The Apron Again

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

i must say that I agree with you here, a tangle. It's ALMOST like the officials TRIED to show agreement deliberately...but the more they said the more they confuse. It raises the obvious question... Was this confusion used?

Hello Simon,

Identified SO clearly by a white apron? Unless I am missing something here, wearing a white apron outside her clothes whilst out walking seems SO Unusual, that this person is identified by it. That in itself is striking- its hardly flourescent green.

Collard called it "a piece of old white apron" . Strange how "old white" becomes so identifiable in poorly lit streets- isnt it.

It reminds me of the Mary Kelly saga. Wrong time, wrong place, def, identified. Hmmm

Tricky? Nice description.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes that is correct. Collard took inventory of Kate's belongings after they were removed by the medicos and/or their assistants. But, in describing it, he was probably relating to where he saw it in situ for the benefit of the court. He also described the items he and his men picked up at the scene.

After Gordon and Sequeira left with the body for the mortuary, Collard stayed behind to secure the neighborhood until McWilliams arrived. Kate's belongings were likely removed by the time Collard arrived at Golden Lane to take the inventory.

Simon,

Thank you for your reply and thoughts. Outside of my supposition, I don't really have an explanation for what was related in the Times about the two witnesses.

Hunter
We are back with how the relevant quotes are interpreted you use the words probably and likely that may be your own personal understanding but not necessarily the interpatation of others.

His statement came in the context of what was happening at the mortuary and was made for ongoing continuity. But Dr Browns is interesting !

[Dr. Brown]: "When the body arrived at Golden Lane mortuary some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body, a piece of the deceased's ear dropped from the clothing."
Inspector Collard listed her possessions and clothes. There was no apron, except for "one piece of old white apron".

Now according to the above that could be interpreted that she wasnt wearing an apron but in possession of an apron piece.

Oh what a tangled web they weave these fine upstanding officials who were directly involved in this. I think the only thing they all agreed on was that these women were dead

[Hunter]

Hi Trevor,

Yes that is correct. Collard took inventory of Kate's belongings after they were removed by the medicos and/or their assistants. But, in describing it, he was probably relating to where he saw it in situ for the benefit of the court. He also described the items he and his men picked up at the scene.

After Gordon and Sequeira left with the body for the mortuary, Collard stayed behind to secure the neighborhood until McWilliams arrived. Kate's belongings were likely removed by the time Collard arrived at Golden Lane to take the inventory.

Simon,

Thank you for your reply and thoughts. Outside of my supposition, I don't really have an explanation for what was related in the Times about the two witnesses.

[Trevor Marriott]

Eddowes' clothes were obviously in disarray when her body was found and, according to procedure, Collard did not closely examine the body itself; leaving that for Dr. Gordon to do upon his arrival. Gordon did notice it was still attached to the body by its strings. "...Found outside her dress"... that would be the normal place for an apron to be and that would probably be the extent of Collard's observations at that point.

If the overwhelming evidence that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed and mutilated in Mitre Square is twisted around and disregarded like this, then there is nothing in this case that could ever be determined and anyone can make anything they wish out of any part of it... Which seems to be the motive for some for some inexplicable reason.

The witnesses referred to in Simon's post were certainly Lawende and Levy. Where had they been in the past 10 days? They were found by the house to house police enquiries conducted in the days after the murder; which is often the case- even now- during investigations. They may not have understood the importance of their sighting until questioned and taken to examine the clothing of the deceased.

I think you will find the paragraph referred to was in relation to what happened at the mortuary.

[lynn cates]

mental condition

Hello Neil Thanks for that. Of course, that would depend on his mental acuity which, in turn, would depend upon savoury pies and stale beer consumed. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Lynn,

Well the only person we know for certain was in contact with Long at around thetime he found the apron was PC 190 H Billy Bettlesn who he left in charge of the scene whilst he reported his find.

He could have heard it from him.

Monty

[lynn cates]

chance

Hello Neil.

"What I find odd about this is that he was Met, therefore logically he should have been made aware of that first."

Yes, a bit odd. But if the information came by way of rumour, perhaps it was mere chance which came first?

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

It's hard to say.

Lawende & Co. were identified within twenty four hours, with Lawende being sequestered by the City police.

The witnesses in my original post hoved onto the scene much later.

