The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Sam Flynn]

The Times actually records three items together:

"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

In the official list we read:

"Pair of mens lace up boots......
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon, found on neck"
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

I think these are the same items.

Well spotted, Jon.

[Elamarna]

Hi Steve.

I think it is only fair to say that if a body is stripped then the first things we remove are the hat, and top coat/jacket. Then a dress/skirt, and, in this case a bodice. Under these outer clothes should be petticoats and or a chemise, c/w underwear.
This is just how the list was recorded, so I know I am agreeing with Trevor in this, but I do think the list as it has come down to us reflects the likelyhood that the list was made as the items of clothing were removed.

This is why I do not think the last item: "1 Piece of old white apron", is the remnant still attached to the body. If it was, it should be earlier in the list.

However, I think the list (two sheets of foolscap) is too neat & tidy to have been written at the mortuary while the body was being stripped.
I feel sure that Collard (if it is his handwriting), would have made these notes in his pocketbook, as was the policy.
The notes then being transferred to foolscap for filing with his report, and for the inquest.

Now, if the list was not made while the body was being stripped, then it was made from a pile of clothing, which should mean there would be no sequence to the list. We might expect to read of a chemise, then the coat, then an apron, a handkerchief, then the bodice, and boots, etc. In other words no identifiable sequence - but this is not what we see.

Because I do see a sequence, and because the piece of old white apron is listed last, then that piece must have turned up last, therefore, it is likely the GS piece brought by Dr Phillips. Which means, the remnant piece that was still attached to the body is listed earlier, and under some other identification.
I think it is recorded as: "1 large white handkerchief, blood stained", which is noted directly following the piece of red gauze that came off the neck.

The Times actually records three items together:

"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

In the official list we read:

"Pair of mens lace up boots......
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon, found on neck"
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

I think these are the same items.

Hi Jon
Much of that may be l true, my main issue was if the list as presented was actually made as the items were removed, or if it was copied, something I see you also wonder about.

I find Collard's statement that the apron was outside her dress, very strongly suggests that it was indeed clothing and not a possession.

Steve

[Elamarna]

This is true, but it was explained to me that these type of 'pockets' are what we see market workers wearing around their waist. Some call it a "fanny-pack", it's really just a belt with a pocket attacked to it. You wear it under your clothing so no-one knows you have anything of value.
This is where I imagine they were removed from, under her clothes and around her waist.

That was how I imagined them myself,
Woren around the body,


Steve

[jerryd]

This is true, but it was explained to me that these type of 'pockets' are what we see market workers wearing around their waist. Some call it a "fanny-pack", it's really just a belt with a pocket attacked to it. You wear it under your clothing so no-one knows you have anything of value.
This is where I imagine they were removed from, under her clothes and around her waist.

Chris G. included a "fake photo" of Alice McKenzie on a post today and the attachment on the woman's right hip may be the type of 'pocket' you refer to Jon?

See post #31

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25175&page=4

[Wickerman]

Chris G. included a "fake photo" of Alice McKenzie on a post today and the attachment on the woman's right hip may be the type of 'pocket' you refer to Jon?

See post #31

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=25175&page=4

There seems to be one on either side of her hip, yes that could be the same thing.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon
Much of that may be l true, my main issue was if the list as presented was actually made as the items were removed, or if it was copied, something I see you also wonder about.

I find Collard's statement that the apron was outside her dress, very strongly suggests that it was indeed clothing and not a possession.

Steve

Yes Steve, typically the apron was worn under the coat, but over the dress - normally speaking. So what Collard said is consistent with this.
Kate's apron was clothing.

[Elamarna]

I think it is recorded as: "1 large white handkerchief, blood stained", which is noted directly following the piece of red gauze that came off the neck.

The Times actually records three items together:

"She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck."

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/times/18881001.html

In the official list we read:

"Pair of mens lace up boots......
"1 piece of red gauze silk, various cuts thereon, found on neck"
"1 large White Handkerchief, blood stained".

I think these are the same items.

Interesting suggestion Jon. on the surface it looks plausible.

I need sometime to consider it


Steve

[PaulB]

For what it's worth, McWilliam went to the mortuary "and saw the piece of apron — which was found in Goulstone Street — compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded. I then returned to the Detective Office and had telegraphed to the Divisions and Metropolitan Police a description of the murdered woman and her clothing." (Report to the Home Office by Inspector James McWilliam, City of London Police, 27 October 1888).

That description as published in several newspapers concluded with an old pair of men's lace-up boots and "a piece of coarse white apron". The following is from The Daily Telegraph, 1 October 1888):

"The full official description is as follows: "Age forty; length, 5 ft; dark auburn hair; hazel eyes; dressed in black jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons; brown bodice; dark green chintz skirt, of Michaelmas and Gordon lily pattern, and with three flounces; thin white vest, light drab lindsey skirt, dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise; brown ribbed stockings, mended at foot with piece of white stocking; black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet; large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron. The letters 'T. C.' were tattooed on the left fore-arm in blue ink."

The belief of McWilliam, as given by him in a report, is that Eddowes was wearing the apron. The same is expressed by others, such as Collard and Halse. The official description as issued by McWilliam lists the apron at the end, as it also appears on the list compiled by Collard. Maybe there's nothing in it, maybe it suggests the apron was separated from the rest of Eddowes' clothes and possessions before the list was compiled, possibly for the purpose of comparison.

Just a bit of fat to chew over.

[Wickerman]

Well spotted, Jon.

Hi Gareth.

I suspect the reason Collard identified the remnant as a handkerchief is because he thought it was a head covering. It was tied around her neck, it was large enough to cover her head, and women often worn large scarf's to cover their head. This was a large piece of cloth, being found around her neck, and in it's present condition he saw no other use for it but to cover her head.
The term "kerchief" does mean head covering.

We notice later in the list he uses "pocket handkerchief", for what we today would regard as a handkerchief. So he recognised the piece tied around her neck was not the same.

[Joshua Rogan]

Yes, Paul, Halse said that he "saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing". If true, it seems unlikely it would have been recorded as a handkerchief.

[Wickerman]

Yes, Paul, Halse said that he "saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing". If true, it seems unlikely it would have been recorded as a handkerchief.

I beg to differ Joshua.
You are quoting from the inquest on 12 October, by then they knew she had worn an apron. The list was made on Sunday 30 Sept., before they knew she had been wearing an apron.

[Joshua Rogan]

I beg to differ Joshua.
You are quoting from the inquest on 12 October, by then they knew she had worn an apron. The list was made on Sunday 30 Sept., before they knew she had been wearing an apron.

Perhaps, Jon. But Halse is clearly saying that he knew there was a piece of apron missing before he heard about the piece found by Long.
Collard produces at inquest the "list of articles found on her". I don't see why he would have added the Goulston St portion to this list - he doesn't seem to have added the buttons, thimble and mustard tin found beside her body.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps, Jon. But Halse is clearly saying that he knew there was a piece of apron missing before he heard about the piece found by Long.
Collard produces at inquest the "list of articles found on her". I don't see why he would have added the Goulston St portion to this list - he doesn't seem to have added the buttons, thimble and mustard tin found beside her body.

If you recall, no-one was aware Kate had worn an apron until Dr Phillips showed up at the mortuary with the bloodstained cloth.
The body had been stripped, and the list made long before that.
Halse is making an anachronistic point, when speaking at the inquest.

At the time of making the list, no-one at the mortuary was aware of her wearing an apron.

The buttons & mustard tin were not as important as the piece of bloody apron, and as the piece had been matched to an article already taken from her body then this GS piece is another part of her clothing.

[Sam Flynn]

as the piece had been matched to an article already taken from her body then this GS piece is another part of her clothing.

Quite so. It doesn't matter if the apron had "strings attached" or "was attached to the body by strings", the plain fact of the matter is that the piece found in Goulston Street obviously matched the remainder of the apron found in association with Eddowes' body.

[Joshua Rogan]

If you recall, no-one was aware Kate had worn an apron until Dr Phillips showed up at the mortuary with the bloodstained cloth.
The body had been stripped, and the list made long before that.
Halse is making an anachronistic point, when speaking at the inquest.

At the time of making the list, no-one at the mortuary was aware of her wearing an apron.

Not true. Halse said he was aware when the body was stripped, as I said earlier. He also says he heard of the piece found by Long shortly afterwards, when he returned to Mitre Square, And heard that Dr Phillips had it in his possession when he and Hunt went to Leman St station.
If the apron was still attached to the body by the strings, as Brown says, I don't believe that it could have been mistaken for a kerchief. I think the most likely explanation is that it simply became detached when the body was moved to the mortuary.

The buttons & mustard tin were not as important as the piece of bloody apron, and as the piece had been matched to an article already taken from her body then this GS piece is another part of her clothing.

But Long's piece wasn't found ON her. So, whilst it was an important piece of evidence, I don't think it would simply have been added to a list of possessions.
The mustard tin contained the pawn tickets which may have led to identifying her, or potentially the killer, so I'd say would have been seen as very important. But that wasn't added either.