Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witness testimony on those witnesses was never tested as to its accuracy or reliabilty for the reasons previoulsy stated.

You have to deal with the facts from when her body was found and the events thereafter.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Nope. That’s a dishonest cop out purely to dismiss something inconvenient to your theory. You don’t get to just dismiss 4 witnesses who all saw the same thing.

[JeffHamm]

I dont know what you want me to answer

The inquest depositions were taken down by the court official and then read by each witness before signing so there should be no mistakes. So why do you and others want to rely on newspaper reports which are clearly incorrcet? I will tell you why because the newapaper reports prop up what you and the other two of the three stooges want to believe.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok, I see you're back to repeating that irrationality.

So, let's go back over all the unsafe assumptions you've made and the errors if fact you made.

First, signing the inquest document does not magic away any errors made during the transcribing if verbal testimony. What it does is confirm the person stated as being the witness acknowledges they were the witness. Moreover they are leagally indicating the written transcripts are a fair representation of their spoken testimony, they are not saying it is word for every word exactly what they said. That would be an impossible task. In reality, most just sign and accept that is the case, so while there is the potential for them to re-read the written version, it is highly unusual for someone to do so. Therefore your claim there won't be mistakes is an unsafe assumption.

Second, referring to the transcripts published in the newspapers as clearly incorrect is factually inaccurate. You have no way of knowing if slight differences between wordings are due to a transcription error in the inquest document, the newspaper transcript, or both. Given the large degree of overlap, however, where we can compare common text there is no discrepancy if consequence to meaning in the vast majority of cases

The newspaper transcripts, however, also document the questions asked, and also detail additional testimony that was not recorded in the official document. Therefore, the newspaper transcripts are a valuable source of information pertaining to what was actually said and in what context. There is no rational reason to ignore them.

You are the only one with an agenda to ignore as many facts as possible because the only way your theory can be presented is when the facts do not get in the way if a good speculation.

This has been explained to you numerous times, but you out your blinkers on and pretend not to understand. But it is trivially simple to comprehend, so you are not fooling anybody and you have raised no argument if substance to counter this. The only objection you raise boils down to "but the newspaper transcripts don't support my theory", which is the problem - for the theory not the papers.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Ok, I see you're back to repeating that irrationality.

So, let's go back over all the unsafe assumptions you've made and the errors if fact you made.

First, signing the inquest document does not magic away any errors made during the transcribing if verbal testimony. What it does is confirm the person stated as being the witness acknowledges they were the witness. Moreover they are leagally indicating the written transcripts are a fair representation of their spoken testimony, they are not saying it is word for every word exactly what they said. That would be an impossible task. In reality, most just sign and accept that is the case, so while there is the potential for them to re-read the written version, it is highly unusual for someone to do so. Therefore your claim there won't be mistakes is an unsafe assumption.

Second, referring to the transcripts published in the newspapers as clearly incorrect is factually inaccurate. You have no way of knowing if slight differences between wordings are due to a transcription error in the inquest document, the newspaper transcript, or both. Given the large degree of overlap, however, where we can compare common text there is no discrepancy if consequence to meaning in the vast majority of cases

The newspaper transcripts, however, also document the questions asked, and also detail additional testimony that was not recorded in the official document. Therefore, the newspaper transcripts are a valuable source of information pertaining to what was actually said and in what context. There is no rational reason to ignore them.

You are the only one with an agenda to ignore as many facts as possible because the only way your theory can be presented is when the facts do not get in the way if a good speculation.

This has been explained to you numerous times, but you out your blinkers on and pretend not to understand. But it is trivially simple to comprehend, so you are not fooling anybody and you have raised no argument if substance to counter this. The only objection you raise boils down to "but the newspaper transcripts don't support my theory", which is the problem - for the theory not the papers.

- Jeff

100% correct. It’s simply a case of finding ways of sidelining the inconvenient. Usually done by trying to reset the ‘rules’ to suit.

[JeffHamm]

And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

Why you're waiting is beyond me. There have been quite a few posts explaining to you how the apron could be cut as described and end up being two pieces that make up a whole apron. Not my fault you don't read them or don't understand them.

i dont know where this sugestion that there was third piece comes from not from me. The two pieces matched had to have come from the same side of the apron, The corner piece with a string attached top left or right, and the piece matched had to have come form the botrtom left or right.

Again, it's not my fault you don't understand your own statements. You described the apron being cut into 3 pieces. Two pieces are in the possession of the police. 3 -2 = 1, there is one piece still unaccounted for. It's your theory, you need to account for it. People are asking you to account for the missing piece you yourself introduce without justification.

Now, let me help you. You recently did account for it, though you seem to have forgotten that. That's not surprising as it is easy to forget something you made up on the Spurr of the moment. Anyway, what you speculated at that time was that half the apron was thrown away, or cut up and used for other purposes, by Kate long before the night if the murder. So while it technically would exist, it's been lost/discarded long before the night in question.

And what people have pointed out is that there was no way for the police, or the inquest, to know that at the time. Since the police were saying she was wearing the apron, and you are describing an unwearable garment, then the inquest would have to presume the rest of the apron is still unaccounted for and so may be in the street somewhere offering further evidence about JtR s flight path. Yet nowhere is this concern indicated. Your explanation for the missing piece is irrational. Perhaps that is why you are back to saying two pieces do not make a whole but nothing is missing. One irrationality is as good as another I suppose.

Had she been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece as per the old accepted theory, do you not think it would have been visible when the body was stripped and documented with her clothing, and would have been decsribed as "one old white apron with piece missing"?

Do you not think if the list was made after she was stripped, and while the two pieces were being compared, the apron might appear near the end of the list?
.

You are fighting a losing battle because you have no valid arguments to out forward to negate what i have said,

Yous can see others are starting to look at all of this in a sensible light

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There's no battle here. The statements you are making form an irrational self refuting collection. Nobody has to offer an alternative to know that what you are suggesting is wrong because what you are suggesting doesn't make sense, let alone fit the evidence.

None of us are claiming to know for sure what happened or how. We offer a number of different possible ways things could go, and fit the evidence. You are claiming you know exactly how this GS happened, despite the fact your suggestions conflict with the statements of people who were actually there and despite the fact your descriptions conflict with each other.

THis isn't a battle of ideas, it's an attempt to keep misinformation like what you are suggesting from going unchallenged. JtR is filled with errors derived from incorrect assumptions being pushed as facts, and your assumptions are being presented as facts and so they must be flagged as such.


- Jeff

[Wickerman]

[B]And I am still waiting for you and the other two to explain how the two pieces could have made up a full apron based on how they were decsribed and subsequenlt matched.

You've already been shown how a diagonal cut would provide one part with a corner & string attached. In fact you replied to it so don't pretend you hadn't seen it.

If the mortuary piece had more than one corner then Dr Brown's remark makes no sense.
The mortuary piece must have had only one corner - one 90 deg edge, which means the other edges must have been less than 90 deg. In other words the mortuary piece was triangular. I drew it that way so lets not pretend you don't know how it could be done.

[Joshua Rogan]

The witness testimony on those witnesses was never tested as to its accuracy or reliabilty for the reasons previoulsy stated.

You have to deal with the facts from when her body was found and the events thereafter.

Actually there is an account of how Hutt's recalled Kate's clothing in the Times 3 Oct. Though it doesn't mention the apron specifically,, it doea show that he was tested to a degree;

"The woman in question was attended to in this manner on Saturday night by Reserve Constable Hutt, who noticed that she had on a pair of men's boots, and at the same time he observed the bonnet which she was wearing as well as her attire generally. Having become sufficiently sober to be discharged, the woman was liberated on Sunday morning at 1 o'clock, when she stated that she was afraid to go home, it was understood, on account of her husband. Hutt saw her leave the station, and observed that, instead of going in the direction of Spitalfields, she turned to the left, towards Houndsditch, and consequently in the direction of Mitre-square. After the examination of the body of the murdered woman in the City mortuary in Golden-lane the boots and bonnet were left there with the keeper, the rest of the clothing being taken to the police-station. On going to the mortuary Hutt saw the boots and bonnet, and identified them as belonging to the woman who had been detained at the police-station. He then gave a general description of the rest of her dress, and on an examination being made afterwards at the police-station, where, as above stated, the other clothing had been taken, it was found to correspond fairly accurately with his account. Another constable, named Simmons, has also seen the body, and he believes too, that it is the woman who was discharged at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning from the Bishopsgate-street police-station. "

[harry]

The verdict of the Coroner's jury,was that Susan James had been willfully murdered by Joseph Robinson,while he was in a state of madness.The Coroner in his summing up fully agreed with the verdict. (Robinson was removed to a asylum)

Some time ago,Mr James Marston discovered a number of rare Roman relics in the fastness of Radnorshire Mountains,and as a result of a Coroners inquest they were declared to be treasure trove.
So I will not argue with you anymore Jon,on what status or powers ,a Coroner's court has/had,the above says it all. Both cases are from the1880;s.Now you might answer the question I posed,who was the Judge Lumb you referred to?,or were you entering false claims?

