Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

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

Trevor, over the years you have displayed an unhealthy habit of relying solely, with respect to testimony, on the surviving court records. Consistently dismissing press reports for a host of reason's.
When I was researching the movements of Joseph Isaacs I was fortunate to have a long detailed exchange with the head archivist at the London Met. Archive. I'll see if I have any old emails with his name, but it is clear to me you have no reliable knowledge of these court records that you put so much reliance on.

First, court records of a inquest are not complete records. The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) was a full time operation that could afford a record keeper who knew short-hand, which enables them to capture most if not all that is said in the court room.
The local inquests were not so fortunate, as can be seen from the surviving records of both the Eddowes & Kelly inquests, they were captured in long-hand. However, pressmen in attendance at these inquests used short-hand to enable them to capture everything said. In fact at many of the leading papers the reporter couldn't be assigned to the court if they didn't know shorthand.

You dismiss the inherent value of what we read in the press coverage because of a general bias centered on the colloquial attitude "you can't trust newspapers". This is where you clearly need to do some indepth research, and by that I mean talk directly with someone who deals with court records.
Of course there are mistakes in press accounts, as there are mistakes in the court record, but we can get around all these errors by collating the various sources, not rejecting those which you have taken a personal distrust towards.
You're attitude towards the inquest coverage in the press holds no water with me as I know it comes from an ignorant source, one who has not taken the time to learn the subject at hand.

There are no 100% reliable written sources covering these inquest records, your bias only emphasizes your lack of knowledge, and therefore does not come across as a well balanced informative opinion.

[Wickerman]

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

Of course, PC Smith is a good example - first he saw a hard felt hat, then it became a soft deerstalker, yes even police can make mistakes. And we find these mistakes out by studying 'all' the sources, not rejecting the ones we don't like.

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

Make no mistake Trevor, I've been called worse, by better.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

You might be surprised and then lose your pension money !!!!!!!!

This topic has run its course now so I will withdraw in the knowledge that you or the others have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddowes was wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

You might be surprised and then lose your pension money !!!!!!!!

This topic has run its course now so I will withdraw in the knowledge that you or the others have not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddowes was wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n754216]

duplicated post

[Fiver]

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.

Sgt Byfield did not mention the apron, but Byfield was not asked about the apron.

John Kelly did not mention the apron, but Kelly was not asked about the apron.

Constable Watkins did not mention the apron, but Watkins was not asked about the apron.

Watchman George Morris did not mention the apron, but Morris was not asked about the apron.

Constable Holland/Hollis did not mention the apron, but Holland/Hollis was not asked about the apron.

Dr Sequiera did not mention the apron, but Sequiera was not asked about the apron.

Mortuary keeper Davis did not mention the apron, but Davis was not asked about the apron.

Constable Harvey did not mention the apron, but Harvey was not asked about the apron.

Joseph Lawende did not mention the apron, but Lawende was not asked about the apron.

Joseph Levy did not mention the apron, but Levy was not asked about the apron.

Harry Harris did not mention the apron, but Harris was not asked about the apron.

Speculating anything about why Byfield did not answer a question he was not asked is empty speculation.

[Fiver]

Then we turn to Sgt Byfield who mentions nothing at all about seeing her wearing an apron yet he booked her into custody...

Byfield didn't mention any article of clothing that Eddowes was wearing. Does that mean that Eddowes was naked and the other witnesses were lying?

[Fiver]

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?

Wait, Trevor has a professional detective background? And, based on his posts, he appears to believe the average law enforcement officer would commit perjury at the drop of a hat? That reflects extremely poorly on whatever law enforcement organization he used to belong to.

[Michael W Richards]

Trevor, over the years you have displayed an unhealthy habit of relying solely, with respect to testimony, on the surviving court records. Consistently dismissing press reports for a host of reason's.
When I was researching the movements of Joseph Isaacs I was fortunate to have a long detailed exchange with the head archivist at the London Met. Archive. I'll see if I have any old emails with his name, but it is clear to me you have no reliable knowledge of these court records that you put so much reliance on.

