Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

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,.....

Look, Trevor, Collard said he was present when the body was stripped, he doesn't say that this was when he made the list - two separate issues.

Also, Dr Brown had his attention drawn to the piece of apron, which means he likely wasn't aware of any piece of apron until that point.
Finally, the person stripping the body was not called to the inquest, this person may well have recognised what it was, but at that point it was not important.

You are assuming no-one knew it was part of an apron - the fact is, Dr Brown apparently didn't know, that's all.
The attendant stripped the body, he knew he removed a piece of apron, but he placed it on the bench with all the other clothes.

Sometime later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece, ONLY NOW is the issue of a piece of apron so important.
The attendant calls Dr Brown's attention to the piece of apron among the clothes, this is the first Dr Brown knew about it, and that apparent fact is why you argue NO-ONE KNEW, but as you can see, that is not true if Dr Brown did not undress the body himself.
I think most of us had assumed he did, but as it turns out he probably didn't, he had staff to do menial work like that.
Your argument rests on that misunderstanding.

.......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"

Huh?
In my recollection of the English language, "1 piece of old white apron" assumes something is missing.

So, Dr Brown does not say HE stripped the body, so just revise your theory to allow for his attendant stripping the body, and only the attendant recognised what it was, but as it was not an issue at 3:00am in the morning, it was just placed in the pile with everything else.

Later in the day, along comes Dr Phillips with the GS piece looking for a matching piece of apron, the attendant calls Dr Brown over and hands him the mortuary piece........

Sometime after this, Collard makes his list, where the mortuary piece has been placed at the end of the line of clothes.

[Trevor Marriott]

Look, Trevor, Collard said he was present when the body was stripped, he doesn't say that this was when he made the list - two separate issues.

It doesnt matter when or who made the list the fact is that there is no record of an apron either being found on her or removed from her body. This you cannot dispute it is fact!!!!!!!!!!!

Also, Dr Brown had his attention drawn to the piece of apron, which means he likely wasn't aware of any piece of apron until that point.
Finally, the person stripping the body was not called to the inquest, this person may well have recognised what it was, but at that point it was not important.

The GS piece did not become an issue until it was taken to the mortuary the followoing morning by Dr Phillips

You are assuming no-one knew it was part of an apron - the fact is, Dr Brown apparently didn't know, that's all.
The attendant stripped the body, he knew he removed a piece of apron, but he placed it on the bench with all the other clothes.

Of course someone knew it was part of an apron thats what the list tells us

Sometime later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece, ONLY NOW is the issue of a piece of apron so important.
The attendant calls Dr Brown's attention to the piece of apron among the clothes, this is the first Dr Brown knew about it, and that apparent fact is why you argue NO-ONE KNEW, but as you can see, that is not true if Dr Brown did not undress the body himself.
I think most of us had assumed he did, but as it turns out he probably didn't, he had staff to do menial work like that.
Your argument rests on that misunderstanding.

But Dr Brown was present when the clothes were carefully removed from the body, thats what he says in his inquest testimony

Huh?
In my recollection of the English language, "1 piece of old white apron" assumes something is missing.

Thats not difficult to deduce, but what happened to the rest of the apron because the two pieces didnt make up a full apron?

So, Dr Brown does not say HE stripped the body, so just revise your theory to allow for his attendant stripping the body, and only the attendant recognised what it was, but as it was not an issue at 3:00am in the morning, it was just placed in the pile with everything else.

he was there when the body was stripped and the clothes carefully removed, why were they carefully removed if they were not examing them and listing the items and describing all the cuts and blood stains to the clothing?

Later in the day, along comes Dr Phillips with the GS piece looking for a matching piece of apron, the attendant calls Dr Brown over and hands him the mortuary piece........ and they were matched we know all of that

Sometime after this, Collard makes his list, where the mortuary piece has been placed at the end of the line of clothes.

Whatever way you look at this and its not going to change the facts, The two pieces didnt make up a full apron and there is no evidence for anyone present that they did. You and others are conjecturing that they did

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

PC Long reported that he found a portion of an apron in Goulston Street. Trevor's view is that this portion was merely a bottom corner not of "any significant size", representing maybe one quarter of an apron or less, with no strings attached to it. Would such a piece be immediately identifiable as a portion of apron? I think it would probably have been called a blood spotted rag, unlikely to be recognized positively as from an apron. Halse's report also shows that it was at once recognized as a piece of an apron, and then handed to Dr Phillips.

You are entiled to think what you want, and you are wrong with what you have posted. Pc Long took the piece to Leman St Poloice station where he handed it to Dr Phillips who the following morning took it to the mortuary.

Halse had no involvement in the GS piece

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

. The two pieces didnt make up a full apron

This is quite simply a lie!

[Wickerman]

The GS piece when found was first taken to Leman St Polioce station where Dr Phillips was still present. It was he who took it the following day prior to the post mortem to the mortuary where Dr Brown records it was matched to the mortuary piece.

