Kate's Apron

[erobitha]

Hi Jeff

just a small comment: it is commonly assumed that the second sentence is part of the coroner's next question, mistakely placed as Long's response by the paper.

So the correct order, as given in Daily News and Daily Telegraph, is:

Coroner: Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Coroner: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.


On the subject of the apron, I believe Eddowes was the first victim to wear one. I think it makes sense for killer to have cut it off first, as it is the outermost garment, and easy to cut when stretched out, unlike the clothes, which would be much more difficult to remove. In fact we only see the killer pushing up the dresses and cutting through the clothes, not removing large portions of them, which would take too long.

Kate Eddowes is the only victim to have her clothes cut through with his knife. Previously he hitched up their skirts up (except for Stride as he did not get that far and Kelly who he had plenty of time with). Lots of layers he shredded through and fast.

It is possible the apron was already half cut off at this point anyway and as he finished tore a piece off to wipe his hands and take as part of his trophy collection. I believe he carried the kidney in a separate vessel.

I struggle with any other theory that it was dropped by Kate herself as part of some kind of sanitary device. That happened to be found not long after her demise. And by some interesting graffiti.

Police officers of that era often took shortcuts on their beat. It would be no different to today someone taking an extra five minutes on their lunch break or spending 10 minutes on Casebook.org when they should be working.

The only scenarios that seem plausible here either Long missed it first time round because he didn’t actually pass the scene or simply wasn’t paying attention. Or it was left after he passed at 2.20 which offers the possibility of a local bolt hole. Which is my preferred scenario.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You're quibbling over spots vs smears, when most likely there were spots, and smears, and stains, and creating ambiguity where none exists. What is undeniable is Dr. Brown explicitly tells us it looked like a hand or knife was wiped on the cloth. You can go on all you want about the use of different words, all of which describe a cloth with blood on it, as if that makes a difference to the undeniable fact we are explicitly told one side looked like a hand or knife was wiped upon it.

And without the actual article for us to examine ourselves, we are in no position to say that was wrong.

As for Dr. Brown, you are his champion when it comes to the time estimate for the injuries, and yet now you abandon him? Why is that? Could it be you who is cherry picking?

- Jeff

I am not quibbling over spots and smears, in one of your posts you suggest that the likes of Pc Long would not know the difference between blood spots and blood smearing/stains and use that as an excuse to bolster Browns subsequent smears comment But i reminded you that in fact it was Brown who mentions blood spots on several occasions and as a medical expert would know the difference between blood spots and smears, and I then ask in Browns later testimony why his blood spots then turn to blood smears.

I will go on about the apron piece because the description of it as it was found, the location where it was found and the subsequent varying descriptions are not consistent with the the belief that the killer cut it from an apron she was wearing and used it to wipe his hands or his knife on both.

The tests I conducted clearly show that wiping bloody hands or a knife on any piece of material would not leave blood spots it doesn't matter that we don't have a pic of the original piece we can work with how it was described and the general consensus based on the witness testimony is that it was spotted with blood. You cannot just ignore that testimony just because Brown makes a later comment which suits your belief.

Then we also have Pc Long who makes no initial mention of the corner of the apron piece being wet with blood, but simply states the corner was wet , then out of the blue it suddenly becomes wet with blood, and then no one thereafter mentions anything about a corner having blood stains/spot on it.

As is much of the testimony throughout these murders it is unsafe to totally rely on. If some of the witnesses in this case were ever put in the witness box in a trial they would be torn to shreds. Its a pity that the coroner could no identify these evidential inconsistencies and have them clarified at the time.

i have nothing further to add on this topic but if you want to continue to debate on this murder I am quite happy for you to explain

The ambiguities in Insp Collards witness testimony

How the killer managed to cut a piece from an apron she was supposedly wearing at the crime scene given the fact that her clothes were up above her waist and thus making her apron the most inaccessible piece of clothing to cut a piece from?

If the killer did cut off a piece of apron when did he do it, because both you an I agree that he was most likely as not disturbed by Pc Harvey if that were the case he could not have done it before he made good his escape.

Why if the killer had blood and fecal matter on his hands and knife did he simply not wipe both on her clothing at the crime scene but of course if he had to make a quick getaway he would not have had time to even do that?

Why do we see no evidence in any of the other murders of clothing being cut?

