The Apron Again

[curious4]

Hi All,

Evening News, 11th October 1888—

A great deal of fresh evidence will be given to the adjourned inquest, which will be held to-day, at the City Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, upon the body of the Mitre-square victim. Since the adjournment, Shelton, the Coroner's officer, has, with the assistance of the City Police authorities, discovered several new witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased, who was found to be occupying a respectable situation as a domestic in the neighbourhood of Kennington. She states that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke-street, Aldgate, a few minutes' walk from Mitre-square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-post one o'clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing.

The story of Annie Phillips seeing her mother at 1.30 am on the morning of her murder appears to have been the result of sloppy sub-editing by the Evening News.

Here is the story as it appeared in The Times, same day. Note that Kennington, in south London, became Kensington, in west London.

"A good deal of fresh evidence will be given at the adjourned inquest, which will be held to-day at the City Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, upon the body of the Mitre-square victim. Since the adjournment, Shelton, the coroner's officer, has, with the assistance of the City police authorities, discovered several new witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased, who was found to be occupying a respectable situation as a domestic in the neighbourhood of Kensington. She states that she had not seen her mother for some time, and certainly did not see her on the night she met her death.

"Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke-street, Aldgate, a few minutes' walk from Mitre-square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o'clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing."

This report makes it sound as though the wearing of a white apron was unique to Catherine Eddowes.

Make of it what you will.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

No problem, ejector seat in full working order.

Best wishes
C4

[curious4]

The Apron

Morning all,

I introduced the old piece of apron in reply to the original question, as something less likely to be drenched in blood. Then it occured to me that there was no mention of an apron in the list of clothing, which intrigued me. This is rapidly turning into Annie Chapman´s farthings!

Can´t see any evidence of an apron in Dr Brown´s sketch, though.

I suppose the logical thing to do when your victim is wearing an apron is to throw it up over the upper half of the body in order to get to your area of interest, so to speak and then perhaps cut through the clothes. By the way, I believe aprons were worn to give an air of respectability.

As to the witnesses coming forward two weeks later, perhaps we should count them as suspects, as per Hutchinson.

I suppose there is always the possibility that Kate WAS wearing an apron and took it off at some point, putting it into one of her "pockets". After all, if Jack had cut off a piece, it could be described a piece of old apron and he could have been making a statement by defacing her symbol of respectability.

Best wishes,
C4

[Trevor Marriott]

Morning all,

I introduced the old piece of apron in reply to the original question, as something less likely to be drenched in blood. Then it occured to me that there was no mention of an apron in the list of clothing, which intrigued me. This is rapidly turning into Annie Chapman´s farthings!

Can´t see any evidence of an apron in Dr Brown´s sketch, though.

I suppose the logical thing to do when your victim is wearing an apron is to throw it up over the upper half of the body in order to get to your area of interest, so to speak and then perhaps cut through the clothes. By the way, I believe aprons were worn to give an air of respectability.

As to the witnesses coming forward two weeks later, perhaps we should count them as suspects, as per Hutchinson.

I suppose there is always the possibility that Kate WAS wearing an apron and took it off at some point, putting it into one of her "pockets". After all, if Jack had cut off a piece, it could be described a piece of old apron and he could have been making a statement by defacing her symbol of respectability.

Best wishes,
C4

Oh come on please lets keep this in the realms of reality

[John Bennett]

Oh come on please lets keep this in the realms of reality

This thread broke free of those boundaries long ago.

[curious4]

Oh come on please lets keep this in the realms of reality

Hello Trevor,

No need to go all growly. I refer to Dickens regarding the "respectability" of a white apron: first in Oliver Twist, where Nancy is "decorated" with a white apron as well as basket and key in order to fetch her "little brother", and also in The Uncommercial Traveller, where Dickens relates his experience of having a girl arrested for using foul language on the street, seeing her in court "The prisoner had been got up, since I last I had the pleasure of seeing her, with a great affect of white apron..." In the absence of Sky Channel, I think we can turn to Dickens as regards the mores of the London poor.

