Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

What you displayed Jon means nothing as regards the Eddowes case.We know her death and the autopsy were on a sunday.This ,it couldn't happen,recalls another statement you made in the past,that police could not interview prisoners in prison.Totally false.

Not sure what you mean.
I had said there was a rule that post-mortems were not permitted on a Sunday, I posted the Coroner's rule which shows I was correct.
The fact that Dr Brown went against the rule is clear, but also corroborated by the press article found by Joshua. So yes, Eddowes inquest did happen on the Sunday.

Sorry, not "inquest", I mean "post-mortem" - thanks Dave.

[DJA]

Thought the inquest commenced on the Thursday.

[Wickerman]

....... another statement you made in the past,that police could not interview prisoners in prison.Totally false.

Sorry, I missed this last comment.
I'm not aware of any rule that police can't interview prisoner's in a prison.
Are you sure it was me?
What was the context, I can't think of a reason why a prisoner cannot be interviewed - so I can't imagine why I would say that.
Some context might help support that claim.

[JeffHamm]

and you have made my day by showing your ignorance yet again

You insult me, do you think i am like you and just sit and dream things up in an attemot to prop up the old theory because I dont, thorough research has been conducted into many aspects of this apron issue before they are put into print. A modern day gyenecolgist has provide an opinion on this issue and I have to accept that opinion its a shame you dont

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You're posts are dripping with scorn to anyone, myself included, who doesn't agree with you. It's part of your method of debate, so if you don't like it, stop doing it and you'll find others will as well. Until then, you reap what you sow. I don't really care for such approaches, but will adapt my debating approach to whomever I'm discussing things with.

And yes, you do dream up things out of nowhere. Urine, for example, trips in opposite directions, organ thieves, and so forth. Your entire alternative explanation is based upon a plethora of completely unsubstantiated ideas with regards to the specific cases - it's all speculations derived from a creative thinking approach, which you call out of the box thinking. But the box, in this case, is the evidence so thinking outside the constraints of the evidence is not, in this instance, something to be proud of.

The insistence she was menstruating in the first place is entirely unsubstantiated. It's pure conjecture on your part. As you yourself point out, given her poor health and age, her period of menses is likely to be shorter than usual, which makes the probability of her menstruating on the day of her death far less probable than her not. Yet you bet on the longer odds, that's unsafe. You need to show something (and not the G.S. apron piece, because that's what you're trying to explain so it would be circular) that guides us to that conclusion. You don't, you just say she was and call people blinkdered for not accepting that proclamation Then when you're challenged by having it pointed out that the evidence we do have doesn't fit the idea of her menstruating (no replacement on her clothes, no blood on her legs), you make up another complexity to explain away why the evidence does not fit your explanation. This is called inserting add on statements to try and save a refuted theory. For evidence you simply look to see if anyone will say that what you suggest is possible in general, and as long as something doesn't violate the known laws of physics it remains possible. That's not support, though, you need to show from something in the evidence from this case moves the possible into the probable. And that is what you cannot do.

I have no doubt you found someone who said what you want to hear. But even when your experts give you data that goes against your theory (your expert who removed a kidney and uterus in 4 minutes) you find ways to invalidate your own experiment when it doesn't fit what you want to say.

It's because you take a stance as the defense attorney that you are not obligated to present to the court a true account of what happened (it's not the defenses job to solve a crime after all), rather the defense's goal is only to try and insert doubt into the prosecution's case. This is why you move the goal posts, you treat everyone else as if they have to reach the higher bar of the crown, while you just have to trip them up.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I used known references for that sketch, one source described the remaining piece with the string as 'triangular', and two other sources gave an estimate of the size of the G.S. piece.

We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

We can only use what we have, and the consensus appears to be the G.S. piece was "about half" of the apron.

Correction: the apron piece was described as "a corner", not "triangular" - though one may be taken for the other.

Hi Wickerman,

Oh, I didn't know there was anything that mentioned the size of the pieces at all. And while the second are memoirs, which sadly are not great blocks to build upon, it's interesting to find out that there are descriptions offered. If we take these at face value (and no, not suggesting these have magically become solid evidence), I think a diagonal cut, from upper corner near the waist ties, and down towards, even if not reaching, the bottom corner on the other side. That sounds to me like someone just cutting through material to get it out of the way, which may colour my interpretation because I tend to consider it likely that's all JtR was doing at the point he cut the apron (I don't think he intended to take or use it, but circumstances changed when PC Harvey arrived).