The ambiguities in Insp Collards witness testimony

Or perhaps you might want to debate my explanation for how the apron piec got to GS and who deposited it there?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jeff

just a small comment: it is commonly assumed that the second sentence is part of the coroner's next question, mistakely placed as Long's response by the paper.

So the correct order, as given in Daily News and Daily Telegraph, is:

Coroner: Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Coroner: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.


On the subject of the apron, I believe Eddowes was the first victim to wear one. I think it makes sense for killer to have cut it off first, as it is the outermost garment, and easy to cut when stretched out, unlike the clothes, which would be much more difficult to remove. In fact we only see the killer pushing up the dresses and cutting through the clothes, not removing large portions of them, which would take too long.

Lets be clear Eddowes was first stabbed through her outer clothing several times and the knife drawn down and across, this is confirmed by the description of her clothing taken down by Insp Collard. If she was wearing an apron when that happened there would be cuts and traces of blood on the apron.

There was no mention of the mortuary piece having any cuts to it or any traces of blood on it, which suggests she was not wearing the mortuary piece but simply had it in her possession which is how it was noted by Insp Collards

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

Lets be clear Eddowes was first stabbed through her outer clothing several times and the knife drawn down and across, this is confirmed by the description of her clothing taken down by Insp Collard. If she was wearing an apron when that happened there would be cuts and traces of blood on the apron.

There was no mention of the mortuary piece having any cuts to it or any traces of blood on it, which suggests she was not wearing the mortuary piece but simply had it in her possession which is how it was noted by Insp Collards

No, it suggests the apron was cut away first or was pushed aside or scrunched away where the cuts did not reach, for instance over the upper torso.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, it suggests the apron was cut away first or was pushed aside or scrunched away where the cuts did not reach, for instance over the upper torso.

But there were no cuts found on the GS piece either if the clothes were pushed up, the stab wounds on her body ran from sternum downwards so that negates your argument.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff

just a small comment: it is commonly assumed that the second sentence is part of the coroner's next question, mistakely placed as Long's response by the paper.

So the correct order, as given in Daily News and Daily Telegraph, is:

Coroner: Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Coroner: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.


On the subject of the apron, I believe Eddowes was the first victim to wear one. I think it makes sense for killer to have cut it off first, as it is the outermost garment, and easy to cut when stretched out, unlike the clothes, which would be much more difficult to remove. In fact we only see the killer pushing up the dresses and cutting through the clothes, not removing large portions of them, which would take too long.

Hi Kattrup,

Ah, yes, that makes sense with regards to the testimony, thanks.

And yes, your suggestion he cut the apron piece first makes for a logical order of events. Cheers.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Abby,

There's nothing in the evidence that contradicts that, so I certainly can't say it's wrong. My opinion, though, is that I do find it a bit difficult to accept that JtR would go back out to a high risk zone after having made it successfully to a bolt hole, where he would be in relative safety. He doesn't have to discard of the apron for fear of it being discovered by a family member, since he's presumably left a uterus and kidney in this safe place. A piece of bloody cloth is even less incriminating.

As you say, PC Long states without qualification that the apron was not there at 2:20. While I wouldn't describe that as adamant, it would equally be unfair to suggest he lacked confidence in his reply. It is, however, a well know fact of human nature that we can be extremely confident about things that are wrong. Confidence does not equal accuracy, and so while we should note he was confident, we should not mistake that as proving he was correct. We know PC Long also gets into a bit of a muddle with regards to the Graffitti, and appears to have copied it down incorrectly (he correctly spells Jews, while others indicate the spelling was Juwes; he also mis-remembers the wording and is sent to get his note book, which doesn't prove to get him out of his predicament). So, given all this, PC Long's confidence is something we really need to question.

And overlooking the apron would not be particularly unlikely. He's on his beat looking for suspicious activity. If, at 2:20, he is unaware of the murder in Mitre Square, then a piece of discarded cloth is not suspicious, nor would it be memorable. I'll come back to this in a bit.

For example, also around 2:20, we have D.O. Halse passing through Goulston street in that location on his way to Mitre Square and he says : "At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron."

Detective Officer Halse would be a more highly trained individual than PC Long, and so may be more prone to recognizing that "not seeing something doesn't mean it wasn't there", so he's being more conservative in his language while PC Long's confidence may reflect, in part, his lesser experience with giving testimony. (I don't know this for a fact, of course, but a PC is less experienced than a DO, in both investigative techniques and in the giving of evidence. Take note of how PC Long had to go back to get his note book, while a more experienced officer would have known to bring that along). While both Halse and Long say they were in that location at 2:20, DO Halse is making his way to Mitre Square, probably in a hurry, while PC Long is on his beat. It wouldn't take that many seconds difference for them to be separated enough to by pass each other.

