Kate's Apron

[Doctored Whatsit]

The fact that Collard made his statement on oath means that he honestly believed it. It was "a portion" because we know it was cut. He says "apparently wearing" because he wasn't present when it was removed, and therefore had to accept the word of others present at the time. He was being honest. He therefore said exactly what he should have said under the circumstances. If he says on oath that she was "apparently wearing" the apron, it is quite ludicrous to suggest that his list proves that she wasn't wearing it. He said that he believed that she was wearing it. So your comment "if she had been wearing an apron" is a non-starter.

I don't have a theory or a book to defend, so I don't feel obliged to argue for no purpose.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

If the doorkeeper, Hutt and Robinson couldn’t possibly have performed such remarkable feats of memory and identification could you please tell us at what point in a police investigation do they cease looking for witnesses? Is it after 12 hours that they say “well there’s no point asking anyone what the victim was wearing at the time because it was 12 hours after the event?”

Also, you’re making far too much of Collard’s identification of the apron piece. He knew that it was the same piece course because his colleagues had found it, matched it to the apron, and presented it at the Inquest. He was confident that it hadn’t been mixed up with a different piece of cloth so he identified it. If he’d have been more accurate he should perhaps have said “well it certainly looks like it so as far as I know it’s the same piece.”

You’re trying to invest meaning into into a piece of slightly poorly chosen wording.

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

No it doesn’t Trevor. All this means is that Collard is acknowledging that he himself didn’t see her wearing it.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
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?

I’d imagine that a woman in Catherine’s situation would have worn many damaged items of clothing. Torn, patched, poorly sown, buttons missing etc. Did Collard describe every item in detail in terms of damage and disrepair?

[Wickerman]

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

"Apparently wearing" suggests to me Collard was not present when it was actually removed.

You seem to prefer to only acknowledge the courts version of the inquest, so unlucky for you the court recorder did not write that he was present for the stripping.

The press did, but the court recorder didn't, and you don't trust the press, so the court version is the one you must go with.

Therefore, Collard did not see the clothes removed, which means he couldn't know in what order they were taken off, which also means his list cannot reflect the sequence those articles were removed - as you like to claim.

Which explains why he said "apparently wearing", because he did not see that piece of apron actually removed.

Hows that for tying yourself in knots?

[Trevor Marriott]

The fact that Collard made his statement on oath means that he honestly believed it. It was "a portion" because we know it was cut. He says "apparently wearing" because he wasn't present when it was removed, and therefore had to accept the word of others present at the time. He was being honest. He therefore said exactly what he should have said under the circumstances. If he says on oath that she was "apparently wearing" the apron, it is quite ludicrous to suggest that his list proves that she wasn't wearing it. He said that he believed that she was wearing it. So your comment "if she had been wearing an apron" is a non-starter.

But he was present when the body was stripped and either he wrote the list or was present when it was compiled

I don't have a theory or a book to defend, so I don't feel obliged to argue for no purpose.

Thats a statement well made, its a shame others dont take the same line, some argue for the sake of arguing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

"Apparently wearing" suggests to me Collard was not present when it was actually removed.

You seem to prefer to only acknowledge the courts version of the inquest, so unlucky for you the court recorder did not write that he was present for the stripping.

The press did, but the court recorder didn't, and you don't trust the press, so the court version is the one you must go with.

Therefore, Collard did not see the clothes removed, which means he couldn't know in what order they were taken off, which also means his list cannot reflect the sequence those articles were removed - as you like to claim.

Which explains why he said "apparently wearing", because he did not see that piece of apron actually removed.

Hows that for tying yourself in knots?

There is only one person tying themselves in knots and that is you.

Irrespective of who wrote the list the fact is that no apron was seen to be removed from the body, and Collard was present

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’d imagine that a woman in Catherine’s situation would have worn many damaged items of clothing. Torn, patched, poorly sown, buttons missing etc. Did Collard describe every item in detail in terms of damage and disrepair?

No but the list was comprehensive and all the knife cuts and blood stains to the clothing were fully documented

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

There is only one person tying themselves in knots and that is you.

Irrespective of who wrote the list the fact is that no apron was seen to be removed from the body, and Collard was present

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So now your 'official source' is unreliable?
Or are you now choosing to believe the press when it suits you?

Halse is the one who said he was present for the stripping and he saw "a portion of the apron was missing" - Court version.

[JeffHamm]

So now your 'official source' is unreliable?
Or are you now choosing to believe the press when it suits you?

Halse is the one who said he was present for the stripping and he saw "a portion of the apron was missing" - Court version.

Hi Wickerman,

I've tried that before too, trying to hold Trevor to the rules he imposes on others.

However, I found Trevor's rules hard to understand, and he didn't seem to appreciate being held to them. From what I can gather, though, press reports are unsafe because they often report things that contradict his theory, and therefore, we must only accept the official inquest testimony, except where it contradicts his theory, and then they too are just journalists in official clothing. When the words of the police, under oath, do not fit the theory, then that is proof that they were lying, to help with something that would provide no help to them. And lists, composed under conditions never recorded, may be presumed to be recorded under conditions that suit the theory but not under conditions that would contradict the theory. And the more people who testify to something is evidence to conclude things actually went in the opposite direction, unless, of course, they testify to things that fit the theory, in which case even the slightest hint is unquestionably reliable.

As such, there to appear be three underlying tenants:
1) The theory is your friend.
2) All true evidence will conform to the theory.
3) Those who question the theory must be blinkered.

It's become seriously ridiculous, to pair two words that should never go together- like evidence and polar opposite conclusions.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, I am confused by your reasoning. You state that Collard "was present when the body was stripped", which is quite possibly correct. So, why can you not accept his statement on oath that she was apparently wearing an apron? This statement suggests to me that he was either not there at the time, and accepted the word of others who were there, or he was there, but only believed she was wearing an apron, probably because it was so badly damaged that it was hanging off, and "was found outside her dress". Either way, he clearly believed that she was wearing an apron, because he said so under oath.

It is therefore most likely that if the position of the apron on the list has any significance, it is because it was put to one side, separate from everything else, because it was the only item needed at the post mortem in order to be matched with the Goulston Street portion. The list order cannot mean that Collard said she wasn't wearing the apron.

Your theory has Collard saying that he believed she was wearing an apron, and saying that she wasn't in the same statement.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Wickerman,

I've tried that before too, trying to hold Trevor to the rules he imposes on others.

However, I found Trevor's rules hard to understand, and he didn't seem to appreciate being held to them. From what I can gather, though, press reports are unsafe because they often report things that contradict his theory, and therefore, we must only accept the official inquest testimony, except where it contradicts his theory, and then they too are just journalists in official clothing. When the words of the police, under oath, do not fit the theory, then that is proof that they were lying, to help with something that would provide no help to them. And lists, composed under conditions never recorded, may be presumed to be recorded under conditions that suit the theory but not under conditions that would contradict the theory. And the more people who testify to something is evidence to conclude things actually went in the opposite direction, unless, of course, they testify to things that fit the theory, in which case even the slightest hint is unquestionably reliable.

As such, there to appear be three underlying tenants:
1) The theory is your friend.
2) All true evidence will conform to the theory.
3) Those who question the theory must be blinkered.

It's become seriously ridiculous, to pair two words that should never go together- like evidence and polar opposite conclusions.

- Jeff

Trevor and his moving goalposts are a constant feature of debates on here Jeff.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor, I am confused by your reasoning. You state that Collard "was present when the body was stripped", which is quite possibly correct. So, why can you not accept his statement on oath that she was apparently wearing an apron? This statement suggests to me that he was either not there at the time, and accepted the word of others who were there, or he was there, but only believed she was wearing an apron, probably because it was so badly damaged that it was hanging off, and "was found outside her dress". Either way, he clearly believed that she was wearing an apron, because he said so under oath.

It is therefore most likely that if the position of the apron on the list has any significance, it is because it was put to one side, separate from everything else, because it was the only item needed at the post mortem in order to be matched with the Goulston Street portion. The list order cannot mean that Collard said she wasn't wearing the apron.

Your theory has Collard saying that he believed she was wearing an apron, and saying that she wasn't in the same statement.

Apparently she was wearing a non-existent apron Dr W.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

I've tried that before too, trying to hold Trevor to the rules he imposes on others.

However, I found Trevor's rules hard to understand, and he didn't seem to appreciate being held to them....

Hi Jeff.

You must admit though, it is entertaining, so long as we don't take it too seriously.
Every argument is like opening that new box of chocolates, you never know what you're going to get.

I've come around to thinking Jeff has developed this method as some kind of endurance test, he's testing us for some future book he has in mind on psychology, and how to confuse the subject while insisting he is playing by the rules.
Something like that old 'House that Jack built', where every time you open a door it leads somewhere different.
I can't complain, I mean I'm retired now so what else is there to do.

[Wickerman]

...

It is therefore most likely that if the position of the apron on the list has any significance, it is because it was put to one side, separate from everything else, because it was the only item needed at the post mortem in order to be matched with the Goulston Street portion. The list order cannot mean that Collard said she wasn't wearing the apron.

Precisely, and of course we know that it was taken out of the pile of clothes, because at some point Dr Phillips arrived at Golden Lane carrying the G.S, piece. It was at Golden Lane where Dr Brown fitted the remnant to the G.S. piece. This, I believe, is why the "old piece of apron" was placed at the end.
It was put back with the clothes after being matched.

Collard subsequently made a List of Possessions only after the G.S. piece had been matched, which was some time after the body had been stripped.
Collard being present for the stripping, and his creation of the List, are not necessarily concurrent events.