Kate's Apron

[harry]

Again Jeff,it was from memory that Robinson was giving evidence.I doubt,under the circumstances he describes,his attention was concentrated on her clothing.
Does,'To the best of my knowledge' equate to a certainty,or a belief?

[JeffHamm]

So it's now being suggested that Collard compiled the list from memory,and not at the time the clothes were removed.An amazing feat of memory if that were true,considering the variety and number of articles and clothing.Why would he stand by doing nothing,knowing he would at some time have to compile a List?
The apron pieces,we are led to believe,were compared at the mortuary by Brown,his attention being drawn to the piece found in Goulstan Street,by Dr Phillips? in whose possession it then was.Think of that. Long Takes an apron piece to a police station,and it next turns up at the mortuary in the possession of a doctor.Well I do not have an answer for that.Police evidence in the possession of doctors,and used by them (doctors) to evaluate evidence,and that evidence is not seemingly double checked by police.No wonder Trevor advises caution.
I have read two differing accounts regarding Long's evidence.One writes he (Long) had no knowledge of a murder when finding the apron piece,the other writes Long had heard rumors of another murder,while the murder in Mitre Square was common knowledge.Regardless,he maintains it was because he believed a victim might have been in the building in Goulstan Street,as the reason he left his post and took his find to the police station.

Hi harry,

PC Long testifies he was aware of the Mitre Square murder, and that there was a rumor of another. In the context of when he gives that statement he is indicating that by 2:55, when he found the apron, he was aware there had been a murder. It's not clear, however, if he was aware at 2:20, the time he reports the apron piece was not there. If he was not aware at 2:20 then there becomes more reason to question how much we should put our confidence in him reporting the apron wasn't there at that time (but if it's not, it sinks Trevor's idea as well of course as his idea requires the apron piece to have been present before Eddowes was murdered). We might want to note that DO Halse indicates he first heard of the murder at 1:58 (2 minutes to 2), so the news was spreading right away, but that doesn't guarantee that PC Long had caught wind of it by 2:20 (although one couldn't be faulted for suggesting there was a good possibility he had, it only crosses the line if one insists he must have).

It seems reasonable that the police would have the Doctor's examine the evidence as their opinion as to the nature of the stains on it would be required (to document it was, indeed, blood, fecal matter, etc). This is still done, it's not the police officers who do the forensic testing, it's doctors and lab technicians. The systems in place to ensure chain of custody have been greatly tightened over the years, and we have to look at what they did in the context of the era in which the crimes occurred.

All that Collard says is the body was stripped in front of the doctors and himself by Mr. Davis. He does not indicate he made the list during that process. Again, while that might be standard procedure today, there is no reason for us to believe that it was in 1888. Rather, the procedure could just as easily been something like all members observe the removal of the clothing, which are placed aside by Mr. Davis, and upon completion, Collard makes his list. We don't know because as far as I'm aware, nobody has tracked down what the actual procedure of the day was - it's all just been conjecture of the "it's like this now so it was like this then" type; which is, of course, not true. As such, while the items placed aside by Mr. Davis may roughly fall in order of their removal, they need not reflect the exact order of each and every piece and so the order of the list is not a definitive piece of evidence as to the order of the clothing removal; nor even as to the separation between "worn and possessed" items. And combined with the number of independent testified statements all pointing to Kate wearing an apron, that "order of the list <> order of removal" is further supported.

We also have DO Halse's testimony where he states:
I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street.

Where he sees Kate in the mortuary, and tells us he noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. He also tells us that he accompanied Major Smoth back to Mitre Square after they had heard about the piece being found in G.S. This tells us that those at the mortuary had been informed of the piece found in G.S. This would explain why DO Halse would check Kate's apron and note the missing portion. It may also suggest that the apron was set aside at that point, which is one way the apron ends up near the end of the list when Collard is compiling it. Again, given we weren't there I can't say this exact story had to have happened, but there are plenty of indicators that the list was not compiled as the body was stripped and something like that occurred.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Again Jeff,it was from memory that Robinson was giving evidence.I doubt,under the circumstances he describes,his attention was concentrated on her clothing.
Does,'To the best of my knowledge' equate to a certainty,or a belief?

All testimony is a belief. He's asserting that it is his belief the apron shown was the one she was wearing. In a way, I suppose one could say his statement indicates
1) He's sure she was wearing an apron
2) he's sure what he's being shown is an apron
3) He believes the one shown and the one she was wearing are one in the same.

There's nothing in his "To the best of my knowledge ..." to suggest he questioned whether or not Kate was wearing an apron, he is only qualifying his degree of knowledge with regards to the relationship between the present one and the one he saw her wearing; and his qualifier is a fairly confident one.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Again Jeff,it was from memory that Robinson was giving evidence.I doubt,under the circumstances he describes,his attention was concentrated on her clothing.
Does,'To the best of my knowledge' equate to a certainty,or a belief?

Hello Harry.

PC Robinson actually stated plainly, "She was wearing an apron". He last saw her in her cell at 10 to 9.

[JeffHamm]

Hello Harry.

PC Robinson actually stated plainly, "She was wearing an apron". He last saw her in her cell at 10 to 9.

Hi jerryd,

Nice. Where did you get the photo of his signed testimony?

- Jeff

[jerryd]

Hi jerryd,

Nice. Where did you get the photo of his signed testimony?

- Jeff

The LMA has the entirety of the inquest.

[JeffHamm]

The LMA has the entirety of the inquest.

LMA? Sorry, what's that stand for? I'm assuming it's a book I've missed.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Found here on the Casebooks official documents, inquest testimony:

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.
[Coroner] Did any one appear to be in her company when you found her? - No one in particular.
Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

(bolding, underling, italics, etc, mine);
- Jeff

I have many times pointed out the flaws in this testimony which make it unsafe I am not going tot do so again

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

All testimony is a belief. He's asserting that it is his belief the apron shown was the one she was wearing. In a way, I suppose one could say his statement indicates
1) He's sure she was wearing an apron
2) he's sure what he's being shown is an apron
3) He believes the one shown and the one she was wearing are one in the same.

There's nothing in his "To the best of my knowledge ..." to suggest he questioned whether or not Kate was wearing an apron, he is only qualifying his degree of knowledge with regards to the relationship between the present one and the one he saw her wearing; and his qualifier is a fairly confident one.

- Jeff

No its not all belief, notes made at the time are more important in the evidence chain than evidence from recollection 4 days later especially with such a non de script item as an apron which the majority of victorian women were wearing. I keep saying how were these officers able to recall 4 days later that she was wearing an apron when there was clearly nothing about it that made it stand out.

Having regards to the chain of events the question of the apron could not have been presented to them for at least 24 hours bearing in mind it didn't become and issue till later in the day and by that time the officers would have gone home and so they could not have even been asked to remember for some significant time after that.

What really make this evidence unbelievable is that the officer was shown a piece of apron and he believed it to be from the one she was wearing how on earth could he know where it came from. If he had been shown 3 identical pieces of white apron how could he possibly identify one from another

You have to stop believing all you read in the newspaper reports

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

No its not all belief, notes made at the time are more important in the evidence chain than evidence from recollection 4 days later especially with such a non de script item as an apron which the majority of victorian women were wearing. I keep saying how were these officers able to recall 4 days later that she was wearing an apron when there was clearly nothing about it that made it stand out.

Having regards to the chain of events the question of the apron could not have been presented to them for at least 24 hours bearing in mind it didn't become and issue till later in the day and by that time the officers would have gone home and so they could not have even been asked to remember for some significant time after that.

What really make this evidence unbelievable is that the officer was shown a piece of apron and he believed it to be from the one she was wearing how on earth could he know where it came from. If he had been shown 3 identical pieces of white apron how could he possibly identify one from another

You have to stop believing all you read in the newspaper reports

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thank your for your opinion Trevor.

- Jeff

[Kattrup]

LMA? Sorry, what's that stand for? I'm assuming it's a book I've missed.

- Jeff

London Metropolitan Archives

[JeffHamm]

London Metropolitan Archives

Ah, much obliged. I was thinking I had missed some book that published photos of all the original material or something.

- Jeff

[Kattrup]

Ah, much obliged. I was thinking I had missed some book that published photos of all the original material or something.

- Jeff

No worries, that would be the job of the UK archives who sadly are lagging behind in free digitisation. LMA refer to photocopies and microfiche of their Rippermaterials available in their reading room; that this kind of materials has not been made available online ten years ago is disappointing. Could be I missed it and it's just really well hidden on their website, but it doesn't seem like it.

As far as I know the NA and most other UK archives use the same strategy of letting private companies make genealogical stuff available through subscriptions. Sad but I guess they figure it's better than not having it available online at all, which would probably have been the alternative.

[Herlock Sholmes]

No its not all belief, notes made at the time are more important in the evidence chain than evidence from recollection 4 days later especially with such a non de script item as an apron which the majority of victorian women were wearing. I keep saying how were these officers able to recall 4 days later that she was wearing an apron when there was clearly nothing about it that made it stand out.

Having regards to the chain of events the question of the apron could not have been presented to them for at least 24 hours bearing in mind it didn't become and issue till later in the day and by that time the officers would have gone home and so they could not have even been asked to remember for some significant time after that.

What really make this evidence unbelievable is that the officer was shown a piece of apron and he believed it to be from the one she was wearing how on earth could he know where it came from. If he had been shown 3 identical pieces of white apron how could he possibly identify one from another

You have to stop believing all you read in the newspaper reports

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I wonder why the police even bother talking to witnesses as it appears that nothing that they ever say could possibly be correct? They appear to do so because they feel that people’s recollections can have evidential value. Basically, people can recall correctly. People can also be mistaken of course and so we have to apply at least a measure of caution.

To cast doubt on Hutt and Robinson it appears that we have to ask a few very obvious questions. 1) Do we have any evidence that either of them had poor memories? We would all agree, I assume, that the answer to that one is no. 2) Is it in any way unlikely that someone can remember how someone was dressed 4 days ago? Again I’d say no. My sister-in-law came to the house 6 days ago and stood on my doorstep chatting for 5 minutes at the most. I can recall what she was wearing and I don’t have an exceptional memory. And no, she wasn’t dressed in anything out of the ordinary. 3) Can those recollections be corroborated? Yes they can of course. 4) Would the object in question have stood out? Yes, a white apron would have stood out. It’s why white flags are white It would have been a part of their mental image of her.

What’s being suggested here though isn’t an error of recollection. It’s that Hutt and Robinson lied. Do we have any evidence that either officers were dishonest? Again, no. It’s a very convenient assumption of course. You can’t just assume that someone was lying because their evidence is inconvenient to a theory but this is exactly what’s going on here. Numerous responsible people confirm that Eddowes was wearing an apron. Trevor has simply sat down and thought of various fanciful ways of negating the evidence. He dismisses 2 perfectly sound witnesses whilst at the same time piling on speculation after speculation and then, rather staggeringly, he accuses other of the same thing (speculating.)

Like other ‘theories’ this one has been around for a while. It hasn’t gained any traction. There’s a very good reason for that.

[Wickerman]

So it's now being suggested that Collard compiled the list from memory,and not at the time the clothes were removed.An amazing feat of memory if that were true,considering the variety and number of articles and clothing.Why would he stand by doing nothing,knowing he would at some time have to compile a List?

I'm really not understanding that view. All that was being proposed was that Davis stripped the body at a time when both Phillips, Brown & Collard were present at the mortuary.
We have no idea when Collard made his list, but as the surviving copy in the inquest files is not written on police pocketbook-sized sheet, then the list has obviously been re-written by Collard at some point. Most likely for his up-coming appearance at the inquest. At what point & why the apron was added as the last item is unknown.

The apron pieces,we are led to believe,were compared at the mortuary by Brown,his attention being drawn to the piece found in Goulstan Street,by Dr Phillips? in whose possession it then was.Think of that. Long Takes an apron piece to a police station,and it next turns up at the mortuary in the possession of a doctor.Well I do not have an answer for that.

PC Long took the cloth to Commercial St. station and as it was medical evidence it would appear the police contacted Dr. Phillips who would be best suited to analyze the cloth. Phillips was already involved in the case at the request of Dr Brown (City), so it would appear he was the one who took the piece to Golden Lane mortuary (in the company of a PC, we might suppose).
Dr Brown's attention therefore was brought to this bloodstained cloth several hours after the body had been stripped, only later were the two halves of the apron matched together.
This matching up would cause the apron piece to the pulled out of the pile of clothing and after being matched with the GS piece, may have been placed back on top, making it appear to be the last item - if the list was made by Collard around this time of morning.