Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

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

Trevor, the press will have been removed from the mortuary once the post-mortem was about to begin. But, the body lay in that mortuary for close to 12 hours before Browne conducted his post-mortem.

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

Don't you mean "the sketch was made to show her injuries"?

Yes, I suspect most of us know this, but why you chose to use this same sketch to argue - "no apron is drawn, so no apron existed", when clearly you admit the drawing was not created to show what she was wearing, is possibly hard for the majority here to understand.

[Wickerman]

...... 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

Or, perhaps, it was so common for a woman of her class to wear an apron, Byfield didn't take special notice of the fact? Much like he never noticed if she wore a bonnet, or whether she wore boots. Kate was just another drunk that passed through his cells at that ungodly hour - nothing special here....

I did notice that it was only in the Times where we read that Byfield "did not notice she wore an apron", yes one of those unreliable sources that now, you choose to acknowledge.

[Wickerman]

Trevor is claiming that Inspector Collard, Frederick Wilkinson, Dr Brown, Constable Robinson, and Constable Hutt all lied under oath about Eddowes wearing an apron. Apparently Trevor believes the average law enforcement officer would perjure themselves without a second thought.

Five people of differing backgrounds all decided to lie or mislead the inquest as to the fact the victim wore an apron?
When did these five professionals decide to conspire, and for what conceivable reason?

Trevor!.....Trevor!! can you help us here.....

[Wickerman]

Am I the only one who doesn't see the importance of the shawl / apron. It doesn't provide any further clues to the identity of JtR and anyone with half a brain knows the DNA test done was bs, same as the Maybrick diary. Meanwhile others items like the Sussex Regiment Envelope get hardly discussed.

The shawl is not an apron, but the shawl is fake anyway.

[JeffHamm]

Hi all,

Just going over DO Halse's testimony, and he says the following:

"... I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. ..."

One of the explanations for why the apron appears at the end of the list is that it was set a part from the other items, and so was recorded last. DO Halse, after going to Mitre Square, then goes to the mortuary, where we know Collard and the Doctors are location. At some point while he's there he hears that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street, so that news travelled to the mortuary very quickly. What's he going to do? Examine the apron on the body more carefully, and hence would notice there was a piece missing. This would prompt him to have the apron set aside so that a comparison could be made with the piece found with the reported found piece, which must at some point have been taken to the mortuary as Dr. Brown indicates he compared the two pieces.

In fact, Dr. Brown's statement suggests he made the comparison while the apron was still attached by the strings to the body. While I find that odd, and it can be interpreted as Dr. Brown simply verifying the apron had been worn rather than it was still being worn when the comparison was made, as stated this would suggest the body was not stripped until after the piece from G.S. had arrived at the mortuary. I could see a cursory comparison made while the apron was attached, and then both pieces set aside for a more careful comparison once the stripping of the body began.

And to be clear, I'm having to speculate on the details here, and as such there is a high probability that the above is not entirely correct. However, in my defense, I'm tying to build around the framework that the information we have provides and not simply dismiss what we have to construct an entirely evidence free explanation.

Basically, when we look at the evidence we have and compare it with Wickerman's suggestion, we can find statements that make sense, statements that are harder to understand in other contexts. Those are the sorts of things that indicate a new suggestion may indeed be moving us closer to what actually did happen.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Or, perhaps, it was so common for a woman of her class to wear an apron, Byfield didn't take special notice of the fact? Much like he never noticed if she wore a bonnet, or whether she wore boots. Kate was just another drunk that passed through his cells at that ungodly hour - nothing special here....

I did notice that it was only in the Times where we read that Byfield "did not notice she wore an apron", yes one of those unreliable sources that now, you choose to acknowledge.

On this occasion The Times report is ‘safe.’ Haven't you learned the rules yet Wick? If it ‘agrees’ with Trevor’s theory it’s safe. If it disagrees it’s unsafe.

[JeffHamm]

The shawl is not an apron, but the shawl is fake anyway.

The shawl is probably not even a shawl, but a table runner.

