Tweet
At the Inquest on the death of Catherine Eddowes we are provided with a variety of opinions on the condition of the apron, or pieces of apron. There seems to be some contention over which piece of apron was "spotted with blood", as opposed to "smeared with blood".
The principal source has always been the testimony of Dr. F. G. Brown, though what was captured of his testimony in the official record is not by itself altogether clear.
The court record is not a continuous narrative, it is a collection of responses from the doctor to questions posed by the court. These replies are introduced by a 'dash' “-”, which is often used to indicate the new beginning of a reply to a question.
Here is a short example of the court record:
My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips...
In this example we can see the location of the first 'dash' (“apron – It”), and the second 'dash' (“origin – I”), but there is no 'dash' between (“attached The blood”), where the response, “The blood spots were of recent origin” is an answer to a specific question. I point this out because although the 'dash' is a reasonable indicator, its use is not always consistent.
There are also instances where the 'dash' is used at the end of a line to indicate continuation. So for the most part this 'dash' indicates the beginning of a response to a question, but in order to learn what that question was we must turn to the press.
If we separate the individual replies by Dr. Brown, it may help to clarify.
Doctor Browns first reply was:
My attention was called to the apron
To which we find two accounts in the press, with one actually providing the question.
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was....(Morning Advertiser).
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing...(Daily News).
The second reply is:
It was the corner of the apron with a string attached
The press version.
It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced).....(Daily News).
The third reply:
The blood spots were of recent origin
The press wrote:
Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness. - They are of recent origin....(Times).
There were stains of blood upon the apron. Are the stains of recent origin?-They are....(Morning Advertiser).
The blood stains on it are recent....(Daily News).
We benefit from the above by seeing that both the Morning Advertiser & The Times were providing the questions. Also we can see that not all the press sources covered each reply. They were being selective.
Only the Daily News & Morning Advertiser offered the first reply. The Times began their coverage with the third reply, and the Daily Telegraph, and Morning Post, began with the fourth reply (below).
I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street
The press:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes....(Daily Telegraph).
There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street,...(Morning Post).
Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Goulston street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body....(Daily News).
Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulston-street by a policeman....(Morning Advertiser).
Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street....(Times).
The fifth repy:
It is impossible to say it is human blood
Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood....(Times).
It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood....(Daily News).
The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood...(Morning Advertiser).
..and the sixth:
I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding
I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body....(Daily Telegraph).
And finally:
Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street
On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains...(Morning Advertiser).
..with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body....(Morning Post).
It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it....(Daily News).
On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence....(Times).
It is only after comparing the coverage line-for-line that we can see the press coverage on this portion of testimony was not only accurate but a little more informative.
The first three replies concern the piece of apron found at the mortuary, the official version and the Times refer to “spots of blood”, while the Morning Advertiser and the Daily News call them “stains of blood”.
Then in the fifth reply the Morning Advertiser call the Goulston piece, “stained with blood”, but in the sixth reply the Daily Telegraph describe the Goulston piece as “spotted with blood”.
And finally in the seventh reply the Goulston piece is described variously with “smears of blood” (Times), “marks of blood” (Morning Post), and “smears of blood” & “blood stained” (Morning Advertiser).
And, not forgetting the words of PC Long who described the Goulston piece as “stained with blood” and one portion or corner was still “wet with blood”.
Then we have PC Robinson, but he is describing both halves of the apron as a whole, we read in the Times - “A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,”
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood,...(Daily Telegraph).
much torn and was saturated with blood in several places....(Daily News).
The bloody apron was here produced, torn and tattered,...(Evening News).
(dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood)...(Echo).
It would appear then that we cannot use “spotted” and “smeared” to distinguish between the two pieces of apron.
The principal source has always been the testimony of Dr. F. G. Brown, though what was captured of his testimony in the official record is not by itself altogether clear.
The court record is not a continuous narrative, it is a collection of responses from the doctor to questions posed by the court. These replies are introduced by a 'dash' “-”, which is often used to indicate the new beginning of a reply to a question.
Here is a short example of the court record:
My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips...
In this example we can see the location of the first 'dash' (“apron – It”), and the second 'dash' (“origin – I”), but there is no 'dash' between (“attached The blood”), where the response, “The blood spots were of recent origin” is an answer to a specific question. I point this out because although the 'dash' is a reasonable indicator, its use is not always consistent.
There are also instances where the 'dash' is used at the end of a line to indicate continuation. So for the most part this 'dash' indicates the beginning of a response to a question, but in order to learn what that question was we must turn to the press.
If we separate the individual replies by Dr. Brown, it may help to clarify.
Doctor Browns first reply was:
My attention was called to the apron
To which we find two accounts in the press, with one actually providing the question.
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was....(Morning Advertiser).
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing...(Daily News).
The second reply is:
It was the corner of the apron with a string attached
The press version.
It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced).....(Daily News).
The third reply:
The blood spots were of recent origin
The press wrote:
Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness. - They are of recent origin....(Times).
There were stains of blood upon the apron. Are the stains of recent origin?-They are....(Morning Advertiser).
The blood stains on it are recent....(Daily News).
We benefit from the above by seeing that both the Morning Advertiser & The Times were providing the questions. Also we can see that not all the press sources covered each reply. They were being selective.
Only the Daily News & Morning Advertiser offered the first reply. The Times began their coverage with the third reply, and the Daily Telegraph, and Morning Post, began with the fourth reply (below).
I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street
The press:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes....(Daily Telegraph).
There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street,...(Morning Post).
Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Goulston street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body....(Daily News).
Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulston-street by a policeman....(Morning Advertiser).
Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street....(Times).
The fifth repy:
It is impossible to say it is human blood
Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood....(Times).
It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood....(Daily News).
The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood...(Morning Advertiser).
..and the sixth:
I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding
I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body....(Daily Telegraph).
And finally:
Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street
On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains...(Morning Advertiser).
..with finger marks of blood upon it, which fits on to the piece left round the body....(Morning Post).
It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it....(Daily News).
On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence....(Times).
It is only after comparing the coverage line-for-line that we can see the press coverage on this portion of testimony was not only accurate but a little more informative.
The first three replies concern the piece of apron found at the mortuary, the official version and the Times refer to “spots of blood”, while the Morning Advertiser and the Daily News call them “stains of blood”.
Then in the fifth reply the Morning Advertiser call the Goulston piece, “stained with blood”, but in the sixth reply the Daily Telegraph describe the Goulston piece as “spotted with blood”.
And finally in the seventh reply the Goulston piece is described variously with “smears of blood” (Times), “marks of blood” (Morning Post), and “smears of blood” & “blood stained” (Morning Advertiser).
And, not forgetting the words of PC Long who described the Goulston piece as “stained with blood” and one portion or corner was still “wet with blood”.
Then we have PC Robinson, but he is describing both halves of the apron as a whole, we read in the Times - “A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness,”
The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood,...(Daily Telegraph).
much torn and was saturated with blood in several places....(Daily News).
The bloody apron was here produced, torn and tattered,...(Evening News).
(dirty white, torn, and cut, and marked with blood)...(Echo).
It would appear then that we cannot use “spotted” and “smeared” to distinguish between the two pieces of apron.
Comment