Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi harry,

A petticoat is worn under skirts, so the skirts should come off first, and the petticoat last but we have one skirt, then the petticoat, then 2 more skirts. We also have what appears to be a random jumping between upper and lower garments; jacket (upper), then a skirt (lower), then bodice (upper again), petticoat (lower), skirt (lower), skirt (lower), chemise (upper), vest (upper), no drawers or stays (so items not found; presumably specifically mentioned because the stays I believe became a bit of a contentious item in I think the Nichols case?), then boots (far lower), some red silk worn as a scarf (back to far upper), and so forth. It looks slightly ordered in some ways, but scrambled. There's also no mention of a sanitary napkin, and if she's menstruating and in the habit of wearing one, one should be on this list (why would she discard one if she's not going to replace it, after all she had what is supposed to be the material she used).

I'm sure one could make up something and convince themselves that the above order is "in order", but it looks fairly haphazard to me. And I think something like what Wickerman has suggested far more likely to account for the order the items are listed in. It also explains why the apron she was wearing comes last, it was either being compared as he composed his list or had been set aside so he dealt with what was before him first and put the apron at the end, knowing it was there.

And Collard did record the items. It's only by modern standards that the notion that had to be done at the very time the clothes were being removed. There's no reason to presume that was the standard of the day. Policing methods have vastly improved, and become much more standardized, since 1888. We can't impose modern standards on Victorian police. If someone can locate a police procedures manual, and it indicates the items have to be recorded as they are removed, then I'll have learned something from all this. But if all we are doing is voicing opinions about how we think it should have been done (and I agree, it should have been done that way), that's not worth a hill of beans with regards to how it was done. And it looks random to me, which would occur if Collard recorded the items after they had all been removed.

Anyway, that's what it looks like to me. You may see things differently.

- Jeff

Did you not consider that what she was wearing, and what she had in her possession were all her worldly possessions ? so to wear the clothes would be easier than carrying them around because she had no fixed residence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Did you not consider that what she was wearing, and what she had in her possession were all her worldly possessions ? so to wear the clothes would be easier than carrying them around because she had no fixed residence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Not sure what you're getting at. It's clear she's wearing multiple skirts and such because those are all the clothes she owns etc and she has no fixed residence. That was, sadly, common at the time. Are you sure it was my post you intended to respond to as I can't see how that relates to what I said?

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Not sure what you're getting at. It's clear she's wearing multiple skirts and such because those are all the clothes she owns etc and she has no fixed residence. That was, sadly, common at the time. Are you sure it was my post you intended to respond to as I can't see how that relates to what I said?

- Jeff

apologies for that

I am sure whoever it was intended for will pick it up and respond or not !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

apologies for that

I am sure whoever it was intended for will pick it up and respond or not !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No worries Trevor. Thanks for letting me know.

- Jeff

[harry]

Jeff,
The fact she was wearing three aprons doesn't mean she had to wear them one on top of the other with nothing intervening,or to adher to some form of laid down proceedure.Had the vest been the outer garment ,or the coat the inner,you would have a point,but you select one variable from what you consider a norm,without having any idea of what she herself considered the most suitable.Do you feel Eddowes was so fashion concious she cared a fig? Did she expect her body and her clothing to be open to inspection?
I would expect,if Wickerman is correct,the aprons to have been listed together one after the other.The fact they wern't,is an indication to me.that Collard did correctly report the items in the order they were worn,and at the time they were removed.What was police policy doesn't really enter into it.Collard had a duty to record,and there has been no reason given as to why he he should have delayed both the removal of the clothing and the formation of a list.He was an inspector able and expected to use his initiative.That hasn't changed over the years.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,
The fact she was wearing three aprons doesn't mean she had to wear them one on top of the other with nothing intervening,or to adher to some form of laid down proceedure.Had the vest been the outer garment ,or the coat the inner,you would have a point,but you select one variable from what you consider a norm,without having any idea of what she herself considered the most suitable.Do you feel Eddowes was so fashion concious she cared a fig? Did she expect her body and her clothing to be open to inspection?
I would expect,if Wickerman is correct,the aprons to have been listed together one after the other.The fact they wern't,is an indication to me.that Collard did correctly report the items in the order they were worn,and at the time they were removed.What was police policy doesn't really enter into it.Collard had a duty to record,and there has been no reason given as to why he he should have delayed both the removal of the clothing and the formation of a list.He was an inspector able and expected to use his initiative.That hasn't changed over the years.