Anyway, just to clarify, where does that statement by DS Halse come from (not the book, which you reference, but the original statement? I can't recall seeing it in any official document found in the books I have. It looks similar to what he says at the inquest though.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There was no missing piece to look for, why do you not understand that there was only ever two pieces, and those two pieces couldn't have made up a full apron so she must have been in possession at some time before her murder of 2 pieces of old white apron ,which may have come from an old apron that was cut up and maybe the 12 pieces of rag, were the leftovers from the old apron that was cut up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

How blinkered does one have to be to not get this Trevor. If there were only ever two pieces then the two pieces make up a whole apron. On the other hand, if as you claim despite there being nothing to suggest this, the apron was not whole when the two pieces were put together, then there is still at least one piece missing. A whole apron would be the two they have, plus the piece (or pieces) missing.

It's your speculation that the apron was incomplete, so where's the missing piece(s) that make up a whole apron. You can't say there were only ever two pieces, because then the apron is whole.

Take your blindfold off and just read what is in front of you.

Shall I help you?

The third missing piece was probably either lost or used long before the night in question. There is some possibility that it may have been cut up into the 12 pieces of rags that she was carrying, but our information about those rags is not sufficient to really be sure of that, and I'm not fussed either way.

See, that wasn't so hard was it? If you approached the discussion with an aim to discuss, we might actually get somewhere.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Hi Trevor,

How blinkered does one have to be to not get this Trevor. If there were only ever two pieces then the two pieces make up a whole apron. On the other hand, if as you claim despite there being nothing to suggest this, the apron was not whole when the two pieces were put together, then there is still at least one piece missing. A whole apron would be the two they have, plus the piece (or pieces) missing.

It's your speculation that the apron was incomplete, so where's the missing piece(s) that make up a whole apron. You can't say there were only ever two pieces, because then the apron is whole.

Take your blindfold off and just read what is in front of you

So thats 2 of us that have tried to get Trevor to answer this?

Let’s see......

[Trevor Marriott]

So thats 2 of us that have tried to get Trevor to answer this?

Let’s see......

whats so difficult to understand that she was not wearing an apron, because the list tell us that, but she had been in possession of at a point in time before her murder of two pieces of apron that when matched at the mortuary were matched, but did not make up full apron. On that basis there is, nor was there ever a missing piece of her apron, which if found would have made the apron a full apron., but it would never be found because it never existed and was never cut.torn or taken away.

This is another attempt by you and the other numpties to again muddy the waters.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

whats so difficult to understand that she was not wearing an apron,

Which of course is just your baseless opinion.

because the list tell us that,

No it doesn’t. You just make things up as you go.

but she had been in possession of at a point in time before her murder of two pieces of apron that when matched at the mortuary were matched, but did not make up full apron.

And so, if the 2 pieces didn’t make up a full apron then there was a piece missing.

On that basis there is, nor was there ever a missing piece of her apron,

So we have an incomplete apron that’s actually complete. Ok.

which if found would have made the apron a full apron.,

You say “...if found,” ...... so there was a missing piece?

but it would never be found because it never existed

So the missing piece was never missing.

and was never cut.torn or taken away.

Are you talking about the missing piece or the missing piece that wasn’t missing or the incomplete complete piece?

This is another attempt by you and the other numpties to again muddy the waters.

There’s more irony loaded into that one sentence than has ever been loaded into a sentence before.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I genuinely didn’t think that you would pursue the same point. I thought that you’d try and wriggle out of this another way. I’m sorry to say this but this simply cannot be put down to misunderstanding. It’s just dishonesty on your part. You continue to plumb the depths Trevor. I challenge any breathing human being to read your responses on this point and to try and justify them.

If you intend to repeat your last point please feel free to write it on this

[JeffHamm]

whats so difficult to understand that she was not wearing an apron, because the list tell us that, but she had been in possession of at a point in time before her murder of two pieces of apron that when matched at the mortuary were matched, but did not make up full apron. On that basis there is, nor was there ever a missing piece of her apron, which if found would have made the apron a full apron., but it would never be found because it never existed and was never cut.torn or taken away.

This is another attempt by you and the other numpties to again muddy the waters.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh my good god Trevor. Of course the speculated missing piece had to have existed at some time. The apron had to have been whole at some point in time. You're speculative idea is that the portion unaccounted for on the night of the murder had been lost at some point prior to the night in question. So when asked about where that missing third (or more) pieces are, the only reply you had to make was that you are speculating that the missing portion was missing before she was murdered, and either she was no longer in possession of it, or maybe it had been cut up into 12 pieces of rags. That's all you had to say, and given you have no problem with making purely speculative claims, it's entirely consistent with your "I'm right at any cost" approach. You are acting like you cannot respond if it requires you to agree with someone in any way shape or form. But that is leaving you making irrational statements like "The two pieces do not make up a whole but there is no piece of it missing." How can you possibly bring yourself to say such things? That is so patently absurd a combination of claims that it is no surprise nobody buys your series of conjectures.

