Kate's Apron

[Joshua Rogan]

Can you not see now how I suggest the police were fitting the facts to suit a theory

Nothing changes, eh?

[Trevor Marriott]

Only the bib of an apron ties around the neck. The bib is generally square, a neckerchief is often square, a handkerchief is square.
You are trying to insist on a difference in a period when people used any old misshapen piece of cloth for a variety of uses.
A destitute woman uses a old piece of cloth as a neckerchief looped around her neck, and you want to insist that cloth couldn't have come from an apron.
In our case it was the remnants of her apron, but the police didn't know that at the time.

We also know one of the pieces had been described as a bib, it turned out to be the wrong piece as it happens, but it isn't the only time Warren confused things.

and it isnt the only time police officers were wrong

So you would mix evidence from two different crime scenes?

The GS piece did not arrive at the mortuary till much later when Dr Phillips brought it and that I belive that was the next day

If Collard did that then why didn't he list the buttons & mustard tin?
You know why, but you can't admit it.

Either Collard couldn't mix evidence - which means the old piece of white apron he listed last was not the G.S. piece.

It could not have been the Gs piece because the GS piece had not been found when the body was stripped and the list compiled

Or, he forgot the buttons & mustard tin with pawn tickets that he had in his pocket - which means his list is not complete so not as reliable as you insist.

Incomplete but reliable. So tell me what is not reliable aboiut the list as was presented as evidence at the inquest?

Either way your argument crumbles.

The reason why the "1 Piece of old white apron" is listed last, I suggest, is because when the GS piece arrived, the remnant was pulled out of the clothes and fit with the GS piece brought to the mortuary by Phillips. When established what it was, a piece of apron not a neckerchief, it was placed back on the table, last.
Only after the post-mortem, sometime in the late afternoon, did Collard write his List.

No suggestions lets stick to the facts and anlayze them

Here is a bib apron please tell me how they failed to identify any part of that type of apron when the body was stripped, and as for part of of such an apron being mistaken for a neckerchief your suggestion amazes me even more. The bib part could not have become detached because if the killer did cut a piece it would have been from the bottom half and the rest of the apron would have been in situ and easily visible

I refer you back to Dr Brown who refers to the mortuary piece "My attention was drawn to the apron it was the corner of the apron with a string attached" So that doesnt depict a bib apron, and you cant tie an apron with only one string. There was no mention of any strings being found on the GS piece. So all we are left with are two pieces or old white apron, one with a string attached, which at some time clearly came from a full apron and no evidence to show that the GS piece and the mortuary piece when matched made up a full apron

What happened to the rest of the apron and all the strings and shoulder straps?

The apron evidence is unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Incomplete but reliable

How can a list be reliable when it has things missing from it?

“It’s a cracking car apart from the fact that it hasn’t got an engine.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

Here is a bib apron please tell me how they failed to identify any part of that type of apron when the body was stripped, and as for part of of such an apron being mistaken for a neckerchief your suggestion amazes me even more. The bib part could not have become detached because if the killer did cut a piece it would have been from the bottom half and the rest of the apron would have been in situ and easily visible

I refer you back to Dr Brown who refers to the mortuary piece "My attention was drawn to the apron it was the corner of the apron with a string attached" So that doesnt depict a bib apron, and you cant tie an apron with only one string. There was no mention of any strings being found on the GS piece. So all we are left with are two pieces or old white apron, one with a string attached, which at some time clearly came from a full apron and no evidence to show that the GS piece and the mortuary piece when matched made up a full apron

What happened to the rest of the apron and all the strings and shoulder straps?

The apron evidence is unsafe

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It’s rock solid. 100% definitely Eddowes was wearing an apron. There’s not a single, solitary, scintilla of cogent, reasoned evidence to the contrary.

[Wickerman]

What a ridiculous statement by that officer he could have been shown any old white piece of apron and he would still say it was from the one she was wearing his evidence is not worth the paper it is written on

Can you not see now how I suggest the police were fitting the facts to suit a theory

You need to view the testimony as one point of a sequence, Hutt was not the first witness called.

- Wilkinson, the lodging-house keeper testified when he last saw Kate wearing an apron, Saturday morning.

- Collard then mentions the discovery of the piece of apron in G. S.

- Dr. Brown testifies to removing one piece of apron, and to recognising a piece of apron found in G. S. brought to the mortuary.
("I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.")

- PC Robinson states that the two pieces of apron entered into evidence look like the apron he saw Kate wearing when she was arrested.

- It was then that PC Hutt was questioned about the apron in the courtroom.

So, it wasn't a case of "any old apron", the police had a chain of custody for both the piece removed by Dr Brown, and the piece found by PC Long, and both brought together at the inquest.

You are wrong to claim it could have been any old piece of apron. Hutt doesn't need to recognise it from a dozen other dirty, shabby aprons. This is not an I.D. where he must pick one apron from a series of used aprons.
He only needs to see the one removed by Dr Brown to acknowledge it is the same one he saw when he released her.

[The Baron]

It’s rock solid. 100% definitely Eddowes was wearing an apron. There’s not a single, solitary, scintilla of cogent, reasoned evidence to the contrary.

The irony, don't we have you saying:

My opinions are simply my opinions and are completely unbiased. I don’t state those opinions as facts which is exactly what you are dishonestly trying to do. I doubt if you’ll find anyone anywhere who will say that Alice Mackenzie was 100% certainly a ripper victim.

So what happened to Mr. Unbiased open minded who doesn't state opinions as facts?!

Do you often forget what you lecture others to do or not to do?!



The Baron

[Herlock Sholmes]

The irony, don't we have you saying:





So what happened to Mr. Unbiased open minded who doesn't state opinions as facts?!

Do you often forget what you lecture others to do or not to do?!



The Baron

Your sad obsession with me continues.

Some things are opinions and some things are facts. Opinions should be stated as opinions but facts can be stated as facts. That Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron is not my opinion it is a proven fact. Only one person appears not to know this (unless you’re Trevor’s parrot on this subject too?)

Another waste of space post from you to add to your collection.

[JeffHamm]

What a ridiculous statement by that officer he could have been shown any old white piece of apron and he would still say it was from the one she was wearing his evidence is not worth the paper it is written on

Can you not see now how I suggest the police were fitting the facts to suit a theory

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, that's not quite right. He indicated be believes the one shown is the one she was wearing, he does not confirm it must be the one she was wearing. Basically, it looks like it.

But he is definate about her wearing one. Even if you think he can't recognise the one shown, (which is an unsafe belief for you to have because, well, people can recognise things they saw before, and when you read what he says, he is only stating he believes it looks like the one she was wearing. There is no room for doubt she was wearing one, you can only argue that the one shown might be a different one. But are you going to go the two apron route? Even if you do, she still was wearing one.

Your just avoiding it by claiming he can't recognise the item shown. Take your blinkers off, and you will see that regardless of what you make of his belief about the piece shown, he definately remembers her wearing an apron. You're arguing about chain of custody.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, stop pretending that a list of items is Collard's statement of proof that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron. The list is just a list - it claims nothing. However, Collard did make a statement on oath at the inquest about the apron. He said, "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing...", so on oath he said he believed she was wearing an apron. Collard - your witness - said on oath that he believed she was wearing an apron. It's crystal clear.

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, that's not quite right. He indicated be believes the one shown is the one she was wearing, he does not confirm it must be the one she was wearing. Basically, it looks like it.

But he is definate about her wearing one. Even if you think he can't recognise the one shown, (which is an unsafe belief for you to have because, well, people can recognise things they saw before, and when you read what he says, he is only stating he believes it looks like the one she was wearing. There is no room for doubt she was wearing one, you can only argue that the one shown might be a different one. But are you going to go the two apron route? Even if you do, she still was wearing one.

Your just avoiding it by claiming he can't recognise the item shown. Take your blinkers off, and you will see that regardless of what you make of his belief about the piece shown, he definately remembers her wearing an apron. You're arguing about chain of custody.

- Jeff

Again your blinkered approach has misled you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

How on earth can he recognise one piece of white apron from another his testimony is flawed.

My point being to show how unsafe the testimony is along with the proceedings. Why did he just not say she was wearing a white apron. He like the other officers was trying to be helpful by pinning the tail on the donkey in this case pinning an apron to Eddowes

take the doorkeper who says he recalls her wearing an apron 12 hours before she was killed. A lot could have happened in that 12 hours with her and her apron.

Notice all the testimony that relates to showing she was wearing an apron to show which way the killer went after the murder by trying to link her apron to the GS piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

- Dr. Brown testifies to removing one piece of apron, and to recognising a piece of apron found in G. S. brought to the mortuary.
("I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.")

Dr Browns official inquest testimony only mentions one string and you cant tie an apron with only one string.

And I say again there was no mention of the GS piece having any strings attached.

So that confirms the belief that Eddowes was simply at the time of her murder in possession of several pieces of white apron and not wearing one, and these pieces when matched did not make up a full apron

maybe you and others should concentrate on these issues instead of keep quoting police testimony that is unsafe and does not corroborate other known facts concerning the apron and the apron piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Dr Browns official inquest testimony only mentions one string and you cant tie an apron with only one string.

And I say again there was no mention of the GS piece having any strings attached.

Part of a forensic investigation is to recreate a scenario, even a century old, to see how it unfolded. In this case we can think it through step by step.
Have you ever tied an apron around your waist or neck?

Two strings are brought together and tied in a knot or bow.
Anyone working in forensics knows a knot can contain clues; like how it was tied, or were any hairs, fibers or even blood spots trapped in the knot, etc.
What I'm saying is, you don't untie a knot, that can destroy evidence.
You cut the string (singular) to remove the apron, that is what Dr Brown said he did.

Because the apron was still on the body, it means the knot was still intact. This means the two strings are joined together as one.
You don't cut the strings (plural), you cut the string (singular)

For what it's worth, I think he would have cut the clothes off too, a body mutilated to that extent couldn't stand to be rolled over & sat upright to pull dresses, vests, jackets, off. So long as Brown keeps a record of which cuts are his, this would be the correct thing to do.

You're the detective Trevor, put your thinking cap on instead of trying to defend an ill conceived theory.

[JeffHamm]

Again your blinkered approach has misled you !!!!!!!!!!!!!

How on earth can he recognise one piece of white apron from another his testimony is flawed.

My point being to show how unsafe the testimony is along with the proceedings. Why did he just not say she was wearing a white apron. He like the other officers was trying to be helpful by pinning the tail on the donkey in this case pinning an apron to Eddowes

take the doorkeper who says he recalls her wearing an apron 12 hours before she was killed. A lot could have happened in that 12 hours with her and her apron.

Notice all the testimony that relates to showing she was wearing an apron to show which way the killer went after the murder by trying to link her apron to the GS piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, you're blind to the evidence. He only states he "believes" the piece shown is the same "as the one she was wearing". The concern you can have relates to the accuracy of the belief, but what you're missing is that in order to believe (rightly or wrongly) that the piece shown is the same as the one she was wearing requires two factual states 1) there was a piece being shown and 2) she was wearing one in the first place. Whether the one shown is the one she wearing is based upon him believing those two are one and the same. There still has to be one she was wearing for him to have a belief, regardless of whether or not you think his belief is accurate.

He said he believed it was the same because he was asked. He did not, however, "confirm" it was the same - he did not say "Yes, that is the apron she was wearing", which I agree he could not state. But he did not say that, he only stated his "belief", which simply indicates they looked enough alike that he could not say they were different, and also it indicates he had no reason to believe there was a problem in the chain of custody, but as he cannot be 100%, he cannot assert they are the same, only state his belief. You're trying to claim he "asserts they are the same", when he is not. You're setting up a straw man that does not reflect the actual evidence, making the whole argument pointless because effectively you're arguing he cannot say something he did not say.

You are just trying to avoid the obvious and swerve the whole issue.

There is nothing about showing the direction her killer may have taken that changes if she only had the apron on her person as opposed to her wearing it. There is no benefit to their case that results from them lying about her wearing the apron. In fact, it would put their case at risk should they apprehend someone and the defense lawyer is able to show the police were lying about evidence. Nothing is gained by having her wearing the apron. The only theory that is challenged by this is yours, not the police theory that JtR went from Mitre Square to GS. Their theory is entirely capable of handling her not wearing the apron, there is nothing for them to gain. Only your theory suffers if she's wearing it.

The blinkers, as you so frequently like to say, are firmly on your eyes, trying not to see the disconfirming evidence right in front of you.

But there was nothing to be gained by the police by misrepresenting the evidence and potentially everything to lose, so your whole repeating of "they're lying to help their case" is irrational, and the more evidence you bat aside the more desperate it looks.


- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You cut the string (singular) to remove the apron, that is what Dr Brown said he did.

Where does he say that ? He says "My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with a string attached"

Because the apron was still on the body, it means the knot was still intact. This means the two strings are joined together as one.
You don't cut the strings (plural), you cut the string (singular)

If the apron was still on the body and clearly visible and Dr Brown removed it, it should have formed part of the list as an item of clothing she was wearing but DrBrown didnt remove it in the way you suggest

You're the detective Trevor, put your thinking cap on instead of trying to defend an ill conceived theory.

My thinking cap is firmly fixed and fully operational, perhaps you should put your one on and take off those rose tinted glasses

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, stop pretending that a list of items is Collard's statement of proof that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron. The list is just a list - it claims nothing. However, Collard did make a statement on oath at the inquest about the apron. He said, "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing...", so on oath he said he believed she was wearing an apron. Collard - your witness - said on oath that he believed she was wearing an apron. It's crystal clear.

he said "Apparently wearing" that statement creates a doubt, and certainly does not confirm that she was wearing an apron.

he also states " A portion" thats a far cry from saying "An apron" so the mortuary piece could not have been the remains of a full apron otherwise he would have described it an apron.

also the mortuary piece was described as an old piece of apron. if she had been wearing an apron why was it not described as an old white apron with piece missing?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk