The Bloody Piece of Apron Redux

[sgh]

Brown or Foster sketch ?

Hi Maria,

The drawing that's been posted on this thread is Frederick Foster's drawing of Kate in situ. He probably sketched it in first with pencil and then added the colour when he got back to base. The colouring looks as if it's water colour I think and outlined in pen. He may have actually painted it at the scene, but I suspect that they would have wanted to get the body away from there as fast as they could, because of the gathering crowds.

The one done by Foster at the mortuary was just pencil. You can see from the proportions in that sketch that Foster was a surveyor and not a general artist. The shoulders are far too wide for the rest of the sketch. He did a good job though considering!

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

Hi Jane,
I thought the cropped drawing I posted (#209) was made by Dr Brown!
It is found on the larger 'Plan of Mitre Square and surroundings' made by
Frederick William Foster - City surveyor and witness at the Catherine Eddowes ' inquest.

Underneath the sketch it says 'Position of the body when found from a sketch made on the spot by Dr F Gordon Brown'
I am aware that Foster made sketches of Eddowes' injuries while the body was in the mortuary, but I'm now just trying to figure out exactly who did the one I'm on about.
Not being picky Jane, just need confirmation. :-)

[Jane Coram]

Hi SGH,

As far I know that illustration is Foster's. It's credited to Foster in the Source Book and here on Casebook at least. I've always thought he just used Brown's sketch to put all the pencilled medical notes in around the body, but that he'd made his own sketches and notes at the scene as well. I don't know if I read that somewhere or if I'm just misremembering that bit. I read so many books, I forget what I have read sometimes. The actual illustration on that document though is generally credited to Foster, even though it is based on a sketch by Brown. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it?

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[mariab]

But if he had to get rid of it ASAP, then why didn't he? why not leave it at the scene, or the first available doorway, or the first trash bin? Why ditch it several streets away on a fairly well patrolled block? There's really no reason for that piece of apron to leave that square, unless he had a specific plan for it. Logic would dictate that he didn't get more than a couple of steps out of the square without ditching it if all it was to him has something to wipe his hands with.

That's why I'm saying, he might have cut himself with his own knife, might have gotten fecal matter on his wound, and quickly grabbed/tore a piece of the apron to clean up his injury. Walks a couple blocks around, wound stops bleeding too much, he gets rid of the piece of evidence. Might have chosen the GSG deliberately or accidentally. Might have even scribbled the graffito himself, pissed at the IWEC people, before encountering Eddowes.

[Jane Coram]

Hi SGH,

You've got me wondering now. I don't think there is any doubt that the illustration is actually Foster's, but I'm beginning to wonder if he went to the murder site on the night of Kate's murder, or if he was purely working on sketches by Brown. The only reason I thought that he had gone to the murder site himself to do sketches is that there is an awful lot of detail in that illustration which looked as if it had been taken from life (or in poor Kate's case, death). The only other alternative is that Brown's sketch was so good that he could take all that detail from it. I thought I had read somewhere that he had gone there, but it could have been on a thread and it was just someone suggesting it.

I've had a quick look through and can't find anything on it, but I'm sure someone can tell us.

Help!
Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[sgh]

Hi SGH,

As far I know that illustration is Foster's. It's credited to Foster in the Source Book and here on Casebook at least. I've always thought he just used Brown's sketch to put all the pencilled medical notes in around the body, but that he'd made his own sketches and notes at the scene as well. I don't know if I read that somewhere or if I'm just misremembering that bit. I read so many books, I forget what I have read sometimes. The actual illustration on that document though is generally credited to Foster, even though it is based on a sketch by Brown. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it?

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

Many thanks for your reply, Janie.
Sounds like Foster's it is then - makes sense, I see the reasoning.

Hugs back :-)

S

[sgh]

Hi SGH,

You've got me wondering now. I don't think there is any doubt that the illustration is actually Foster's, but I'm beginning to wonder if he went to the murder site on the night of Kate's murder, or if he was purely working on sketches by Brown. The only reason I thought that he had gone to the murder site himself to do sketches is that there is an awful lot of detail in that illustration which looked as if it had been taken from life (or in poor Kate's case, death). The only other alternative is that Brown's sketch was so good that he could take all that detail from it. I thought I had read somewhere that he had gone there, but it could have been on a thread and it was just someone suggesting it.

I've had a quick look through and can't find anything on it, but I'm sure someone can tell us.

Help!
Hugs

Janie

xxxx

Hi Janie,
We're both rummaging through texts by the sounds of it - not to worry though, I'm glad you pointed this out and I'll refer to it as Foster's in the future.
Thank you once again for your help

Double Hugs back :-)

Steve

[Jane Coram]

Hi SGH,

I'm going to have to email someone to see if Foster actually went there on the night of the murder or not, or it's going to drive me batshit!

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

[sgh]

Hi SGH,

I'm going to have to email someone to see if Foster actually went there on the night of the murder or not, or it's going to drive me batshit!

Much love

Janie

xxxxx

Hi Janie,
While your at it (the email a friend part - not the batshit:-) can you ask them
if they can decipher the handwriting in the top rh corner of Foster's site plan of Mitre Sq refering to the apron piece. I can make out most of it especially where it says 'found inside to ,,,,' .
Something or other comes after that and I can't make that out yet.

Bucket full of Hugs
Steve

[sgh]

Foster's Site plan for Janie

Hi Janie,
Here's the section of Foster's plan with the handwritten notes I was just referring to that I'm trying to decipher.

Best
Steve

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

. I think the first line says '2 doors from Wentworth Street' . .I think the last word of line 2 is 'blocks' . . . the third line says 'about 30 feet'. . . I can't even find the bit you can see, so you must have bloody good eyes.

I'll have a look at it in Photoshop tomorrow and see if I can get it more readable. It might already be in a book somewhere, I'll have a look through if I can't work out what it says. I know I've seen it written down somewhere. I think it might have been on a thread about the GSG. I'll try and remember.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[sgh]

Janie,
The line I can see where it says - found inside entrance to,,,
is just above the - 108 to 119.
The writing below that and to the right is just too indistinct
to read it fully.

It's all relative to the exact location of where exactly the piece
of apron was found.
Just snippets of clues to help us try to determine things.

Many Thanks again Janie - you're a real Gem :-)

[Errata]

That's why I'm saying, he might have cut himself with his own knife, might have gotten fecal matter on his wound, and quickly grabbed/tore a piece of the apron to clean up his injury. Walks a couple blocks around, wound stops bleeding too much, he gets rid of the piece of evidence. Might have chosen the GSG deliberately or accidentally. Might have even scribbled the graffito himself, pissed at the IWEC people, before encountering Eddowes.

The reason this rings odd to me is that when it all boils down to it, there are wounds you worry about and ones you don't. If someone were to cut the crap out of their hand, to the point that they need to wrap it, apply pressure, etc. then that's a wound you worry about. Most people would wrap their hand up and get home as soon as possible to take care of it. It's sort of like the amount of concern required to bind a wound is a 5, and the amount of concern to get to place where you can see it under light and clean it properly is a 5.001. There just isn't a lot of room in between those two levels.

It's also a lot of cloth to bind a wound. And if he was wounded, he wouldn't have to explain the presence of a bloody cloth. He could walk around with that thing all night. If someone said "hey why do you have a bloody cloth?" he would say "because I cut the crap out of my hand. See?".

I can see a lot of scenarios where he either doesn't take the cloth, or doesn't get rid of it. But taking a pillowcase sized piece of cloth and dropping it a few blocks away seems sort of so bizarre it had to be purposeful.

[protohistorian]

Maybe this will help? It appears you have a palimpsest of sorts here. It is likely a product of being written on a page from a booklet and the lower page containing a remnant of an upper page. Dave

[protohistorian]

1894 os of the map depicted. Dave

[protohistorian]

I really need more of a life, why won't someone stop me!
Line 1 I believe says, "2 doors from wentworth street" Dave