The Apron Again

[John Bennett]

According to Frederick Gordon Brown at the Eddowes inquest:

[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.

JB

Hello JB,

Ah, yes, but the pockets were attached by strings. Could he have mistaken pocket strings for apron strings in the general mess? And why no mention of an apron in the list of clothing?

Cheers,
C4

That's not for me to say, really. I just posted the quote. If anybody wants to debate it, then fair enough!

[Simon Wood]

Hi Curious,

Sorry. I wasn't aiming for you. I hope you had an ejector seat.

The really interesting thing about this newspaper story which emphasized the fact of Eddowes wearing a white apron is its timing.

It appeared on the second day of Eddowes' inquest, at which the whole matter of the apron was discussed.

Where had the two witnesses who saw her at 1.30 am been for the past ten days? And why would they have automatically assumed that the woman they saw wearing a white apron was Eddowes?

The apron story has more holes than a tramp's vest.

Regards,

Simon

[Stewart P Evans]

Perfectly entitled

Post deleted, entered in error.

[Stewart P Evans]

Perfectly entitled

...
In my view, this particular opinion we're discussing is not taking support from your knowledge; not looking in that particular doorway at 2.20 but looking at 2.55 is a hunch, possibly flowing from another hunch that he couldn't have dropped it after 2.20. There was no reason for him to be extra vigilant at those buildings at 2.55 (when he did find something relating to the murder he didn't even connect it to the murder - that's how much he was looking out for something to do with Eddowes).

You are perfectly entitled to your view.

Not looking in the doorway at 2.20 a.m. is not 'a hunch', it is a reasoned interpretation based on the known facts and my own knowledge and experience. I appreciate that does not, necessarily, make me right but it is my reasoned opinion. Looking at 2.55 a.m. is not a hunch, obviously, as he found the piece of apron.

There was every reason to be extra vigilant at all times as Long had been drafted in to H Division, from A Division, to supplement the local men because of the murders that had occurred. Extra vigilance was the whole point of him working in H Division and not his own.

He would, no doubt, have been under instruction to check all doorways or recesses that may have concealed a person out late at night. The fact that he spotted the piece of apron at 2.55 a.m. would obviously beg the question as to whether or not it was there when he checked to doorway on his previous round, if he had checked it.

[Tom_Wescott]

I do not see how there is any 'unchallenged wisdom', everyone has their own views and most are not shy in giving those views. I certainly do not go unchallenged.

I believe that I was walking the beat before you were born therefore I think that I may speak with more authority than you on police related matters, pehaps you think that I am wrong? I have also seen the Victorian Metropolitan Police disciplinary books and these are quite an education.

Do not put words into my mouth. I did not say that 'those of us [you] who aren't/weren't cops should just shut up', I never have said that therefore I resent you saying that.

There is much useful and valuable input from many who have no police associations and I would be stupid not to recognise that.

Hi Stewart. I wasn’t pointing to you or singling you out on this. More than books, I was thinking of years of message board exchange on the subject, much of which (as far as I’m concerned) didn’t involve you. I’m aware you subscribe to the same idea (re: Long) but I was not singling you out. Regarding the other matter, it was more or less light-hearted, although you must appreciate that when debating, if you say “I’m a cop and you’re not s surely I know more about it than you”, or something to that effect, it’s essentially a debate killer. Everyone already knows you’re an authority on police matters and I’m not challenging you at all when you say you saw what you saw. I even concede you might be correct in regards to PC Long. But somewhere along the way, this unsupported possibility has become in most minds a probability or even accepted as fact.

The procedure when a murder had occurred was to issue a telegram to all the stations within the area, including those on the Mets patch and visa versa. I assume, after that, that the runners and Beat Sergeants went out and notified those on the beat, with notifications and instructions to be more vigilant.

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

[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.

[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]

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

[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

[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.

[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]

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,

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

[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

[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