Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • If we used ‘phrasing’ as a primary tool for re-assessing the evidence then I’d suggest that given a bit of time the whole case could be re-written so as to become close to unrecognisable. Trevor regularly calls certain testimonies/statements/witnesses ‘unsafe.’ If we take this to mean that we shouldn’t simply assume that everyone is correct or totally accurate then it’s a fair comment of course but what we shouldn’t do is go through testimonies/statements with a grammatical fine-toothed comb discarding things as we go. We have to bare in mind potential issues of varying levels of education; varying speech patterns/phraseology; errors of transcription added of course to issues of memory. Therefore as Jeff says we have to look at the whole picture and make an assessment (we have no other option) and when we look at the whole picture it tells us very clearly that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron.

    It’s also difficult to justify an accusation of ‘speculation’ or ‘conjecture’ when the person making that accusation is doing exactly the same. And we shouldn’t criticise anyone for doing it.

    That Kate went back to Flower & Dean Street is speculation (requiring speculation as to how no one at the doss house saw her)
    The suggestion that the cloth might have been wet with urine is speculation.
    The suggestion that the apron and the cloth might not have equalled the whole apron is speculation (requiring speculation as to how no one noticed this)

    Again, nothing wrong with a bit of speculation but it can’t be that speculation is ok for one.
    Regards

    Sir Herlock Sholmes



    “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

    “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

      Hi Trevor,

      There are multiple people independently testifying she was wearing an apron. If you don't think it's important to understand what they meant, then I'm afraid there's little hope. In a live interview, when someone says something odd, or which doesn't sound right, one asks questions to clarify, because the goal is to understand what they are telling you. We can't do that, so we are left to try and find that understanding by working it out. It's not always possible, and we can be left with multiple possible interpretations. There's no reason to believe the Doctor was lying about the apron having been worn by Kate. What you're pointing out is that it is unlikely he did the apron piece comparison while she was still wearing it, and that it was unlikely he actually saw it on her. However, he was no doubt told she had been wearing it, and he phrased his answer in a way that conveyed his knowledge, if perhaps not his experience. That I could agree with you on, and can see where you're coming from in that respect. However, that still does not change the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron. There's more than enough evidence to consider that proven.

      What we're no closer at being able to do, however, is determine when the piece was left at Goulston. It clearly was deposited by JtR, as neither my made up story nor your made up story have any basis at all in the evidence. We just made up things. The thing is, if it was left shortly after the murder, and PC Long missed it at 2:20, then it points to his direction of travel. But if it really wasn't there, there's a bunch of missing time, which changes what we can do with that evidence. That's the important issue here, and we're no closer to solving that real mystery than the police were in 1888. They had concluded it was dropped early, and PC Long must have missed it. That, I would think, is a prime example of an "old and accepted theory" that you would sink your teeth into. Because there you would be absolutely right, that is a case where the evidence does not allow that conclusion to be drawn all that confidently. I know I tend to think that it was probably dropped early and missed at 2:20, but I qualify that by noting that it's by no way proven. But with the amount of testimony we have unambiguously stating, under oath, that Kate was indeed wearing an apron, that's just not a fact up for debate. You can worry about specific phrasing all you want, but nothing changes the fact that she was spotted, multiple times throughout the day, wearing an apron.

      - Jeff
      I said before which you seem to ignore and that is we now 130 years later are obliged to try to prove or disprove what was said in the form of testimony not readily accept it as being the gospel truth, and when you sit and analyze it these are not just conflicts but major conflict which cast a major doubt.

      I have nothing further to contribute to his thread from a personal perspective I have said all that I need to say.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
        There's no reason to believe the Doctor was lying about the apron having been worn by Kate. What you're pointing out is that it is unlikely he did the apron piece comparison while she was still wearing it, and that it was unlikely he actually saw it on her. However, he was no doubt told she had been wearing it, and he phrased his answer in a way that conveyed his knowledge, if perhaps not his experience. That I could agree with you on, and can see where you're coming from in that respect.
        According to the inquest, Brown was present when the body was stripped. He did see the apron on her, e.g. Collard: "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut." and Brown: "When the body arrived at Golden-lane the clothes were more covered with blood than when I first saw them, but that was in consequence of the removal. The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard."

