Faecal matter on apron piece

[Bridewell]

Hobnobs

Hi Monty,

Malibu?

You're just up the road from me.

Feel free to pop in for a cup of tea and a McVities Hobnob.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,
You're too late. He's busy hobnobbing with Trevor apparently!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Simon

Odd that Inspector Collard should have overlooked such a pivotal piece of evidence.

Hadn`t they taken it away to be compared to the cut away piece?

[Bridewell]

Apron

Hi Dave,

Odd that Inspector Collard should have overlooked such a pivotal piece of evidence.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

He didn't. It's the last item in the list of her possessions, suggesting she was no longer wearing it when found (perhaps):

"1 Piece of old White Apron".

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

Beat me to it Colin.

It is listed.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Not according to Dr. Frederick Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Regards,

Simon

[Rob Clack]

Bring on the hedgehog.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

He didn't. It's the last item in the list of her possessions, suggesting she was no longer wearing it when found (perhaps):

"1 Piece of old White Apron".

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Not bloodstained?

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

He didn't. It's the last item in the list of her possessions

Oh yes..below the matchbox, pins & needles and ball of hemp...which is why I overlooked it I suppose...but as it was still attached to the body, and therefore part of her apparel, wonder why it's listed below the rest of her clothing, beneath even the meanest of her possessions?

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Would I be correct if I suggested the 'apron' 'attached with strings' would be the outermost body garment worn over the skirts, etc?

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Dunno Phil, but I thought it was generally worn over the skirt, but under any outer coat...but like I said, dunno...

Dave

[Bridewell]

Apron

Hello Colin,

Not bloodstained?

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Presumably not, as the list doesn't say that it was.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Collard

Dunno Phil, but I thought it was generally worn over the skirt, but under any outer coat...but like I said, dunno...

Dave

Hi Dave,

Collard refers to it in his evidence:

"I produce the list of articles found on her - she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Dave,

Collard refers to it in his evidence:

"I produce the list of articles found on her - she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

'Apparently wearing'?

So the piece with strings attached, which matched up with the bloodstained and bespotted faecal piece was not apparently bloodstained and 'apparently' worn outside her dress.

Does this mean that the itinery list was made after Eddowes was naked?

Because if it was on the body, Collard would have SEEN it being worn, surely? He seems to be giving 2nd hand evidence in saying 'apparently wearing'?

And how odd that it didnt have a mark upon it...not one drop of blood.

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

Collard didn't do his inventory at the scene, this is obvious.

The apron would have been take off the body to be matched. However Collard has Browns word it was on the body at the scene.

The two pieces matched.

It is not beyond improbable that one piece had blood upon it whilst the other did not. As they became two seperate items they became independant of each other.

So no, its not odd when you break it down.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Halse

Hello Colin,

'Apparently wearing'?

So the piece with strings attached, which matched up with the bloodstained and bespotted faecal piece was not apparently bloodstained and 'apparently' worn outside her dress.

Does this mean that the itinery list was made after Eddowes was naked?

Because if it was on the body, Collard would have SEEN it being worn, surely? He seems to be giving 2nd hand evidence in saying 'apparently wearing'?

And how odd that it didnt have a mark upon it...not one drop of blood.

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Dc Daniel Halse went to the mortuary with Collard:
"I came through Goulston Street at 20 past 2 and then went back to Mitre Square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing...".

Assuming that Collard and Halse stayed together at the mortuary, Collard must have seen what Halse saw. I can't see Halse noticing that a piece of the apron had been cut away without commenting on the fact to the senior officer present. Might it just be that Collard didn't recall the apron? We don't know how much of it remained - although I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that the larger portion was in Goulston Street.

Regards, Bridewell.