Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    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.


    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.
    Absolute fiction, why would a blood stained piece of rag be a medical matter it was potentially police evidence. Phillips was already at Leman St police station when the GS arrived and if I am honest the matching didn't take place until the following day when the post mortem was conducted because Phillip had not arrived at the mortuary by 5.20am.

    And the pile would have been as a result of the clothing being listed as it was taken from the body at the time and then perhaps placed in a pile. and left till the following day

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
      You can see quiet clearly where the clothing finished on the list and the possessions begin. The items in the bags had to be taken out first before being listed, and that how the old apron piece so described was discovered. it was probably the last item take out of one of the bags that is why it is at the end of the list of her possessions.
      Anyone who reads the list as posted can tell that the list is not organized in the manner you describe and the man who created it testified under oath that Eddowes had been wearing the apron.

      The list, as posted, lists 11 clothing items, then 5 personal possessions, then her stockings, then 33 personal possessions, then the apron, then several items found near the body, then a few more personal possessions.





      Comment


      • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

        Anyone who reads the list as posted can tell that the list is not organized in the manner you describe and the man who created it testified under oath that Eddowes had been wearing the apron.

        The list, as posted, lists 11 clothing items, then 5 personal possessions, then her stockings, then 33 personal possessions, then the apron, then several items found near the body, then a few more personal possessions.

        Collard does not say she was wearing an apron.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          I think it's time that List of Possessions on Casebook was taken down.
          https://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html
          The original list is available as part of the Inquest Papers, and I sent Trevor a copy of the original by email. The one available on Casebook is not correct, why people do this is beyond me, and I do not know who wrote that article, but the fact remains that list is not correct.
          Could you please share the accurate list with the rest of us?


          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            Collard does not say she was wearing an apron.
            Collard did say that Eddowes was wearing an apron. JeffHamm quoted the official inquest testimony back in Post #276 - "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress - "

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

              Collard did say that Eddowes was wearing an apron. JeffHamm quoted the official inquest testimony back in Post #276 - "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress - "
              Hi Fiver,

              For all intents and purposes, Trevor interprets the word "apparently" to mean "not".

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                Hi Fiver,

                For all intents and purposes, Trevor interprets the word "apparently" to mean "not".

                - Jeff
                'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

                'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'


                Comment


                • Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

                  'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

                  A good quote written by a bad suspect.

                  - Jeff

                  Comment


                  • Thanks to jerryd for putting me onto the London Metropolitan Archives, where I was able to find digital copies of the original inquest for Eddowes.

                    I've not gone through every page yet, but there are two sections where the Witnesses are listed and a summary of the main points of their testimony listed (the 2nd presentation is in a better hand, so presumably has been rewritten as a more official version).

                    The description of PC Long's testimony is found at the bottom of page 5 and 13 of the documents as they currently come up in the archive. (what a great resource).

                    Anyway, here's an image of the summary for PC Long (both versions):

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	Orig_Inquest_ListOfThoseToTestify_AndAsToWhat_bottomOfPg05_and13.jpg Views:	0 Size:	78.1 KB ID:	753817
                    What's interesting to the current discussions is that the official document unequivocally describes the apron as being found on the body, not with the body, but on it, which points to her wearing it, just like all the witnesses testify.

                    Also, I've made some images of the original list composed by PC Collard. The image quality is not as good for these I'm afraid, but they are still readable (though you may have to open them and zoom in a bit).

                    Click image for larger version  Name:	Collard_List_pg01.jpg Views:	0 Size:	77.7 KB ID:	753818
                    Click image for larger version  Name:	List_pg02.jpg Views:	0 Size:	62.0 KB ID:	753819

                    Anyway, just some official document food for thought.

                    Oh, and before I sign off, I was in the middle of reading PC Collard's testimony when the archive signed me out (if you don't check the catalogue it signs you out as inactive, even if you're reading something, which is a bit of a drag). One thing I noticed was when he is talking about the buttons found, it is written something like (this is not a direct quote as I don't have it all before me) "...two black metal buttons apparently for generally used for ...", where what I've underlined is struck out in the original document.

                    One thing about many of the transcripts we do see, such as in the newspapers, is that a lot of aspects of normal human speech are not apparent. We often have false starts, and rewind and restate, along with ahh... or ...ummm... etc. The portion struck out looks, however, like a pause, then a slight rewind, and then restarting. He's continued with the same thought though used a different word. Now, it could be argued that he's gone back and changed to "generally used for ..." because that indicates a greater confidence in how the buttons are commonly used (I think it was for boots) and he changes to this because he cannot know if Kate had them in that way. Meaning, while he can say they are generally used for some purpose, he cannot say what Eddowes had them for, and so changed from "apparently" to "generally." This suggests he was originally stating what it looked like Eddowes had the buttons for, but changed to "generally" to indicate what buttons like this are commonly used for because he felthe cannot say in this specific case if that common use applies.

                    That provides us with evidence as to how PC Collard used language, and must be taken into account when interpreting his later statement about the apron, and how Eddowes was apparently wearing it.

                    - Jeff
                    Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-22-2021, 09:00 PM.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Hi Fiver,

                      For all intents and purposes, Trevor interprets the word "apparently" to mean "not".

                      - Jeff
                      Well it certainly doesn't help you and others who are adamant that the other police officers were correct and that she was wearing an apron.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Well it certainly doesn't help you and others who are adamant that the other police officers were correct and that she was wearing an apron.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        True. Those of us who contend that the police actually meant she was wearing an apron when they said she was wearing an apron clearly are being irrational, particularly in light of how you've speculated she wasn't.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • It's not a case of accusing anyone of lying.It is accepting the scientific testing of people, as a guide to the fact that the recollection of events diminishes with time.Law enforcement officers are made aware of this early in training.
                          Well Jon,if Collard didn't make a list as the body was undressed,then he had to rely on memory at any time afterwards,and if you contend this happened.and the listing of the apron as the last item mentioned is due to faulty memory on Collards part,you also must agree with Trevor that any other officers testimony could be faulty.And no,I am contradicting my own view.I am of the opinion that Collard made a written statement at the time,while other officers didn't.
                          Regardless,there are two separate listings.One of clothes taken from the body,the other a list of belongings.
                          Your other points are are so full of innacuraces and conjectures,it's not worth replying to.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by harry View Post
                            It's not a case of accusing anyone of lying.It is accepting the scientific testing of people, as a guide to the fact that the recollection of events diminishes with time.Law enforcement officers are made aware of this early in training.
                            Well Jon,if Collard didn't make a list as the body was undressed,then he had to rely on memory at any time afterwards,and if you contend this happened.and the listing of the apron as the last item mentioned is due to faulty memory on Collards part,you also must agree with Trevor that any other officers testimony could be faulty.And no,I am contradicting my own view.I am of the opinion that Collard made a written statement at the time,while other officers didn't.
                            Regardless,there are two separate listings.One of clothes taken from the body,the other a list of belongings.
                            Your other points are are so full of innacuraces and conjectures,it's not worth replying to.
                            Hi harry,

                            I don't think Collard made the list from memory. The details he includes are too specific for that. He had to have made the list in the presence of the items. He was also there at the time the body was stripped, along with the doctors, and presumably is there to observe that process. As such, we would be hard pressed to argue that he was not personally aware of whether or not the apron was worn by Eddowes or not. Which I'll come to shortly.

                            What I think people are arguing is that Trevor's assertion the items were written down as they were removed is speculation on his part, and therefore is just a hypothesis that needs to be compared with the rest of the evidence to determine if it is supported. Nowhere, in any document, does Collard ever say he recorded the items as each one was removed. Rather, he states he has a list of clothing and possessions (shown above). So, either he recorded things as they came off, or he didn't (I think that covers all the basis). If he didn't, one way would be "by memory", but examination of the list shows too much specific detail to support that.

                            Another way he could record the items, but not as they come off, is after the body was completely stripped, and presumably laid out on a table or counter, some possibly in piles and collections (it's not recorded, so who knows, just trying to cover various options). There wasn't any forensic examinations that would worry about contamination, as we have today, so piling them together wouldn't be a problem.

                            Anyway, as people have pointed out, items of clothing are listed in an order that does not correspond to a systematic stripping of the body, although there is a loose approximation to that. Looking at the list as written, it looks to me like it was written all in one go. I don't see any changes, in either the angle of the text, or the spacing between sentences within an item compared to between items, etc. I would expect to see that if, after each item, he has to stop writing, return to observing the removal of the next item, then come back and start a new. Mind you, that being said, I'm not a handwriting expert so I could be missing tell tale signs of such interruptions, but I know from my own hand writing, if I write a bit, come back later and add to it, there are quite visible differences between the bits written even a few minutes apart. I don't see that on this scan of the original document. And if he's not pausing between items, that is much more consistent with someone going to all of the items after they've been removed, sitting down, and documenting the lot. In that case, I could see them roughly, but not perfectly, corresponding to an order of removal. Moreover, given it was known there was a piece of apron found at Goulston Street there is every reason this information was known by PC Collard at this time, and the apron could have been set aside from the other items knowing it would be needed for a comparison, which would explain why it is the last item recorded.

                            But if go with Trevor's idea, then PC Collard knows the apron was not worn by Eddowes. Yet in his testimony he states she was apparently wearing it. He does not say "it was in her possession" or anything of the sort, he testifies with words that point towards her wearing it. And he was there when the body was stripped, and would know from that experience if everyone else was wrong. Yet he never once even hints at a correction and even testifies she was apparently wearing the apron. Because his signed testimony reads "she was apparently wearing" the apron though, Trevor uses this to conclude she was "not" wearing an apron. There is a gulf of difference between "apparently" and "not", and nowhere in any official document (the only one's Trevor will consider) does it even come close to stating she was not wearing the apron. All Trevor has to base his speculation on is the fact the apron is the last item on a list of clothing and possessions, recorded by a witness who observed the body being stripped and who themself testifies she was apparently wearing the apron. Trevor dismisses what the witness says, in order to make as much hay as he can out of the position of the item on a list where it is never stated at what point that list was written down. Trevor speculates it was as the items were removed, but there is nothing but his speculation to back that up. If he has an official statement that says PC Collard wrote down the items as they were being removed, then he has yet to produce it, or even to mention its existence. Furthermore, the look of the handwriting, to my admittedly untrained eye, does not look like PC Collard had to stop and pause to wait for each item to be removed. I see no apparent changes in the flow of the pen, which I would think should be apparent if he was to'ing and fro'ing between writing the list and even just waiting for the next item to be removed. The lack of any statement telling us when and how that list was composed requires us to examine all of the data we have, including testimony given by the witnesses, including the recordings of the official inquest documents (such as the summary of testimonies I posted earlier, where PC Long's testimony highlights are that he found a piece of apron in G.S. that corresponds to the portion found on the body - not with the body, on the body - and nowhere in the inquest does anyone say "the apron was found laying over the body", they all say "she was wearing an apron" in one form or another), the appearance of the list, and so on. Taken as a whole, all of the official documents, point to the list being comprised after the body was stripped in full, and PC Collard then sat down to document the items, not from memory, but by direct observation of each item - just not necessarily in the order they were removed. They might be roughly placed in the order they were removed, but some will get out of order. The apron, being listed last, and being an item we know was going to be compared with the portion found in G.S., points to it having been set aside from the other items.

                            In an earlier post it looks like PC Collard's use of the word apparently from other parts of his official, signed, testimony show he uses it to reflect a meaning more in line with "it was apparent that" rather than an expression of doubt. It's the latter definition which Trevor argues for, but he then goes on to conclude that because PC Collard is not being more definite in his wording then Eddowes must not have been wearing it - a rather large leap in logic. Note also that when witness's are unequivocal in their statements, he then concludes their wrong anyway. Trevor will conclude, invariably, that evidence that goes against his speculations must be disregarded, while his speculations must be treated as if they are documented facts.

                            Finally, the GS piece was found just over an hour after the murder was discovered. Word would have gotten around pretty quickly. The police at the gaol recall Kate well enough to remember her parting phrase, they remember seeing her turn left when she exited the station, that she was found to be singing in the cell before her release, and so forth. Remembering she was wearing an apron is hardly a big deal. Kate's skirts and jacket are all dark coloured, so a white apron would contrast and stand out, as well. There is no reason to find it incredible that people recall her wearing one. Trevor is blowing steam when he suggests they couldn't possibly remember that. He's concerns about how could they be sure the one shown at the inquest was indeed the apron she was wearing are valid in some ways and a good lawyer would have a field day with making a point that the witnesses were not the ones to do any sort of comparison, so how could they know if this apron was the one they saw Kate wearing. But his entire argument there is flawed, because even if we might think "they are not really capable of doing that comparison; if I showed them a different, but similar, apron they might say that was it too" - which he suggested in one of his posts. But the whole basis of that argument is that they cannot be sure if the one they are shown is the one she was wearing - it is still based upon the notion that she was wearing one! It's only whether or not the witness can be sure if the one shown is the one she wore that would be of issue there. Trevor needs to show that the witnesses would identify as something they remember despite it being something she wasn't wearing at all, say a clown's wig. And while I can't prove this, I'm pretty sure if they had showed a clown's wig and asked "Is this the clown wig she was wearing?", they would say "no, she wasn't wearing one". And yet, when shown the apron found on the body, they said "yes, that's it", which means we can be sure of one thing, the one from the crime scene looks like the one they remember her to be wearing, which therefore tells us, she was indeed wearing an apron.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Hmmm, after that fairly lengthy post, something has occurred to me.

                              Trevor has posted a few times a challenge to the witness's ability to identify the apron shown at the inquest as being the apron they testify her to be wearing. He argues there is no way they can safely make that claim because, in effect, they have not done an examination of the present apron and moreover, they have to compare it to their memory. As I argued above, I can see how in a trial that argument could be made by a defense lawyer. As I also argued, the whole point being argued for there still assumes she was wearing an apron. It is a very different thing to argue "you cannot be sure THIS is the apron she was wearing" and "you cannot be sure she was wearing an apron AT ALL". Trevor presents the argument as if it leads to the latter conclusion, but at most it only leads to the former.

                              So, given that he's right, the comparison between the presented apron and the apron the witnesses recall her wearing could be viewed as unsafe, to use Trevor's words. It does not call into question the fact that the witnesses still do remember her to be wearing an apron.

                              If, therefore, they are wrong, and the apron portion found at the crime scene was just part of her possessions (as Trevor argues), and was not the one the witnesses recall her wearing, the question now becomes - Where is the apron the witnesses recall her wearing? It's not listed anywhere as being found at the crime scene. Trevor argues it does not exist, and that all of the witnesses are wrong. That being so highly improbable, it would lead us to only one conclusoin, that JtR took that apron away and kept it.

                              So even if one believes that the entirely unsupported speculations of Kate menstruating, urinating herself in the drunk tank, removing and discarding her sanitary napkin in a location she was never seen heading towards, and failing to replace it despite having the item she uses for source material on her, no sign of menstrual blood on her legs (Dr. Brown's testimony states : "No marks of blood below the middle of the body" (I suggest if she was freely menstruating there would be marks of blood down her legs that would have been recorded, but we have a specific statement saying there were none), and goes with all of that and more conjecture to explain the relationship between the portion found at G.S. and the portion found at the crime scene, one is still left with a missing apron - the one multiple witnesses testify to her wearing.

                              I believe, however, the above is far too complicated, and moreover, PC Collard, or the Doctors, who were present when the body was stripped, would have been obliged to point out the apron was not worn by Eddowes but rather was found in her possessions. And so, while technically it is true that one could challenge their statements that they believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing on legal grounds, that doesn't mean they are incorrect - it only means they might not be. But if they're not, there is still a missing apron, the one she was wearing, and what we can infer is that the missing one looks similar to the one produced at the inquest.

                              I anticipate a rather strongly worded rely from Trevor. I feel I should point out that, Trevor has no problem with statements made in written memoirs (which are not under oath) made many years after the fact - he expresses distain at anyone who even hints at the suggestion that Reid might just have gotten it wrong and misremembered that Kelly's heart was missing when he wrote his memoirs (from memory). So memories that suit him, even when many years old, are fine but if something requires recollecting what someone was wearing 4 days ago and they state something against his speculations, we hear all sorts of concern about "4 days ago". Trevor also claims we should just ignore all of the presentations of the inquest testimony that appears in the newspapers here, and yet, vehemently points to the newspapers when they say "no portion of the body was missing" with regards to Kelly, and then resorts to "unreliable news reports" when it is pointed out the very same papers later retract that claim and report that yes, indeed, something was missing (with one paper even stating it was her heart). Again, when newspapers concur with his speculations newspapers are good, and when newspapers do not concur with his speculations, newspapers are bad. I wish to point out, I'm drawing upon the original inquest report for these last two posts, so really, newspapers are playing no part (unless I've inadvertently made a mistake and included something, if so, my fault). This is primarily my concern about Trevor's approach - it becomes unfalsifiable. There is no evidence that could possibly falsify Trevor's speculations because he will always find a way to claim that evidence is unsafe. That is no longer a theory, that is faith.

                              - Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Jeff, thanks for the above two posts. Very informative. Thanks to JerryD also. Nice work guys.
                                Thems the Vagaries.....

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X