        Comment


        • I presume the main issue lately is whether the apron and section were compared while Kate wore part of it? Clearly, that doesnt appear to have been the case. The matching seams on which repairs are seen is more compelling evidence they were once the same apron.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            I presume the main issue lately is whether the apron and section were compared while Kate wore part of it? Clearly, that doesnt appear to have been the case. The matching seams on which repairs are seen is more compelling evidence they were once the same apron.
            I don't think anyone thinks that they were compared in situ, but I think Trevor thinks that others think it.

            I don't think anyone is disputing that they were once part of the same apron, but some think there might have been other pieces, too, i.e. that the two known pieces did not necessarily make up the whole apron.
            I personally have no doubt there were no other pieces; this is in my opinion evident from various descriptions used.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by harry View Post
              It is not known,Fiver,that there were a dozen or more pieces of rag that could be preferred as a sanitary napkin.,but even if there was,it would make no difference.The selection of the piece which was found in Goulstan street,whether taken by choice or at random,fits the need ,as Trevor has pointed out,for use as a sanitary rag.
              Trevor's theory about the apron being used as a sanitary rag is 100% speculation. There is no evidence to support it. It fails to explain the fecal material on the apron piece. It fails to explain why Eddowes would destroy an apron to make a sanitary rag when she already had a dozen rags in her possession.

              Originally posted by harry View Post
              'Worn by the victim',is an ambiguous statement.It could mean worn at the time,or worn generally as part of Eddowes attire.
              Someone could only testify the apron was "worn generally as part of Eddowes attire" if they knew Eddowes and saw her on a regular basis.

              "I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron." - Frederick William Wilkinson, deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. Wilkinson did not testify that Eddowes generally wore the apron, he testified she was wearing an apron that day.

              None of the other witnesses mentioning the apron knew Eddowes. They had no idea what she generally wore. They were not asked what she generally wore. They were asked if Catherine Eddowes was wearing the apron at the time that they saw her and Inspector Collard, Dr Brown, Constable Robinson, and Constable Hutt that she was.

              Originally posted by harry View Post
              Collards testimony is preferable,as it is evidence taken and written down at the time,while most other testimony,is orally given and relies on memory.So there is a reason I favour Collard to be more accurate,and it is clear he describes an apron piece as being among her possessions and not being on the body.
              Collard does not support Trevor's theory.

              "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

              Collard did not know what she generally wore, so clearly he is testifying that Eddowes was wearing the apron when he saw her body.

              Originally posted by harry View Post
              As for the two lists.Were they both compiled at the Mortuary? The clothing on the body sure,but I see no reason the possessions had to be also taken to the mortuary.
              Were they?
              "three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets" were found near the body and assumed to belong to Eddowes. Inspector Collard took possession of them, then "saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself." From context, it is clear that any other personal possessions of Eddowes would have been found on her person at the time the body was stripped. Collard would have no reason to carry those personal articles somewhere else before compiling the list.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kattrup View Post
                According to the inquest, Brown was present when the body was stripped. He did see the apron on her, e.g. Collard: "The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut." and Brown: "When the body arrived at Golden-lane the clothes were more covered with blood than when I first saw them, but that was in consequence of the removal. The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard."
                Thanks Kattrup,

                I really should remember to double check factual claims. Also, I think I misread one of Trevor's posts, where he was pointing out the body had been stripped before the apron piece arrived from the police station. In there I think I misread something as suggesting that the Doctors were not present when the body was stripped, but that's not what he was saying; he was just pointing out the comparison wouldn't involve the apron on the body at the time of the comparison. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station.
                  From the man that released her this should be the final word on whether she was wearing an apron or not.
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                  “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                  Comment


                  • PC Robinson's evidence from the Times 12 Oct;

                    "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"

                    Comment


                    • Where these witnesses ‘unsafe’ or delusional? Or.....were they simply stating what they knew to have been the case? That Eddowes was wearing an apron.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                      “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                        PC Robinson's evidence from the Times 12 Oct;

                        "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"
                        Hi Joshua,

                        That's an interesting statement. His initial qualification about being able to identify it would be based upon "if I saw the whole of it", subsequently followed by him identifying the apron once shown the two pieces, would, as stated, indicate the two pieces made up a whole.

                        However, if we do not treat our evaluation of the statements based solely on verbatim transcription, then we're still left a bit uncomfortable. It points towards the apron being complete, but it's also possible that his initial belief that he would have to see the whole of it in order to identify it could be a false belief. Meaning, it could be the two pieces made up a sufficient amount of a whole apron that he could identify it. Again, there are some indications the two pieces made up a whole, but sadly, it is not specifically on record as being whole once combined.

                        I think we're safe to work with the idea the two pieces certainly made up a substantial majority of the apron, with the largest piece being the portion she was wearing. Moreover, given it appears the piece taken and later deposited on Goulston Street was used to clean up after the fact, I can't see JtR being bothered to cut it down further. On the other hand, and I don't propose this as anything other than as something to consider, if he did split that piece into two, the other half could be what he wrapped the organs in. This, to me, would be an important point to be able to nail down as it gives another tiny insight into the offender's behaviour. If he needed something to wrap the organs in, then he wasn't as prepared as a fully organized offender would be (he didn't have a complete "murder kit" with him). However, if he discarded all of it, then it suggests he already had something to conceal the organs in, pointing to a more organized offender. The latter would favour a more psychopathic over a more psychotic suspect.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          From the man that released her this should be the final word on whether she was wearing an apron or not.
                          Key word : "should"



                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I said before which you seem to ignore and that is we now 130 years later are obliged to try to prove or disprove what was said in the form of testimony not readily accept it as being the gospel truth, and when you sit and analyze it these are not just conflicts but major conflict which cast a major doubt.

                            I have nothing further to contribute to his thread from a personal perspective I have said all that I need to say.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trevor,

                            I've never said we should accept it as the gospel truth, I said we should consider if any of the interpretations of an ambiguous statement convey a meaning consistent with the rest of the testimony. If so, then that means we cannot say that statement is in conflict. Your approach is to find a way to make statements ambiguous, and then claim they are "unsafe" because we cannot seek clarification. And when we do have additional statements by the same person, you claim conflict because they didn't repeat themselves verbatim, ignoring the fact that is not how language works or how people give testimony. Moreover, if they did repeat themselves verbatim there would be no clarification and in fact that would look like they had rehearsed their statement, which in turn would lead to suspicion. Basically, there is no pattern that I can imagine that you would not claim is "unsafe." I really don't understand how such an approach could possibly lead to furthering our understanding of this historical case other than to challenge others to think more deeply. That is a contribution, and the discussions we're having as a result show that is what most people are doing, so good on you.

                            Anyway, I'm sure we'll discuss other issues in the future so hope all is well.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Key word : "should"



                              - Jeff
                              True enough Jeff
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                              “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                              Comment


                              • In the thread that Trevor began on this subject he made the following point.....

                                I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888
                                The answer of course is no. No one would suggest that it isn’t a good idea to re-examine; of course it is, but that doesn’t mean that we have to alter our conclusions just for the sake of it. This forum is about discussion, debate and the exchange of opinions and ideas. We agree and disagree; sometimes heatedly.

                                Or do we just walk away sulkily when we get disagreed with?

                                I have nothing further to contribute to his thread from a personal perspective I have said all that I need to say
                                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 03-16-2021, 09:31 PM.
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                “Conspiracy theorists, she knew, were paranoid by definition, and usually with good reason – they were indeed being watched, largely because they were standing on an upturned bucket, haranguing the sheeple about their wingnut delusions.”

                                “If you argue with a madman, it is extremely probable that you will get the worst of it; for in many ways his mind moves all the quicker for not being delayed by the things that go with good judgment.”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X