First, court records of a inquest are not complete records. The Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) was a full time operation that could afford a record keeper who knew short-hand, which enables them to capture most if not all that is said in the court room.
The local inquests were not so fortunate, as can be seen from the surviving records of both the Eddowes & Kelly inquests, they were captured in long-hand. However, pressmen in attendance at these inquests used short-hand to enable them to capture everything said. In fact at many of the leading papers the reporter couldn't be assigned to the court if they didn't know shorthand.

You dismiss the inherent value of what we read in the press coverage because of a general bias centered on the colloquial attitude "you can't trust newspapers". This is where you clearly need to do some indepth research, and by that I mean talk directly with someone who deals with court records.
Of course there are mistakes in press accounts, as there are mistakes in the court record, but we can get around all these errors by collating the various sources, not rejecting those which you have taken a personal distrust towards.
You're attitude towards the inquest coverage in the press holds no water with me as I know it comes from an ignorant source, one who has not taken the time to learn the subject at hand.

There are no 100% reliable written sources covering these inquest records, your bias only emphasizes your lack of knowledge, and therefore does not come across as a well balanced informative opinion.

Sorry.....press records of Inquests better than court records? Hmm. This is always an entertaining site.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You might be surprised and then lose your pension money !!!!!!!!

This topic has run its course now so I will withdraw in the knowledge that you or the others have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Eddowes was wearing an apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Id say ‘beyond any doubt’ but I’ll accept your concession.

[Wickerman]

Wait, Trevor has a professional detective background? And, based on his posts, he appears to believe the average law enforcement officer would commit perjury at the drop of a hat? That reflects extremely poorly on whatever law enforcement organization he used to belong to.

I never asked Trevor directly, but another poster 'Simon' reminded everyone that Trevor is ex-CID (if I'm not mistaken?), and so his opinion should carry some weight.
All I can say is, if that is true, he hides it well.

[Wickerman]

Sorry.....press records of Inquests better than court records? Hmm. This is always an entertaining site.

But Michael, I said "more complete", not better, and I gave the reason why.

Better, doesn't come into it. Inquest records are not stories they are factual accounts of verbal exchanges. Such records can be edited down (as with some press versions), abbreviated through omission (as with the official record), or recorded more complete (as with other press versions).
The only way to deal with a variety of sources is to collate them together to gain a clearer and more complete understanding of the full record.

[JeffHamm]

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

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Well, by that standard, given that the list being compiled in the way you said it was is also not 100% reliable makes that unsafe too, so the list is out. The testimony is out. In fact, all evidence from 1888 is out, leaving us with nothing at all to explain.

given the fact there is a non 100% chance of Eddowes menstruating at the time means that is unsafe, so out.
Given the fact there is a non 100% chance of Eddowes going to Flower and Dean and then to G.S. means that is unsafe.
Given the fact there is a non 100% chance of Eddowes ... and so on.

Your criterion is useless as a method as it disposes all evidence completely.

That makes what you are doing unreliable and impossible of adding anything of value.

Do you really want to espouse such an approach?

I recognize that eye witness testimony is not 100% reliable. I've been saying that all along, and had you read even one of my posts with comprehension, you would know that. And yes, there are even cases where multiple eye witnesses all testify to something, which have later been proved to be wrong in fact. Those situations, however, have been in the identification of a defendant as the offender and it turns out they are not, but it also turns out the actual offender looked very very similar to the defendant. Cases of mistaken identity like that do happen.

The parallel in this situation would have to be that Eddowes was wearing something that all of these witnesses mistook for an apron, and I do not see anything on the list that could be such an item. Moreover, identification of an apron is simply remembering a type of article of clothing, it's like remembering she was wearing a bonnet, or a jacket. Those types of things are not unremarkable if someone remembers them. As such, while of course there always remains a non-zero probability of error, that doesn't mean the probability of error is reasonable doubt. Since you want to view this like a court case, which I disagree with but I'll play, a court case, for conviction, must establish reasonable doubt not all doubt, and you have not met that criterion.