So, the question is, at what time was PC Long aware there had been a murder in Mitre Square? We know DO Halse had heard of it just before 2 (He testifies: At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square.) So it seems the word was getting around. Unfortunately, the only statement he makes about this was :

Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

However the context of this statement is after he had found the apron at 2:55, so while we know some of the police in the area had heard of the murder by 2 o'clock, we do not have a statement of fact that indicates that PC Long specifically knew of the murder until 2:55, leaving open the possibility that he does not hear of it until later than most (and so possibly after 2:20).

PC Long was also on his first patrol of the area (his closing statement from the inquest being: "[Coroner] Did you not know about the back? - No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.") which also leads to the possibility that he might overlook something.

And so, as I said initially, none of this proves the apron was there at 2:20 and just overlooked. Unfortunately, the circumstances do not let us conclude, nor should we be overly confident in, the idea that it was not there at 2:20.

Obviously, if it was overlooked, the most likely interpretation is that JtR fled in a North Easterly direction from Mitre Square and dropped the apron piece "on the fly". Whether or not he also stopped to write the graffiti is another matter.

In my own view, because I find it difficult to imagine JtR leaving a safe location after he safely makes it home, and given the shakiness of the evidence that the apron wasn't there at 2:20, I tend to favour the "on route" idea. This leads to JtR on a continual flight path from the scene of the crime and away, indicating where he's trying to get to, rather than him getting there and here's where he came to.

That said, JtR is a serial killer, and they don't think like the rest of us. So, my objection, while perfectly sound for those of us not in the habit of disemboweling strangers in the street, may be of little substance when considering someone who is. JtR is certainly not adverse to taking large risks, and if that's part of the thrill for him, then perhaps this is just the sort of thing he would do to relive the excitement.

And so, like so many things, I'm finding myself sitting on a fence and in dire fear of impaling myself.

- Jeff

Might it be worth mentioning that Long was dismissed for being drunk on duty less than a year later which ‘might’ indicate that he wasn’t the most diligent of officers?

[Kattrup]

But there were no cuts found on the GS piece either if the clothes were pushed up, the stab wounds on her body ran from sternum downwards so that negates your argument.

Of course it doesn't negate it because my argument was precisely that the remaining portion of the apron had been pushed aside, that is, on or close to the body but not actually in an area cut by the killer. The apron was described as hanging loosely from her neck, so it's entirely consistent with the killer holding it out stretched with one hand, using the body as counterweight, which makes it easy to cut with the other hand. The remaining half falls down and is scrunched away around the neck area, not around the sternum.

Collard mentions that her listed possessions were more or less stained with blood and cut, so your idea that the mortuary piece was neither bloodstained nor cut is also unsupported. Just to remind you: something not mentioned is not necessarily absent, nor is the opposite of something not mentioned necessarily true - e.g. if not mentioned directly that the mortuary piece was bloodstained then you believe it was not - however that is not the case.

[JeffHamm]

I am not quibbling over spots and smears, in one of your posts you suggest that the likes of Pc Long would not know the difference between blood spots and blood smearing/stains and use that as an excuse to bolster Browns subsequent smears comment But i reminded you that in fact it was Brown who mentions blood spots on several occasions and as a medical expert would know the difference between blood spots and smears, and I then ask in Browns later testimony why his blood spots then turn to blood smears.

Probably because in all likelihood there were spots and smears on the apron. In a modern case, where the forensic analysis of blood patterns has developed into a science, there would be a standard way to phrase and describe the various blood patterns. But that was not the case in 1888, and common language was used. Moreover, as there was at that time no formal study of blood patterns, all that was being done was indicating there was blood on the apron piece. There was, however, some patterns on one side that looked to Dr. Brown like a hand or knife was wiped on the cloth. At no point was there a detailed analysis presented to the inquest because that sort of thing wasn't done, but it doesn't mean Dr. Brown didn't examine it and draw informed conclusions from doing so. And, he presented what he concluded, the cloth was used to wipe something, a hand or a knife he suggested. To try and say he's wrong without having the article in front of us is unjustified.

I agree, the description is far below the standards one would expect in a modern presentation, but since 1888 there have been a lot of advancements in how to analyse blood patterns and such. The testimony of the day, however, is less precise because the ability to do anything was limited to crude inferences, like something was wiped with it. And that's exactly what he tells us.

I will go on about the apron piece because the description of it as it was found, the location where it was found and the subsequent varying descriptions are not consistent with the the belief that the killer cut it from an apron she was wearing and used it to wipe his hands or his knife on both.

The tests I conducted clearly show that wiping bloody hands or a knife on any piece of material would not leave blood spots it doesn't matter that we don't have a pic of the original piece we can work with how it was described and the general consensus based on the witness testimony is that it was spotted with blood. You cannot just ignore that testimony just because Brown makes a later comment which suits your belief.

A rubber/latex glove will transfer blood entirely differently than a bare hand. Moreover, without the original item to compare to, you have no idea if the amount of blood you used in the experiment is anywhere near the amount found on the apron. You cannot draw any inferences from that with regards to the apron piece found in Goulston street. The material is different, the hands are different, and it is highly improbable that by chance you got the amount of blood right so that will be different as well. All you've shown, at best, is that if you do something different you'll get something different. I applaud you taking the time to attempt this, but unfortunately we do not have enough information to conduct an appropriate recreation. And, the typical approach would be, to use a wide range of blood quantities and see if any of them ended up with spots and smears. I have a sneaky suspicion that "spots" might refer to blood spatter, which fell on the piece at the crime scene (the cloth piece, set aside, got blood on it probably either thrown from his knife, or dripped from his hand when he reached to pick it up, type thing, but without seeing them there's no way to know. They also could be small areas of blood from his finger tips. I don't know, I'm guessing here because, like you, I've never seen the original item, and the term "spots", as used in 1888, is not a well defined term. A lot of things could be "spots" and "smears". But again, Dr. Brown makes it absolutely clear that to him, the blood pattern on one side looked like something was wiped on the cloth. There is no ambiguity in that statement.

Then we also have Pc Long who makes no initial mention of the corner of the apron piece being wet with blood, but simply states the corner was wet , then out of the blue it suddenly becomes wet with blood, and then no one thereafter mentions anything about a corner having blood stains/spot on it.

His inquest statement clearly says one corner was wet with blood. So what if nobody mentions it again, what would be the point? That was already entered into the testimony when he said it the first time. What would be the need for repeating it? Dr. Brown doesn't repeatedly state he thought something was wiped on one side of the cloth, because again, once said is said enough for such things. You seem to be worried when things are said once, and also worried when other things are said again but using different words. There's nothing anyone can do that would be the right thing to do, given that both A and ~A are problematic.

As is much of the testimony throughout these murders it is unsafe to totally rely on. If some of the witnesses in this case were ever put in the witness box in a trial they would be torn to shreds. Its a pity that the coroner could no identify these evidential inconsistencies and have them clarified at the time.

I agree that there are a lot of questions I would love to be able to ask, and seek clarification on. That, however, is not available to us and we have to work with what they did say.

i have nothing further to add on this topic but if you want to continue to debate on this murder I am quite happy for you to explain

The ambiguities in Insp Collards witness testimony

How the killer managed to cut a piece from an apron she was supposedly wearing at the crime scene given the fact that her clothes were up above her waist and thus making her apron the most inaccessible piece of clothing to cut a piece from?

I see Kattrup has addressed that, and I think his idea makes perfect sense. The apron was cut right at the beginning, when it was easily accessible.

If the killer did cut off a piece of apron when did he do it, because both you an I agree that he was most likely as not disturbed by Pc Harvey if that were the case he could not have done it before he made good his escape.

Which is another reason why Kattrup's suggestion that the apron was cut at the beginning, not at the end, of the attack makes sense.

Why if the killer had blood and fecal matter on his hands and knife did he simply not wipe both on her clothing at the crime scene but of course if he had to make a quick getaway he would not have had time to even do that?

As you say, with PC Harvey coming down Church Passage, he wouldn't have time, but if he had cut the apron earlier, he did have a piece of cloth, which he appears to have grabbed and left with.

Why do we see no evidence in any of the other murders of clothing being cut?

Presumably because JtR didn't cut their clothes. He didn't do facial mutilations before either.

The ambiguities in Insp Collards witness testimony

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here so I'm not sure how to explain it? The only mention Insp Collard makes of the apron that I see is this:

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

Which isn't an ambiguous statement and clearly indicates the apron was worn by the deceased. And he's describing her as found at the crime scene. I'm having to rely on the inquest testimony as found here on Casebook under the "official files" area, which is from The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888. Some papers have additional statements, so perhaps that is the issue? (Or I've forgotten something you mentioned in one of your posts, in which case I apologize for my oversight).

Or perhaps you might want to debate my explanation for how the apron piec got to GS and who deposited it there?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm aware of your explanation, but as it is your theory I thought it best to let you introduce it. It's your idea after all, and so you should have the opportunity to present it as you think best.

Anyway, as we both know, we're not going to change each other's views as we differ in how we approach things. Personally, I rather enjoy that as there's only so many times one can say or hear "yes, I agree" before a conversation dwindles to a halt with nowhere to go. Still, that doesn't change the fact that I think you're wrong, nor does it change the fact that you think I'm wrong. Most likely, we both are, but let's not admit to that just yet.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it doesn't negate it because my argument was precisely that the remaining portion of the apron had been pushed aside, that is, on or close to the body but not actually in an area cut by the killer. The apron was described as hanging loosely from her neck, so it's entirely consistent with the killer holding it out stretched with one hand, using the body as counterweight, which makes it easy to cut with the other hand. The remaining half falls down and is scrunched away around the neck area, not around the sternum.

Collard mentions that her listed possessions were more or less stained with blood and cut, so your idea that the mortuary piece was neither bloodstained nor cut is also unsupported. Just to remind you: something not mentioned is not necessarily absent, nor is the opposite of something not mentioned necessarily true - e.g. if not mentioned directly that the mortuary piece was bloodstained then you believe it was not - however that is not the case.

There is no indication as to what type of apron it was

And the mortuary piece is described as one piece of old white apron.

Not one old white apron with piece missing

Nor one old piece of white with bloodstains and cuts

read Collards list that was compiled at the time the body was stripped in particular her clothing where he describes the various cuts to the items of clothing which were where the knife was stabbed through her outer clothing and drawn down and across, and highlights where the blood was on these items

No mention of any cuts or blood on the mortuary piece which is strange that she was stabbed through re outre clothin whic would have inclued her apron if she had been wearing one

If you are suggesting she was wearing a bib type of apron then that would have been even more visible to those present when the body was stripped

Here is the important parts of collards list taken as the body was being stripped and the clothing documented

“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

Now if she had been wearing any form of apron it would have been under the jacket and over the skirt and clearly visible to all present

The list clearly shows she was not wearing anything that resembled an apron with a piece missingso end of argument the facts speak for themselves

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Probably because in all likelihood there were spots and smears on the apron. In a modern case, where the forensic analysis of blood patterns has developed into a science, there would be a standard way to phrase and describe the various blood patterns. But that was not the case in 1888, and common language was used. Moreover, as there was at that time no formal study of blood patterns, all that was being done was indicating there was blood on the apron piece. There was, however, some patterns on one side that looked to Dr. Brown like a hand or knife was wiped on the cloth. At no point was there a detailed analysis presented to the inquest because that sort of thing wasn't done, but it doesn't mean Dr. Brown didn't examine it and draw informed conclusions from doing so. And, he presented what he concluded, the cloth was used to wipe something, a hand or a knife he suggested. To try and say he's wrong without having the article in front of us is unjustified.

I agree, the description is far below the standards one would expect in a modern presentation, but since 1888 there have been a lot of advancements in how to analyse blood patterns and such. The testimony of the day, however, is less precise because the ability to do anything was limited to crude inferences, like something was wiped with it. And that's exactly what he tells us.



A rubber/latex glove will transfer blood entirely differently than a bare hand. Moreover, without the original item to compare to, you have no idea if the amount of blood you used in the experiment is anywhere near the amount found on the apron. You cannot draw any inferences from that with regards to the apron piece found in Goulston street. The material is different, the hands are different, and it is highly improbable that by chance you got the amount of blood right so that will be different as well. All you've shown, at best, is that if you do something different you'll get something different. I applaud you taking the time to attempt this, but unfortunately we do not have enough information to conduct an appropriate recreation. And, the typical approach would be, to use a wide range of blood quantities and see if any of them ended up with spots and smears. I have a sneaky suspicion that "spots" might refer to blood spatter, which fell on the piece at the crime scene (the cloth piece, set aside, got blood on it probably either thrown from his knife, or dripped from his hand when he reached to pick it up, type thing, but without seeing them there's no way to know. They also could be small areas of blood from his finger tips. I don't know, I'm guessing here because, like you, I've never seen the original item, and the term "spots", as used in 1888, is not a well defined term. A lot of things could be "spots" and "smears". But again, Dr. Brown makes it absolutely clear that to him, the blood pattern on one side looked like something was wiped on the cloth. There is no ambiguity in that statement.


