw out all the evidence we have to work with simply because it is not complete, we would have virtually nothing at all to work with. I would have no problems if all Trevor espoused was a recognition that the evidence is sub-standard, and so our inferences should not be made with unshakable conviction. If that is what he was doing, I rather think everyone would agree. But we would still try our best with what we have, noting that caution. However, Trevor goes beyond that and after culling much of the evidence we have, inserts explanations with amounts of specific detail for which there is nothing at all to suggest. And that is where I disagree with him.

For example, let's say I insist that Eddowes left the police station and suppose she found on the ground a bit of money (hey, it happens). Now, because she was feeling hung over, she then headed to a pub that she knew should still get a glass of beer from because they stayed open when they shouldn't (that happens too). She gets this, goes outside to drink it, and when she goes to put her remaining change away drops her glass and breaks it (yup, it happens). Reaching down to retrieve her change her hand bumps into some dog droppings and she cuts herself on the glass (not impossible). She tears off a piece of her apron (we know it had a repair, maybe it was coming undone anyway), wipes her hands, getting blood and fecal matter on it (that would happen) and wetting one corner in the beer (sure, why not). She then wanders off forgetting her change (she's hung over and hurt, can happen) and ends up murdered by JtR in Mitre Square (we know that's true) and JtR takes that piece of cloth when he flees for his own purposes, but when he gets to GS, notices the dog poop on it, and throws it away.

Ok, now, in my just so story, comprised of what if's, and suppose's, could happen's and so forth, covers all the basis. I've got blood and fecal matter on the cloth, it even looks like a hand wiping, one corner is wet (sure with beer that's never mentioned just as much as urine is never mentioned), and so forth. If I proposed that, and insisted we drop the police interpretation in favour of it, Trevor would point out there's nothing to support any of that and would rightly chastise me for creating more "what ifs" and "maybe" type stories. The problem is, all I've done is insert a different set of completely unfounded "possible events" than Trevor's. It's no worse, and no better, than any possible story one could invent that ticks certain boxes; and as we throw out statements, there are fewer and fewer boxes to tick, until one is left with no boxes and so any story is good. This is why I am so loath to discard what little evidence we do have, evidence is the only thing that constrains us, otherwise we are left to the whims of our imaginations and personal biases as to what is more and less probable.

Trevor is well aware of the need to get on record all of the details, and of the errors that can arise when we have to interpret things to fill in the blanks, or to try and work out what exactly was intended. We would all love to be able to put specific questions of detail to the witnesses, we would love it if there were more specific details recorded on record. What we must not forget, though, is that the police of the day would have access to those details, and they drew their conclusions based upon having direct access to a lot more specific information than we have. So unless we can point to something where we know they are in error (for example, we now know that time of death cannot be reliably estimated by touch - I fear mentioning that may open another can of worms, but if anyone wants to take that up please do so in another thread) so we can reject as unsafe such claims.

Anyway, I don't have a problem with Trevor believing what he puts forth. I also recognize how frustrating it can be to have an idea that you fully believe in that people are not accepting. But he's got a pretty thick skin, otherwise he wouldn't still be here, so I'm not too worried about voicing my disagreements with him. I also have a pretty thick skin, so I'm not bothered when he disagrees with me. I enjoy the sharing of ideas, and looking at the reasoning people present, and evidence they base it upon. I learn a lot from that, even when I don't agree with them. It requires me to try and understand what their idea is, and how they came to it, and to compare that with the same of my own. That is how we learn, not only new facts or details, but new ways of constructing knowledge from evidence.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The Daily News inquest testimony does provide an indication that Long knew before finding the apron, via another juror's question;

"A Juror - Having heard of a murder, and subsequently found a piece of apron with blood upon it, did it not appear to you that it might be as well to examine some of the rooms of the building? - No, sir."

Yes, sorry I wasn't clear. We know he knew about it at 2:55 when he found the apron piece. What I was getting at is that we don't know if he had heard of the murder at 2:20, when he went past (or at 1:55, which comes into play for Trevor's explanation). We know for certain he hadn't at 1:20 because it hadn't happened yet.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

We know for certain he hadn't at 1:20 because it hadn't happened yet.

I see you're still defending the old accepted theory that she was still alive at that time!

[JeffHamm]

I see you're still defending the old accepted theory that she was still alive at that time!

ha ha! I am a sucker for tradition. ha ha

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

For example, let's say I insist that Eddowes left the police station and suppose she found on the ground a bit of money (hey, it happens). Now, because she was feeling hung over, she then headed to a pub that she knew should still get a glass of beer from because they stayed open when they shouldn't (that happens too). She gets this, goes outside to drink it, and when she goes to put her remaining change away drops her glass and breaks it (yup, it happens). Reaching down to retrieve her change her hand bumps into some dog droppings and she cuts herself on the glass (not impossible). She tears off a piece of her apron (we know it had a repair, maybe it was coming undone anyway), wipes her hands, getting blood and fecal matter on it (that would happen) and wetting one corner in the beer (sure, why not). She then wanders off forgetting her change (she's hung over and hurt, can happen) and ends up murdered by JtR in Mitre Square (we know that's true) and JtR takes that piece of cloth when he flees for his own purposes, but when he gets to GS, notices the dog poop on it, and throws it away.

Conjecture on your part

Ok, now, in my just so story, comprised of what if's, and suppose's, could happen's and so forth, covers all the basis. I've got blood and fecal matter on the cloth, it even looks like a hand wiping, one corner is wet (sure with beer that's never mentioned just as much as urine is never mentioned), and so forth. If I proposed that, and insisted we drop the police interpretation in favour of it, Trevor would point out there's nothing to support any of that and would rightly chastise me for creating more "what ifs" and "maybe" type stories. The problem is, all I've done is insert a different set of completely unfounded "possible events" than Trevor's. It's no worse, and no better, than any possible story one could invent that ticks certain boxes; and as we throw out statements, there are fewer and fewer boxes to tick, until one is left with no boxes and so any story is good. This is why I am so loath to discard what little evidence we do have, evidence is the only thing that constrains us, otherwise we are left to the whims of our imaginations and personal biases as to what is more and less probable.

Which are all lacking in any corroboration

Jeff

You referred to another issue with regards to the apron in another post but I will reply in this post because you seem to have cherry picked matters your refer to in support of your belief, and it is with regards to the article from the Telegraph which quotes Dr Brown as saying in his inquest testimony “Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.” Which you make a great play of

I Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr. Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

Dr Brown official inquest testimony

The official statement of Dr. Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.”This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.
However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached.

I will also comment on Dc Halse, neither he nor Collard make any mention of her wearing an apron in their official testimony.However again we see a conflict because in The Times inquest testimony he says that he saw a piece missing from an apron she wore.

I find it hard to believe that with all that was going on at the mortuary and with no mention of an apron by Collard via his list how Halse manages to memorize that piece of apron was missing in any event and why should he, because again the GS piece had not yet arrived at the mortuary to arouse any suspicion and Halse was not aware at that time the body was stripped that an apron piece had even been found.

Anyway, with the clear focus and interest on the apron Kate was wearing, and the piece found in Goulston Street, I think it is beyond reasonable to suggest that two did not make up a whole apron. If they did not, that would be important to note, and when the two portions were fitted together it would have been stated that while they fit, they were not complete. Because this would imply that either the police should keep looking for another piece (giving another point to plot his travels) or to keep on the lookout for it should they investigate a suspect (i.e. can they find the missing piece on a suspect, or in their home, that would be great evidence). Moreover, I think it beyond reasonable to presume that Dr. Brown could not tell if the piece found was soiled due to an "accident", or that the blood was menstrual blood patterns, and would not mention the presence of urine.

The evidence reads that the two pieces were matched by the seams that is all, and thats all there is to work with no mention of making up a full apron to suggest it did is pure conjecture on your part

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

It is not known,Fiver,that there were a dozen or more pieces of rag that could be preferred as a sanitary napkin.,but even if there was,it would make no difference.The selection of the piece which was found in Goulstan street,whether taken by choice or at random,fits the need ,as Trevor has pointed out,for use as a sanitary rag.
'Worn by the victim',is an ambiguous statement.It could mean worn at the time,or worn generally as part of Eddowes attire.
Collards testimony is preferable,as it is evidence taken and written down at the time,while most other testimony,is orally given and relies on memory.So there is a reason I favour Collard to be more accurate,and it is clear he describes an apron piece as being among her possessions and not being on the body.
As for the two lists.Were they both compiled at the Mortuary? The clothing on the body sure,but I see no reason the possessions had to be also taken to the mortuary.
Were they?

[JeffHamm]

...

Dr Brown official inquest testimony

The official statement of Dr. Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.”This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.[/FONT][/FONT]
However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached.

I will also comment on Dc Halse, [/SIZE][/B]neither he nor Collard make any mention of her wearing an apron in their official testimony.However again we see a conflict because in The Times inquest testimony he says that he saw a piece missing from an apron she wore.

I find it hard to believe that with all that was going on at the mortuary and with no mention of an apron by Collard via his list how Halse manages to memorize that piece of apron was missing in any event and why should he, because again the GS piece had not yet arrived at the mortuary to arouse any suspicion and Halse was not aware at that time the body was stripped that an apron piece had even been found.

Anyway, with the clear focus and interest on the apron Kate was wearing, and the piece found in Goulston Street, I think it is beyond reasonable to suggest that two did not make up a whole apron. If they did not, that would be important to note, and when the two portions were fitted together it would have been stated that while they fit, they were not complete. Because this would imply that either the police should keep looking for another piece (giving another point to plot his travels) or to keep on the lookout for it should they investigate a suspect (i.e. can they find the missing piece on a suspect, or in their home, that would be great evidence). Moreover, I think it beyond reasonable to presume that Dr. Brown could not tell if the piece found was soiled due to an "accident", or that the blood was menstrual blood patterns, and would not mention the presence of urine.

The evidence reads that the two pieces were matched by the seams that is all, and thats all there is to work with no mention of making up a full apron to suggest it did is pure conjecture on your part

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

ha ha! I love how you comment on my "what so" story, which I specifically indicated was something I was making up to make a point. Good lord, please do read what I'm posting. Funnily enough, the point I was making was how I could fill in the blanks using different pieces than you did, and I have just as much evidence for my made up story as you do. You're commenting on yourself, which had you read my post, you would have realized.

Anyway, "My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached." - Dr. Brown.

Right, so he's got a piece of apron, and he's directed to the rest of it. The missing piece comes from a corner portion of the apron, and not a bottom corner, but a top one where the strings are attached? What's that big deal? The apron is tied to her body, and the missing portion comes from a corner up where the strings are.

As for DO Halse noting that there was a piece missing from her apron at the mortuary, it's hardly a difficult thing to memorize that a piece of clothing, worn by a murder victim, has a portion cut out of it. In fact, he would be a pretty poor detective not to notice, and take note, of such an unusual event. On the other hand, if the apron was just part of a bundle of her possessions, including rags and what not and it was not being worn by her, a missing piece would indeed be less attention grabbing.

And I fully agree with you that it is an assumption that the two pieces make up a whole apron, as I said in my post, I also think it's one we can reasonably make in this case because it would be expected that if some portion were still missing that would get a mention; they were focused on a piece of the apron and fitting it, therefore if there were clearly more pieces missing, they would be interested in locating them, hence I think it highly probably any additional missing pieces would get a mention. But as I clearly said, I would rather not have to make that assumption. I would be far more comfortable if someone stated it. Just like many people stated she was wearing an apron. To be honest, I suspect if someone had stated the two combined made up a whole apron you would be arguing there were pieces still missing, because it would be an "old accepted theory" that the two made up a whole apron.

As I predicted, you chastise me for saying the two pieces in all likelihood made up a whole apron because that is never mentioned. And yet, you include menstruation, urine, changes in travel direction, and so forth, in your alternative explanation, none of which appear in the slightest form, and you insist this be considered more than "pure conjecture." You're not applying your own criteria to your own beliefs, which is what is leading you into problems.

As for Dr. Brown and the "strings to the body", again, he's describing that he fitted the portion to the piece that had been attached/worn by the victim. He need not have made the comparison while it was still tied to her (in fact, that would be more difficult to do), but rather he's just indicating that the victim had been wearing it. I agree, it could have been better phrased, but spoken language is often sloppy that way. Again, as I've mentioned a few times, it would be great if we could ask for details to clarify some of these statements, but we can't. That doesn't mean, however, we are entitled to just pretend nothing was said. We have to look at the overall pattern of statements, and see if the ambiguous ones could mean that as well. Remember, ambiguous means there are multiple possible ways to interpret something.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

ha ha! I love how you comment on my "what so" story, which I specifically indicated was something I was making up to make a point. Good lord, please do read what I'm posting. Funnily enough, the point I was making was how I could fill in the blanks using different pieces than you did, and I have just as much evidence for my made up story as you do. You're commenting on yourself, which had you read my post, you would have realized.

Anyway, "My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached." - Dr. Brown.

Right, so he's got a piece of apron, and he's directed to the rest of it. The missing piece comes from a corner portion of the apron, and not a bottom corner, but a top one where the strings are attached? What's that big deal? The apron is tied to her body, and the missing portion comes from a corner up where the strings are.

As for DO Halse noting that there was a piece missing from her apron at the mortuary, it's hardly a difficult thing to memorize that a piece of clothing, worn by a murder victim, has a portion cut out of it. In fact, he would be a pretty poor detective not to notice, and take note, of such an unusual event. On the other hand, if the apron was just part of a bundle of her possessions, including rags and what not and it was not being worn by her, a missing piece would indeed be less attention grabbing.

And I fully agree with you that it is an assumption that the two pieces make up a whole apron, as I said in my post, I also think it's one we are more inclined to make in this case because it would be expected that if some portion were still missing that would get a mention. But as I clearly said, I would rather not have to make that assumption. I would be far more comfortable if someone stated it. Just like many people stated she was wearing an apron. To be honest, I suspect if someone had stated the two combined made up a whole apron you would be arguing there were pieces still missing, because it would be an "old accepted theory" that the two made up a whole apron.

- Jeff

Yet again you duck out he could not have fitted the apron piece to the body because the body was stripped before it was even know that another piece had been found in GS

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Yet again you duck out he could not have fitted the apron piece to the body because the body was stripped before it was even know that another piece had been found in GS

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, I was editing that as you replied, so my post above is a bit different.

It would be unlikely that he would do the comparison while the apron was still tied to the body. That would make it difficult to actually make the comparison. It would have had to have been removed to enable the pieces to be laid out and properly compared. He's just indicating that the piece found at the crime scene had been worn by the victim at the time. Remember, ambiguous statements have multiple possible interpretations. When one takes into account the entire body of knowledge we have, and finds that one of those interpretations corresponds, then that is the one that is intended. You are looking to see if there is any way an individual statement can be made to mean something that conflicts with the rest of the evidence, and use that to claim it is all "unsafe", despite the fact there are "safe" alternatives. You are looking for conflicting statements, I'm looking for common patterns. I believe that underneath these collection of statements there is a common "truth", while you believe it's "all wrong".

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, I was editing that as you replied, so my post above is a bit different.

