Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.

Let me come back to this again

Lets move forward to the Gs piece what are the possibilities IO know these have been discussed many time before but I think they are now important to debate further.

1.She was wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece taking it with him and depositing it in GS

2. If she was not wearing an apron at the time she was killed then the killer could not have cut the piece and taken it away which was found at GS

3. IF she was wearing an apron she could have cut a piece from the apron whilst in custody before her release.

4. If she had been in possesions of two old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had made part of a full apron the killer could have taken one of the pieces in her possession and deposited it in GS as to why I will expand on shortly.

5. Eddowes was menstruating and had used one of the two pieces in her possession as a sanitary device and deposited it herself after leaving the police station.

6. Dc Halse removed one of the two pieces from the crime scene and deposited in GS which was on Met territory Halse being a city detective

Now I will analyse each of the above

1-2 There is very little to say on these specific topics which has not alreday been said so I am not going to dwell.

3. We know she was in possession of a knife and we dont know if that was taken off whilst she was in custody. If it wasnt then as Harry suggests she could have cut a piece from the apron herself. The problem with this scenario is that the evidence from the mortuary tells us that the two pieces when matched did not make up a full apron in any event.

4. If she has simply been in possession of two pieces of apron and the killer took one we have to ask the question why, to answer that question we have to look at how the Gs piece was described, and we have different descriptions from being wet with blood, to being wet and spotted with blood with traces of feacal matter.

It has been suggested that the killer took it away with for for three purposes

To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it

5. Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Joshua Rogan]

That's right, you did, sorry I haven't had my first coffee yet.....

No worries, with so many posts flying about I've been known to miss entire pages.

Coroner's were paid 6/8 (six shillings & eight pence) per inquest, they had to incure all expenses and were only reimbursed after the inquest - by the local authority.

Not to stereotype scotsmen, but no wonder Macdonald was happy to end his inquest in one sitting!

[Wickerman]

Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.

Harry made another argument, that shorthand recorders were provided by the Public Service, and (in another post) that by the 1800's were used in courts across the land.
Maybe we should wait and ask him which argument he wants to go with?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A day or two ago I posted a snippet from the Daily News that mentions Langham wtiting notes as the witnesss answered. Here it is again;

"He wore the fustian clothes of a market labourer, with a light blue scarf round his neck, and spoke with a clear, deep, sonorous voice, looking composedly round the court while the Coroner was writing down his answers."


Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.

That's right, you did, sorry I haven't had my first coffee yet.....

Coroner's were paid 6/8 (six shillings & eight pence) per inquest, they had to incure all expenses and were only reimbursed after the inquest - by the local authority.

[The Baron]

It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.

Your argument that she doesn't have reasons to take off her apron that night has been smashed and defeated and teared into pieces just like that old apron.





The Baron

[Wickerman]

I’d say that’s a done deal Wick.

Yeh, but they're only newspaper stories, so who's gonna believe them.....

[Joshua Rogan]

Apparently, a Judge (or Coroner in our case) would have to stop proceedings while he completes his notes of the testimony.
The snippet below came from an article too long to post, so I just post the relevant sentence.


The Scotsman, Sept. 1930.

Hi Jon,

A day or two ago I posted a snippet from the Daily News that mentions Langham wtiting notes as the witnesss answered. Here it is again;

"He wore the fustian clothes of a market labourer, with a light blue scarf round his neck, and spoke with a clear, deep, sonorous voice, looking composedly round the court while the Coroner was writing down his answers."


Harry's post clearly states that any shorthand writers in attendance were unofficial - possibly pressmen - who then sold their copy to any interested parties. If the coroner was making his own notes it would seem somewhat extravagant to spend his limited funds on another copy.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Fair post!

And of course if she went looking for a client, an apron is not that attractive or appealing is it?! let alone an old dirty oder sewn one




The Baron

It’s absolutely mind-blowing to read posts so divorced from reality as this one. Can anyone possibly even contemplate the suggestion that a Victorian East End prostitute might have considered an apron as an impediment to her success in finding a client at 1.00am? Or that some drunken punter might have thought “I’m not going with her, she’s wearing an apron?”

The suggestion that for some obscure, pointless, inexplicable reason Catherine Eddowes took off her apron between the time that she left the station and the time that she ran into her killer is a pretty perfect example of the extent that some will go to (and some will simply jump on the bandwagon for the sake of it)

Just when I think I’ve heard everything we still hear more egregious nonsense.

[Wickerman]

Apparently, a Judge (or Coroner in our case) would have to stop proceedings while he completes his notes of the testimony.
The snippet below came from an article too long to post, so I just post the relevant sentence.


The Scotsman, Sept. 1930.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I'm giving Harry a real treat here, here is another complaint from a newspaper dated Nov. 1925, and the need for a shorthand recorder in every court.


Shipley Times & Express, Nov. 13, 1925.

Harry, when you decide to change your argument, just let me know.

I’d say that’s a done deal Wick.

[The Baron]

The info available does not depend on what you think Eddowes did or did not do. After Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting.
it's blank from after 1:00 AM to 2:20 AM..
We rely on Collard/Browns testimonies when in the mortuary the body got stripped whether the apron was worn when she was killed.
No you don't understand the argument and still don't.
But whatever.

Fair post!

And of course if she went looking for a client, an apron is not that attractive or appealing is it?! let alone an old dirty oder sewn one




The Baron

[Wickerman]

I'm giving Harry a real treat here, here is another complaint from a newspaper dated Nov. 1925, and the need for a shorthand recorder in every court.


Shipley Times & Express, Nov. 13, 1925.

Harry, when you decide to change your argument, just let me know.

[Wickerman]

Just out of interest, here from 1884 is a Judge complaining that in his opinion the abbreviated notes he takes ('Notes' being the witness testimony), is more relevant and useful than the more complete shorthand versions which include - "...reproducing indiscriminatly anything that passes in the course of a trial". Alluding to the versions of his inquest published in the newspapers.



Trevor should make note of the necessary editing that takes place with "official testimony" - Official, does not mean always reliable and complete.
Here we read that testimony taken down by the court recorder can be limited to... "what is in the strictest sense admissable evidence".

[Wickerman]

There are two other points of trivia in that last post.
1 - the Judge only takes down in writing what he thinks is relevant, not everything said.
2 - the testimony is read back to the witness after each witness has finished his testimony.

[Wickerman]

The following is taken from a 1880's newspaper.
Judge Lumb said that in reference to the shorthand notes alluded to,in every court in England,shorthand writers attended the court,not officially,but to take note of the cases,so that afterwards,if the notes were required,who ever wanted them would have to pay for them.

So here (above) you Harry, are claiming that by some (unspecified) date in the 1800's, there was a shorthand recorder "in every court in England".
And I have told you the criminal courts are not the same as the Inquest courts.

However, here is a report from the West Sussex County Times, where it is claimed that by February 1913, shorthand was still not universal in the court system. It even mentions the Old Bailey, so there can be no dispute which courts are being referred to.


West Sussex County Times, Feb. 1913.

There never has been an issue in the use of shorthand at criminal courts, especially the Old Bailey.