- Jeff

[harry]

I do not and have not excluded any of the witnesses.My objection to taking them at face value,is,as I explained,scientific testing proves the longer a person recollects from memory,the least chance there is of being correct and memory failure can begin almost immediately. Two days ago I sat and talked to my neighbour and her friend for over an hour.We were only feet apart.The next day I asked my neighbour what clothing her friend had been wearing.She thought for several seconds then replied"I haven't a clue". So I also post from a position of experimentation.So do not falsely accuse me of overlooking anyone,or speculating.
I posted that Collard was as likely as anyone to have composed the list,and that he could have done so at the time the body was disrobed.I have not seen any information posted that negates that statement,and at no time have I claimed I have proven it to be the case.
Halse's statement explains little.It was some time after he went to the mortuary,subsequentlyas he describes it.He doesn't give a time.So how long had Collard and the body been there before Halse arrived.We connot say,but it is as likely as not,the body had been stripped by the time Halse arrived.What time did Phillips arrive at the Mortuary with the apron piece found in Goulstan Street? Too many unknowns to form a conclusion.

[Varqm]

No wonder the City and Met police could not find Jack the Ripper,they could not even determine whether the apron was worn or not.

[JeffHamm]

I do not and have not excluded any of the witnesses.My objection to taking them at face value,is,as I explained,scientific testing proves the longer a person recollects from memory,the least chance there is of being correct and memory failure can begin almost immediately. Two days ago I sat and talked to my neighbour and her friend for over an hour.We were only feet apart.The next day I asked my neighbour what clothing her friend had been wearing.She thought for several seconds then replied"I haven't a clue". So I also post from a position of experimentation.So do not falsely accuse me of overlooking anyone,or speculating.
I posted that Collard was as likely as anyone to have composed the list,and that he could have done so at the time the body was disrobed.I have not seen any information posted that negates that statement,and at no time have I claimed I have proven it to be the case.
Halse's statement explains little.It was some time after he went to the mortuary,subsequentlyas he describes it.He doesn't give a time.So how long had Collard and the body been there before Halse arrived.We connot say,but it is as likely as not,the body had been stripped by the time Halse arrived.What time did Phillips arrive at the Mortuary with the apron piece found in Goulstan Street? Too many unknowns to form a conclusion.

Hi harry,

But the witnesses are all being excluded by Trevor's explanation, and by his own words. If you accept that the apron was not worn by Kate, then the witness statements are being ignored. I have no problem with the idea that witness testimony should be viewed with caution, because of course it should. But viewing something with caution means closely examining what they say and looking for conflict - looking for statements that cannot co-exist (there are lots of examples of this on some of the Stride threads). With regards to the claim she was wearing an apron, however, there is nothing about the testimony that conflicts with itself.

With regards to your neighbor and those conversations. Do you recall what people were wearing? Even if not all the details, but did you notice for example if your neighbor was wearing trousers or a dress or skirt? Did you notice if she was wearing a jacket, or sweater/jumper, or was just in a shirt? etc. That's the level of detail of noting that Kate was wearing an apron. I'm thinking back to when I was at a quizz a few nights ago and was chatting with my quizz mates. I recall one of them was wearing a black t-shirt with Guinness written on it and a green/gold harp (the guinness harp). Another friend was wearing a ball cap, and had it on backwards. He was wearing a t-shirt as well, but I forget the details on it. Another friend who I spoke to as well was wearing shorts, and a light coloured shirt. I hadn't paid particular attention to their attire, but I can recall aspects of what they were wearing. As for the police, the nature of their job would require them to take note of what someone was wearing as they put them into the cells, as they have to remove dangerous items, etc, so have to search through their clothing. Also, I believe they mention loosening items around Kate's neck, and as it sounds like the apron was attached around her neck as well, they would have interacted with it. That's more direct than just being in a conversation with people.

And yes, I know that the points I raised above are associated with a lot of unknowns, but the foundation comes from the evidence. Trevor's entire story is built upon nothing at all for the most part (nothing about Kate wetting herself is found anywhere at all, nothing about her menstruating, nothing about her being seen in or heading to Flower and Dean and then G.S., there's just nothing at all there). His view of the list is only one possible interpretation, and other interpretations of the list also fit with the witness statements. The conspiracy of helpfulness generates a conspiracy to lie about Kate wearing an apron despite knowing she wasn't, but there is no rational reason why that would be done. It's nonsensical as an explanation, and it is based upon a vacuum of evidence. You are arguing in support of that vacuum, and of that culling of the witness statements. Just because the witness statements could be wrong does not mean they are wrong - and nothing about them looks to be wrong because they do not create impossible situations (again, the Stride threads are full of examples of how erroneous witness statements create impossible situations, and there the debate is around working out what part of the statement is in error).

Anyway, as I said in my original post "...And to be clear, I'm having to speculate on the details here, and as such there is a high probability that the above is not entirely correct...." I try to make it explicit when I'm venturing into unsupported territory and trying to put some flesh on the bones that the data provides us. So, yes, I agree with you, and said as much when I presented it, that this is not to be viewed as proven. But if you are able to support a theory for where there is 0 evidence and only speculation, surely you can see fit to acknowledge some support for speculation that simply is trying to flesh out the details around information actually stated.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Also with regards to people testifying about seeing Kate wearing an apron. Consider the testimony of all the witnesses we have in the JtR and extended murders. It is very common for witnesses who may have seen a victim with her killer to describe the clothes, particularly of the male. The descriptions are often of a "dark jacket, trousers, hat with peak" type, so not overly specific but picking out the articles in general. Kate's apron would simply be of that sort of identification. The memories are not highly specific details (Hutchinson being the exception, and it is those very details that bring him into question), but neither is saying she wore an apron. Nobody goes into great detail about the apron, so we do not have the concern that someone like Hutchinson's details create. We also have Lawende, who from a passing glance, felt he recognized Eddowes clothes as being similar to those worn by the woman he saw at the end of Church Passage (whom he saw from behind, so would not have seen the apron if it was, in fact, Eddowes).

Basically, there is nothing unusual about people noticing and remembering Kate wearing an apron. A lot of testimony from various witnesses is about the clothes people wore. It is vague, and general, but so is saying someone was wearing an apron. That's not a highly specific detail anymore than saying someone was wearing a hat with a peak.

- Jeff

[harry]

Jeff,
No,I too would not have been able to state what the friend was wearing,no more than I would be able to describe people I saw this morning,which rather supports my views.However had I written down the details at the time,I would be in a position to produce the written details as evidence which would negate the reliance on memory.Now you might say 'But wait ,you could have got the details muddled up' .Get my drift,and that is really what your writings project to me.You are not willing to accept the listing which is police evidence,as it is,but expect me to believe police evidence as it is, which relies on memory and is not supported by written evidence taken at the time.

[harry]

Perhaps Varqm,it;s because the police knew only so much as you.

[Trevor Marriott]

Basically, there is nothing unusual about people noticing and remembering Kate wearing an apron.

- Jeff

There is you have been told time and time again but you dont seem to get it, or you dont want to get it, and I suspect the latter

I have explained the flaws, try looking at it in another hypothetical way these police witnesses that you seek to rely on are all involved in a murder trial each are called to give their testimony in the same way they gave their inquest testimony only this time they are cross examined by the barrister for the accused after giving their evidence in chief what questions do you think that barrister would ask in an attempt to have a jury view their testimony as unsafe.

The questions would be in line with the flaws I have highlighted and then do you think a jury could safely rely on that testimony because they would not be able to it cannot safely be relied upon, yet you and others readily accept that testimony as being reliable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I do not and have not excluded any of the witnesses.My objection to taking them at face value,is,as I explained,scientific testing proves the longer a person recollects from memory,the least chance there is of being correct and memory failure can begin almost immediately. Two days ago I sat and talked to my neighbour and her friend for over an hour.We were only feet apart.The next day I asked my neighbour what clothing her friend had been wearing.She thought for several seconds then replied"I haven't a clue". So I also post from a position of experimentation.So do not falsely accuse me of overlooking anyone,or speculating.
I posted that Collard was as likely as anyone to have composed the list,and that he could have done so at the time the body was disrobed.I have not seen any information posted that negates that statement,and at no time have I claimed I have proven it to be the case.
Halse's statement explains little.It was some time after he went to the mortuary,subsequentlyas he describes it.He doesn't give a time.So how long had Collard and the body been there before Halse arrived.We connot say,but it is as likely as not,the body had been stripped by the time Halse arrived.What time did Phillips arrive at the Mortuary with the apron piece found in Goulstan Street? Too many unknowns to form a conclusion.

The problem is that doubts can be raised on pretty much any part of this case (and probably every other case) if you look into them enough Harry. Yes we have to treat witnesses with the necessary caution because we know that errors can occur but we also have to acknowledge that not all errors, doubts and discrepancies have a sinister origin or are proof of anything. So we look at the picture as a whole and everything points to the fact that Kate was wearing an apron on the night that she died. The evidence against that isn’t just ‘unsafe’ it’s not really evidence at all it’s just speculation. X might have occurred. Y might have been mistaken. Z might have done something for this reason. At the end of the day Collard listed a piece of apron. Brown said that it matched the piece found in GS. Kate was witnessed as wearing an apron by police officers. We can discuss the circumstances of the compiling of the list until the cows come home to be honest but we can get no further. Could there have been a perfectly reasonable reason why the apron was listed where it was? The answer is yes of course.