When PC Long left Goulston st. he first took the piece to his inspector at Commercial Street station, he was told to take it to Leman Street headquarters, where he met Dr Phillips, who he presumably passed it to. By this time it was after 4:00 am, Long returned to Goulston St. by 5:00am.
Leman street police must have enquired if the piece of apron was missing from the Berner street crime, presumably this was denied, in which case Phillips, accompanied by a constable?, took the piece to Golden Lane Mortuary to make enquiries about the Mitre Sq. murder.

What we don't know is if this was Phillips first arrival with Dr Brown, or his second, because Brown had requested his presence shortly after the discovery of Eddowes. The timing here needs to be sorted out.
I think it was his second visit that morning.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is quite simply a lie!

Prove it, put up or shut up !!!!!!!!!!!

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, you have once again ignored what was actually written. The evidence of PC Long was that he found a portion of apron, and Halse confirmed that it had been identified as a piece of apron in his statement when he said that he went back to Leman St and was shown the place where the (portion of) apron was found. The small piece of blood stained rag - as you seem to think it was - was positively identified as a portion of an apron, so it must have been a substantially sized piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you have once again ignored what was actually written. The evidence of PC Long was that he found a portion of apron, and Halse confirmed that it had been identified as a piece of apron in his statement when he said that he went back to Leman St and was shown the place where the (portion of) apron was found. The small piece of blood stained rag - as you seem to think it was - was positively identified as a portion of an apron, so it must have been a substantially sized piece.

It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

and why must it have been a sizeable piece? as an experiment cut a large piece of apron like material and try screwing up for disposal you will see that such a sizable piece will simply unfold making it a flat piece of material laying on the ground.

As to Long describing it as a piece of apron by the time the inquest took place and he gave his testimony it would have been common knowledge that a portion of apron was found in GS so why would he not say a portion of apron?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Prove it, put up or shut up !!!!!!!!!!!

It’s your theory. The onus is on you.

Prove that it’s a 100% fact that the 2 pieces couldn’t have made up a complete apron.

Stop claiming that your biased opinions are facts!!!

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

And it wouldn’t have mattered if someone had mentioned her wearing it because you would have called them liars as you do with Hutt, Robinson and Wilkinson (the 3 witnesss that prove that your theory is nonsense.)

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, now that you have accepted that the Goulston St portion was a substantially sized item, large enough to be instantly recognized as part of an apron, and nothing else, surely you also accept that at the inquest PC Robinson said that he would recognise the apron she wore if he saw the whole of it. He was then shown two portions, and no-one suggested that this was not the whole apron. It would have been an odd thing for him to say if he didn't know that the whole apron, in two parts, was available. If two parts only of an incomplete apron were available, he would have known, and would not have asked specifically for the whole apron. PC Hutt also said that "the apron shown" was what he believed she was wearing, so no-one at the inquest refers to an incomplete apron.

As for her not wearing an apron, as it was only part of an apron, Reid says about half was missing, it was perfectly correct for Collard to say she was "apparently wearing" it. The point about what he said was that he believed she was wearing it, even though it was incomplete.

[Wickerman]

It doesnt matter how big it was, the fact is that when matched it could not have made up a full apron by reason of how the two pieces were descirbed and how they matched up with each other and the fact no one mentions her wearing an apron when the body was stripped.

When the body was being stripped no-one was looking for an apron, that only occurred when Phillips arrived sometime after.

Collard said the victim was "apparently wearing" the apron, Dr Brown said "my attention was called to the piece of apron", which means NEITHER gentlemen saw the body stripped.

An attendant MUST have stripped the body and laid the clothes out at a time before the importance of an apron was acknowledged.

Just change your theory and the sequence works, your theory might not survive, but at least you'll be nearer the truth.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Sorry, Trevor, I was writing #1136 whilst you were editing #1133. I was suggesting that it must have been a fairly large portion of apron in order for it to be identified as a portion of an apron, and not just a blood spotted rag. As to you suggesting that it became common knowledge that it was a portion of the apron by the time of the inquest, I have to point out that the testimony of Halse shows that it was identified as such at Leman St when it first appeared there shortly after being discovered. It seems that it was recognised as a portion of an apron at once.

[Wickerman]

...

As for her not wearing an apron, as it was only part of an apron, Reid says about half was missing,...

Ah, DoctorEd.
I'm aware Smith said it was "about half", and Halse said "about half", but I must have missed Reid saying that.
Could you point me in the direction where you read it?

Thanks.

[Trevor Marriott]

When PC Long left Goulston st. he first took the piece to his inspector at Commercial Street station, he was told to take it to Leman Street headquarters, where he met Dr Phillips, who he presumably passed it to. By this time it was after 4:00 am, Long returned to Goulston St. by 5:00am.
Leman street police must have enquired if the piece of apron was missing from the Berner street crime, presumably this was denied, in which case Phillips, accompanied by a constable?, took the piece to Golden Lane Mortuary to make enquiries about the Mitre Sq. murder.

What we don't know is if this was Phillips first arrival with Dr Brown, or his second, because Brown had requested his presence shortly after the discovery of Eddowes. The timing here needs to be sorted out.
I think it was his second visit that morning.

The press were waiting outside the mortuary for the arrival of Dr Phillips he had not arrived there by 5am if I recall the press article correctly

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk