Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff, I think what happened here is that whoever was taking notes, didn't record all the dialogue, in favor of describing action, leading to a confusion in what is "testimony" and what is court transcript notes that indicate action. Action- The apron being produced (shown to the witness) the witness says "To the best of my knowledge it is the apron she was wearing." It is not all verbal transcription.

The apron being produced means that an apron was taken out and shown to the PC and the reporter described it as torn and bloody. There was probably a dialogue in there that went "Was this the apron that the deceased was wearing" PC: "Yes, to the best of my knowledge that was the apron". The transcriber has left out the direct question in favor of just saying they produced the apron, and the PC confirmed it was the one she was wearing.

If you look at Hutt's testimony the Coroner asks "Was that the apron she was wearing" indicating they must be showing the Pc's an apron for them to identify.

Hi Ally,

I think that's the case as well. Given that actions are described by different reporters, and also given how different papers chose sometimes to report the wording of questions posed to witnesses while others did not (The DT, for example, seems to have recorded some of the question Mr. Crawford put to PC Richardson but also appears to have left out something), I want to compare the various presentations. The idea is to see if the common underlying concept/events can be gleaned based upon the different idiosyncratic way the papers chose to report the same events.

I can't seem to find the paper where PC Richardson asked to see the whole apron, so that appears to be a source containing some additional information at least with respect to the apron, but it may also contain some new wrinkles on other areas too, so I'm quite keen.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Times 12 Oct
"Mr. Crawford. - No one in the crowd appeared to know the woman. Witness last saw her on the same evening at about 10 minutes to 9 o'clock in the police cell.
Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron."

Fantastic! Posted while I was replying to Ally. I thought I had checked the Times, but it must have been for something else, and I've been looking everywhere but there! Sigh.

So he asserts she was wearing an apron. He says he would need to see the whole apron in order to identify it. Two pieces are produced, and he indicates that appears to be the one she was wearing.

He does not mention that some of it still appears to be missing, making this evidence that what was shown made up a whole apron. Moreover, he says that it appears to be the one he recollects her wearing earlier, corroborating all of the other witnesses who said she was wearing an apron that evening. Moreover, given he says this appears to be the same apron, that indirectly corroborates Dr. Brown's assertion that the two pieces matched, and were of the same apron originally.

Interesting how many different points this short exchange touches upon.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Just a pity Trevor wont be back to concede on this one point .

[Varqm]

For the simple observation whether a woman was wearing an apron alive and dead,Trevor go against the people who were there,eyeballing it and instead favor his imagination and observation based on "a string attached' and Longs simple observation the apron was there or not, is too much.In the USA we call it Republicanism.

[Fiver]

Fantastic! Posted while I was replying to Ally. I thought I had checked the Times, but it must have been for something else, and I've been looking everywhere but there! Sigh.

So he asserts she was wearing an apron. He says he would need to see the whole apron in order to identify it. Two pieces are produced, and he indicates that appears to be the one she was wearing.

He does not mention that some of it still appears to be missing, making this evidence that what was shown made up a whole apron. Moreover, he says that it appears to be the one he recollects her wearing earlier, corroborating all of the other witnesses who said she was wearing an apron that evening. Moreover, given he says this appears to be the same apron, that indirectly corroborates Dr. Brown's assertion that the two pieces matched, and were of the same apron originally.

Interesting how many different points this short exchange touches upon.

- Jeff

It touches on another point. The two pieces of apron were produced and matched in open court. Whatever member of the police who brought the pieces to court would have seen them. Police officials who attended the inquest would have seen them. Solicitor Crawford would have seen them. Coroner Langham would have seen them. The jury would have seen them. The press would have seen them. The public would have seen them.

Some of them would have had better views than others, but the match of the apron pieces isn't just Dr Brown's unsupported word. It's something that would have been observed by dozens of people.

[JeffHamm]

It touches on another point. The two pieces of apron were produced and matched in open court. Whatever member of the police who brought the pieces to court would have seen them. Police officials who attended the inquest would have seen them. Solicitor Crawford would have seen them. Coroner Langham would have seen them. The jury would have seen them. The press would have seen them. The public would have seen them.

Some of them would have had better views than others, but the match of the apron pieces isn't just Dr Brown's unsupported word. It's something that would have been observed by dozens of people.

Yes, good point. So the concern that Dr. Brown's matching is not corroborated is not a concern, given the pieces were shown in open court for all to see, making Dr. Brown's match open for dispute if anyone felt such was warranted. Apparently nobody who saw the actual evidence felt a need to be concerned.