It would be unlikely that he would do the comparison while the apron was still tied to the body. That would make it difficult to actually make the comparison. It would have had to have been removed to enable the pieces to be laid out and properly compared. He's just indicating that the piece found at the crime scene had been worn by the victim at the time. Remember, ambiguous statements have multiple possible interpretations. When one takes into account the entire body of knowledge we have, and finds that one of those interpretations corresponds, then that is the one that is intended. You are looking to see if there is any way an individual statement can be made to mean something that conflicts with the rest of the evidence, and use that to claim it is all "unsafe", despite the fact there are "safe" alternatives. You are looking for conflicting statements, I'm looking for common patterns. I believe that underneath these collection of statements there is a common "truth", while you believe it's "all wrong".

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

I dont believe all the evidence is wrong but years and years of experience in criminal investigations gives me a little more insight into assessing and evaluating witness testimony and its evidential value and any flaws in the statements which I have continued to highlight in this case.

You cannot ignore conflicting evidence especially when it conflicts with signed testimony. You perhaps need to stop looking for common patterns and focus on the evidence. Cases are not won or lost on speculation.

I have to give you credit, up until now you have been very good at inventing plausible scenarios to negate the belief that she was not wearing an apron, but you have now undone all that good work and shot yourself in the foot

You seek to rely on the Telegraph report which quotes Brown as saying in his inquest testimony "Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

I dont think you or anyone can argue over the interpretation of that comment but I apologize to one and all for keep having to repeat myself, but this report is not only unsafe to rely on it is false, and therefore misleading and you have been misled if you believe in its accuracy.

Again at the risk or repeating myself I refer to Dr Browns official signed inquest testimony which is slightly different but as he signed it as being correct we have to accept its accuracy and its interpretation

“My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached."

Dr Brown could not have fitted the apron piece with the strings attached to the body because the apron piece did not arrive at the mortuary until 5.20am when Dr Phillips took it there from Leman Street Police station and by that time the body had been stripped and the list compiled.

As to matching the two pieces again that could not have taken place until after the body had been stripped and Dr Phillips had brought it to the mortuary. The problem is we do not know the sizes of both of the pieces and therefore it is wrong to speculate how they were matched.

Had they been both large sizes I would have expected them to make mention that they made up a full apron, but we simply dont know. So you nor I or anyone else cannot speculate as to how the two pieces were matched and they were both described as portions which again is open to interpretation. The only thing I will say is that if the mortuary piece had been the remains of a full apron and of a significant size it would not have been missed when the list was made up and would have been clearly visible to those making the list and those involved in stripping the body, the smaller the portion the more it points to her being in possession of an old piece of white apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Hi Jeff

I dont believe all the evidence is wrong but years and years of experience in criminal investigations gives me a little more insight into assessing and evaluating witness testimony and its evidential value and any flaws in the statements which I have continued to highlight in this case.

You cannot ignore conflicting evidence especially when it conflicts with signed testimony. You perhaps need to stop looking for common patterns and focus on the evidence. Cases are not won or lost on speculation.

Trevor, this is not a police/judicial investigation and the concerns which the police/prosecution might have today about "conflicting" statements or gaps in the testimony are not relevant. I'm sure we've all seen enough tv shows with oily defence lawyers getting their guilty clients off the hook on technicalities. "Objection, Your Honour!! Dr. Brown's testimony must be stricken from the record! On one occasion he said string, on another strings - well which is it? I submit that the good dr. is confused, clearly his testimony is unclear and the jury should be instructed to disregard it."

I am sure the police procedures exist for good reason, namely to make absolutely sure that only guilty people are actually convicted of crimes. To ensure that, our modern standard of proof is very high, as it should be.

However, this is not a court room. Therefore, applying those same standards of proof on historical testimony is not correct.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

I dont believe all the evidence is wrong but years and years of experience in criminal investigations gives me a little more insight into assessing and evaluating witness testimony and its evidential value and any flaws in the statements which I have continued to highlight in this case.

You cannot ignore conflicting evidence especially when it conflicts with signed testimony. You perhaps need to stop looking for common patterns and focus on the evidence. Cases are not won or lost on speculation.

I have to give you credit, up until now you have been very good at inventing plausible scenarios to negate the belief that she was not wearing an apron, but you have now undone all that good work and shot yourself in the foot

You seek to rely on the Telegraph report which quotes Brown as saying in his inquest testimony "Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

I dont think you or anyone can argue over the interpretation of that comment but I apologize to one and all for keep having to repeat myself, but this report is not only unsafe to rely on it is false, and therefore misleading and you have been misled if you believe in its accuracy.

Again at the risk or repeating myself I refer to Dr Browns official signed inquest testimony which is slightly different but as he signed it as being correct we have to accept its accuracy and its interpretation

“My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached."

Dr Brown could not have fitted the apron piece with the strings attached to the body because the apron piece did not arrive at the mortuary until 5.20am when Dr Phillips took it there from Leman Street Police station and by that time the body had been stripped and the list compiled.

As to matching the two pieces again that could not have taken place until after the body had been stripped and Dr Phillips had brought it to the mortuary. The problem is we do not know the sizes of both of the pieces and therefore it is wrong to speculate how they were matched.

Had they been both large sizes I would have expected them to make mention that they made up a full apron, but we simply dont know. So you nor I or anyone else cannot speculate as to how the two pieces were matched and they were both described as portions which again is open to interpretation. The only thing I will say is that if the mortuary piece had been the remains of a full apron and of a significant size it would not have been missed when the list was made up and would have been clearly visible to those making the list and those involved in stripping the body, the smaller the portion the more it points to her being in possession of an old piece of white apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yes, the phrasing he uses is bad. I agree that it is unlikely he would have compared the GS piece with the crime scene piece while the crime scene piece was still being worn. It would have to be removed to do the comparison. However, it is not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water, what he's indicating is that the crime scene piece had been worn and had been attached to the body, but it would have been removed when he did the comparison. The word "was", as in "was attached to the body" is a past tense phrase, indicating it is no longer attached. If I say "I was at the movies" it indicates I'm not there now, otherwise I would have said "I am at the movies".

The confusion arises because he's now giving testimony, so everything he's talking about is in the past. Read one way it could sound like he means when the comparison was made the apron was still on the body, however, the same sentence also means "when he made the comparison the apron had been on the body" (the past tense was for the apron being on the body would still be "past tense" if he made the statement at the time he made the comparison. Hmmm, I'm not being very clear here, but imagine we were there at the time he made the comparison of the two pieces. He probably has them laid out on a bench or table. He could, at that time, still say "the larger portion was attached to the body", meaning it had been, as in past tense of "is".

And yes, I understand the problems with testimonies, particularly those that cannot be followed up on to seek clarification. We are left to do our best to extract what the speakers meant. What we cannot do, however, is throw our hands up in the air, claim it is potentially conflicting, and so toss it out and then act as if it doesn't exit. We have multiple sources all testifying, under oath, as to seeing Kate wearing an apron. There is no doubt about that. And so, given that is a well documented and unambiguous fact, we must use that to understand what he was saying, knowing that she was wearing an apron.

We can't just say "Because the good doctor's phrasing is so poor this particular reading of it becomes clearly incorrect" then all the other witnesses must be wrong! Rather, we need to check to see if the good doctor's statement might just be a poorly phrased statement, that really does make some sort of sense. We have to see if it does fit before we can say it doesn't. It requires careful consideration and examination of the evidence because we do not have the opportunity to seek direct clarification.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Ah, I see what you're getting at. Yes, the phrasing he uses is bad. I agree that it is unlikely he would have compared the GS piece with the crime scene piece while the crime scene piece was still being worn. It would have to be removed to do the comparison. However, it is not a good idea to throw the baby out with the bath water, what he's indicating is that the crime scene piece had been worn and had been attached to the body, but it would have been removed when he did the comparison. The word "was", as in "was attached to the body" is a past tense phrase, indicating it is no longer attached. If I say "I was at the movies" it indicates I'm not there now, otherwise I would have said "I am at the movies".

The confusion arises because he's now giving testimony, so everything he's talking about is in the past. Read one way it could sound like he means when the comparison was made the apron was still on the body, however, the same sentence also means "when he made the comparison the apron had been on the body" (the past tense was for the apron being on the body would still be "past tense" if he made the statement at the time he made the comparison. Hmmm, I'm not being very clear here, but imagine we were there at the time he made the comparison of the two pieces. He probably has them laid out on a bench or table. He could, at that time, still say "the larger portion was attached to the body", meaning it had been, as in past tense of "is".

And yes, I understand the problems with testimonies, particularly those that cannot be followed up on to seek clarification. We are left to do our best to extract what the speakers meant. What we cannot do, however, is throw our hands up in the air, claim it is potentially conflicting, and so toss it out and then act as if it doesn't exit. We have multiple sources all testifying, under oath, as to seeing Kate wearing an apron. There is no doubt about that. And so, given that is a well documented and unambiguous fact, we must use that to understand what he was saying, knowing that she was wearing an apron.

We can't just say "Because the good doctor's phrasing is so poor this particular reading of it becomes clearly incorrect" then all the other witnesses must be wrong! Rather, we need to check to see if the good doctor's statement might just be a poorly phrased statement, that really does make some sort of sense. We have to see if it does fit before we can say it doesn't. It requires careful consideration and examination of the evidence because we do not have the opportunity to seek direct clarification.

- Jeff

Jeff
We are not left to try to understand what the speakers say or what they meant to say. What they said is plain and clear enough and thats what we have to work with is to prove or disprove what they said not make up something which we believe they meant to or should have said thats not how it works

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
We are not left to try to understand what the speakers say or what they meant to say. What they said is plain and clear enough and thats what we have to work with is to prove or disprove what they said not make up something which we believe they meant to or should have said thats not how it works

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

There are multiple people independently testifying she was wearing an apron. If you don't think it's important to understand what they meant, then I'm afraid there's little hope. In a live interview, when someone says something odd, or which doesn't sound right, one asks questions to clarify, because the goal is to understand what they are telling you. We can't do that, so we are left to try and find that understanding by working it out. It's not always possible, and we can be left with multiple possible interpretations. There's no reason to believe the Doctor was lying about the apron having been worn by Kate. What you're pointing out is that it is unlikely he did the apron piece comparison while she was still wearing it, and that it was unlikely he actually saw it on her. However, he was no doubt told she had been wearing it, and he phrased his answer in a way that conveyed his knowledge, if perhaps not his experience. That I could agree with you on, and can see where you're coming from in that respect. However, that still does not change the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron. There's more than enough evidence to consider that proven.

What we're no closer at being able to do, however, is determine when the piece was left at Goulston. It clearly was deposited by JtR, as neither my made up story nor your made up story have any basis at all in the evidence. We just made up things. The thing is, if it was left shortly after the murder, and PC Long missed it at 2:20, then it points to his direction of travel. But if it really wasn't there, there's a bunch of missing time, which changes what we can do with that evidence. That's the important issue here, and we're no closer to solving that real mystery than the police were in 1888. They had concluded it was dropped early, and PC Long must have missed it. That, I would think, is a prime example of an "old and accepted theory" that you would sink your teeth into. Because there you would be absolutely right, that is a case where the evidence does not allow that conclusion to be drawn all that confidently. I know I tend to think that it was probably dropped early and missed at 2:20, but I qualify that by noting that it's by no way proven. But with the amount of testimony we have unambiguously stating, under oath, that Kate was indeed wearing an apron, that's just not a fact up for debate. You can worry about specific phrasing all you want, but nothing changes the fact that she was spotted, multiple times throughout the day, wearing an apron.

- Jeff