Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

I’d suggest that this is a reasonable possibility Wick. Of course none of us can say that this is certainly true but equally certain posters can’t state as a fact that it couldn’t be true.

[Joshua Rogan]

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

Ummm....

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you’re proposing a theory where, 1. You speculate the ‘wet’ was urine, 2. You speculate that Kate took a journey back to her lodgings with absolutely no substantiating evidence, 3. You speculate that Hutt and Robinson both lied, 4. You assume that those involved, when they matched up the two pieces, didn’t notice that there was still some apron missing. When, if this was the case, we would surely have expected the bobbies on the beat to have been told to keep their eyes open for a further piece which might have given further indication of the killers escape route and possible destination. So....

It’s simply staggering that you have the nerve to keep hurling out accusations when you are the one coming out with a theory which it appears that only one person agrees with (no criticism of Harry intended) Putting you're opinion of me to one side for a moment, can you find evidence anywhere or at least find anyone who is of the opinion, that posters/researchers like Wickerman, Jeff and Joshua are so biased and so deeply attached to the ‘old established theories’ that they are incapable of reading and evaluating evidence and legitimately arriving at a different conclusion to yourself? Why can’t you just accept that the whole Ripperological world doesn’t automatically agree with everything you say? And the fact that you’re usually posting in a minority of one should tell you something.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, you’re proposing a theory where, 1. You speculate the ‘wet’ was urine, 2. You speculate that Kate took a journey back to her lodgings with absolutely no substantiating evidence, 3. You speculate that Hutt and Robinson both lied, 4. You assume that those involved, when they matched up the two pieces, didn’t notice that there was still some apron missing. When, if this was the case, we would surely have expected the bobbies on the beat to have been told to keep their eyes open for a further piece which might have given further indication of the killers escape route and possible destination. So....

It’s simply staggering that you have the nerve to keep hurling out accusations when you are the one coming out with a theory which it appears that only one person agrees with (no criticism of Harry intended) Putting you're opinion of me to one side for a moment, can you find evidence anywhere or at least find anyone who is of the opinion, that posters/researchers like Wickerman, Jeff and Joshua are so biased and so deeply attached to the ‘old established theories’ that they are incapable of reading and evaluating evidence and legitimately arriving at a different conclusion to yourself? Why can’t you just accept that the whole Ripperological world doesn’t automatically agree with everything you say? And the fact that you’re usually posting in a minority of one should tell you something.

I see you again are changing the topic of this thread to deflect away from you own interpretation of the facts and of the evidence which I have shown to be wrong

I dont suggest Hutt and Robinson lied, I think they gave more than "helpful" evidence and was given to accommodate the police theory at the time 4 days later when the facts surrounding the murder were widely known.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I see you again are changing the topic of this thread to deflect away from you own interpretation of the facts and of the evidence which I have shown to be wrong

You have shown the one single fact was wrong. Not one. You invented doubts from your desire to shoehorn in your theory.

I dont suggest Hutt and Robinson lied, I think they gave more than "helpful" evidence and was given to accommodate the police theory at the time 4 days later when the facts surrounding the murder were widely known.

Semantics Trevor. Giving ‘helpful’ information would have been lying.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Im not changing the subject Trevor but you keep accusing everyone of being biased just because they disagree with you. Plus you keep repeating ‘unsafe’ like a parrot. We all understand this concept Trevor but the points that you’re making are just speculation on your part but you seem to treat them as facts. Just one example..

The suggested journey by Kate back to her lodgings and then a return to the area from where she’d just come. You use this to ‘explain’ how the apron might have been dropped in GS by Kate. This is pure speculation based on absolutely no evidence at all except for your desire to bolster your theory. So why do we get criticised for believing two police officers who were there at the time, saw Kate at close quarters and spent time in her company, were correct when they both stated that she was wearing an apron, and yet you think that you should be immune from criticism for creating an entirely mythical journey. A mythical journey that we can also provide very valid objections to. You do this in every single debate that you take part in. You apply rigid (and often meaningless) standards to others that you appear to believe shouldn’t apply to you.

[Fiver]

I think we're safe to work with the idea the two pieces certainly made up a substantial majority of the apron, with the largest piece being the portion she was wearing. Moreover, given it appears the piece taken and later deposited on Goulston Street was used to clean up after the fact, I can't see JtR being bothered to cut it down further. On the other hand, and I don't propose this as anything other than as something to consider, if he did split that piece into two, the other half could be what he wrapped the organs in. This, to me, would be an important point to be able to nail down as it gives another tiny insight into the offender's behaviour. If he needed something to wrap the organs in, then he wasn't as prepared as a fully organized offender would be (he didn't have a complete "murder kit" with him). However, if he discarded all of it, then it suggests he already had something to conceal the organs in, pointing to a more organized offender. The latter would favour a more psychopathic over a more psychotic suspect.

There are reasons to question the organized/disorganized typology of serial killer.

This analysis from 2004 grouped crime scene characteristics based on how frequently characteristics occurred at the same same scene. Their analysis did not support a organized/disorganized typology.

Here is another criticism of existing typology of serial killers from 2002.

[JeffHamm]

There are reasons to question the organized/disorganized typology of serial killer.

This analysis from 2004 grouped crime scene characteristics based on how frequently characteristics occurred at the same same scene. Their analysis did not support a organized/disorganized typology.

Here is another criticism of existing typology of serial killers from 2002.

Hi Fiver,

Thanks for those links, will have a look.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're projecting again Trevor.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

You're projecting again Trevor.

- Jeff

That’s not what I’d call it Jeff

[JeffHamm]

That’s not what I’d call it Jeff

Hi Herlock,

Projecting means to view others as doing what, in fact, you are doing yourself - projecting your own thoughts/feelings onto someone else.

My main problem with Trevor's method and approach is that it's got the cart before the horse. He uses the theory to evaluate the reliability of the evidence, but a proper investigation uses the evidence to evaluate the theory.

Also, theories are explanations of the data/evidence, without data/evidence there is nothing to explain. But what Trevor is doing after deciding evidence is unsafe because it contradicts his theory and he tosses it out, rather than recognize that now there is nothing to explain, he simply plops in his theory and argues it is right because nothing contradicts it.

But there's nothing left to contradict it because anything that does is swept under the carpet with a big "nothing to see here" sign.

I have no problem with Trevor's concerns relating to the reliability of eye witness testimony. It does have to be handled cautiously. But there is an overwhelming amount of evidence, much of it completely unambiguous, that tells us Eddowes was wearing the apron.

Even if we accepted Trevor's insistence that all of that evidence be set aside, it still does not mean she was not wearing an apron. At best he would be left with being able to say that she might not have been wearing the apron, but then she might have been. And reducing the possible states of the world to either A or not A, is no reduction at all, and no explanation at all.

Lists, newspapers, testimony, memory, etc are all safe when they fit, and are all unsafe when they do not. It is impossible with this approach to actually test the theory, and a theory that cannot risk falsification is not worth considering. Done properly, Trevor's theory is potentially falsifiable, by which I mean there are conceivable data patterns that would show the statements to be incorrect. A true theory (i.e. if we had it right), should not end up being falsified (because while there are conceivable data patterns that could falsify it, those patterns simply will not occur if the theory is true). That's a good theory, open to testing, and yet survives it.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Collard was not cross-examined about the list he made,especially about the apron.The first items on the list came with additional descriptions but not the apron, so when it came to the apron the list is unreliable and not safe.His verbal testimony in the inquest, under oath and in front of the coroner and solicitor where he could be cross-examined,came after the list, and takes precedence over that list.

[harry]

Collard submitted a list which it is now claimed to have been false in a particular.An apron piece.He did this either knowingly or unknowingly.That is fact,not belief.That makes Collard either a liar or ineficient on that particular occasion.Furthermore.his superiors must also have been lacking in understanding,as they too failed to observe,as some clever observers today appear easy do so,that the apron piece is listed among possessions,when p0sters today contest it should have been listed with clothes taken from the body.
Suppose Herlock,that Trevor and I are the only two with a particular belief,what;s your point.Is it that numbers should be a deciding factor,when evidence fails to be a solution.British law does not support that.
Trevors approach Jeff,as I see it,is from experience.That we should treat evidence from the view that it might have have to be submitted to court and tested there.I may be wrong,but that would be my view also.It is what I was taught.As it stands,the wording of the list cannot be changed. It can be interpreted.The problem is those who interpret it was taken from the body are having a difficult time in proving it,while Trevor and I can sit back and accept it in the form it is.The onus is not with us.

[JeffHamm]

Collard submitted a list which it is now claimed to have been false in a particular.An apron piece.He did this either knowingly or unknowingly.That is fact,not belief.That makes Collard either a liar or ineficient on that particular occasion.Furthermore.his superiors must also have been lacking in understanding,as they too failed to observe,as some clever observers today appear easy do so,that the apron piece is listed among possessions,when p0sters today contest it should have been listed with clothes taken from the body.
Suppose Herlock,that Trevor and I are the only two with a particular belief,what;s your point.Is it that numbers should be a deciding factor,when evidence fails to be a solution.British law does not support that.
Trevors approach Jeff,as I see it,is from experience.That we should treat evidence from the view that it might have have to be submitted to court and tested there.I may be wrong,but that would be my view also.It is what I was taught.As it stands,the wording of the list cannot be changed. It can be interpreted.The problem is those who interpret it was taken from the body are having a difficult time in proving it,while Trevor and I can sit back and accept it in the form it is.The onus is not with us.

Hi harry,

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn't think anyone was claiming the list was false? Nor is anyone claiming that Collard lied, or was inefficient. Nowhere does Collard put headings saying "worn" and "possessions", although there is an apparent divide in the list between them.

The entire discussion is not questioning anything about the words on the list. The debate is on the interpretation of what we can infer from the words on the list and the order they are presented. Trevor argues that because the apron is at the end of the list it is absolute proof that overrides all of the testimony where people report Kate was wearing the apron because he sees a single divide between items worn and possessions, with the apron listed in the latter.

That is an interpretation of the list, based upon an assumption about when the list was composed - specifically as the items were removed from the body.

The other idea is also an interpretation of the list, based upon a different assumption about when the list was composed - specifically after the body had been fully stripped. And in this case, the list is not seen as divided into 2 parts, but 3, worn, possessions, and the apron, which was dealt with as a separate item because it was being examined and/or compared with the G.S. piece.

While Trevor and your assumptions results in one having to discount and ignore all of the testimonies and statements about Kate wearing the apron, the latter one does not and is, in fact, consistent with those statements. Moreover, the order of the worn clothing does not look like the order the clothes would be removed, but with some "shuffling" having taken place. Again, that does not correspond to Trevor and your explanation, but is consistent with the alternative. While Trevor and you argue that Collard must have been negligent in his duty if he did what the alternative suggests he did, neither you nor Trevor have put forth any evidence that the standard procedure in Victorian times was to record the items as they were stripped. In fact, in previous cases we see that was not done as there are times when the body was stripped before even the doctor arrived (which was against protocol, but merely raised the Dr's ire, so clearly it's nothing like what Trevor presumes it to be because Trevor presumes 1888 procedures were the same as today's standards). So the alternative view is not that Collard failed in his duty, but that he was doing his duty as his duty was described at that time. And so on.

What I'm getting at, though, is that nowhere in the debate is the wording on the list, or the order of the words on the list, being debated. It is the inferences being drawn from those words and word order. And Trevor and you can only say your inferences are supported by the evidence when you discard all of the data that is not consistent with your inferences. That, to me, is not arguing from a position of strength. The alternative inferences, however, do not discard any evidence, but rather are derived from taking into account all of the various bits of evidence we have, including the list and it's words and word order, and tries to offer an account that is constrained by all of the evidence.

Again, you and Trevor are evaluating evidence based upon how well that evidence fits your explanation, making it impossible to actually evaluate the explanation because anything that doesn't fit gets discarded. The alternative is what emerges from the evidence, but is potentially falsifiable. Had Collard, for example, simply corrected the record by stating "The apron was not found to be worn by the deceased but was amongst her possessions.", then the alternative would fall because we're not throwing out the testimony of the witnesses (nor would the method you and Trevor use throw out that statement had Collard said that; if he later retracted that by saying something like "sorry, I've rechecked my notes, indeed, it was removed from the body while I was out of the room", your method would then discard only his second statement, because it doesn't fit - I can imagine a line of reasoning being something like "Totally unsafe. He admits he was out of the room, he has no way of knowing if the apron was on the body, that's unsafe, therefore the apron must have been part of her possessions as he originally said". Arguments of that style are indeed put forth, and the jumping between accepting bits of what is said while rejecting others is done with finesse and skill, but it is still just cherry picking.)

Anyway, you and Trevor are free to sit back and accept without questioning anything you choose to.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The press were not there when the list was compiled.....

Explain how you know this, and see if you can do so while avoiding the word "assumption", or similar.

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.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That's a desperate argument Trevor,......but if that is the game you choose to play....



Show me the Chintz skirt, ....the Bodice....the Petticoat....the Alpaca skirt....the Blue skirt......
Let me guess, she wasn't wearing them either.....

[JeffHamm]

And while you're pointing out those, show the signs of menstruation you claim she was in, or the replacement sanitary napkin she would be expected to be wearing if you're correct.

- Jeff