There are so many different descriptions surrounding the apron pieces,it will be nigh on impossible to establish the truth..My conclusion,is that though it is possible the two pieces came from the same apron,there is no police evidence to prove it.So the only clue in the case,which might indicate a route of escape,has little value.

[JeffHamm]

Actually there is an account of how Hutt's recalled Kate's clothing in the Times 3 Oct. Though it doesn't mention the apron specifically,, it doea show that he was tested to a degree;

"The woman in question was attended to in this manner on Saturday night by Reserve Constable Hutt, who noticed that she had on a pair of men's boots, and at the same time he observed the bonnet which she was wearing as well as her attire generally. Having become sufficiently sober to be discharged, the woman was liberated on Sunday morning at 1 o'clock, when she stated that she was afraid to go home, it was understood, on account of her husband. Hutt saw her leave the station, and observed that, instead of going in the direction of Spitalfields, she turned to the left, towards Houndsditch, and consequently in the direction of Mitre-square. After the examination of the body of the murdered woman in the City mortuary in Golden-lane the boots and bonnet were left there with the keeper, the rest of the clothing being taken to the police-station. On going to the mortuary Hutt saw the boots and bonnet, and identified them as belonging to the woman who had been detained at the police-station. He then gave a general description of the rest of her dress, and on an examination being made afterwards at the police-station, where, as above stated, the other clothing had been taken, it was found to correspond fairly accurately with his account. Another constable, named Simmons, has also seen the body, and he believes too, that it is the woman who was discharged at 1 o'clock on Sunday morning from the Bishopsgate-street police-station. "

Hi Joshua,

Good point and nice find.


Sadly, we will now get to hear a barrage of how all of this memory is impossible and clearly the police were just making it up to help their theory. In a way that will be true, just not of the police of 1888.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Nope. That’s a dishonest cop out purely to dismiss something inconvenient to your theory. You don’t get to just dismiss 4 witnesses who all saw the same thing.

i have alreday explained how there evidence could be construed as being unsafe to rely on, if there evidence had been tested you would see how unsafe it was by their answers to question put to them.

Besides, the issues in dispute are was she wearing an apron when her body was stripped at the mortuary, thats all you need to concern yourslef with and you cannoy conclusivly prove that,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Joshua,

Good point and nice find.


Sadly, we will now get to hear a barrage of how all of this memory is impossible and clearly the police were just making it up to help their theory. In a way that will be true, just not of the police of 1888.

- Jeff

Firstly this is another newspaper report which may or may not be reliable.

Secondly and most importantly there is no mention of an apron

Thirdly it does not negate the belief the the list was made up as the clothes were removed from the body

Finally it shows what happened to the clothing after the body was stripped which is what the police would have done with it

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You've already been shown how a diagonal cut would provide one part with a corner & string attached. In fact you replied to it so don't pretend you hadn't seen it.

If the mortuary piece had more than one corner then Dr Brown's remark makes no sense.
The mortuary piece must have had only one corner - one 90 deg edge, which means the other edges must have been less than 90 deg. In other words the mortuary piece was triangular. I drew it that way so lets not pretend you don't know how it could be done.

I did answser that question by saying that if as you suggest the apron strings were cut at the mortuary to remove the triangular piece of apon you so describe then they must have seen that it was the remains of an apron and still around her waist, with a piece missing, and it would have been listed as "One old white apron with piece missing" and not listed in her possessions as "piece of old white apron" or "remains of old white apron"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Hi Trevor,

Can you clarify for me please, are you suggesting that Eddows wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that her murderer didn't cut a piece (of whatever shape) from it, but rather retrieved a piece of cloth that happened to have come from an old apron, from her possessions?

This has become a very long thread on this point. My question on the topic is, given that this wasn't his first murder, shouldn't he have anticipated that he would need something to carry away body parts and to wipe his hands etc. Why did he even need to resort to carrying away and incriminating piece of cloth unless it was an unforseen circumstance?

Cheer, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Can you clarify for me please, are you suggesting that Eddows wasn't wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that her murderer didn't cut a piece (of whatever shape) from it, but rather retrieved a piece of cloth that happened to have come from an old apron, from her possessions?

This has become a very long thread on this point. My question on the topic is, given that this wasn't his first murder, shouldn't he have anticipated that he would need something to carry away body parts and to wipe his hands etc. Why did he even need to resort to carrying away and incriminating piece of cloth unless it was an unforseen circumstance?

Cheer, George

You are right this thread has become long boring and tiresome for me having to keep going over the same points.

In answer to your question yes the evidence points to her not wearing an apron "at the time" she was killed. The evidence from the mortuary points to her simply being in possession of two old pieces of an apron which had come from an original apron. One found in GS and the other listed amongst her possessions.

How the Gs got to that location is another contentious issue there are three options

1. The Killer took one of the pieces she had in her possesion for whatever purpose and disposed of it in GS
2. She deposited it herself after leaving the police station and before she met her killer
3. The City police removed it from the crime scene and planted it in GS

If you have been following the you will know that I dont subscribe to 1 or 3 and dont subscribe to the killer removing and taking away the organs for the reasons which are fully documented

i hope this help with clarification

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

i have alreday explained how there evidence could be construed as being unsafe to rely on, if there evidence had been tested you would see how unsafe it was by their answers to question put to them.

Besides, the issues in dispute are was she wearing an apron when her body was stripped at the mortuary, thats all you need to concern yourslef with and you cannoy conclusivly prove that,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again you are trying to ‘set the rules’ about which part of the evidence that we need to focus on at the expense of other evidence. You of course have created an entire theory around one word:

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.”

Whilst we have to admit that it’s not the most helpful of phrases it’s not proof that she wasn’t wearing an apron. Collard clearly has some reason to believe that she had been wearing it. An obvious interpretation could have been that the apron had come away from the body at the mortuary, either because it had been cut away by the attendants (as I believe that Wickerman has suggested) or perhaps the string had become untied during the moving of the body? Whichever way that we interpret this phrase it cannot even get close to being called proof that she wasn’t wearing an apron. So at worst we could call this inconclusive.

So do we have any other evidence to assess. Yes we have Wilkinson, Hutt and Robinson who were all certain that Eddowes was wearing an apron on the night of her murder. Of course in an attempt to discredit them for the purpose of defending your theory you attach the old faithful word ‘unsafe’ with regard to their evidence. Only you can see this though. None of them had a visual impairment. None of them only saw her briefly. None of then saw her from a distance. None of them weren’t paying attention. Nothing about the testimony of these three raises a single doubt about their reliability. And why would they have lied? Obviously they had no reason to but you suggest that Hutt and Robinson just towed the company line (although I don’t see how Wilkinson was doing this)? Why would the Police be in anyway desperate to ‘prove’ something that wasn’t true? IE that the killer took a part of the apron from the crime scene to Goulston Street. Why would they want to prove something that was false and was therefore of no help to their enquiry? It makes zero sense. So 3 witnesses all stating that Eddowes was wearing an apron is about as strong as it gets.

So the evidence shows us that she was certainly wearing the apron but even if you’ve showed a smidgeon of doubt then you still have to come up with unlikely conjecture as to how the apron had got to Goulston Street. Eddowes was wearing an apron. No doubt at all.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are right this thread has become long boring and tiresome for me having to keep going over the same points.

In answer to your question yes the evidence points to her not wearing an apron "at the time" she was killed. The evidence from the mortuary points to her simply being in possession of two old pieces of an apron which had come from an original apron. One found in GS and the other listed amongst her possessions.

How the Gs got to that location is another contentious issue there are three options

1. The Killer took one of the pieces she had in her possesion for whatever purpose and disposed of it in GS
2. She deposited it herself after leaving the police station and before she met her killer
3. The City police removed it from the crime scene and planted it in GS

If you have been following the you will know that I dont subscribe to 1 or 3 and dont subscribe to the killer removing and taking away the organs for the reasons which are fully documented

i hope this help with clarification

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why the hell would the police have planted the apron in Goulston Street? They had absolutely nothing to gain in this and the fact that you even consider it says a lot.