Hi harry,

That's fine. You're free to your own beliefs. I obviously don't share them, but that's neither here nor there. If that list looks ordered and plausible to you, then you are working from a different starting point that I am. Hardly surprising we don't agree. Personally, I don't understand how, if Wickerman's correct, the apron could be anywhere other than at that very beginning or the very end, as it would be separate. So either he deals with first, or last, and which would depend upon circumstances we can't know (though we could speculate upon, and insist we're correct). Regardless of whether or not I understand how you've come to your view, in the end we come to different end points (and I'm sure you don't understand how I can come to mine, that's the nature of disagreements though, there's such fundamental differences in the starting points that everything that comes after just seems more and more unbelievable).

I do, however, disagree that police policy is not important because if the policy was to just record the items, rather than record them at the time of removal, then the list cannot be presented as evidence that was the order of removal. Of course, one could argue "policy was not followed this time" if the policy was of the "in the ordered" side of things, but then one is arguing from the weaker position. If the policy was just to make sure the items were recorded, then there's no reason to presume it was done as they were removed, which then means the order of the list is not informative to the order of the removal. Anyway, I'm not sure I have any real arguments to add to what I've laid out already, so if you feel that it is more likely she was menstruating, and not wearing an apron, etc, then that's cool. Everyone has to come to their own decisions, I've got mine and I've laid out how I've come to them, which in the end, is all anyone can do.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I haven’t read over the last few pages entirely on the subject of the list but I can’t see how it can be used to bolster any theory? We can all suggest the circumstances surrounding the compiling of the list so apologies of this has been mentioned before. Couldn't it simply have been the case that the body was stripped completely first rather than slowing down the process with Collard compiling his list one item at a time as they were removed? The items were then put onto a separate table in two piles; clothing and possessions. With the rags, handkerchiefs etc those stripping the body just saw the apron as another piece of cloth so it got put on the possessions pile with other stuff being thrown on top. Or maybe when Collard separated clothing and possessions he initially mistook the apron for just another piece of cloth. He first itemised the clothing and then the possessions. When he got to the piece of white cloth he saw that it was a piece of apron and listed it as such. Is there any mystery?

[Trevor Marriott]

I haven’t read over the last few pages entirely on the subject of the list but I can’t see how it can be used to bolster any theory? We can all suggest the circumstances surrounding the compiling of the list so apologies of this has been mentioned before. Couldn't it simply have been the case that the body was stripped completely first rather than slowing down the process with Collard compiling his list one item at a time as they were removed? The items were then put onto a separate table in two piles; clothing and possessions. With the rags, handkerchiefs etc those stripping the body just saw the apron as another piece of cloth so it got put on the possessions pile with other stuff being thrown on top. Or maybe when Collard separated clothing and possessions he initially mistook the apron for just another piece of cloth. He first itemised the clothing and then the possessions. When he got to the piece of white cloth he saw that it was a piece of apron and listed it as such. Is there any mystery?

Exactly a piece of old white apron, not as is should have been described if she had been wearing it because it would then have been described as one old white apron with piece missing.

If it was an old piece of cloth as you suggest it was not an apron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Exactly a piece of old white apron, not as is should have been described if she had been wearing it because it would then have been described as one old white apron with piece missing.

If it was an old piece of cloth as you suggest it was not an apron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Wow, just wow. Really Trevor? You are having us on now, aren't you? Are you really now going to say it wasn't even an apron?!?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Exactly a piece of old white apron, not as is should have been described if she had been wearing it because it would then have been described as one old white apron with piece missing.

If it was an old piece of cloth as you suggest it was not an apron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not suggesting that it was an old piece of cloth Trevor. I’m saying that to someone simply stripping a body might have mistakenly believed it to have been just a piece of cloth. He then put it on the possessions pile but when Collard got to it he realised what it was because he looked at it more closely than the mortuary attendant would have.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What’s certainly noticeable by its absence is any mention anywhere that when when the 2 pieces were matched up there was no mention of any other piece being missing. It was hardly a thousand piece jigsaw puzzle was it. So it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that the two pieces formed a whole apron. Unless we suggest that those involved were such dimwits that they didn’t notice this?

[Wickerman]

Exactly a piece of old white apron, not as is should have been described if she had been wearing it because it would then have been described as one old white apron with piece missing.

If it was an old piece of cloth as you suggest it was not an apron !!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Fer goodness sakes Trevor, the police even say it was taken off her body, "off" as in, she was wearing it!

[Wickerman]

I’m not suggesting that it was an old piece of cloth Trevor. I’m saying that to someone simply stripping a body might have mistakenly believed it to have been just a piece of cloth. He then put it on the possessions pile but when Collard got to it he realised what it was because he looked at it more closely than the mortuary attendant would have.

Interesting you should say that because, if you look (or perhaps you have already?), at the various press reports of her possessions, for example The Daily Telegraph:

"Age forty; length, 5ft.; dark auburn hair; hazel eyes; dressed in a black jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons; brown bodice; dark green chintz skirt, of Michaelmas and Gordon lily pattern, and with three flounces; thin white vest, light drab lindsey skirt, dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise; brown ribbed stockings, mended at foot with piece of white stocking; black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet; large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron. The letters "T.C." were tattooed on the left forearm in blue ink."

Here there is no apron, or piece of apron listed but, towards the end of the list we read: "large white handkerchief round neck", whereas we know from other sources that she had two articles around her neck, one being a red ribbon, the other being the apron.
Yet it appears this reporter didn't recognise what it was, or what it had been.

However, when we look at what the Times published, they describe that article differently:

"The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings",....etc.

We notice here a different description for what was found around her neck:
"...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around her neck".
This would indicate that the item in question was not easy to identify.

[Trevor Marriott]

Fer goodness sakes Trevor, the police even say it was taken off her body, "off" as in, she was wearing it!

No they dont stop making it up as you go along, thats all you and others are doing you are avoiding the obvious.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting you should say that because, if you look (or perhaps you have already?), at the various press reports of her possessions, for example The Daily Telegraph:

"Age forty; length, 5ft.; dark auburn hair; hazel eyes; dressed in a black jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons; brown bodice; dark green chintz skirt, of Michaelmas and Gordon lily pattern, and with three flounces; thin white vest, light drab lindsey skirt, dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise; brown ribbed stockings, mended at foot with piece of white stocking; black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet; large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron. The letters "T.C." were tattooed on the left forearm in blue ink."

Here there is no apron, or piece of apron listed but, towards the end of the list we read: "large white handkerchief round neck", whereas we know from other sources that she had two articles around her neck, one being a red ribbon, the other being the apron.
Yet it appears this reporter didn't recognise what it was, or what it had been.

However, when we look at what the Times published, they describe that article differently:

"The woman is described as being about 40 years of age and 5ft. in height. She has hazel eyes - the right one having been apparently smashed in, and the left one being also injured - and dark auburn hair. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar and three large metal buttons. Her dress is of dark green print, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies. She also wore a thin white vest, a drab linsey skirt, and a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, and brown ribbed stockings, mended at the feet with white material. Her bonnet was black straw, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet. She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck. There were also found upon her a piece of string, a common white handkerchief with a red border, a match box with cotton in it, a white linen pocket containing a white bone handle table knife, very blunt (with no blood on it), two short clay pipes, a red cigarette case with white metal fittings",....etc.

We notice here a different description for what was found around her neck:
"...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around her neck".
This would indicate that the item in question was not easy to identify.

The press were not there when the list was compiled and anything that is contary to that list is unsafe to rely on.

Look at the crime scene sketch of the body there is nothing around her neck. You and others need to stop relying on these unsafenewspaper report to prop up the old theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk