Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Trevor,

Yes, you've repeated your opinion many times, but your opinion is not evidence. I agree, witness testimony is not the best evidence, but this is not a criminal trial. This is historical research and we are trying to work out what happened in 1888, not bring someone into court. All we have is what people said, and the information on record is incomplete. But there is nothing contradictory in the statements about her wearing an apron, and the events as we know them to be all fit with her wearing it. Your story, of Kate wetting herself, menstruating, heading to Flower and Dean then G.S., has nothing at all to support it, it's all conjecture, making it far more unsafe than the statements of the witnesses, which only might contain errors. But when multiple witnesses all corroborate each other, we can have confidence that they probably got it right.

The author of the list itself even testifies that she was apparently wearing the apron. He was there when the body was stripped. Therefore he knows if she was wearing it or if it was just in her possession. If it was just in her possession he would have testified that it was not worn but in her possession. He would not add to the testimony that leads to the conclusion the apron was something she was wearing. You do not get that, and you simply focus on things you can try to spin to keep your speculations alive. It doesn't help things.

The flaws you list would apply if we were trying to build a legal case and take it to court. But we're not. To do that would require being able to obtain a lot of information from the witnesses, but they're all dead. What we would do to get this to court is not what we can do. Historical research is about working out what most likely happened, not about building up a court case.

Yes, witnesses can make mistakes, but they don't always. "Unsafe" just means they might be wrong, not that they are wrong. It's unsafe in reference to a legal court case because a good defense lawyer could establish "reasonable doubt". But a defense lawyer is under no obligation to present what actually happened, just sow doubt. Being able to spin things by saying we should doubt the witnesses and then throwing out a completely unsubstantiated story is what the defense does, not to get at the truth, but to get their client to avoid the consequences of the truth (most of the time, there are, of course times when the defendant is not guilty).

Anyway, your opinion notwithstanding, there are multiple aspects of the information we have that all point to her wearing the apron, and therefore JtR must have been the one to drop the rag. Why he took it, and why he left it, is unknown. I, like you, don't think he wrapped any organs in it. And I think that's why you're so hooked on getting that apron off her - because some people think that's what the apron was for, so you want to protect your "did not take the organs" speculation by getting the apron into her possessions.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Will you ever stop doing this Trevor?

By ‘this’ I mean this condescending attitude of “I've explained this so why won’t you accept it?” As if we should all say “oh, we can’t think this anymore because Trevor’s told us that we’re wrong.”

The real answer is that you could explain it a million times. We all understand it. Hutt and Robinson’s statements are categorically not unsafe. It certainly has to be acknowledged OF COURSE that witnesses can be mistaken; that witnesses can lie but this doesn’t mean that we can brush them under the carpet along with everything else that’s inconvenient to your theory. Every witness would potentially be in for a grilling by someone seeking to prove them wrong and I’ll tell you what I think a Jury would think of Hutt and Robinson - They wouldn’t have been police officer’s if they’d not been considered as being of good character. Hutt had been promoted which shows extra aptitude for the job. Neither are proven liars or have any visual impairment. As police officers they are expected to observe far more that the average man or woman. They both saw Kate at very close quarters and over a reasonable period of time and Robinson had extra reason for remembering her because she was causing a drunken scene. A white apron would stand out in the memory and it was hardly something worth perjuring ones self for. - And so, apart from you repeating ‘unsafe’ like a Dalek, there’s no actual reason to accuse them of lying is there. Yes I know “unsafe, unsafe, unsafe.”

There’s a difference between being ‘unsafe’ and treating witnesses with caution but you can’t seem to grasp it Trevor. Caution is necessary. You don’t assume that they must be correct you look closer; assess/evaluate. Then you see if there are solid reasons why those witnesses might be considered ‘unsafe.’ You don’t just jump straight to ‘unsafe,’ which is what you always do when faced with the inconvenient.

So, consider human fallibility and the ability to lie - tick
Assess the witnesses (character and circumstances) - tick
Evaluate the reliability of said witnesses - tick

So do we have any reason to assume that Hutt and Robinson were both mistaken in those circumstances on exactly the same point - no.
Do we have any evidence that they lied - apart from the fact that they discount your theory - no we don’t.