- Jeff

[harry]

Sure the apron pieces were produced in Court,but were they matched there,and how was the matching done?Were they laid out on a table or the floor,or maybe just held side by side in court,and then persons present permitted up close to inspect them?

Who was the witness Joshua?Pc Robinson who testified,"to the best of my knowedge and belief that is the apron"

What does that statement prove?It doesn't prove anything,It signifies a belief,nothing more.To the best of my knowledge.What does that mean?How was his knowledge stored.?Was he relying on memory,or did he make notes ,or take an inventory of what Eddowes was wearing?
My boss used to remark,'I am not interested in beliefs,I want proof'
It wouldbe nice to see the same attitude present on these boards.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sure the apron pieces were produced in Court,but were they matched there,and how was the matching done?Were they laid out on a table or the floor,or maybe just held side by side in court,and then persons present permitted up close to inspect them?

Who was the witness Joshua?Pc Robinson who testified,"to the best of my knowedge and belief that is the apron"

What does that statement prove?It doesn't prove anything,It signifies a belief,nothing more.To the best of my knowledge.What does that mean?How was his knowledge stored.?Was he relying on memory,or did he make notes ,or take an inventory of what Eddowes was wearing?
My boss used to remark,'I am not interested in beliefs,I want proof'
It wouldbe nice to see the same attitude present on these boards.

And it would only be fair and reasonable if we didn’t ask for impossible levels of proof in a case that occurred 134 years ago. We have to view every strand of evidence separately and then view them in conjunction with each other and decide on the likelihood or otherwise of the two pieces making up a whole apron.

We know that Dr. Brown matched up the 2 pieces and he did this by means of a patch on the apron alongside a knife cut which would not have been perfectly straight and so ideal for alignment. So there exists no real possibility that he could have been mistaken that they matched up. The Police at the time were under absolutely no doubt that the GS piece came from the mortuary piece and that, at the very least, the it showed part of the killers escape route and that it’s location was a pointer to the graffito. Therefore, if the apron pieces hadn’t have made up a whole apron they would have unavoidably concluded that a piece was missing; a piece that would have been just as important to them as evidence as the GS piece. And yet there is no mention of any missing piece from the Doctor or from the Police. We have no record of any search either. This shows that there was no missing piece. Therefore they had a complete apron. An apron that Eddowes was seen wearing by three people (including 2 police officers)

Then we can add the fact that we all know how women like Catherine Eddowes were forced to live and we can appreciate that the chances of her destroying an article of her meagre clothing would have been unthinkable - especially for a woman carrying 12 pieces of rag and also a couple of other items that she could have cut up to use. It’s surely also certain that women like Catherine would have been forced by circumstances to wash a re-used cloths as they would all have required an almost endless supply during their periods. And as Ally has pointed out, the city would have been awash with discarded and bloodied cloths.

Combine the above with the information posted by Joshua and we are left with a conclusion which is beyond all reasonable doubt. The GS piece and the mortuary piece clearly made up a full apron. No, we can’t prove it 100% because we have no photograph of it but we can get as close as possible. Scepticism is worthy characteristic and none of us should simply accept a ‘truth’ but there comes a time when resistance to the combined evidence becomes simple bloody-mindedness. So can we prove with 100% certainty that the GS piece and the mortuary piece made up a whole? I’d say as near as damn it to it. If you put the evidence to a jury they would undoubtedly conclude as everyone apart from Trevor (and possibly yourself?) have. I’d say that’s easily good enough.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, good point. So the concern that Dr. Brown's matching is not corroborated is not a concern, given the pieces were shown in open court for all to see, making Dr. Brown's match open for dispute if anyone felt such was warranted. Apparently nobody who saw the actual evidence felt a need to be concerned.

- Jeff

Actually, Dr Brown's matching of the apron pieces was observed, I believe, by Drs Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips at the post mortem.

[JeffHamm]

Actually, Dr Brown's matching of the apron pieces was observed, I believe, by Drs Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips at the post mortem.

Yah, I think that's the case too, but not sure if it is recorded in direct testimony, so I suspect it would provide the required wiggle room. Here it is recorded that the whole apron was requested to be viewed, and that 2 pieces were shown to all, and they are confirmed to be the apron he recalls seeing her wearing. Apart from falling back on "but it is in the newspaper, so can be ignored" (which seems only to happen when the newspaper account contradicts), this testimony and recorded set if events has no wiggle room left as it touches all the hot spots directly and naturally.

But, perhaps I've overlooked a statement that describes who was present during the matching.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yah, I think that's the case too, but not sure if it is recorded in direct testimony, so I suspect it would provide the required wiggle room. Here it is recorded that the whole apron was requested to be viewed, and that 2 pieces were shown to all, and they are confirmed to be the apron he recalls seeing her wearing. Apart from falling back on "but it is in the newspaper, so can be ignored" (which seems only to happen when the newspaper account contradicts), this testimony and recorded set if events has no wiggle room left as it touches all the hot spots directly and naturally.

But, perhaps I've overlooked a statement that describes who was present during the matching.

- Jeff

Understood! Because we rely on the newspapers in the absence of the official inquest report, many details are left to our imagination. We do know that Dr Phillips took the apron piece to the post mortem for matching, and no other purpose, and we know that three doctors were said to have observed the post mortem. Dr Sequeira did say on oath that he had followed Dr Brown's evidence, and agreed with him in "every particular". So this is yet another case of only one logical conclusion ....

[JeffHamm]

Understood! Because we rely on the newspapers in the absence of the official inquest report, many details are left to our imagination. We do know that Dr Phillips took the apron piece to the post mortem for matching, and no other purpose, and we know that three doctors were said to have observed the post mortem. Dr Sequeira did say on oath that he had followed Dr Brown's evidence, and agreed with him in "every particular". So this is yet another case of only one logical conclusion ....

Yes, I see how Dr. Sequeira's statement could be taken as support for the apron matching. On the other hand, I think it would be fair to suggest that Dr. Sequeira was only referring to the medical testimony, and even then limited to the physical description of it given Dr. Sequeira differed in his opinion with regards to skill/anatomical knowledge and also believed that only 3 minutes would be required as opposed to Dr. Brown's 5 minutes. As such, he must have had some sort of unstated qualification with respect to his "every particular".

I've been going over the reported testimony, trying to find anything that might tie in to how and when the apron arrived at the mortuary for comparison purposes. While the exact wording differs between papers, in the Daily Telegraph (Oct 5th, 1888; from Casebook Inquest section) the portion of Dr. Brown's testimony is presented this way:

"[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

That sort of reads to me like the apron piece was brought to him by the police, who we know had the portion at the station. You suggested Dr. Phillips brought it, but I assume you meant Dr. Brown as Dr. Phillips doesn't testify at the Eddowes' inquest (though Dr. Brown does say he was sent for while the body was in the square, and that he also viewed the body at the mortuary? Or am I overlooking another source where it is clarified that it was, in fact, Dr. Phillips who took the apron piece from the station to the mortuary?). As far as I'm aware, it is not clear exactly when, or by whom, the delivery of the GS apron piece to the mortuary occurred. We do know the apron piece from Mitre Square is listed last on the inventory, and that has suggested that while the list of her items was being recorded the two portions of the apron were being compared (and it may even have prompted the compilation of a detailed inventory, as many of the other cases seem to have a pretty minimal recording of the deceased's clothing and possessions). Others have argued the list was made as the items were removed (because this would be modern day protocol), however, that does not really seem likely to have happened given the order of the other items on the list do not really appear to reflect a systematic undressing, but rather a rough order following the body having been fully stripped, although there is a sort of rough division between clothing and posessions (but that too could just reflect the clothing were removed and placed on one table, while her possessions were in another; so the list of clothing items was made first, then the possession, and finally the apron is added at the end when the comparison process and discussions were completed). Again, that's a hard thing to resolve conclusively without being able to question the individuals involved directly and I'm not presenting the above as definitive, only one of the many possibilities we face.

- Jeff

[Doctored Whatsit]

Yes, I see how Dr. Sequeira's statement could be taken as support for the apron matching. On the other hand, I think it would be fair to suggest that Dr. Sequeira was only referring to the medical testimony, and even then limited to the physical description of it given Dr. Sequeira differed in his opinion with regards to skill/anatomical knowledge and also believed that only 3 minutes would be required as opposed to Dr. Brown's 5 minutes. As such, he must have had some sort of unstated qualification with respect to his "every particular".

I've been going over the reported testimony, trying to find anything that might tie in to how and when the apron arrived at the mortuary for comparison purposes. While the exact wording differs between papers, in the Daily Telegraph (Oct 5th, 1888; from Casebook Inquest section) the portion of Dr. Brown's testimony is presented this way:

"[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

That sort of reads to me like the apron piece was brought to him by the police, who we know had the portion at the station. You suggested Dr. Phillips brought it, but I assume you meant Dr. Brown as Dr. Phillips doesn't testify at the Eddowes' inquest (though Dr. Brown does say he was sent for while the body was in the square, and that he also viewed the body at the mortuary? Or am I overlooking another source where it is clarified that it was, in fact, Dr. Phillips who took the apron piece from the station to the mortuary?). As far as I'm aware, it is not clear exactly when, or by whom, the delivery of the GS apron piece to the mortuary occurred. We do know the apron piece from Mitre Square is listed last on the inventory, and that has suggested that while the list of her items was being recorded the two portions of the apron were being compared (and it may even have prompted the compilation of a detailed inventory, as many of the other cases seem to have a pretty minimal recording of the deceased's clothing and possessions). Others have argued the list was made as the items were removed (because this would be modern day protocol), however, that does not really seem likely to have happened given the order of the other items on the list do not really appear to reflect a systematic undressing, but rather a rough order following the body having been fully stripped, although there is a sort of rough division between clothing and posessions (but that too could just reflect the clothing were removed and placed on one table, while her possessions were in another; so the list of clothing items was made first, then the possession, and finally the apron is added at the end when the comparison process and discussions were completed). Again, that's a hard thing to resolve conclusively without being able to question the individuals involved directly and I'm not presenting the above as definitive, only one of the many possibilities we face.

- Jeff

Det Halse stated at the inquest that the apron piece had been handed to Dr Phillips, and Dr Brown stated "I have seen a portion of the apron produced by Dr Phillips", and then he told how he matched the portion to the rest of the apron. It seems quite clear that this happened at the post mortem, but the actual words "Drs Sequiera, Saunders and Phillips witnessed the matching" were never used, although it seems to be impossible to believe that Dr Phillips produced the apron piece, and then Phillips, Sequiera and Saunders all left the premises leaving Brown alone to do the matching!

[JeffHamm]

Det Halse stated at the inquest that the apron piece had been handed to Dr Phillips, and Dr Brown stated "I have seen a portion of the apron produced by Dr Phillips", and then he told how he matched the portion to the rest of the apron. It seems quite clear that this happened at the post mortem, but the actual words "Drs Sequiera, Saunders and Phillips witnessed the matching" were never used, although it seems to be impossible to believe that Dr Phillips produced the apron piece, and then Phillips, Sequiera and Saunders all left the premises leaving Brown alone to do the matching!

Ah, thanks. I was looking at the Daily Telegraph report, and just checked the Times, where Dr. Brown also says that Dr. Phillips brought it in this bit (in bold):

Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness (Dr. Brown). - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.

As you say, given Dr. Phillips brought the piece for comparison purposes, it seems to stretch credibility to suggest he did not witness, and take part, in the matching of the sections.

Given Dr. Phillips went to the police station from Mitre Square (he was called there to examine the body at Dr. Brown's request, given his involvement in the Chapman case), it appears that news of the G.S. discovery made its way to those in Mitre Square before the body was removed. The damage to the apron at the crime scene must have been noted, and Dr. Phillips went to get the piece found for the expressed purpose of making this comparison. I realize that is not contained in the wording of the records we have, but Dr. Phillips going to the police station rather than accompanying Dr. Brown to the mortuary, makes no sense otherwise. Indeed, even going to the mortuary at that time of night seems unnecessary given the autopsy wouldn't occur until the next day, so his going to the mortuary at night seems likely to be due to the immediate importance of determining if the found piece of apron was indeed connected to the crime.

- Jeff

[harry]

I would have bet Mr ninety nine and a half percent,would have been the first poster to reply to my last post,and that he would protest and whine that my level of proof was too high.There are only two states,proven or unproven,and the levelis are not set by me,but by law and judges.
He further states,the police at the time etc.What police thought of the apron episode would be documented,if such thoughts existed,so I await his presentation of such documentation.
There is in law enforcement such a thing as'Chain of evidence'.When applied to the apron,we can,I believe,start with the statement of one of the officers who detained Eddowes.He is honest enough to state it is a belief she was wearing an apron.I have addressed this in an earlier post.Through the various links we find there is no other witness who can prove she was wearing an apron.Indeed there is a period prior to her death,when nothing is known about her.No inventory was taken at the murder scene,and Collards account leaves a lot to be desired.It is ambiguous.So how was Brown able to state Eddowes was wearing an apron.There is nothing to suggest he was a witness to her undressing.
What is remarkable in all this,is that doctors whose involvement should have been to assess the injuries and cause of death,appear to have taken over the investigation,and left the police as mere sightseers.