His inquest statement clearly says one corner was wet with blood. So what if nobody mentions it again, what would be the point? That was already entered into the testimony when he said it the first time. What would be the need for repeating it? Dr. Brown doesn't repeatedly state he thought something was wiped on one side of the cloth, because again, once said is said enough for such things. You seem to be worried when things are said once, and also worried when other things are said again but using different words. There's nothing anyone can do that would be the right thing to do, given that both A and ~A are problematic.

I agree that there are a lot of questions I would love to be able to ask, and seek clarification on. That, however, is not available to us and we have to work with what they did say.


I see Kattrup has addressed that, and I think his idea makes perfect sense. The apron was cut right at the beginning, when it was easily accessible.



Which is another reason why Kattrup's suggestion that the apron was cut at the beginning, not at the end, of the attack makes sense.




As you say, with PC Harvey coming down Church Passage, he wouldn't have time, but if he had cut the apron earlier, he did have a piece of cloth, which he appears to have grabbed and left with.


Presumably because JtR didn't cut their clothes. He didn't do facial mutilations before either.



Sorry, I'm not sure what you're referring to here so I'm not sure how to explain it? The only mention Insp Collard makes of the apron that I see is this:

[Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

Which isn't an ambiguous statement and clearly indicates the apron was worn by the deceased. And he's describing her as found at the crime scene. I'm having to rely on the inquest testimony as found here on Casebook under the "official files" area, which is from The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888. Some papers have additional statements, so perhaps that is the issue? (Or I've forgotten something you mentioned in one of your posts, in which case I apologize for my oversight).



I'm aware of your explanation, but as it is your theory I thought it best to let you introduce it. It's your idea after all, and so you should have the opportunity to present it as you think best.

Anyway, as we both know, we're not going to change each other's views as we differ in how we approach things. Personally, I rather enjoy that as there's only so many times one can say or hear "yes, I agree" before a conversation dwindles to a halt with nowhere to go. Still, that doesn't change the fact that I think you're wrong, nor does it change the fact that you think I'm wrong. Most likely, we both are, but let's not admit to that just yet.

- Jeff

There is no dispute that the two pieces at some point in time came from the same apron the question is when did the two pieces get separated and by whom and for what purpose

Insp Collard

: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Aren’t we again at the mercy of partial surviving quotations, Press reporting and the testimonies of people of varying levels of experience, education and intelligence? It would have been more surprising had all these varying sources tied up exactly. I need to re-read the statements as I’m certainly rusty on who said what and when but what is being suggested here? Is it being stated that someone of Brown’s experience was so incompetent that he couldn’t distinguish between blood spots and the marks made by someone wiping either a knife or their hands? Or that he lied? Isn’t the simpler explanation the more likely? That the piece of apron had blood spots and an area of blood smearing that was consistent with wiping? Bond was confident that the cloth found in the doorway matched the one worn by Eddowes. Isn’t this just another case of creating a mystery where none exists?

[Joshua Rogan]

Might it be worth mentioning that Long was dismissed for being drunk on duty less than a year later which ‘might’ indicate that he wasn’t the most diligent of officers?

Or it might be that he was normally diligent, but was haunted by the thought that he failed to catch the Ripper and descended into alcoholism as a result. We just don't know.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
The tests I conducted clearly show that wiping bloody hands or a knife on any piece of material would not leave blood spots it doesn't matter that we don't have a pic of the original piece we can work with how it was described and the general consensus based on the witness testimony is that it was spotted with blood. You cannot just ignore that testimony just because Brown makes a later comment which suits your belief

I don’t understand why you are suggesting that’s it’s simply a choice between whether it was possible or not possible that the blood spots were caused when the killer wiped his hands or the knife? The blood spots could have occurred at any point in the proceedings. Your test couldn’t preclude the existence of blood spots.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or it might be that he was normally diligent, but was haunted by the thought that he failed to catch the Ripper and descended into alcoholism as a result. We just don't know.

Fair point of course Joshua