Inescapable and entirely reasonable conclusion - that Catherine Eddowes was wearing a white apron when she was killed.

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi harry,

Well, everyone differs. As I said, I can recall what people were wearing while I was at quizz the other night, and I paid no special attention to that information, which goes towards my point, that some people do remember what other people were wearing (does this really need to be stated?)

All I'm saying is that we do not know the conditions under which the list was written so the inferences being drawn based upon assuming it was written as Trevor claims is unsafe. So we look at the other evidence we have, and use all of it together.

If you don't want to use the witness statements, that's fine. And if you want to assume that you know the conditions under which the list was composed, that's fine too. I prefer to use all of the information we have, and only discard things when they start to conflict with each other. And the list does not conflict with anything the witnesses say provided one doesn't make the assumption you have; that you know it was written at the time the items were removed. I think that's an unsafe assumption to make.

Anyway, I have changed my view on a number of different things over the years based upon well reasoned presentations. I've not here because the urination/menstration/unworn apron story is simply a complex series of unsubstantiated creative thinking.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, you've repeated your opinion many times, but your opinion is not evidence. I agree, witness testimony is not the best evidence, but this is not a criminal trial. This is historical research and we are trying to work out what happened in 1888, not bring someone into court. All we have is what people said, and the information on record is incomplete. But there is nothing contradictory in the statements about her wearing an apron, and the events as we know them to be all fit with her wearing it. Your story, of Kate wetting herself, menstruating, heading to Flower and Dean then G.S., has nothing at all to support it, it's all conjecture, making it far more unsafe than the statements of the witnesses, which only might contain errors. But when multiple witnesses all corroborate each other, we can have confidence that they probably got it right.

The author of the list itself even testifies that she was apparently wearing the apron. He was there when the body was stripped. Therefore he knows if she was wearing it or if it was just in her possession. If it was just in her possession he would have testified that it was not worn but in her possession. He would not add to the testimony that leads to the conclusion the apron was something she was wearing. You do not get that, and you simply focus on things you can try to spin to keep your speculations alive. It doesn't help things.

The flaws you list would apply if we were trying to build a legal case and take it to court. But we're not. To do that would require being able to obtain a lot of information from the witnesses, but they're all dead. What we would do to get this to court is not what we can do. Historical research is about working out what most likely happened, not about building up a court case.

Yes, witnesses can make mistakes, but they don't always. "Unsafe" just means they might be wrong, not that they are wrong. It's unsafe in reference to a legal court case because a good defense lawyer could establish "reasonable doubt". But a defense lawyer is under no obligation to present what actually happened, just sow doubt. Being able to spin things by saying we should doubt the witnesses and then throwing out a completely unsubstantiated story is what the defense does, not to get at the truth, but to get their client to avoid the consequences of the truth (most of the time, there are, of course times when the defendant is not guilty).

Anyway, your opinion notwithstanding, there are multiple aspects of the information we have that all point to her wearing the apron, and therefore JtR must have been the one to drop the rag. Why he took it, and why he left it, is unknown. I, like you, don't think he wrapped any organs in it. And I think that's why you're so hooked on getting that apron off her - because some people think that's what the apron was for, so you want to protect your "did not take the organs" speculation by getting the apron into her possessions.

- Jeff

Its not a criminal trial but the same principle can be applied to test the inquest testimony sadly we dont have anyone to ask the officers the relevant question which would clearly show how unsafe their testimony is. I am really having difficulty in understating what you cannot accept. Are you so immersed in the belief that all the evidence from 1888 in relation to this topic is 100% reliable?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Its not a criminal trial but the same principle can be applied to test the inquest testimony sadly we dont have anyone to ask the officers the relevant question which would clearly show how unsafe their testimony is. I am really having difficulty in understating what you cannot accept. Are you so immersed in the belief that all the evidence from 1888 in relation to this topic is 100% reliable?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I've never said it was 100% reliable. I've said it does not conflict with itself. I'm sure there are mistakes in the witness testimonies. What we have with regards to the apron, however, is nothing that conflicts. You are ignoring it because sometimes witnesses get things wrong, without demonstrating they got this wrong. Do you really think everything a witness says has 0% accuracy?

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Will you ever stop doing this Trevor?

Not until you accept that the evidence to show that she was wearing an apron is unsafe, and therefore casts a major doubt as to the belief that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

You are ignoring it because sometimes witnesses get things wrong, without demonstrating they got this wrong. Do you really think everything a witness says has 0% accuracy?

- Jeff

So do you acknowledge that these officers could have got it wrong, and that their testimony is not 100% reliable?

Any figure below 100 makes it unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So do you acknowledge that these officers could have got it wrong, and that their testimony is not 100% reliable?

Any figure below 100 makes it unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Do you really stand by that statement? It’s silly beyond words.

How many witnesses can we prove to have been 100% reliable? Ok, so anything less that 100%? We have 2 witnesses who are 99.9% reliable. They in turn corroborate each other. There evidence agrees with what’s been said by other witnesses. You call that unsafe? A court of law wouldn't.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Not until you accept that the evidence to show that she was wearing an apron is unsafe, and therefore casts a major doubt as to the belief that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The doubt only exists in your imagination Trevor. When you produce a single, worthwhile shred of evidence, then maybe we will reconsider. All you have is a baseless theory into which you’ve thrust a bit of creative writing and evidential cherrypicking. If that’s the method that you want to employ then that’s up to you but 99+% of Ripperologists will see through it.

[Trevor Marriott]

The doubt only exists in your imagination Trevor. When you produce a single, worthwhile shred of evidence, then maybe we will reconsider. All you have is a baseless theory into which you’ve thrust a bit of creative writing and evidential cherrypicking. If that’s the method that you want to employ then that’s up to you but 99+% of Ripperologists will see through it.

You speak as if you are spokesperson for the ripper community and you are far from that in fact I do not think you have done yourself any favors in you participation of this topic.

But you keep believing that you are 100% right if it makes you happy

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Aelric]

I think someone needs to find a tailor or seamstress and get them to make a few different sized 1870s/80s style aprons, then cut parts of them off just so we can see what parts of aprons look like. They can even distress them to make them look like they had some age to them, too.

[Wickerman]

So do you acknowledge that these officers could have got it wrong, and that their testimony is not 100% reliable?

Any figure below 100 makes it unsafe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Open all the prison's, let them all walk. Trevor only accepts testimony that is 100% reliable.
Never mind the fact most criminal cases are decided on circumstantial evidence.
Good grief Trevor, how can you claim a professional detective background when you come up with statements like that?

[Trevor Marriott]

Open all the prison's, let them all walk. Trevor only accepts testimony that is 100% reliable.
Never mind the fact most criminal cases are decided on circumstantial evidence.
Good grief Trevor, how can you claim a professional detective background when you come up with statements like that?

Can the police officers testimony be relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt --- no it cant the doubts have been created to show that.

How can you portray yourself as a genuine researcher when your posts continually portray you as a complete numpty.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You speak as if you are spokesperson for the ripper community and you are far from that in fact I do not think you have done yourself any favors in you participation of this topic.

But you keep believing that you are 100% right if it makes you happy

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm the spokesperson for no one Trevor. I'm simply pointing out that it's you that are going over the top. You keep telling everyone what they already know. That we can't assume that witnesses must be correct. WE KNOW THIS TREVOR. So what we've done is assessed them and found that there's very obviously no reason to doubt them (apart from the fact that they disprove your theory of course)

You are the one making the insane suggestion that any witness less that 100% proven are 'unsafe' and therefore (in your world) should be dismissed.

You have proven nothing. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that Kate was wearing an apron. No matter how long you keep burying your head in the sand on the subject it will remain a fact.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can the police officers testimony be relied upon beyond a reasonable doubt --- no it cant the doubts have been created to show that.

How can you portray yourself as a genuine researcher when your posts continually portray you as a complete numpty.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Shall we take a vote on who's the numpty? Wick or you.

I'm willing to place a very large bet on the outcome.