So, if to you unsafe means it is possible there is an error, then all evidence we have is unsafe and so explanations you offer are all just random guesses in the dark, making it nigh on impossible for you to get it right. If, however, we reserve unsafe only for when it is improbable that the evidence is correct, then the witness statements are not so likely to be wrong that they become improbable. We could, of course, debate varioius criterions of probability and so forth, but in the end, nothing that doesn't defy the fundamental principles of the universe (like requiring someone to be in 2 places at the same time) is impossible, but just because something is possible doesn't make it probable.

Witness testimony can either be correct or erroneous, and that covers all possible states - it's either correct or it is not correct. Erroneous testimony creates internal conflicts (just look at the Stride threads and there's all sorts of debates there that demonstrate this principle). Since not all testimony is in error, we need to look for evidence of the testimony being incorrect. We do that by showing how the testimony creates conflict within itself. Nothing about the testimony of Eddowes wearing an apron creates that kind of conflict, so based upon a careful analysis of the witness testimony we have reason to be confident that this particular aspect of the testimony is correct. To argue otherwise is to put your bet on the less likely to be true option, which is, by definition, unsafe.

I've explained this so many times now that I'm pretty sure you're still not going to get it, or if you do, you still won't acknowledge that you get it. I've acknowledge repeatedly that witness testimony is not to be treated as carved in stone, and I've described how one analyses the data for errors, and I try to point out how I'm doing that in my posts. If I've made an error, or overlooked something, etc, it means someone can point to my reasoning and say "but aren't you overlooking x,y, or z"? If I have, I'm more than happy to recognize that, think about it, and generate a reply. Sometimes that will force me to rethink and change my conclusion, other times, it's just because I didn't mention a portion of my reasoning and so go back and present why I think x,y, or z doesn't change things. That's how we learn and improve our explanations.

As a final demonstration of why we cannot define "unsafe" simply because something has a non-zero probability of being wrong, I will simply rephrase the issue. There is a non-zero probability that the witnesses are right, therefore your statement she was not wearing an apron is by your definition "unsafe". See how it works now? You are making unsafe statements, and therefore, by your criterion, we should set them aside also. By your criterion, everything gets set aside, and there is nothing to discuss at all. Hardly a method that is going to make progress.

I really think you need to rethink your definition of "unsafe", because as it stands, you've just thrown everything there is to work with into the bin.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Wait, Trevor has a professional detective background? And, based on his posts, he appears to believe the average law enforcement officer would commit perjury at the drop of a hat? That reflects extremely poorly on whatever law enforcement organization he used to belong to.

Hi Fiver,

Yes, Trevor is a retired detective. While this is one of his undeniable strengths, it also creates interference for him. He is used to evidence and policing standards that are of a far far superior quality than we have to work with. His experience tells him that what we have is no where near acceptable standards, and yes, he's right. I get that, and I think everyone here gets that. But nothing is ever going to change the fact that in 1888 the police did things in ways that would never be done today. This is why Trevor is convinced the list was recorded as each item was removed, because that is probably how it is required to be done now and he can't conceive of them doing it differently. But 1888 was a long time ago, and police procedures were not as well developed as they are now. Recording the list of her items, worn and otherwise, would be considered important, but there's no reason to assume that the list making was as the clothes were removed. The list had to be hand written, details taken, and so forth, and so at that time it is entirely likely all items were removed, and then the PC sits down and goes through them, recording each item and describing it, as they come to them. That sort of procedure is open to things like the apron appearing last because we know the apron was compared to the G.S. piece, and we know the police were aware of the G.S. piece very early on. That increases the likelihood of the apron either being in the process of being compared while the other items were recorded, or even just the apron being set aside in preparation for being compared, and so it doesn't appear until the rest of the items have been written down. Doing it that way is just not how it is done now, and so Trevor's experience makes him balk at the idea it could have been done that way at one time. It's just "too wrong" to him, which is his experience colouring his perceptions.

Trevor is absolutely correct in reminding us that witness statements must not be accepted unconditionally. What he's not acknowledging, though, is that nobody is doing that. We've looked over the witness statements, find no internal conflict within them, and only then conclude they've probably got it right. Moreover, when looking at the entirity of the statements concerning the apron, all of them point towards her wearing it. Again, only then do we conclude that the probability of her wearing the apron is now so high that to conclude otherwise is unsafe. Is it 0? No, but since nothing has a 0% probability so that's no criterion at all about making an inference because if we go with that all inferences are unsafe - meaning we can say nothing at all about anything.

Trevor's experience and knowledge I do not question the value, and really do think those are valuable to us all here. However, Trevor's lack of experience with regards to historical research, which has to use very different methods (one not suited to the courts, for example), means he's approaching the evidence from an inappropriate position. He's approaching it from what he knows, and historical cases like this cannot be approached that way - the methods used at the time are not up to standard, the detail of what is on record leaves too many questions that a modern investigation would then want to ask of the witnesses, and so forth. We can't do that, we can't ask the wintesses to clarify what they mean, what the did, how they did it, and so forth. As such, we have to pour over what we do have and try and determine what was likely done, what was likely to be meant, and so forth. That would never stand up in court, but there's nobody alive to charge anyway, and there's nobody alive to ask for clarification. Modern police methods cannot be applied, so as long as Trevor continues to try and apply them, he's trying to do the impossible. And those of us approaching this as historical research, trying to apply the methods that can be used in that format, will continue to point out that Trevor's impossible approach is not going to work.

But while the entire debate is really about the method by which we approach and analyze the information we have, that doesn't change the fact that Trevor has a wealth of useful knowledge. It is in the points he raises, though often lost because of how his points are often raised in the context of him applying a method that cannot work with the information we have. I have a great deal of respect for his knowledge, but I disagree just as strongly with his methods. I'm sure he would say the same about me on the latter, but I'm not willing to bet on the former!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, I don't have time to do this right now, but it occurs to me that we could compile an over view of all the Whitechappel murders, whether JtR or not. We could look at the information we have about what the victims were wearing or had in their possessions. From that, we would have a small data set of articles of clothing a random victim was wearing. I suspect "skirt" or "dress" would be very common, for example. But I can't recall right now if any other victim was wearing an apron, nor can I recall any eye witnesses describing a victim as wearing an apron.

Why would that be interesting? Because it would give us an idea of how common it was for witnesses to state a victim was wearing an apron, and how common it was for them to possess one at the time of their murder. We could also get an idea of how error prone witnesses were to say they were wearing an apron when they were not. And also how common it was for a witness not to remember a victim was wearing an apron when they were.

If it is uncommon for witnesses to erroneously testify to victims wearing an apron, and it is uncommon for victims to even possess an apron, then we have to wonder how likely is it that the one victim who happened to be in the rare situation of possessing an apron to also be in the rare situation where multiple witnesses erroneously claim she was wearing one? What are the chances of all those rare events co-occurring, which is what Trevor is claiming happened. I rather suspect we will find the actual likelihood is so low, that combined with the complete lack of any internal inconsistencies within the testimony, we will be left with only one safe conclusion. And if it turns out that other victims were indeed wearing an apron, and it is common for witnesses to recall this, that would suggest that it is common for witnesses to get it right.

On the other hand, if we do not have at least a few cases where we have their clothing and items documented, then we obviously can't do the analysis. No data, no analysis possible. I might try and start looking when I get the chance though, to see if this idea can be explored. And, once again, this is an idea that has only occurred to me because of this discussion. This is why I think that even though we don't agree, sometimes quite heatedly, I do find great value in these discussions with Trevor. It pushes me to further try and test my ideas. It is entirely possible that this analysis could come out in Trevor's favour if it turns out that witnesses commonly state that victims wore aprons when they did not; that is a possible outcome. It won't happen, of course, if it is rare for such mistakes to occur, but if they are as common as Trevor would have us believe, then we'll see it commonly happens.

- Jeff