Kate's Apron

[Joshua Rogan]

Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?

Not that I'm agreeing with Trevor, Herlock, but I think there are several reasons to think this.
Firsty, as you rightly pointed out, Brown drew attention to the bloodstains in "the corner of the apron with a string attached". This wouldn't make much sense unless there was only one corner with a string still attached. So either the string on the other top corner had been cut off or, more likely, the entire corner had, which would necessetate a vertical cut through the waistband. This is indicated by the second point; every other item of clothing around her waist had a vertical cut through the waistband - skirts, petticoat, even the pockets tied round her waist. If she was wearing it, why wouldn't her apron be cut likewise?
Thirdly... It's the easiest place to cut fabric like an apron which is otherwise loose. You could do it one handed. Slip the knife under the waistband and pull up, using the tension provided by rhe strings around the body to slice through it. One straight cut all the way down would be easiest, no need to get fancy cutting round corners. Once you've done that you have two pieces connected by the strings under the body, just cut the string on one piece and you're away. Leaving the other piece on the body "apparently worn", but no longer actually attached, so liable to become displaced on the trip to the mortuary.
Fourthly, PC Long found a piece of apron in Goulston Street. Not just a piece of cloth, but apparently one that was recognisably part of an apron. What distinguishing features could indicate an apron? I'd say, just the waistbamd and attached string. If the piece was cut from.the bottom, what would indicate it was from an apron?

Taken together, I feel this points to a vertically cut apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

- Jeff

As I suspected Jeff, he’s simply using this….

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood.”

…… to say that it was a corner piece, therefore cut across the waistband, which allows him to manufacture this image of an apron with a piece absent. But he’s ignoring this part……

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood

…….which give us a different meaning. Brown was saying in effect “my attention was drawn to the corner of the apron where the string was attached (and therefore not the bottom corner) where the blood spots were located.”


Trevor has used this to try and move the goalposts in favour of his theory so that he can say that the piece must have been a corner piece (cut across the waistband) which would then allow for the possibility of a missing piece. He’s then demanded that any other potential explanation must include this falsehood. We now know that this isn’t the case and either my suggestion or Wickerman’s for example (plus any others that might have been suggested) are the likely descriptions.

When we add to this suggestion the witnesses who all saw Catherine wearing an apron we can se that we are on the right track. The fact that no one ever mentions a missing piece seals the deal. The 2 pieces made up the whole apron that Catherine was undoubtedly wearing.

It couldn’t be much clearer. Hence Trevor’s recent responses. It really should be case closed on this particular issue Jeff.

[JeffHamm]

I’d also ask of course why this has to be what it looked like? Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?

It doesn't. Nowhere is there anything to make one think the apron looked anything like that. But Trevor drew on a picture so now that's his evidence.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You do like to find reasons to avoid evidence. Newspapers which report the inquests as transcripts provide a lot more context, as in what was asked. But you want to make up the context so you can twist their responses to mean either the opposite, it just so you can claim doubt and think that justifies ignoring it completely.

So, rather than dodge yet another question, why don't you answer it? Because you can't, dodging is your answer.


- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Lets stick to this topic If you want to discscuss the GS piece as a separate topic I am more than happy to debate that

HOw in the world did you come up with that as a response? It's completely off the wall. The Ga piece is only mentioned in the context of the police theory you claim is somehow helped by them claiming she was wearing an unwearable garment.

There are only three who are backed into a corner on this topic and one is you and the other is Herlock and Wickerman who none of you can answer one simple question which is the key to proving or disproving whether or not she was wearing and apron when the body was stripped. But you all continue to put up a smoke screen and muddy the waters with irrelevant statements and personal opinions fuelled by mindless conjecture.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, the only mindless conjecture going on here I volved speculating the police thought it a good idea to needlessly tell the inquest she was wearing half an apron, and they hold up half an apron for the witness to see when the witness requested to see the whole thing and all was just fine, nobody bats an eye.

I don't think you thought it through and just thought you could make up any old story and tell your tales. But this one is a whopper, and it's clearly unconnected to the facts, which makes it wrong.

None of us have avoided anything, you have avoided any question put to you. That's evidence of panic and desperation.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

You mention a bib apron it could not have been that type of apron for many reasons so it had to be an apron that tied aroiund the waist.

Talk to a butcher.

Back in the 70's I was a butcher's apprentice, the female staff wore the apron with the bib up front and the loop around the neck.
Male staff preferred to wear the apron with the bib dropped down behind the waistband. When we wore the apron it only covered us from the waist down, the bib was folded down behind the waistband, so it looked like the sketch I just posted.
The point is, the bib may not have been visible if folded down like I wore it.
We can see women wearing an apron that way, only visible from the waist down, in any number of photographs of the period.

We don't know how Eddowes wore her apron, but the bib may well have been folded down behind the waist so as not to be visible until removed.
Back in the 70's the butchers apron had remained unchanged since Victorian times, it was still even made of Calico as it was then.

But if they had cut it from the body as you suggest they would have known the apron was on the body because it would have been clearly visible when cut off the body and it would not have been listed in her possessions.

Someone else drew Dr Brown's attention to the mortuary piece, but he doesn't say why.
If the mortuary staff were required to strip the body, why would they call Dr Brown over just to see a piece of bloodstained apron?


I suspect, it is quite likely the body was stripped, all the clothing laid out, and some hours later Dr Phillips arrived with the G.S. piece.
Phillips likely asked if the piece he carried was connected to their Mitre Sq. murder, at which point one of the staff drew Dr Brown's attention to a remnant of apron they had taken from the body.

[Wickerman]

Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The Court version only provides the replies, it can be easy to misunderstand replies when we do not know the questions.
Without the press coverage we have no idea what the questions were, this is why they are as necessary as each other.
Taken together they give a more complete story.
By sticking to one source we are likely to form an erroneous interpretation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’d also ask of course why this has to be what it looked like? Why did the apron have to have been cut through the waistband?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep believing that, and that belief is as misguided as your belief that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped at the mortuary.

All you need to do is to say "Ok trevor your right and I am wrong" this can all end and all your sleepless nights worrying about this can end

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet again! No meaningful response. Proof if it were needed that you have no response. It’s over.

Perhaps when you post the quote where Dr Brown or any single Police official agrees with you and states that the GSP and the MP did not make up a full apron I’ll listen. Because the absence of such a quote proves that it was a complete apron. As the witnesses all stated……the one’s that actually saw her…...the ones that you desperately, hopelessly and self-serving lay try to discredit. Wickerman, Jeff, Dr W and myself have no need to stoop to these kind of tactics.

[Trevor Marriott]

No meaningful responses from Trevor because he knows the game’s up.

You keep believing that, and that belief is as misguided as your belief that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped at the mortuary.

All you need to do is to say "Ok trevor your right and I am wrong" this can all end and all your sleepless nights worrying about this can end

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

No meaningful responses from Trevor because he knows the game’s up.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is a discrepancy in the reported testimony.

If you notice there is a shift in the focus of Dr. Brown's testimony. The original court records reads:

"My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

The Daily Telegraph records this:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes.

Whereas, the Daily News records:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.

In The Morning Advertiser we read:
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.

So, when looking back at the court record we can see that the first three remarks divided by a dash - refer to the mortuary piece found on the body.
"My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin -

However, the attention has then shifted to the G.S. piece.
"I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

We also know the G.S. piece was never described by Long as having strings attached.
I mention this just in case anyone was following the Daily Telegraph version - it was edited incorrectly.

Lets stick to the official inquest testimony signed by the witness

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I'm not ignoring anything Trevor, what I post is their own reported testimony.
What I don't see is where you get the idea the pieces of apron were so small. There's absolutely no indication of that anywhere in the testimony.

I drew this sketch many years back before I knew about the "bib" reference, also to demonstrate that the line "it was a corner piece" only means it was basically triangular in shape, it has no bearing on the size of the piece.
But, more importantly I show what I think was meant by cutting the "string", which was in fact two strings, but when tied together it becomes one string, which was cut for removal from the body.

You mention a bib apron it could not have been that type of apron for many reasons so it had to be an apron that tied aroiund the waist.

But if they had cut it from the body as you suggest they would have known the apron was on the body because it would have been clearly visible when cut off the body and it would not have been listed in her possessions.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

There is a discrepancy in the reported testimony.

If you notice there is a shift in the focus of Dr. Brown's testimony. The original court records reads:

"My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

The Daily Telegraph records this:
[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes.

Whereas, the Daily News records:
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.

In The Morning Advertiser we read:
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.

So, when looking back at the court record we can see that the first three remarks divided by a dash - refer to the mortuary piece found on the body.
"My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin -

However, the attention has then shifted to the G.S. piece.
"I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street"

We also know the G.S. piece was never described by Long as having strings attached.
I mention this just in case anyone was following the Daily Telegraph version - it was edited incorrectly.

What we also see is that Dr Brown had not noticed the piece of apron in the clothing, his attention was called to it by someone.
Likely then, Dr Brown did not actually strip the body himself?

[Wickerman]

The coroners court is part of the Justice system.It ,along with law enforcement bodies,enquire into suspected offences,of which murder is one.The evidence gained is used to bring offenders to court.Added to that is the Court system,and the prison system,the three being collectively reffered to as the Justice system.The 'coroners court,like tribunals,are individual parts of the Justice system.The chairman of a tribunal,is akin to a Coroner.They hear evidence,and make recomendations,for use of a better word.Even I,with my limited education and knowledge understands this,and of course I am writing this in a very amateur fashion,the subject as a whole being such,that even lawyers fail to grasp the essentials.
Judge Lumb distinctly said all courts in England.You know which Judge Lumb I am reffering to Jon?

The distinction isn't with the "Justice" system, they are all part of the Justice System, the Coroner's Court is not Judicial, that is the point. This is why a Coroner needs only 5 years Law experience, or to be a Surgeon to preside over an Inquest.
Modern Tribunals function similar to the older Coroner's Court, but there were no Tribunals in the late 19th century.

You will find that the Coroner's Court was funded locally and received no financial support from the government, as I've already pointed out.