A pocket being at the time a cloth bag tied with tapes round the waist I think there would easily have been room for a folded up worn apron, considering the amount of things Kate had with her - I believe she wore two pockets? So not beyond the bounds of possibility that she took off an apron and put it in one of her "pockets".

I will grant that JTR deliberately defacing the apron is a flight of fancy, but who is to say?

I was joking about the witnesses re Hutchinson - my sense of humour does tend to get the better of me.

I believe I was on thread regarding apron?

However, if you prefer to go back to french maids and so on, be my guest.

Regards,
C4

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

No need to go all growly. I refer to Dickens regarding the "respectability" of a white apron: first in Oliver Twist, where Nancy is "decorated" with a white apron as well as basket and key in order to fetch her "little brother", and also in The Uncommercial Traveller, where Dickens relates his experience of having a girl arrested for using foul language on the street, seeing her in court "The prisoner had been got up, since I last I had the pleasure of seeing her, with a great affect of white apron..." In the absence of Sky Channel, I think we can turn to Dickens as regards the mores of the London poor.

A pocket being at the time a cloth bag tied with tapes round the waist I think there would easily have been room for a folded up worn apron, considering the amount of things Kate had with her - I believe she wore two pockets? So not beyond the bounds of possibility that she took off an apron and put it in one of her "pockets".

I will grant that JTR deliberately defacing the apron is a flight of fancy, but who is to say?

I was joking about the witnesses re Hutchinson - my sense of humour does tend to get the better of me.

I believe I was on thread regarding apron?

However, if you prefer to go back to french maids and so on, be my guest.

Regards,
C4

Never worn one in my life although I cant speak for all on here lol

[lynn cates]

deferment

Hello Maria. I defer to your knowledge here. Perhaps Kate was . . . nah.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Never worn one in my life although I cant speak for all on here lol

Hello Trevor,

I`m quite sure you could wear one to advantage - we should all step out of our comfort zones from time to time.

All the best,
C4

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor,

I`m quite sure you could wear one to advantage - we should all step out of our comfort zones from time to time.

All the best,
C4

They say dont knock it till you try it

Can i borrow yours then ?

[caz]

The apron Eddowes wore that day was old, mended and probably filthy. She had two options - keep it and wear it, or take it off and chuck it. She kept it and wore it.

She had just returned from hopping and everything she could call her own was on her person, in the form of layers of clothing (it was the end of a particularly bad summer) and personal bits and bobs. Why the surprise that she would have kept the apron on to solicit, to pee, to eat, to drink, to do an honest day's hopping, to sleep off a drinking session, to do absolutely everything?

And why the surprise that anyone seeing that apron in darkness and recognising it as such would have described it as "white", even if it was nearly blackened with dirt or spotted red with blood? It would have been a fair (and correct) assumption that the original material used was white, not black, red, royal blue or emerald green. It was a white apron, that had seen better days.

Approximately half of this apron parted company with its other half, becoming rather less savoury and finding its way to the entrance of the shiny new Goulston St dwellings, where it was noticed an hour or so after its rightful owner had been murdered and mutilated, found to be bloody and therefore possibly connected to some violent crime in the immediate vicinity. It was recognisable enough to be matched quite quickly with its more fortunate half, which had remained with its owner and could certainly be seen as an old piece of white apron, which would not have been wholly on her or off her by the time it was so described.

It's such a simple concept that I have no idea how this piece of cloth has become, in recent times, such a complex bit of evidence for some to juggle with, that they prefer to see it as anything but what it plainly was to Eddowes herself. It's the one real clue we have to the killer's movements and decision-making in the wake of a murder, yet there are people who would discard it as a red herring and wish it had never been found or connected to the case.

It's beyond baffling.

Love,

Caz
X

[John Bennett]

Caz,

Couldn't have said it better myself.

JB

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

All mention of aprons connected to the WM saga, be they white, a corner of, a piece of, a torn apron, a stringed apron, a butcher's apron or even a Freemasons apron... All cause the opinions to fly.

I would personally still like an answer from someone whn knows better than I how come the man who found the apron, Long, is clearly described bx Chief Inspector Donald Swanson
as having visited the very same buildings at 2.20 and DIDNT see the apron piece he did at 2.55 if he didnt mean that very thing in his witness statement.

Surely. Swanson would have got this important piece of testimony right when writing his report to the Home Office? The consequences are crucial... It means either the killer was still very much in the area 35mins after the murder and yet to dump the apron... Or the apron piece was dumped there by a.n.other, ALSO in the area. And what does either of the above tell you about police detection?
It tells me that while all hell is let loose following 2 murders, there is a chance that possibly not one, but maybe 2 killers and or a possibke accomplice are walking freely about in their midst. Damned clever disguise to avoid all that hullabaloo.

No wonder the finger of questionable behavior or, many many years ago, the susspicion of a policeman being involved was aired, it started in 1888. I believe that a letter saying such was sent to the authorities saying such, and can be found in Letters From Hell.

Apron piece? Found under, according to Swanson, blurred writing,(page 208, Sourcebook, last paragraph) ... Sounds like it had been leaned or brushed against.
Err... When did the blurring occur? White chalk on dark clothing is very visible.

What If THAT was on the persons clothes who dumped the apron...after all Halse said it looke "recently written"... Err.. BLURRED writing? Recent? How in devils name can one identify BLURRED writing as "recent"? Perhaps someone can tell me?
Thats one heck of an observation. How would Halse KNOW?
Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron Eddowes wore that day was old, mended and probably filthy. She had two options - keep it and wear it, or take it off and chuck it. She kept it and wore it.

She had just returned from hopping and everything she could call her own was on her person, in the form of layers of clothing (it was the end of a particularly bad summer) and personal bits and bobs. Why the surprise that she would have kept the apron on to solicit, to pee, to eat, to drink, to do an honest day's hopping, to sleep off a drinking session, to do absolutely everything?

And why the surprise that anyone seeing that apron in darkness and recognising it as such would have described it as "white", even if it was nearly blackened with dirt or spotted red with blood? It would have been a fair (and correct) assumption that the original material used was white, not black, red, royal blue or emerald green. It was a white apron, that had seen better days.

Approximately half of this apron parted company with its other half, becoming rather less savoury and finding its way to the entrance of the shiny new Goulston St dwellings, where it was noticed an hour or so after its rightful owner had been murdered and mutilated, found to be bloody and therefore possibly connected to some violent crime in the immediate vicinity. It was recognisable enough to be matched quite quickly with its more fortunate half, which had remained with its owner and could certainly be seen as an old piece of white apron, which would not have been wholly on her or off her by the time it was so described.

It's such a simple concept that I have no idea how this piece of cloth has become, in recent times, such a complex bit of evidence for some to juggle with, that they prefer to see it as anything but what it plainly was to Eddowes herself. It's the one real clue we have to the killer's movements and decision-making in the wake of a murder, yet there are people who would discard it as a red herring and wish it had never been found or connected to the case.

It's beyond baffling.

Love,

Caz
X

But years of experience have told me that the simplest explanation is very rarely correct

After all they said the simplest explanation was that the organs were removed by the killer

[Monty]

Caz,

Couldn't have said it better myself.

JB

Absolutely JB.

Monty

[Chava]

"wearing a white apron outside her clothes whilst out walking seems SO Unusual"

Indeed. But even odder to be soliciting in such. Ah, well--the male libido. Who can fathom it? (heh-heh)

Which is something I queried long before this thread took off into the wide blue yonder. But when I think about it, the answer is obvious. She's tramping round the East End with John Kelly after coming up from
hopping. Neither of them has any money and nowhere to stay. So that's why she's carrying all her possessions including her spare clothes on her person. She's last seen during the day, when it's likely she would be wearing an apron. Then she disappears, manages to get drunk somehow, and fetches up in the nick. After that she vanishes until she's found dead. I think it's likely, given Kelly's testimony that they 'walked the streets' when they had nowhere to stay, that she intended to do just that until sun-up. Or at least find a quiet place to lay her head for a couple of hours. She's well-padded with clothes, she wouldn't freeze. Maybe that's why she headed for the City, which would be quieter at night and where she might get a couple of hours undisturbed kip before being asked to 'move along'.