The explanation you would have to offer, however, is all made up. I know this because I'm having to make up a response for you that isn't absurd, not because I believe it. Unless you can find evidence that states Kate was known to possess a damaged apron prior to her murder. You can't produce such evidence because it does not exist. It is only your conjecture that
a) the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron
b) that Kate possessed an incomplete one before she was murdered where the missing portion was no longer in her possession
c) that everyone who says she was wearing an apron was wrong
d) that she was menstruating
e) and now, that she stopped menstruating
f) that she wet her self
g) that she deviated from the direction she was travelling despite that being a pretty direct route between where she was last seen alive and where she was found dead

and I'm sure I could list more, but my point is made.

None of those speculations has any evidence, and some of them only exist to make the evidence against another point "go away". It's a tower of unsafety.

There is so much going against your explanation that to try and justify it by piling more and more speculations and conjectures on top of the already too high mountain of unsubstantiated claims that all that is happening is that by continuing to do so your tower of unsafety falls over in comparison to the original explanation offered by the police.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Even Jeff is losing patience with you Trevor. I had no patience to begin with.

[GUT]

Well no wonder I, and many others don’t post much here anymore, when two pieces of apron that don’t make a full apron equals something other than there being at least a third -ice of apron, sheesh, I thought I’d seen it all with Van Gogh and “I know things I won’t tell” (the one whose name I won’t eve. Mention)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Oh my good god Trevor. Of course the speculated missing piece had to have existed at some time. The apron had to have been whole at some point in time. You're speculative idea is that the portion unaccounted for on the night of the murder had been lost at some point prior to the night in question. So when asked about where that missing third (or more) pieces are, the only reply you had to make was that you are speculating that the missing portion was missing before she was murdered, and either she was no longer in possession of it, or maybe it had been cut up into 12 pieces of rags. That's all you had to say, and given you have no problem with making purely speculative claims, it's entirely consistent with your "I'm right at any cost" approach. You are acting like you cannot respond if it requires you to agree with someone in any way shape or form. But that is leaving you making irrational statements like "The two pieces do not make up a whole but there is no piece of it missing." How can you possibly bring yourself to say such things? That is so patently absurd a combination of claims that it is no surprise nobody buys your series of conjectures.

The explanation you would have to offer, however, is all made up. I know this because I'm having to make up a response for you that isn't absurd, not because I believe it. Unless you can find evidence that states Kate was known to possess a damaged apron prior to her murder. You can't produce such evidence because it does not exist. It is only your conjecture that
a) the two pieces didn't make up a whole apron
b) that Kate possessed an incomplete one before she was murdered where the missing portion was no longer in her possession
c) that everyone who says she was wearing an apron was wrong
d) that she was menstruating
e) and now, that she stopped menstruating
f) that she wet her self
g) that she deviated from the direction she was travelling despite that being a pretty direct route between where she was last seen alive and where she was found dead

and I'm sure I could list more, but my point is made.

None of those speculations has any evidence, and some of them only exist to make the evidence against another point "go away". It's a tower of unsafety.

There is so much going against your explanation that to try and justify it by piling more and more speculations and conjectures on top of the already too high mountain of unsubstantiated claims that all that is happening is that by continuing to do so your tower of unsafety falls over in comparison to the original explanation offered by the police.

- Jeff

Its like trying to converse with someone in a foreign language isn’t it?

Surely Trevor can’t be saying “the apron had been incomplete from long before the murder?” Can he? That would be a stunner! Yet again he’s stating his opinion as fact....no change there though - Marriott Rules Of Ripperology No 37b sub-section 3 - All evidence is unsafe except for Trevor Marriott’s opinion......which is to be treated as fact.)

Even if the apron had been incomplete from long before the murder the Police couldn’t possibly have known that and so to them, when the pieces were matched up, there was just a piece missing and they would have mentioned it and they would have wanted it found if possible.

BUT THEY DIDNT MENTION IT OR LOOK FOR IT BECAUSE THIS INCOMPLETE APRON IS JUST A FIGMENT OF TREVOR’S IMAGINATION.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well no wonder I, and many others don’t post much here anymore, when two pieces of apron that don’t make a full apron equals something other than there being at least a third -ice of apron, sheesh, I thought I’d seen it all with Van Gogh and “I know things I won’t tell” (the one whose name I won’t eve. Mention)

If you hadn’t actually read it you wouldn’t have believed it would you GUT?

One day it would be nice to escape from the rabbit-hole.

[harry]

Jon.
You made the claim on JTR forums.and you were told you were wrong there.
No one has responded to my suggestion there could have been a second apron which she had been wearing.Speculation you might say,and that would be correct,but it allows for Eddowes to have dropped a piece of an apron in Goulstan Street,and an apron piece to have been included in her possessions.