Questioning PC Harveys testimony.

[Monty]

Gideon,

I totally agree with you.

Re the fur trim....heres Collards list of Eddowes attire and belongings.

Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.

Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
Gray stuffed petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise
No drawers or stays
Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned with white cotton

Monty

[perrymason]

Yes Monty... she was a walking corner store, but on her clothes, the article that anyone would notice on her was her jacket, because she only purchased it recently while hopping, likely taking Johns old boots when he buys his new ones...and unless it was used and well used like the balance of her clothing, I would think it might be distinctive enough to ID her by later.

Fisherman, yes they did look at Kate being dropped off there, and at least one other victim was looked at with a similar thought pattern...and it was actually one of the first things they considered, along with a prearranged meeting. Funny that they are now considered as completely implausible, and are now outside longshots.....to most anyway.

Best regards.

[Gideon Fell]

Gideon,

I totally agree with you.

Re the fur trim....heres Collards list of Eddowes attire and belongings.

Black straw bonnet trimmed in green and black velvet with black beads. Black strings, worn tied to the head.

Black cloth jacket trimmed around the collar and cuffs with imitation fur and around the pockets in black silk braid and fur. Large metal buttons.
Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
Gray stuffed petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise
No drawers or stays
Pair of men's lace up boots, mohair laces. Right boot repaired with red thread
1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief
1 large white pocket handkerchief
1 large white cotton handkerchief with red and white bird's eye border
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket
Brown ribbed knee stockings, darned with white cotton

Monty

No need to have gone to all the trouble of reproducing the above list, I have a copy. I didn't say that there wasn't a fur trim I merely queried where were the huge distinctive fur collar and cuffs as per the photos you posted. Obviously Eddowes coat had the cheap, flat, imitation fur that does not stand out at all, also probably worn to next to nothing. To get the best idea of the reality of what her clothing looked like you have to look at the contemporary crime scene drawing, not the bright, as-new, tarted up clothing shown at the conference. Ergo, the photos you posted are misleading rather than enlightening.

[Fisherman]

Gideon Fell writes:

"I'm sorry but the actual clothing worn by Eddowes would not have been as distinctive and bright as the ones shown in the photos above. Eddowes clothes were dark, dirty, worn and shabby and were only seen fleetingly by dim gaslight in the early hours of the morning. The below sketch was done at the time in Mitre Square - where are the huge, distinctive fur collar and cuffs shown in the conference photographs?"

Indeed, Gideon - it seems that there is no fur imitation present in the drawing at all, does it not? And yet we know that it was there, as shown by Montys post on her clothing. And it was not "worn to next to nothing" - the jacket was new!
Ribbed knee stockings? Donīt seem ribbed to me, judging from the drawing. And not a single Michaelmas daisiy or golden lily in sight??

Gideon, letīs not try and seek the truth about Eddowesīappearance by comparing a modern re-creation of her clothing to a hastily made sketch that was never meant to establish what clothes she wore in the first place.

We both know that her clothes were very dirty, almost blackened to some extent. That does not, however, change the fact that different clothes worn by different prostitutes had differing traits of design. The shape of the jacket and itīs length, together with the fake fur THAT WAS THERE are some such things. And bonnets came in hundreds of fashions, no doubt about that.
Lawende stated that that the clothes he was shown were, to the best of his knowledge, the ones he had seen on the woman from Church Passage. If all women wore the same clothes, he would not have done that. If it was too dark for him to see her clothes, he would not have done that.

And that leaves us with a sighting of a woman, dressed in clothes that looked the same as those of Catherine Eddowes or at least resembling them close enough to be mistaken for them. The woman sighted was of the same approximate length as Eddowes, as verified by Levy. She was standing in Church Passage less than ten minutes before Eddowes was found killed in the square, with parts of her blood clotting, while other parts were still fresh.
The fact that this woman could have been anyone of the five feet high East End women dressed in black furtrimmed jackets and black bonnets, walking the streets of Aldgate in them minutes, does not weaken the proposition that this woman was in fact Catherine Eddowes.

The best, Gideon!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Michael writes:
"Fisherman, yes they did look at Kate being dropped off there, and at least one other victim was looked at with a similar thought pattern...and it was actually one of the first things they considered, along with a prearranged meeting. Funny that they are now considered as completely implausible, and are now outside longshots.....to most anyway."

You are referring to Chapman, Michael, and yes, the suggestion was thrown forward that she had been brought to the backyard and placed there.

But just like in the case of Eddowes, the blood present on the strike site AND NOWHERE ELSE gave away that they were both found where they had been killed.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Monty]

No need to have gone to all the trouble of reproducing the above list, I have a copy. I didn't say that there wasn't a fur trim I merely queried where were the huge distinctive fur collar and cuffs as per the photos you posted. Obviously Eddowes coat had the cheap, flat, imitation fur that does not stand out at all, also probably worn to next to nothing. To get the best idea of the reality of what her clothing looked like you have to look at the contemporary crime scene drawing, not the bright, as-new, tarted up clothing shown at the conference. Ergo, the photos you posted are misleading rather than enlightening.

Are you stating that I have intentionally misled?

MOnty

[Gideon Fell]

Are you stating that I have intentionally misled?

MOnty

I didn't say that - did I? I should think that your intention was to help, but in this case I don't think that your intention was realised.

[Fisherman]

Gideon Fell writes:

"I should think that your intention was to help, but in this case I don't think that your intention was realised"

I think not - of course it helps to see a re-creation, even if it is a clean one as opposed to Eddowesīdirty garments. It helps you to realize that all the talking of the women being twin-like due to their clothing is totally wrong.
And, like I have already hinted: there is no telling which of the re-creation and the drawing that conveys the more helpful view of the matter, is there?

The best, Fisherman

[Monty]

I didn't say that - did I? I should think that your intention was to help, but in this case I don't think that your intention was realised.

Gideon,

You didnt substantiate one way or the other, did you?

However, you are entitled to you opinion. For what its worth.

Monty

[perrymason]

Hi Fisherman,

Actually I was referring more to Polly....and Martha too...but youre right, Annie also.

Cheers.

[Fisherman]

Yep, Michael; I think the discussion of that particular topic was at itīs most vivid in the Chapman case.

The best, Michael!
Fisherman

[Gideon Fell]

Gideon,

You didnt substantiate one way or the other, did you?

However, you are entitled to you opinion. For what its worth.

Monty

My opinion may not be worth much but I did say that I should think your intention was to help, which is exactly what I did think. Dear oh dear, there are some sensitive souls around here.

[Gideon Fell]

As for 'Fisherman', he is an opinionated one isn't he? I'm afraid that I cannot begin to imagine that a 21st century reconstruction is more accurate than the drawing of Eddowes made in situ by someone standing there looking at the body and quite obviously he isn't going to spend time drawing flowers all over the skirt. Fisherman seems quite an expert he must have spent much time sifting through the contemporary records.

[Monty]

Gideon,

Rather sensitive than arrogant.

Your opinions are sound, the way you put them forward could be worked on.

Monty.

[Gideon Fell]

Gideon,

Rather sensitive than arrogant.

Your opinions are sound, the way you put them forward could be worked on.

Monty.

I shall try but I really can't see where I was being arrogant.