The whole scenario is too tricky for my liking.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Good point, Simon, as they did say to the press that she was alone. Since the article seems to be referring to witnesses yet to appear at the inquest, Lawende and Levy are the only ones who would fit the bill. Could be that they were cornered by the press while making their written depositions; had to say something about their reason for being there and had been told by the police not to mention a possible sighting of a suspect... in which case, they lied to the reporter about that.

I admit this is only supposition, but I can't think of a better answer given the information in the report and what was withheld when they were called to the stand. Press reports can be very tricky, as is exampled by the first garbled report in you're post.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Hunter,

The witnesses in my post saw Eddowes on her own. Alone. Wearing her unmistakeable white apron. Two hundred yards down the street from Church Passage. At 1.30 am.

How could they have been Lawende & Co.?

It sure is a mystery.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

A very good point Inspector Collard states " states "I produce a portion of the apron which the deceased was "apparently" wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

Eddowes' clothes were obviously in disarray when her body was found and, according to procedure, Collard did not closely examine the body itself; leaving that for Dr. Gordon to do upon his arrival. Gordon did notice it was still attached to the body by its strings. "...Found outside her dress"... that would be the normal place for an apron to be and that would probably be the extent of Collard's observations at that point.

If the overwhelming evidence that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed and mutilated in Mitre Square is twisted around and disregarded like this, then there is nothing in this case that could ever be determined and anyone can make anything they wish out of any part of it... Which seems to be the motive for some for some inexplicable reason.

The witnesses referred to in Simon's post were certainly Lawende and Levy. Where had they been in the past 10 days? They were found by the house to house police enquiries conducted in the days after the murder; which is often the case- even now- during investigations. They may not have understood the importance of their sighting until questioned and taken to examine the clothing of the deceased.

[Monty]

Thanks for that. I know you research this stuff and are very familiar with police procedure. But I’m talking word of mouth. PC Long seems to have become aware of the murders via ‘rumour’ (his word) which indicates he was aware of it BEFORE being officially notified.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom,

No, Long stated he had heard of the City murder but only heard rumour of another, which would have been Stride.

What I find odd about this is that he was Met, therefore logically he should have been made aware of that first.

I have seen the City archives and can confirm the procedure I mentioned above was in place. There is reference to the Met so I presume the two co-operated over this. That's certainly my interpretation.

Monty

[Chava]

You could probably sharpen it on the curb edge of the pavement. Anyone could do it. Eddowes probably had something like that as a cutting tool and defence weapon rather than an aid to dainty eating. Not that it did her much good at the end

[Trevor Marriott]

I either started this thread or posted on the former thread that I thought it was possible they'd mistaken one of her pockets for an apron while she was in the nick, because a couple of policemen at Bishopsgate lock-up recognized the apron as something they had seen on her. However enough people claim to have seen her wearing an apron that night to make me believe that she did indeed have one on over her skirts. I still think this is unusual attire to go out on a weekend razzle, and none of the other victims wore aprons when they were killed, but there it is. It makes much more contextual sense to me if the apron was worn under her skirts for reasons which I have written about several times on this thread.

As for her knife, the knife Richardson produced at the Chapman inquest was finally described as a butter knife and there were suggestions that it wasn't the knife he actually had one him on the night of the murder because he didn't want to become a suspect. A butter knife has a blunt spreading edge and a rounded end. But a table knife which would have been used to cut meat etc almost certainly had a sharper edge. Here's a table knife of the period from the V&A collection. It doesn't have a sharp point but it's a serviceable cutting implement.

And I and no doubt has Stewart seen many of that type of knife made into a sharp weapon.

[Chava]

I either started this thread or posted on the former thread that I thought it was possible they'd mistaken one of her pockets for an apron while she was in the nick, because a couple of policemen at Bishopsgate lock-up recognized the apron as something they had seen on her. However enough people claim to have seen her wearing an apron that night to make me believe that she did indeed have one on over her skirts. I still think this is unusual attire to go out on a weekend razzle, and none of the other victims wore aprons when they were killed, but there it is. It makes much more contextual sense to me if the apron was worn under her skirts for reasons which I have written about several times on this thread.

As for her knife, the knife Richardson produced at the Chapman inquest was finally described as a butter knife and there were suggestions that it wasn't the knife he actually had one him on the night of the murder because he didn't want to become a suspect. A butter knife has a blunt spreading edge and a rounded end. But a table knife which would have been used to cut meat etc almost certainly had a sharper edge. Here's a table knife of the period from the V&A collection. It doesn't have a sharp point but it's a serviceable cutting implement.