Kate's Apron

[Doctored Whatsit]

Hi Wick,

I assumed that the witnesses couldn't be Lawende and Levy, because the new witnesses apparently specified that they recognized Eddowes by the white apron. Also they said she was alone. Lawende said he only saw her back. Levy could not give any detailed description of either of them. Both Lawende and Levy said she was with a man.

The new witnesses would perhaps have been of little value in the inquest, because they only put her near Mitre Square just before she was murdered, and obviously, she must have been there, and they saw her alone. So, assuming that Lawende and Levy did actually correctly identify Eddowes, the new witnesses probably saw her a couple of minutes earlier.

[Wickerman]

...

One more point, again previously raised. On 11th October 1888, The Times published a "press release" from Shelton, the coroner's officer. This said that the police had identified two more witnesses who believed they had seen Eddowes alone, near Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. They recognized her by the white apron. Of course, the witnesses could have been mistaken, but that is not my point. The police considered them valid witnesses because they saw a woman in a white apron who resembled Eddowes close to Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. So the police were officially of the opinion that Eddowes was still wearing her white apron at 1. 30 am, perhaps 5 or 10 minutes before she was murdered.

Hi Doctor.

You've mentioned these two witnesses in a previous post, I intended to ask you about them earlier.

I wanted to ask how sure you were that those two are not Lawende & Levy?

We do know both Lawende & Levy did not come forward, they had to be found, but we don't know by who. I think I assumed it was the City police. However, the article you refer to in the Times of 11 Oct. indicates new evidence will be brought forward at the second sitting today (11th) presumably by the three new witnesses found by Shelton & the police, the third being Eddowes daughter Annie Phillips.
This is also the day both Lawende & Levy appeared, so aren't they your two new witnesses?

[Doctored Whatsit]

Irrelevant points, Trevor. The police were looking for witnesses who saw a woman resembling Eddowes in a white apron, because they believed she was still wearing that apron at 1.30 am. The fact that women commonly wore white aprons is quite irrelevant. They clearly believed that Eddowes was.

I never said it was a butter knife, I said it was a table knife. Table knives are not sharp enough to cut material. I think that if it had been very sharp, unlike other table knives, this would have been mentioned in Collards list, which was fairly specific about details. In any event, she didn't cut the apron, because the police were looking for people who had seen a woman in a white apron near Mitre Square at about 1.30 am.

I am quoting known facts, it is you who is desperately suggesting unproven possibilities, and clutching at straws.

[Trevor Marriott]

As I have said several times, Collard clearly stated, "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress". Trevor reckons that "apparently" makes the statement "ambiguous". No it doesn't, the point of this statement is that he clearly believed that she was wearing that apron. If he didn't, he would have said "may have", "could have" or "was possibly wearing". So Trevor requires us to believe that although in Collard's opinion, she was wearing the apron, he personally compiled a list which somehow proved she wasn't wearing it!

As far as I am concerned "apparently" seemed to Collard to be the correct word to use as the apron had been cut and was hanging off, despite still being "outside her dress". It wasn't a complete apron and wasn't fully attached to her, so it required the necessary accurate and logical statement that she "was apparently wearing" it.

I think almost everyone agrees that as the apron portion was going to be referred to the doctors at the post mortem, it was kept separate from everything else, so they didn't have to go looking for it. They were organized. This resulted in it being out of order, separate from everything else, on the list.

Now Trevor raises the issue (#935) that "she was in possession of a knife". So she allegedly cut her apron with her table knife! This knife might have been OK for putting butter on her toast maybe, but making clean cuts on an apron? I think not! And as Herlock points out, the apron was her only apron, so important that she had previously repaired it, and she already had twelve pieces of white rag among her possessions anyway, so she knew she didn't need to cut it.

One more point, again previously raised. On 11th October 1888, The Times published a "press release" from Shelton, the coroner's officer. This said that the police had identified two more witnesses who believed they had seen Eddowes alone, near Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. They recognized her by the white apron. Of course, the witnesses could have been mistaken, but that is not my point. The police considered them valid witnesses because they saw a woman in a white apron who resembled Eddowes close to Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. So the police were officially of the opinion that Eddowes was still wearing her white apron at 1. 30 am, perhaps 5 or 10 minutes before she was murdered.

Almost every victorian woman wore a white apron,

Does it say it was a butter knife? no its says it was a table knife

Any knife can be sharpened to give it a bladed edge

your clutching at straws like the rest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

As I have said several times, Collard clearly stated, "I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress". Trevor reckons that "apparently" makes the statement "ambiguous". No it doesn't, the point of this statement is that he clearly believed that she was wearing that apron. If he didn't, he would have said "may have", "could have" or "was possibly wearing". So Trevor requires us to believe that although in Collard's opinion, she was wearing the apron, he personally compiled a list which somehow proved she wasn't wearing it!

As far as I am concerned "apparently" seemed to Collard to be the correct word to use as the apron had been cut and was hanging off, despite still being "outside her dress". It wasn't a complete apron and wasn't fully attached to her, so it required the necessary accurate and logical statement that she "was apparently wearing" it.

I think almost everyone agrees that as the apron portion was going to be referred to the doctors at the post mortem, it was kept separate from everything else, so they didn't have to go looking for it. They were organized. This resulted in it being out of order, separate from everything else, on the list.

Now Trevor raises the issue (#935) that "she was in possession of a knife". So she allegedly cut her apron with her table knife! This knife might have been OK for putting butter on her toast maybe, but making clean cuts on an apron? I think not! And as Herlock points out, the apron was her only apron, so important that she had previously repaired it, and she already had twelve pieces of white rag among her possessions anyway, so she knew she didn't need to cut it.

One more point, again previously raised. On 11th October 1888, The Times published a "press release" from Shelton, the coroner's officer. This said that the police had identified two more witnesses who believed they had seen Eddowes alone, near Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. They recognized her by the white apron. Of course, the witnesses could have been mistaken, but that is not my point. The police considered them valid witnesses because they saw a woman in a white apron who resembled Eddowes close to Mitre Square at about 1. 30 am. So the police were officially of the opinion that Eddowes was still wearing her white apron at 1. 30 am, perhaps 5 or 10 minutes before she was murdered.

[Herlock Sholmes]

you cleary do, along with several others but you are making a pigs ear of the job so I would stop now before you are made to look a complete bufoon.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Your theory is nonsense. Proven nonsense.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it no even occur to you that she was in possession of old pieces of white apron which had come from an old apron which at some time had been the subject of a repair. It would make sense because as you say would she want to walk around with an old tatty repaired apron

The more you keep posting the bigger hole you dig for yourself

www.trevormarriott.co.ik

And one of those pieces just happened to come from the apron that she was wearing?

Yeah right

[Trevor Marriott]

I think we should begin a “did Collard actually exist” thread? Or “was Halse really a man?” I wonder how long we could keep it going?

There can be few things in this case, and it’s a case full of mysteries, that are so clear cut. The problem is that the posters that accuse others of ‘defending the old established theories’ (and Trevor isn’t alone in this) try to paint those others has having some kind of vested interest in not wanting mysteries cleared up which is obvious nonsense. We just don’t want plausible explanations replaced with implausible ones. Where there is a possible ‘vested interest’ is when someone either has a suspect to promote or a specific theory to defend. I have no suspect to promote (though most know that I prefer Druitt of the named suspects) and have no theory to defend. As far as I’m aware neither do you or Wick or Joshua.

So who has a theory to defend?

you cleary do, along with several others but you are making a pigs ear of the job so I would stop now before you are made to look a complete bufoon.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Does it no even occur to you that she was in possession of old pieces of white apron which had come from an old apron which at some time had been the subject of a repair. It would make sense because as you say would she want to walk around with an old tatty repaired apron

The more you keep posting the bigger hole you dig for yourself

www.trevormarriott.co.ik

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the suggestion by Trevor appears to be that rather than wearing an apron at the time of her murder Catherine was simply carrying pieces of an apron. Now of course this still doesn’t preclude the suggestion that the killer just took a piece of this apron away with him and dropped it at Goulston Street but is there anything that makes Trevor’s suggestion unlikely? I’d suggest this from Brown at the Inquest:

“I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have.”

This shows that the piece of apron had been repaired which is unsurprising considering her financial position but following on from this surely we would have to ask why this dirt-poor woman would have gone to the effort of repairing her apron only to have cut off a chunk of it? This sounds like a desperate act but we then have to ask if she was desperate enough to butcher her apron why would she then have carried that piece around with her? I think it’s also worth noting that despite their terrible situation we still have to allow that these women might have retained at least some pride. Pride enough to repair clothing. Pride enough not to want to walk around in an apron with a large chunk missing. And why would she need this patched piece when she had:

“12 pieces of white Rag,“ on her?

None of Trevor’s suggestions hold water.

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
and you are one of the handful of deluded posters on here who do not have the basic abilty to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence in unbiased fashion and i am not going to waste any more time with you or the others who fit into the same catergory. I am not the only one who does not subscribe to this old accepted theory so It can be just me. Take some advice take those rose tinted specs off, the picture might become clearer. Just dealwith the facts as known and stop using conjecture in your posts.

And you don’t have the basic ability to approach the case honestly. You are terminally biased. All you are doing is wriggling around moving the goalposts when it suits you and ignoring actual evidence in place of you own weird version od it. I refuse to believe that what you’re doing is just ‘error.’ You must know that your theory is junk. You cannot know otherwise because it’s so screamingly obvious. It’s been absolutely, thoroughly discredited and dismissed without having to make anything up, but your ego just won’t allow you to admit that you are wrong. And you are wrong Trevor. 100% wrong. You should just admit it and move on without all of this constant desperation to defend a thoroughly lost cause.

Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she died. Anyone that says that she wasn’t is in denial of the facts and is stooping to distortion to defend the indefensible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor is back to pushing the notion that when the two pieces were put together they did not make up a whole apron. I've asked him the past where does he think the third piece is, but he claims there is no third piece. Trevor either does not understand fractions, or he has not thought through the implications of what he is suggesting.

Trevor also dismisses all of the police testimony where officers, under oath, testify that Catherine was wearing an apron as reflecting a police agreement to say that because somehow that will "help" their case with regards to the direction JtR fled the scene. How that would make a difference has never adequately been explained given one piece was found in Mitre Square and the other in G.S. Whether she was wearing the piece in Mitre Square or not makes no difference to their case.

Now let's just take a moment and do some thinking about what Trevor is suggesting.

Despite it making absolutely no whit of difference to the ability to make a case that JtR fled from Mitre Square to G.S., either directly or indirectly, by saying Catherine was wearing the apron as opposed to having just found it in her possessions (which is Trevor's contention), they all decide to do so anyway; they all decide to perjure themselves, and somehow get Catherine's doss house owner (who has known her for over 7 years) to also get in on the fun. And yet, because they have the two pieces, that means, according to Trevor, they thought it a really good idea to say she was wearing an apron that wasn't even a whole apron. If it is not a whole apron, then it has some third bit missing. You know, a third bit must be missing if the two bits don't make a whole. That third bit he won't admit about (check earlier in this thread, he directly says there was no third bit missing all in the same breath as claiming the two bits don't make a whole - but you know, fractions). Nobody during the inquest, despite being shown the apron, has a problem with this and wonders why she's wearing an apron with a section missing. Nobody asks if they found the portion missing. Never is it mentioned that a portion is missing, but Trevor knows. This is the desperate flailing of a dead idea.

None of this idea makes any kind of sense once you move out and look beyond the position of the apron on a list composed under conditions we do not know. That's why Trevor desperately labels every other statement "unsafe", but his pure speculation about how the list came to be is shielded from that labeling because he needs that to serve his agenda. But it is all irrational, incomprehensible, and it totally flies in the face of the very clear testimonies of people who actually saw what Catherine was wearing. I can't believe this has gone on for 62 pages.

- Jeff

I think we should begin a “did Collard actually exist” thread? Or “was Halse really a man?” I wonder how long we could keep it going?

There can be few things in this case, and it’s a case full of mysteries, that are so clear cut. The problem is that the posters that accuse others of ‘defending the old established theories’ (and Trevor isn’t alone in this) try to paint those others has having some kind of vested interest in not wanting mysteries cleared up which is obvious nonsense. We just don’t want plausible explanations replaced with implausible ones. Where there is a possible ‘vested interest’ is when someone either has a suspect to promote or a specific theory to defend. I have no suspect to promote (though most know that I prefer Druitt of the named suspects) and have no theory to defend. As far as I’m aware neither do you or Wick or Joshua.

So who has a theory to defend?

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, Smith was at the mortuary, Smith & Halse gave an observation of the apron.

Halse is quoted to have said:

'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam.'
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

But thats not correct he states he saw portion of apron with a piece missing. He does say he saw her wearing an apron

Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:

'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

The mortuary piece ? and he does not say she was wearing an apron, stop making it up you are as bad as Jeff

https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...-graffito.html

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, the problem with your suggestion is that it makes no sense, common or otherwise. Your need to hold on to your theory at all costs, to what purpose I don't know, but it's clear you have an agenda to stitch up a discredited idea.

It makes perfect sense in that at the time she was killed or prior to she had in her possessions two pieces of old white apron that at some point in time had been cut from a full apron

Nobody ever says she wasn't. Do you not read the inquest testimonies? Find anyone who states she was not wearing an apron, anyone. You might find people who don't mention her clothes, or mention some but not the apron, but find anyone who actually says she was not wearing an apron. Anyone Trevor, anyone at all.

That's a direct copy and paste from the inquest statements found here on Casebook.

I present a direct quote, and more or less just rephrase it. There's a few bits that might be ambiguous, so I clarify. It is the facts, Trevor, you know, those things you hate because they refute your theory?

No, but there have been a few times you have pointed out the piece found in G.S. was large, about half the apron, etc. Are you now saying it was small? Do things get big and small at your convenience? No wonder your theory has no legs to stand upon, it's made of silly putty.

I have never stated the GS piece was large on the contrary

You yourself drew a diagram illustrating half the apron cut away. That would qualify as a big chunk. Do you not understand what a big chunk is? Half an apron would be a big chunk of an apron. It's my description, and one that corresponds to what we've all described in the past, you included. But your need to be obstinate and confrontational overrides your ability for comprehension.

The digram was drawn to show how the two pieces could not have made up a full apron when matched

Nobody readily accepts it Trevor. But people have taken the time to examine the evidence, and are concluding that your suggestion to the contrary is incomprehensible, irrational, and totally disconnected from the evidence, but you continue to rage and lash out insults, as is your wont, and argue at one point the piece was large and now it's small, and soon there might be no piece at all, but when there is it's still not whole but there's not a third one don't be droll, but it is unsafe if it refutes your tale, then you close your eyes and loudly scream how I'm the one who now can't see.

- Jeff

and you are one of the handful of deluded posters on here who do not have the basic abilty to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence in unbiased fashion and i am not going to waste any more time with you or the others who fit into the same catergory. I am not the only one who does not subscribe to this old accepted theory so It can be just me. Take some advice take those rose tinted specs off, the picture might become clearer. Just dealwith the facts as known and stop using conjecture in your posts.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So apparently a reporter passed it to a newspaper.Still leaves the question,did the police check for a match?

Brown removed one piece from the body, Dr Phillips brought the GS piece to Dr Brown at the mortuary.
The press had nothing to do with it.
This was all debated at the inquest where the press were present.