Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

But she had 12 pieces of rag with her what is ti say they were not 12 pieces that had been cut from an old apron ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

I am not biased I have accused some of not considering the facts that point to an alternative explanation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

His verbal testimony came some 4 days after the murder. The only notes made at the time was the list, the rest of his testimony was from memory that is why he is hesitant to say she was wearing an apron because he uses the word apparently, again trying to be to helpful, but not helpful enough. Then we turn to Sgt Byfield who mentions nothing at all about seeing her wearing an apron yet he booked her into custody and then later released her so if anybody was likely to have seen her wearing an apron I would suggest it would have been him, and I find it strange why all the other witnesses either were asked or volunteered the fact that she was wearing an apron but not him perhaps he wasn't prepared to be too helpful

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

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



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.....

The press would not be allowed to be present at a post mortem, and before you say they could have been then it would have formed an important part of the newspaper report.

Are you questioning the fact that the sketch was not made at the time because it clearly was

The list was made to show her injuries not the items of clothes she was wearing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

His verbal testimony came some 4 days after the murder. The only notes made at the time was the list, the rest of his testimony was from memory that is why he is hesitant to say she was wearing an apron because he uses the word apparently, again trying to be to helpful, but not helpful enough. Then we turn to Sgt Byfield who mentions nothing at all about seeing her wearing an apron yet he booked her into custody and then later released her so if anybody was likely to have seen her wearing an apron I would suggest it would have been him, and I find it strange why all the other witnesses either were asked or volunteered the fact that she was wearing an apron but not him perhaps he wasn't prepared to be too helpful

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Where is it recorded there were no notes made? Please show me in the official inquest document where this is stated as I cannot find it.

The police found the G.S piece about an hour after the murder. The possible connection would have been apparent quickly. So how do you know they didn't get on to things right away, interview people, and you know, make notes? Wouldn't that be standard police procedure (remember standard police procedure? That thing you bring out in relation to the list?) I don't know if they did or didn't, but you seem to know they didn't. How do you know that given that so much of the paper work is known to be lost over time?

And, as for Byfield, as you yourself point out, some people will not recollect things. How do they know he didn't remember and so don't bother asking? Notes and interviews perhaps? Or maybe it was just it was considered so well established it was getting redundant for the inquest. All sorts of easy to think of reasonable possibilities exist to those not blinded by the one true light.

I have no idea which it might be myself, but as you freely present ideas as fact then by your rules I can too. Unless your rules include moving the goal posts between you and me of course.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But she had 12 pieces of rag with her what is ti say they were not 12 pieces that had been cut from an old apron ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And here is the reason for arguing the two pieces did not make up a whole apron.

- Jeff

[harry]

Be accurate Jeff.I said the list was false in a particular,that particular being the apron listed in last position.and I did not attribue it to myself but to you and those stating a belief that it should be listed with items worn.My position as I've stated from the start,is that the list is a true account,and the apron piece in it's proper place as a possession.
The inference of lying or being ineficient is a valid comment,and as you should be aware I refered to the list only,not to Collard's overall activities,and I further stated it was only if the entry of the apron piece being placed last was a mistake of Collard,a mistake he knew of but didn't correct.If you interpret it as anything else,I can't help you.
Do you know when the list was composed Jeff?Does anyone?Its as likely to have been at the time of removal of the clothes as at any other time.If as you state we can infer,Infer from what?There is the list itself,and there is the Inquest information.From the later it can be infered that Collard was responsible for the listing,and from the so called official recording we get the listing.What more is there? what more do we need?
I do not see any shuffling taking place,or anything to suggest that is what happened.I have not discarded any data to suit my case,but being as you have claimed I have,then produce evidence of it.
Now Collard didn't correct anything Jeff as far as I know,so I infer there was nothing to correct.I would presume he would have rechecked the list before submitting it.
Had he found fault with the listing of the apron piece,or with any other item,I'm sure he would have written and signed to that effect.

