Kate's Apron

[Abby Normal]

As has been pointed out to you Collards list was made at the time and is irrefutable, that is prime evidnece. The other witnesses gave their evidence from memory some 4 days after the event, and the issue with that have been pointed out to you, So which do you believe? In law notes made at the time carry more weight than questionable verbal testimony days later.

And I really cant be arsed with this thread anymore

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

thank god

[Varqm]

except he didnt. part of it was still on eddowes andpart of it was in goulston st. ?? please elaborate

Well the part/piece of the apron he bought with him to Goulston.
After Mitre Square he could have run to Bishopsgate or Leadenhall/Fenchurch and it was open as where he could go,as far away from the area.But he stayed one hour and ventured back to Spitalfields.If he hid in a discreet building opening/crevice,etc, he could have left the apron there,if a home he could have burned it and not venture out.
So yes I'm more into he held on to the apron not primarily for wiping but to place it underneath a graffito,to say something.

[harry]

I made several points in post 258.I am still waiting for answers.Perhaps you Abby can supply the answers?.Lets see how smart you are.Just you and me one on one.

[JeffHamm]

Apparently is not a definitive answer.

Its not unsupported, and I notice that after the short discussion on how a sanitary device could be worn and how they were made up, the board fell silent. That was because I was correct and I knew I would be vindicated because I had done my research so I clearly knew what I was talking about and what I posted was a possible alternative explanation for how it got to GS and who deposited it there.

And you consider that the witness testimony you rely on is 100% correct because if you do then there is no hope for you I am sorry to be blunt but that's the reality of you assessment and evaluation of the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

If Kate was menstruating, why is she not wearing a sanitary napkin when she was murdered? You do realize they are removed and replaced, that's sort of how it works. She wasn't wearing a replacement for the one you've decided she discarded. If she was it would have been on Collard's list that you hold in such high esteme. It's not there even though she has what you are saying is her material supply (the apron), she has the pins (because she was, according to you, using them to hold the first one in place). There is no replacement at the crime scene. Why? Because she wasn't wearing one in the first place and so had no need to replace it. You do not have evidence of her menstruating on the night she was murdered, and in fact, the lack of her having a sanitary napkin at the crime scene indicates she was not. The idea is dead in the water right there.

You are claiming to be correct and yet you're not correct. You're alternative explanation requires discarding multiple testimonies that indicate she was wearing an apron. Your alternative explanation requires ignoring the testimony that the blood pattern looked like something (hand or knife) was wipled on the cloth. Your alternative explanation requires that she changed direction of travel. Your alternative explanation requires we accept she was menstruating despite no evidence for that. Your alternative explanation predicts she would be wearing a new sanitary device at the time of her murder, and she was not. Your alternative explanation states she wet herself, but there is no evidence for that, but there is evidence to suggest the cloth was wet with blood, not urine. Basically, your alternative explanation is nothing more than something you made up for which there is actual testimony against it and the expected evidence it predicts is not present. Therefore, it does not work as an explanation. You can claim it does all you want, but it's like asking how many legs would a sheep have if you call it's tail a leg? It would still have 4 because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

I applaud you for taking the time to put forth an alternative idea for people to consider. They have, and as a result, it shows that not any old explanation can work. Some can be refuted, and this one has been. It fails the test when compared with the testimony, and it fails the test when predicted evidence is looked for because it is found not to occur. It is not an equally viable explanation by any standard of evaluation. I really don't see how you can continue to champion this idea, particularly as you do not even think it's a big deal.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
well if you dismiss the ripper going to his bolt hole first and then heading back out, then you either have to assume he had chalk him on him when he originally went out that evening to write the grafitti, and then say long missed it first time around or that he didnt write the grafitti at all., but just happened to dump the apron there, again with long missing it. both options seem highly unlikely to me and go against the evidence.

and youre right, serial killers are weird, dont behave like us and the annals of serial killer crime are littered with examples of them doing just this sort of thing. its really not that much of a mystery to me.

amd btw the anon church street sighting is an important clue, if only people would recognize it.

Hi Abby Normal,

I don't dismiss it, rather, there are two alternatives, either PC Long missed it at 2:20 because JtR dropped it shortly after fleeing Mitre Square, or JtR went somewhere else first, and deposits after 2:20 and PC Long finds it on his next round because that was the first opportunity for him to find it.

Of those two the former does sit better with me, but I do not mean I believe it is proven, or even so much more likely that I would say that's probably the case. I just have an easier time with that one. But, the evidence does not allow us to differentiate them and both remain viable. For you, the "bolt hole" explanation sits better, which is fine (we're dealing with opinions now), but if you were to suggest it's the only explanation, that would be wrong. I'm not suggesting the "missed it" is the only explanation, it's just one of the possible explanations that remains after the evidence is examined, similar to the bolt hole, it too remains.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Collard does not indicate she was wearing an apron. You must stop referring to testimony which is clearly secondary to the official testimony

You cant keep playing all of these spurious newspaper reports to prop up your argument.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Collard's quote, from the official inquest testimony, reads, in full:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress - ", it was not found with her things, it was found outside her dress, in a position that indicated she had been wearing. The word "apparently" here means "by all appearances" it is not an indicator of doubt on his part. I am sure you will be unable to accept that, but in the end Trevor, Collard, the writer of the list, directly tells us she was wearing the apron, although when she found, it had been cut through.

Collard tells us she was wearing the apron. It was not a supply of material for her menstrual napkins, something she was not wearing at the time she was killed, indicating, she was not menstruating.


Furthermore, his list is one list. It is not divided in two parts. The items are not listed in the order they were removed from the body either, skirts are listed after petticoats, vests after chemise, and so forth. Basically, the items are listed in no particular order with reference to how they are worn on the body. Rather, it looks more like he's recorded things by going through all the items after she's been stripped. The fact the apron appears last on the list does not, in any way, therefore, indicate it was "part of her possessions" rather than part of the clothes she was wearing. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

thank god

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apparently is not a definitive answer.

Its not unsupported, and I notice that after the short discussion on how a sanitary device could be worn and how they were made up, the board fell silent. That was because I was correct and I knew I would be vindicated because I had done my research so I clearly knew what I was talking about and what I posted was a possible alternative explanation for how it got to GS and who deposited it there.

And you consider that the witness testimony you rely on is 100% correct because if you do then there is no hope for you I am sorry to be blunt but that's the reality of you assessment and evaluation of the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s an achievement to be so consistently wrong. No one is saying that witnesses are always 100% correct. What we say is that you cannot simply keep bleating ‘unsafe’ when it suits you. Every time you come up against something that doesn’t gel with your thinking you try and dismiss it even when there’s no evidence for doing so. I have to ask why do the police EVER bother questioning witnesses if everything that they say about an incident that occurred in the near past would be ‘unsafe.’ So we have Hutt saying that she wore an apron. Could his memory have been faulty and he’d simply imagined it? But wait, we have another police officer, Robinson, who arrested her and saw her in her cell, and he also recalls that she was wearing an apron. So we have two concurring witness? That significantly increases the chances of them being correct right? Noooo, of course not because now that there’s two of them they weren’t mistaken they were lying. It was a conspiracy. Well would you believe it?

Actually no we wouldn’t. You’re determined to dismiss witnesses with absolutely no grounds. You haven’t been vindicated Trevor. You’ve ‘done your research.’ And obviously in your mind only you are capable of researching and assessing evidence. Your conclusions show that not to be the case. Your theory is based on pure speculation. And it’s wrong.

[Trevor Marriott]

Collard's quote, from the official inquest testimony, reads, in full:

"I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress - ", it was not found with her things, it was found outside her dress, in a position that indicated she had been wearing. The word "apparently" here means "by all appearances" it is not an indicator of doubt on his part. I am sure you will be unable to accept that, but in the end Trevor, Collard, the writer of the list, directly tells us she was wearing the apron, although when she found, it had been cut through.

Collard tells us she was wearing the apron. It was not a supply of material for her menstrual napkins, something she was not wearing at the time she was killed, indicating, she was not menstruating.


Furthermore, his list is one list. It is not divided in two parts. The items are not listed in the order they were removed from the body either, skirts are listed after petticoats, vests after chemise, and so forth. Basically, the items are listed in no particular order with reference to how they are worn on the body. Rather, it looks more like he's recorded things by going through all the items after she's been stripped. The fact the apron appears last on the list does not, in any way, therefore, indicate it was "part of her possessions" rather than part of the clothes she was wearing. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

- Jeff

Anyone with half a brain can see how the list was prepared and I can tell you from experience in these situations that when a homicide victim is stripped the items of clothing are removed starting at the top and working down and are listed in order they come off the body and are examined for any knife cuts or bullet holes which is what happened in this case and any that are found are listed as in this case.

The old piece of apron which you and others suggest she was wearing is not conducive of her wearing an apron, there were no cuts or blood stains mentioned on that piece as there were on and around other items of clothing which would have been in close proximity to an apron.

Then the possessions are then listed, so stop playing with words. Thats how the list was prepared and it is clearly in line with police procedures and clearly shows that she was not wearing an apron or half an apron if she had have been it would have been visible under her jacket and over her skirt.

All valid points which you continue to ignore.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s an achievement to be so consistently wrong. No one is saying that witnesses are always 100% correct. What we say is that you cannot simply keep bleating ‘unsafe’ when it suits you. Every time you come up against something that doesn’t gel with your thinking you try and dismiss it even when there’s no evidence for doing so. I have to ask why do the police EVER bother questioning witnesses if everything that they say about an incident that occurred in the near past would be ‘unsafe.’ So we have Hutt saying that she wore an apron. Could his memory have been faulty and he’d simply imagined it? But wait, we have another police officer, Robinson, who arrested her and saw her in her cell, and he also recalls that she was wearing an apron. So we have two concurring witness? That significantly increases the chances of them being correct right? Noooo, of course not because now that there’s two of them they weren’t mistaken they were lying. It was a conspiracy. Well would you believe it?

Actually no we wouldn’t. You’re determined to dismiss witnesses with absolutely no grounds. You haven’t been vindicated Trevor. You’ve ‘done your research.’ And obviously in your mind only you are capable of researching and assessing evidence. Your conclusions show that not to be the case. Your theory is based on pure speculation. And it’s wrong.

Can you not comprehend how I have highlighted the reasons why the witness testimony is unsafe. Go back and read the posts instead if keep quoting the same old same, you and Jeff are becoming boring and repetitive in your replies.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

Apparently is not a definitive answer.

Its not unsupported, and I notice that after the short discussion on how a sanitary device could be worn and how they were made up, the board fell silent. That was because I was correct and I knew I would be vindicated because I had done my research so I clearly knew what I was talking about and what I posted was a possible alternative explanation for how it got to GS and who deposited it there.

And you consider that the witness testimony you rely on is 100% correct because if you do then there is no hope for you I am sorry to be blunt but that's the reality of you assessment and evaluation of the evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I've gone quiet on this topic, not because you've cowed me into silence, Trevor, but because I'm looking into sanitary devices in the LVP (and I'm too busy with other stuff to dedicate much time to it at the moment).

Much of what I'm seeing thus far actually indicates that lower class women in the LVP (particularly in Britain and Germany), didn't use any sanitary device. They just let it all hang out, as their petticoats would hide the evidence.

I saw an interesting account from a lady who ran a mill, stating that at the end of a long shift, the straw on the floor of the mill would be dotted with blood from the menstruating mill girls...

More research required, but there's some interesting stuff on the Museum of Menstruation website.

Yep, that exists!!!

[Trevor Marriott]

I've gone quiet on this topic, not because you've cowed me into silence, Trevor, but because I'm looking into sanitary devices in the LVP (and I'm too busy with other stuff to dedicate much time to it at the moment).

Much of what I'm seeing thus far actually indicates that lower class women in the LVP (particularly in Britain and Germany), didn't use any sanitary device. They just let it all hang out, as their petticoats would hide the evidence.

I saw an interesting account from a lady who ran a mill, stating that at the end of a long shift, the straw on the floor of the mill would be dotted with blood from the menstruating mill girls...

More research required, but there's some interesting stuff on the Museum of Menstruation website.

Yep, that exists!!!

Perhaps after your perusing you might want to come back and confirm that the lower class women did use rags and they did affix those rags to other items of clothing in the absence of wearing drawers just to avoid the suggestion that I was inventing that scenario.

I am sure others on here have already researched it and find I am correct,but of course I dont expect any apology to be forthcoming from them.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

I don't dismiss it, rather, there are two alternatives, either PC Long missed it at 2:20 because JtR dropped it shortly after fleeing Mitre Square, or JtR went somewhere else first, and deposits after 2:20 and PC Long finds it on his next round because that was the first opportunity for him to find it.

Of those two the former does sit better with me, but I do not mean I believe it is proven, or even so much more likely that I would say that's probably the case. I just have an easier time with that one. But, the evidence does not allow us to differentiate them and both remain viable. For you, the "bolt hole" explanation sits better, which is fine (we're dealing with opinions now), but if you were to suggest it's the only explanation, that would be wrong. I'm not suggesting the "missed it" is the only explanation, it's just one of the possible explanations that remains after the evidence is examined, similar to the bolt hole, it too remains.

- Jeff

hi jeff
i dont dismiss the ripper going straight to goulston street either. in that case he had chalk on him and wrote the grafitti or didnt write tje grafitti and its just a coincidence he left the apron under it. of those two scenarios which would you think more likely?

i just have a hard time with him having chalk on him, but maybe he planned on something like this before he went out? i guess i could see that.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you not comprehend how I have highlighted the reasons why the witness testimony is unsafe. Go back and read the posts instead if keep quoting the same old same, you and Jeff are becoming boring and repetitive in your replies.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can you not comprehend that just because you make a point posters aren’t obliged to agree with you? We have no reason to assume that there testimony is ‘unsafe.’ You do so only because it suits your cause.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
hi jeff
i dont dismiss the ripper going straight to goulston street either. in that case he had chalk on him

Unless he was a schoolteacher of course Abby