PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, we know the City Police telegraphed a description of Eddowes and her clothing to the Met Police. She was unidentified, police were anxious to identify her, it makes sense to me that the published 'official' description was the City Police description and was indeed official. They were hoping for an identification from the published description.

You are saying that because the apron piece wasn't listed with her clothing items in the mortuary inventory, instead it was listed with her belongings, that means she wasn't wearing it, that's fair enough but then when I show you that the newspapers printed the official description of Eddowes and her clothing but not her belongings and the apron piece is among those items it doesn't count!

Debs
It matters not what was given to the press. or when, and how.

What matters is how and when the official lists were compiled they are primary evidence the newspaper reports are secondary.

The official newspaper list you refer to must have originated from the original lists as prepared at the mortuary, which clearly shows no record of her wearing an apron but an old white apron piece amongst her personal possessions.

Her clothing was removed at the mortuary in systematic order of how it was being worn i.e starting with top clothing and working down. The list shows she had a short coat on over her dress. the next items of clothing from the list is a dress. Now had she been wearing an apron. the apron would have come off after the coat and before her dress and would appeared that way on the list and if it were tied around the waist as some suggest they would have had to have untied it from the back.They would have remembered this Clearly they could not have made an error and missed this.

This list which had gone relatively un noticed until I raised these issue has now opened up a major talking point. With others suggesting that perhaps the GS piece was planted deliberately, Or as I also suggest that she could have deposited there herself prior to her murder.

The evidence is not totally conclusive either way but a good case can be brought to suggest the killer certainly didn't cut it or tear it and take it away with him for the reasons which have been suggested, and even the police did not subscribe to this, and in fact one senior officer had major doubts as can be seen from the attached letter date Oct 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser heda of the City Police

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.
In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.
I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?].
Very truly yours, C.W.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

Thank you very much to everyone who has replied to me. I really appreciate it! I have even more to think about now.

Just one thing - the mortuary list of clothing mentions:
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief.

The 'Official Description' printed in the newspaper that Debs posted (Thanks, Debs!) mentions:
Large white handkerchief round neck.

So there's one more inconsistency!

Carol

Thank you for pointing that out I am sure Debs will take note !

[Debra A]

Debs
It matters not what was given to the press. or when, and how.

What matters is how and when the official lists were compiled they are primary evidence the newspaper reports are secondary.

The official newspaper list you refer to must have originated from the original lists as prepared at the mortuary, which clearly shows no record of her wearing an apron but an old white apron piece amongst her personal possessions.

Her clothing was removed at the mortuary in systematic order of how it was being worn i.e starting with top clothing and working down. The list shows she had a short coat on over her dress. the next items of clothing from the list is a dress. Now had she been wearing an apron. the apron would have come off after the coat and before her dress and would appeared that way on the list and if it were tied around the waist as some suggest they would have had to have untied it from the back.They would have remembered this Clearly they could not have made an error and missed this.

This list which had gone relatively un noticed until I raised these issue has now opened up a major talking point. With others suggesting that perhaps the GS piece was planted deliberately, Or as I also suggest that she could have deposited there herself prior to her murder.

The evidence is not totally conclusive either way but a good case can be brought to suggest the killer certainly didn't cut it or tear it and take it away with him for the reasons which have been suggested, and even the police did not subscribe to this, and in fact one senior officer had major doubts as can be seen from the attached letter date Oct 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser heda of the City Police

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.
In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.
I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?].
Very truly yours, C.W.

Trevor...we know she wasn't wearing an apron when she found!
Imagine coming across a body where a portion of apron seems to be laying on or partially attached to it, what would you immediately think? I'd be puzzled by it. At the point the inventory was taken there was no knowledge that a large piece of the apron had been removed. It wasn't an apron, it was something odd that didn't make sense until the bigger picture emerged.

The letter from Warren is him relaying HS Matthews' questions to the City Police isn't it? I don't see any police doubt mentioned or proven by that. Warren is asking for assurances that the investigating officers are certain that the matching apron piece wasn't originally in the square and taken off by a hoaxer so he can pass that information on to Matthews.

[Debra A]

Hi all,

Thank you very much to everyone who has replied to me. I really appreciate it! I have even more to think about now.

Just one thing - the mortuary list of clothing mentions:
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief.

The 'Official Description' printed in the newspaper that Debs posted (Thanks, Debs!) mentions:
Large white handkerchief round neck.

Hi Carol
Thanks for pointing that out. A discrepancy in colour of a neckerchief in a description given by telegraph is nothing really major is it?

[Debra A]

If a newspaper prints a primary source verbatim then it remains a primary source. If the description of Eddowes and her clothing was done by the City Police and given to the press it is a primary source, wherever it is reproduced.

[Trevor Marriott]

If a newspaper prints a primary source verbatim then it remains a primary source. If the description of Eddowes and her clothing was done by the City Police and given to the press it is a primary source, wherever it is reproduced.

Debs

But the newspaper didn't print it verbatim because the newspaper report differs from the official report, and we don't know how it was given to the press, when, and by whom and in what circumstances.

All we know is that there are two errors between the official report and the newspaper report. Two errors, and you want to accept that in preference to the original ?

[Debra A]

Debs

But the newspaper didn't print it verbatim because the newspaper report differs from the official report, and we don't know how it was given to the press, when, and by whom and in what circumstances.

All we know is that there are two errors between the official report and the newspaper report. Two errors, and you want to accept that in preference to the original ?

Trevor, I didn't say they were reproducing the mortuary inventory verbatim, I concluded that the press were publishing an 'official' description of Eddowes (as yet unidentified) appearance and her clothing (but not her belongings) as given to them by the City Police who we know definitely did take a description of Eddowes appearance and clothing and passed it to the Met.
The discrepancy in the colour of the neckerchief could have been part of the original City Police description. Errors occur in official documents too sometimes.
There is one difference in the colour of the neckerchief, where do you get two errors from?

[Mr Lucky]

Therefore, all statements are taken prior to inquest, and so, are known.

This is not the case at all, a public Inquest is exactly that, anyone can turn up and give evidence

Witnesses simply do not arrive on the day of hearing and present their statements for the first time.

Clearly most witnesses don't, but it perfectly legitimate for them to do so, and the Coroner cannot refuse to hear them if their evidence is material in any way.

If you want to change the course of this field, then I suggest you educate yourself as to the facts both of the case, and the legalities involved.

I heartily agree. So where are you getting these ideas from ? What authority does your source have ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I didn't say they were reproducing the mortuary inventory verbatim, I concluded that the press were publishing an 'official' description of Eddowes (as yet unidentified) appearance and her clothing (but not her belongings) as given to them by the City Police who we know definitely did take a description of Eddowes appearance and clothing and passed it to the Met.
The discrepancy in the colour of the neckerchief could have been part of the original City Police description. Errors occur in official documents too sometimes.
There is one difference in the colour of the neckerchief, where do you get two errors from?

The two errors are with colour of the neckerchief and the error with regards to the clothing.

The newspaper perhaps printed what they were given which was clearly wrong
Debs

How can you have an error in the official documents which were clearly referred to by Inspector Collard in his inquest testimony without a hint of reference to the newspaper reports as being in conflict with those.



You have to remember that at the post mortem they prepared three lists
1. Clothing she was wearing
2. Clothing showing knife cuts and blood staining
3. property in her possession

[Debra A]

The two errors are with colour of the neckerchief and the error with regards to the clothing.

The newspaper perhaps printed what they were given which was clearly wrong
Debs

How can you have an error in the official documents which were clearly referred to by Inspector Collard in his inquest testimony without a hint of reference to the newspaper reports as being in conflict with those.



You have to remember that at the post mortem they prepared three lists
1. Clothing she was wearing
2. Clothing showing knife cuts and blood staining
3. property in her possession

Trevor
The colour of the neckerchief differs in the inventory and the published description, yes. My point is that the description published in the papers could still have been 'official' and originated from the City Police but still contained an error in the colour of the neckerchief. Mistakes sometimes occur even in official documents, for a quick example the official MJK inquest documents have her address as 1 Miller Court and there are numerous other examples I know.

The 'error in the clothing' is your perceived error. The inventory lists it as a belonging, yes, but as I suggested it could have been because they wondered why the hell would anyone be wearing a small portion of an apron and added it to the belongings list not then knowing about the missing portion which would have made it a garment with a use. There is a discrepancy between those two sources, yes, but if the official description published in the press did originate with the City police as I am suggesting and you haven't proven it didn't, then both account is equally credible.

Those are my personal conclusions based on everything I've read so far, including your ideas.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor
The colour of the neckerchief differs in the inventory and the published description, yes. My point is that the description published in the papers could still have been 'official' and originated from the City Police but still contained an error in the colour of the neckerchief. Mistakes sometimes occur even in official documents, for a quick example the official MJK inquest documents have her address as 1 Miller Court and there are numerous other examples I know.

The 'error in the clothing' is your perceived error. The inventory lists it as a belonging, yes, but as I suggested it could have been because they wondered why the hell would anyone be wearing a small portion of an apron and added it to the belongings list not then knowing about the missing portion which would have made it a garment with a use. There is a discrepancy between those two sources, yes, but if the official description published in the press did originate with the City police as I am suggesting and you haven't proven it didn't, then both account is equally credible.

Those are my personal conclusions based on everything I've read so far, including your ideas.

Well Debs
You are entitled to draw your own conclusion and interpret the facts how you see fit. But to accept a newspaper report over original documents is somewhat naive.

You have to remember that when Eddowes body was stripped at the mortuary and the lists prepared the GS piece had not yet been found. So a full apron with a piece cut out would surely have been noticed and Dr Brown said it was a corner piece with one string attached so she couldn't have been wearing it in any way shape or form.

It doesn't matter where the newspaper report came from it conflicts with the mortuary lists. Just because it said "official" in the report doesn't make it from an official source and doesn't make it stand above what was recorded at the time. Especially when the other witness testimony is also unreliable.

If it was circulated to the press en mass as you say then it no doubt went first to the central news agency then onto the various papers so it passed through many hands. As is said before it becomes secondary as soon as it gets published.

Anyway I think we have exhausted this topic now.

[Cogidubnus]

The definitive answer to Trevor's question, surely lies somewhere between Kearsley and Little Lever, Lancashire...

All the best

Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

Jumping in with both feet yet again !

At the opening of the Inquest the Coroner has no script to follow, he would have no idea where this story begins or where it ends if it were not for the police statements.

In order for the questioning to follow some semblance of order the Coroner & Crawford need to know which witness to bring forward first, in what sequence they should appear, and what to ask each witness.
To enable them to do this they use the statements provided to them by the police.
The individual police statements are used as a prompt for the subsequent questioning to begin.

I think you will find that the coroner was given the names of the witnesses and given by the police a written overview of the testimony they were going to give.

There is no reference within the Kelly Inquest to the existence of police statements, they were simply retained as part of the file. It is apparent these same police statements were not retained within the Eddowes file.

Page 407 Source Book

Answer me this:
How was Coroner Macdonald able to caution Mrs Maxwell before he heard her evidence?
"The Coroner: You must be very careful about your evidence, because it is different to other people's."

He already knew what she was about to say, because he had her police statement in his hands.

You need to look at her evidence in totality from all the reports because the question the coroner asked was as a result of evidence which she had given, which is not all recorded in one place and the testimony of witnesses who had been before him earlier.

[Monty]

"This is not the case at all, a public Inquest is exactly that, anyone can turn up and give evidence"

True, but a statement is still taken, and deliberated upon before the witness is called.

"Clearly most witnesses don't, but it perfectly legitimate for them to do so, and the Coroner cannot refuse to hear them if their evidence is material in any way."

See above. Constables Robinson and Hutt were not late comers, and were know to be involved in the course of events early on.

"I heartily agree. So where are you getting these ideas from ? What authority does your source have ?"

Mr Luckys big book of law and all things important in his world. It has pictures and everything, including lame wisecracks.

Monty

[Monty]

"I think you will find that the coroner was given the names of the witnesses and given by the police a written overview of the testimony they were going to give."

Finally.

Monty