[JeffHamm]

Be accurate Jeff.I said the list was false in a particular,that particular being the apron listed in last position.and I did not attribue it to myself but to you and those stating a belief that it should be listed with items worn.My position as I've stated from the start,is that the list is a true account,and the apron piece in it's proper place as a possession.
The inference of lying or being ineficient is a valid comment,and as you should be aware I refered to the list only,not to Collard's overall activities,and I further stated it was only if the entry of the apron piece being placed last was a mistake of Collard,a mistake he knew of but didn't correct.If you interpret it as anything else,I can't help you.
Do you know when the list was composed Jeff?Does anyone?Its as likely to have been at the time of removal of the clothes as at any other time.If as you state we can infer,Infer from what?There is the list itself,and there is the Inquest information.From the later it can be infered that Collard was responsible for the listing,and from the so called official recording we get the listing.What more is there? what more do we need?
I do not see any shuffling taking place,or anything to suggest that is what happened.I have not discarded any data to suit my case,but being as you have claimed I have,then produce evidence of it.
Now Collard didn't correct anything Jeff as far as I know,so I infer there was nothing to correct.I would presume he would have rechecked the list before submitting it.
Had he found fault with the listing of the apron piece,or with any other item,I'm sure he would have written and signed to that effect.

Hi Harry,

You discount all of the witnesses, Collard included, who testify to various degrees of confidence and specificity, that she was wearing an apron. The explanation that fits both the testimony and the position on the list is not yours and Trevor's.

Fine if the list doesn't look shuffled to you, it does to me, but really we're dealing with opinion. We don't know, and so either it is or isn't, which means the list order confers no information of use. Yet you andTrevor insists he knows it is in order. How do you know that?

And no, I don't know when it was written down because nowhere is it recorded. But you and Trevor claim you know it was while the body was stripped, and you know that the apron wasn't set aside for comparíson (hence being last). So how do you know that so confidently that you can dismiss all the witnesses who say she was wearing it?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am not biased I have accused some of not considering the facts that point to an alternative explanation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But they have considered the facts and they simply disagree. Why is it that bias has to be the only explanation for this? You are the one with a theory to defend....it’s your own theory. What’s more likely - that you might be biased in defending your own theory or that we might be biased in defending someone else’s? We might accuse you of “defending the new suggested theories.”

[Herlock Sholmes]

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.

My point Harry is that every time someone disagrees with Trevor he doesn’t simply say something like “ok, but I think you’re wrong for these reasons.” He always puts it down to bias. Which is a more palatable way of accusing someone of dishonesty. Apart from the fact that I don’t think that Jeff, Wickerman and Joshua (to name but three) are dishonest posters, the more relevant point is that it’s a cop out. It’s like the conspiracy theorist being faced with a disproving fact saying “oh well they would say that wouldn’t they.” Or some politically correct commentator hanging an insulting label on someone just to marginalise them; to remove them from the debate. Plus it’s like hearing a bloody parrot.

As none of us were in that mortuary room how can any of us know exactly what the sequence of events was? We just can’t. What do we know? That Collard listed Kate’s clothing and possessions. The list was clothing first followed by possessions. Except that the apron was listed at the end of the possessions. I’d say that those are the facts IMO.

We don’t know if he wrote down item by item as they were removed from the body? We don’t know if they were removed and put onto a table and he then separated clothes from property then listed them? We don’t know if he asked the mortuary attendants to put the items onto a table in two separate piles (clothing and property) to save him the job of doing so? I’ll leave others to say on this one but is it impossible that some other officer went through the list and Collard wrote it down? Or the other way around?

The apron was listed as an apron....obviously. An apron is a clothing item rather than just a possession....obviously.

Can we come up with a very simple and pretty obvious explanation for this Harry? Of course we can. That the piece of apron, probably bunched up, was initially mis-identified as just another piece of cloth by Collard until he picked it up and opened it out and saw what it was. So it got tagged at the end of the list of property items and Collard couldn’t be bothered to re-write the list just to put the apron among the clothing.

There’s nothing mysterious or fantastic about this Harry. And Trevor nor anyone else can provide a single fact that disputes it. Of anyone could say “I don’t think it happened anything like that.” They could be right or wrong. But the important point is that no fact can be produced to disprove this. And so any efforts to do that are not only speculation but speculation with an agenda. To bolster a theory.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Harry,

You discount all of the witnesses, Collard included, who testify to various degrees of confidence and specificity, that she was wearing an apron. The explanation that fits both the testimony and the position on the list is not yours and Trevor's.

Fine if the list doesn't look shuffled to you, it does to me, but really we're dealing with opinion. We don't know, and so either it is or isn't, which means the list order confers no information of use. Yet you andTrevor insists he knows it is in order. How do you know that?

And no, I don't know when it was written down because nowhere is it recorded. But you and Trevor claim you know it was while the body was stripped, and you know that the apron wasn't set aside for comparíson (hence being last). So how do you know that so confidently that you can dismiss all the witnesses who say she was wearing it?

- Jeff

It can be proved as to the credibility of the witnesses with regards to the testimony they gave which I keep saying is unsafe.

How was it that 4 days later at the inquest we have Halse who clearly didn't make any notes at the time stated that he saw that a piece of her apron was missing, what was it at the time and out of all the things that was going on he just happened to notice a piece of apron missing, why did he make no mention of all the cuts to her clothing they were more important than an apron, and then he decided to memorize that fact in case it would be needed later, and especially as the GS piece had only just been found and had not even arrived at Leman Street police station so the apron at the mortuary had no evidential value at that time. Can his testimony be safely relied upon?

The we have the farcical situation where a police officer is shown a piece of apron and believes it to have come from the apron she was seen wearing earlier it is unsafe.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The apron was listed as an apron....obviously. An apron is a clothing item rather than just a possession....obviously.

The item was not listed as an apron it was listed as one old piece of white apron there is a big difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Ummm....

Hmm, my thoughts exactly. There was a point to that but when I saw my blunder (picking the wrong press article) I gave up

The point had been that, some time ago I wondered if there were any differences between the press reports that might be consistent with someone's theory of what happened, or at least suggest a sequence of events.

Contrary to my post the other day, The Daily News (not Daily Telegraph), published this list detailing the handkerchief around the neck, but no mention of an apron.

The murdered woman was apparently about forty years of age, about 5 feet in height,...
She was of dark complexion, with auburn hair and hazel eyes, and was dressed in shabby dark clothes. She wore a black cloth jacket, with imitation fur collar, and three large metal buttons. Her dress was made of green chintz, the pattern consisting of Michaelmas daisies. In addition she had on a thin white vest, light drab, lindsey skirt, a very old dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, brown ribbed stockings (mended at the feet with white material), black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet, and a large white handkerchief round the neck. In the pockets of the dress a peculiar collection of articles was found. Besides a small pocket containing tea, and other articles which people who frequent the common lodginghouses are accustomed to carry, the police found upon the body a white pocket handkerchief, a blunt bone-handled table knife, a short clay pipe, and a red cigarette case with white metal fittings.

A number of these lists read the same, as we know the newspaper often bought copy from an agency, so we see several newspapers print very similar lists. As with the above, and in Morning Post, Morning Advertiser, Pall Mall Gazette, Irish Times, Freemans Journal, etc. we read of a "...a large white handkerchief (or neckerchief) round the neck", but no mention at all of an apron or piece of apron. Which, given the importance of the apron seemed to be an odd omission.

Equally strange seemed to be that the Times, Globe & People published their lists with no mention of that "handkerchief round the neck", but instead, and also "round the neck" they listed " a piece of old white coarse apron".

The three newspapers which listed both the handkerchief & the piece of apron (Daily Telegraph, St. James Gazette, Evening News) might hint at a clue as to how this came about.

Interestingly, Collards List does mention "1 large white hankerchief" directly following the "red gauze silk" article (was this the riband?) "found on neck", as noted by Collard. I cannot see any sign of a "do" (ditto) following the mention of "handkerchief" which would confirm it was likewise found on her neck.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The item was not listed as an apron it was listed as one old piece of white apron there is a big difference!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes but it was still recognised as a piece of apron rather than just a piece of cloth therefore it would have been natural to have put it in the same section of the list as the rest of the clothing. The fact that it wasn’t isn’t mysterious though as we have a perfectly reasonable explanation for this.

And as I said in an earlier post in response to your speculation that the two pieces didn’t necessarily equate to a full apron, we have to ask why this wasn’t mentioned at the time if it was indeed the case? If, after the matching up, there was still a piece missing surely we would expect to have heard that Constables would have been tasked with looking for it? After all, another piece would have been a further pointer to the killers escape route. As there was no mention of any missing piece it’s entirely reasonable to assume that there wasn’t one.

[Trevor Marriott]

But they have considered the facts and they simply disagree. Why is it that bias has to be the only explanation for this? You are the one with a theory to defend....it’s your own theory. What’s more likely - that you might be biased in defending your own theory or that we might be biased in defending someone else’s? We might accuse you of “defending the new suggested theories.”

Its not just about my theory, its about testing the reliability of the witnesses and the testimony some of them gave which you and others seem to want to accept without question for some reason!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk