Kate's Apron

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, "one white apron is the same as another". No, this was a distinctive apron with a repaired patch on it, and thus easily recognized.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi harry,

I agree, that is how historical data has to be viewed, when there are multiple independent sources of information all point to the same thing, that indicates a bit of information that must be viewed as the most supported situation, and that trumps an alternative that is based upon "all those sources were in error, and the truth is the opposite of the evidence available".

Look, police in an active investigation do what Trevor is doing if they are going to do their job well. I get that. Look, I have no doubt that Trevor was a highly successful detective for precisely the approach he is using - questioning every detail of the statements, pondering all sorts of alternatives. That is essential to avoid the curse of the detective, which is tunnel vision and drawing a conclusion before the evidence has been thoroughly tested. The problem, though, is that that method is necessary because it gets the detective to go seek the answers, go re-interview the witness and get that clarification - it forces them to thoroughly test and retest the current best "working solution". So when we wonder "How big was the apron?", we would "Go photograph the two pieces with rulers in place to ensure their size could be determined from the photo graph". We would also photograph them together to show how they were matched to ensure they really did come from the same piece of cloth. We would question the people about information that would decide, and rule out, the alternatives that come to mind when we think one of their statements might be ambiguous and open to multiple possible interpretations. It is critical to a case that all avenues of possibility be shut down.

But we cannot do those things. We cannot go back and re-question, or seek clarification, or take photos and measurements. We're stuck with the testimony, as recorded. And the best we can do is collate the statements, and extract from them the most plausible and sensible option. We can never be sure we've got it exactly right and there is always room for some small probability that what they said and what got written down and what they meant are three different things. But if we think that alone is sufficient to prevent us from stating that this is the most plausible and probable inference of what happened, then it surely must prohibit presenting even less plausible and probable options as "the real situation".

There is nothing in the evidence we have, despite Trevor's insistence to the contrary, that raises the "she was not wearing an apron" alternative to a level of plausibility sufficiently to consider it a truly viable alternative. It conflicts in too many ways with the evidence we do have. If this were an active investigation, by all means, go ask those questions, go shut down those alternatives by gathering more evidence. A clever defense lawyer will look for any cracks in the case where doubt can be inserted, and creating reasonable doubt does not require the jury to even believe the alternative is more likely than the prosecutions case, they just have to believe it could possibly be true. It's a far lower bar to leap. Trevor's method of evidence questioning is unsuited to the JtR case because the way that sort of evidence questioning is resolved requires the ability to seek out new evidence from the witnesses and materials directly. It's a method unsuited to a case from 1888.

We're not a jury trial. We're not about reasonable doubt here. We're dealing with historic data that we cannot requestion the witnesses about, or re-examine the physical evidence. We are left with having to present a description of events that are tied to something we do have.

Trevor's experience as a homicide detective is interfering with his handling of the information. He's treating it like a defense lawyer, whose job we must remember is not to get at the truth but to present a defense case that targets the weaknesses in the evidence of the prosecutions case. But we're not the prosecution here. We're not putting anyone on trial. We're historians, trying to piece together the events from 1888, and we have limited information to work with, but it is our job to try and figure out, despite the gaps, what most likely took place.

The creative abilities of people are incredibly nimble, and one can always throw out alternatives. When it is possible to gather more information, those alternatives can be shut down, or they lead to new viable lines because the new information shuts down the previous idea. We can't gather new evidence, so unless some new source of information gets uncovered and presented, we're stuck with what we have.

I have no problem with Trevor personally. In fact, while it may not come across, I have a great respect for his skills because I can see how they would make him a very good detective. I have a problem, however, with him applying the wrong set of tools because this is only superficially a murder investigation now, it's an historical investigation of a murder, and there's no way we can apply the methods of a modern murder investigation when all we have is historical documents. If we were to try that, we might as well just point out "the whole set of evidence is to be tossed; the crime scene was not secured properly, the evidence was not documented properly, there was no photographing of the crime scenes with proper rulers placed to ensure scale, nothing was recorded as to the position it was found (where were Annie Chapman's things found at her feet exactly? What do you mean "appeared to be arranged? What was where, how were they "arranged", what does that mean?" etc. Nothing is suited for the modern police approach because the procedures at the time had not yet advanced to the careful documentation that is now standard procedure. We can't expect to find such documentation, nor can we expect it to be done in the way it would be now. None of the modern rules apply, because those rules did not exist in 1888.

- Jeff

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

Halse,hearing there was a murder, went to Mitre square "I had the light turned on the body and saw it was a murder".
But after accompanying the body to the mortuary,he then said "I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron missing".
Only when he was in the mortuary as the body was stripped did he notice something about the apron.Same thing thing with the wearing of the apron,only in the mortuary as the body was stripped was it observed to be true by Brown and Collard.
Most likely because the body/clothing was a mess.

[Trevor Marriott]

What some seem to be doing Jeff,Is totalling the number of various reportings,and accepting a majority as a deciding factor.Investigators ,police or otherwise, do not normally use that method.Here is another take on the apron.Eddowes removed and divided the apron at the police station.Think about that.

Hi Harry
I have touched on that by reason of the fact that she was in possession of a knife but the naysayers come up with an explantion that the knife would not have been sharp enough to cut. Any excuse to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

What some seem to be doing Jeff,Is totalling the number of various reportings,and accepting a majority as a deciding factor.Investigators ,police or otherwise, do not normally use that method.Here is another take on the apron.Eddowes removed and divided the apron at the police station.Think about that.

Hi harry,

I agree, that is how historical data has to be viewed, when there are multiple independent sources of information all point to the same thing, that indicates a bit of information that must be viewed as the most supported situation, and that trumps an alternative that is based upon "all those sources were in error, and the truth is the opposite of the evidence available".

Look, police in an active investigation do what Trevor is doing if they are going to do their job well. I get that. Look, I have no doubt that Trevor was a highly successful detective for precisely the approach he is using - questioning every detail of the statements, pondering all sorts of alternatives. That is essential to avoid the curse of the detective, which is tunnel vision and drawing a conclusion before the evidence has been thoroughly tested. The problem, though, is that that method is necessary because it gets the detective to go seek the answers, go re-interview the witness and get that clarification - it forces them to thoroughly test and retest the current best "working solution". So when we wonder "How big was the apron?", we would "Go photograph the two pieces with rulers in place to ensure their size could be determined from the photo graph". We would also photograph them together to show how they were matched to ensure they really did come from the same piece of cloth. We would question the people about information that would decide, and rule out, the alternatives that come to mind when we think one of their statements might be ambiguous and open to multiple possible interpretations. It is critical to a case that all avenues of possibility be shut down.

But we cannot do those things. We cannot go back and re-question, or seek clarification, or take photos and measurements. We're stuck with the testimony, as recorded. And the best we can do is collate the statements, and extract from them the most plausible and sensible option. We can never be sure we've got it exactly right and there is always room for some small probability that what they said and what got written down and what they meant are three different things. But if we think that alone is sufficient to prevent us from stating that this is the most plausible and probable inference of what happened, then it surely must prohibit presenting even less plausible and probable options as "the real situation".

There is nothing in the evidence we have, despite Trevor's insistence to the contrary, that raises the "she was not wearing an apron" alternative to a level of plausibility sufficiently to consider it a truly viable alternative. It conflicts in too many ways with the evidence we do have. If this were an active investigation, by all means, go ask those questions, go shut down those alternatives by gathering more evidence. A clever defense lawyer will look for any cracks in the case where doubt can be inserted, and creating reasonable doubt does not require the jury to even believe the alternative is more likely than the prosecutions case, they just have to believe it could possibly be true. It's a far lower bar to leap. Trevor's method of evidence questioning is unsuited to the JtR case because the way that sort of evidence questioning is resolved requires the ability to seek out new evidence from the witnesses and materials directly. It's a method unsuited to a case from 1888.

We're not a jury trial. We're not about reasonable doubt here. We're dealing with historic data that we cannot requestion the witnesses about, or re-examine the physical evidence. We are left with having to present a description of events that are tied to something we do have.

Trevor's experience as a homicide detective is interfering with his handling of the information. He's treating it like a defense lawyer, whose job we must remember is not to get at the truth but to present a defense case that targets the weaknesses in the evidence of the prosecutions case. But we're not the prosecution here. We're not putting anyone on trial. We're historians, trying to piece together the events from 1888, and we have limited information to work with, but it is our job to try and figure out, despite the gaps, what most likely took place.

The creative abilities of people are incredibly nimble, and one can always throw out alternatives. When it is possible to gather more information, those alternatives can be shut down, or they lead to new viable lines because the new information shuts down the previous idea. We can't gather new evidence, so unless some new source of information gets uncovered and presented, we're stuck with what we have.

I have no problem with Trevor personally. In fact, while it may not come across, I have a great respect for his skills because I can see how they would make him a very good detective. I have a problem, however, with him applying the wrong set of tools because this is only superficially a murder investigation now, it's an historical investigation of a murder, and there's no way we can apply the methods of a modern murder investigation when all we have is historical documents. If we were to try that, we might as well just point out "the whole set of evidence is to be tossed; the crime scene was not secured properly, the evidence was not documented properly, there was no photographing of the crime scenes with proper rulers placed to ensure scale, nothing was recorded as to the position it was found (where were Annie Chapman's things found at her feet exactly? What do you mean "appeared to be arranged? What was where, how were they "arranged", what does that mean?" etc. Nothing is suited for the modern police approach because the procedures at the time had not yet advanced to the careful documentation that is now standard procedure. We can't expect to find such documentation, nor can we expect it to be done in the way it would be now. None of the modern rules apply, because those rules did not exist in 1888.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

The irony of it

But do you know what is in the OFFICIAL INQUEST TESTIMONY ?

Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt who all testified under oath that Eddowes was definitely wearing an apron. So she very obviously was.

You do not understand the argument.

From Wilkinson to Hutt brings us to 1:00 AM that Kate was wearing an apron. But what about after? For arguments sake, there was more than 30 minutes unaccounted for. Kate could have taken off the apron then. At 1:35 Am seen by Lawende and co., then at 1:44/after (at this point the body/clothings was a mess) by Watkin and Morris with lamps,then Harvey, Holland, there was no mention of Kate wearing an apron.
The crucial time that determined Kate was wearing an apron when she was murdered was when the body was stripped carefully (the layers of clothing and the position of the apron then could be seen) at the mortuary (better lighting?), not before or after. The two that said Kate was wearing an apron were present at the stripping and saw it, Brown and Collard.

[Wickerman]

The verdict of the Coroner's jury,was that Susan James had been willfully murdered by Joseph Robinson,while he was in a state of madness.The Coroner in his summing up fully agreed with the verdict. (Robinson was removed to a asylum)

I think you need to explain your point. In fact it would help your case if you provide the complete reference; newspaper, date, etc.

Some time ago,Mr James Marston discovered a number of rare Roman relics in the fastness of Radnorshire Mountains,and as a result of a Coroners inquest they were declared to be treasure trove.

Clearly you seem to think you have found something you can argue with, I can only guess you have never read the Coroner's Act 1887. It's on line so there's no excuse.

So I will not argue with you anymore Jon,on what status or powers ,a Coroner's court has/had,the above says it all. Both cases are from the1880;s.Now you might answer the question I posed,who was the Judge Lumb you referred to?,or were you entering false claims?

The Judge Lumb I found is real enough, but he doesn't appear to be the one you mean.

March 1888.


Feb 1890


Apr 1894.

You've never found me to make false claims, you've accused me of that before, and repeatedly failed to prove your point.

[harry]

What some seem to be doing Jeff,Is totalling the number of various reportings,and accepting a majority as a deciding factor.Investigators ,police or otherwise, do not normally use that method.Here is another take on the apron.Eddowes removed and divided the apron at the police station.Think about that.

[Wickerman]

You dummy, how could he have noticed the clothes being removed carefully if he was not present

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Because if they hadn't been removed carefully there would have been blood & guts all over the mortuary floor with the abdomen sliced open to that extent.

[Wickerman]

How many time do you have to be told Brown was there when the body was stripped " I quote from Dr Browns inquest testimony (official)

"When the body arrived at Golden Lane some blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary.the clothes were carefully taken from the body"

So he was present and took part in the stripping of the body an irrefutable fact accept it and move on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Being present does not mean he was standing over the body every minute. He didn't say "I undressed the body", so being present means he was in the building, or even in the room, but it doesn't mean he watched every step of the process.
There wouldn't be any point in having staff if he stood around watching them all the time.
Dr Brown was a busy man that night with all the details he had taken at the crime scene committing it all to paper in reports for the coroner & the inquest.

[Wickerman]

Halse makes no mention of half an apron in his official signed inquest testimony

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I know. He also makes no mention of the size of the graffiti yet no-one has an issue about that.

[Wickerman]

The press were waiting outside the mortuary for the arrival of Dr Phillips he had not arrived there by 5am if I recall the press article correctly

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok thanks
And you trust that press article?

[JeffHamm]

Can you prove me wrong on that point in question?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's a demonstration of a method unsuited to evaluating the evidence. You cannot let the theory determine if the evidence is reliable or not, which is what you repeatedly get called out for doing.

Are the press transcripts word for word exactly what the witnesses said? Nobody knows because we were not there. And both you and I agree on that.

Are the inquest transcripts word for word exactly what the witnesses said? Nobody knows because we were not there. You appear to disagree on this as you have said that because the witnesses sign these they will be without error. I could be wrong, though, and you may agree with me on this point too.

It is a fact that there is no transcripts that either you or I can say are word for word exactly what the witnesses said. It is an opinion that the inquest version is somehow error free due to the witnesses signing them.

No transcript of even a fairly short length, whether taken by short or long hand, when produced "on the fly" as the other person speaks will be 100% error free. That is simply a fact of life.

We only have access to information that will contain errors. And, there are a number of errors that can occur. Errors of omission - the transcriber missed out on a word or sentence, in part due to falling behind the pace of the speaker. Errors of "translation", basically, the recording writes the wrong word down, either because they misheard the speaker or because they wrote something in anticipation and while the actual spoken word was different it conveyed the same information, so the transcriber does not correct it. Errors of insertion, in this case the transcriber inserts a word or phrase, sometimes this is simply because they omitted a previous utterance and insert a missing point during the next sentence.

There is nothing about a single transcript, however, that we the readers can point to that says "ah ha! There's an insertion" or "There's an ommission", or "There's a "rephrasing".

However, when one has multiple transcripts, made by different recorders, one uses those to compare the two sources. From that, one is able to extract information that is common to both, and often one is able to determine where one might have made an error of omission (i.e. transcript 1 leaves something out that is recorded in transcript 2, and the presentation in transcript 2 flows better and makes more sense). Of course, one can never be 100% sure that was the case; people's spoken language is often broken in flow, and not all details get said, etc, so it does remain a possibility that transcript 2 (in my example) reflects an error of insertion. What one attempts to do, therefore, is determine the gist of what was said (the meaning), and recognize the specific wordings are probably lost to us. Therefore, one must be very careful about making too much of specific individual words.

It's an incredibly difficult challenge to try and sift the wheat from the chaff. It is impossible to do, however, if one refuses to make use of all the information we have available. You're reliance solely on the transcript from the official inquest means you have no chance of detecting errors, you are relying on what you call an unsafe source. And you're response to anyone else when you feel they are doing that is to tell them they can draw no conclusion or make no statements because the source is unsafe. If those are the rules by which you evaluate evidence sources, you must discard all evidence, and then you have nothing at all.

If you wish to try and make an informed inference then the only way that can be done is to utilize all of the transcripts we have available. And that means one must consider the transcripts in the newspapers.

As soon as one does that, it becomes readily apparent that she was wearing an apron.

You appear now to be speculating that she removed her apron after leaving the police station ("But another poster quite rightly pointed out to you that she may not have been wearing one at the time she was murdered,... from your post 1152 above) because you are tacitly agreeing with this idea. This looks to be an attempt to suggest that you could agree with the witness statements that she was wearing an apron up until the point she was last seen alive. And it was during those 45 or so minutes that she herself cut her apron up, and deposited a portion in G.S.

But once again, your whole conjecture is that the portion in G.S. was her sanitary napkin, which you claim she was wearing the whole time, and that 1/2 the apron is missing, etc. None of that can work in such a scenerio. Moreover, it would now mean the missing piece (remember the missing piece you've introduced - the 2 parits <> whole creates that missing piece) must also be somewhere in the streets. But nobody notices 1/2 the apron is still missing apparently.

None of it works, what you present is based upon a single transcript, which must contain errors as all transcripts will have that are produced as this one was, making your entire theory based upon unsafe information, which you yourself claim makes the theory untenable.

What I and others have argued is that the only chance we have of detecting and removing the errors from the transcripts is not to rely upon a single source, but to utilize all of the information we have, and by so doing work out what appears to have been the situation commonly described. Moreover, rather than start with a theory and use that to decide what information is reliable, we then extract from the reliable information as much of a description of what appears to have been the situation, and describe that as a continual narrative. This may require filling in the gaps with speculative events, which need to be phrased as such, but overall once we get to aspects constrained by the evidence, the story should follow the road it lays out before us.

Your approach is to decide where the road must go first, then toss out any evidence that doesn't fit like so much rubbish, to be found littering the highways and making a mess for everyone else to clean up.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Wickermans posts are about as reliable as chocolate teapot, and besides part of that is not in his official inquest testimony

The irony of it

But do you know what is in the OFFICIAL INQUEST TESTIMONY ?

Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt who all testified under oath that Eddowes was definitely wearing an apron. So she very obviously was.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You dummy, how could he have noticed the clothes being removed carefully if he was not present

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

“When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body,”

I’ll ignore the personal insults.

First I’ll ask a question. Who got to the mortuary first? The body or Brown?

Second, just because he said that the clothes were removed carefully it doesn’t follow that he must have been there. I’m not saying that he wasn’t, I don’t know. But he might have said to those taking the body to the mortuary “tell the attendants to strip the body but do it carefully.” So he was confidant that it had been stripped carefully.