Kate's Apron

[harry]

Wickerman is wrong when he infers the majority of criminal cases are solved by circumstantial evidence.90 plus percent are solved by admission.He was wrong when he stated the autopsy could not have taken place the same day,as it was a sunday.When does he ever get anything correct?
Jeff is incorrect and misleading when he states aprons cover only the front of the body.Perhaps he was thinking of the skimpy aprons worn by maids and waitresses.The type of Apron worn by victorian lower class were wrap around long pieces of cloth,when tied, almost completed a total coverage of the lower body,down to the ankles.Some homemade were even constructed from sackcloth.
Did women of that time wear an apron as a normal item of clothing.For work and around the house maybe,but socialising and out drinking?Were Nichols,Chapman Stride wearing an apron?
Are police always correct.Do they all come to the same conclusion by personnel and independent thought?
Herlock's latest claim might be correct,but it would no doubt be based almost a hundred per cent on personnel dislike,such as the posts against him on this topic are.
The overwhelming evidence does not show Eddowes was wearing an apron.A significant piece of evidence suggests it was not.

[harry]

Should have been she not it.shows how anyone ,even I ,can make a mistake.It;s not often I'm wrong but I know I am right this time.

[Varqm]

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

No because the inquest was clear enough and it was a simple enough point to show..You make it sound like figuring out whether Eddowes was wearing it or not was the most difficult thing to do for the police and the most important point in Eddowes death.
That's what I'll tell my newbie friends about the case,"first of all before anything Eddowes was not wearing an apron when she was killed".
Ok. this has become too ridiculous.Adios thread.

[JeffHamm]

Wickerman is wrong when he infers the majority of criminal cases are solved by circumstantial evidence.90 plus percent are solved by admission.He was wrong when he stated the autopsy could not have taken place the same day,as it was a sunday.When does he ever get anything correct?
Jeff is incorrect and misleading when he states aprons cover only the front of the body.Perhaps he was thinking of the skimpy aprons worn by maids and waitresses.The type of Apron worn by victorian lower class were wrap around long pieces of cloth,when tied, almost completed a total coverage of the lower body,down to the ankles.Some homemade were even constructed from sackcloth.
Did women of that time wear an apron as a normal item of clothing.For work and around the house maybe,but socialising and out drinking?Were Nichols,Chapman Stride wearing an apron?
Are police always correct.Do they all come to the same conclusion by personnel and independent thought?
Herlock's latest claim might be correct,but it would no doubt be based almost a hundred per cent on personnel dislike,such as the posts against him on this topic are.
The overwhelming evidence does not show Eddowes was wearing an apron.A significant piece of evidence suggests it was not.

Wickerman admits when he is in error. That is important to acknowledge as he aids in setting the record straight. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, only with refusing to acknowledge it. And if you read their posts, you will find more good and correct ideas than mistakes.

Aprons come in many formats, so yes, there are aprons worn as you describe (I believe a butcher's apron would do as you describe, for example). Kate, however, was wearing a jacket, so any part that wrapped around her upper torso would be covered. As to the lower portions, I don't know, but sure, it could be that it was of the type that also would wrap around and be visible from the back. I was indeed thinking of an apron that does not wrap around, though not a maids outfit, just one that protects the front and is tied around the waist with strings (given the Dr's statement referencing strings at a corner). But of course, you're right, I don't know that fors sure. On the other hand, the only people we have who possibly see Eddowes from the back are Lawende et co when they describe the Church Passage Couple, who we cannot establish if they were or were not Eddowes and her (probable) killer. So we're still left with things like those witnesses conform to your argument, and simply did not remember the apron, (or they did and it was part of the clothing that Lawende recognized) or her apron was not of the sort you describe. Given we do not have the apron to examine, we cannot determine if was of the sort you describe. So, I do not think I was being misleading, but yes, I did not cover all the bases. You've raised a fair point there, but without the original item, there's nothing we can do to resolve that other than be left with both alternatives still (it was or was not an apron that could be visible from behind; we don't know; and as a critical point it only arises with regards to the Church Passage Couple, who we do not know if they were or were not Eddowes and JtR. But fair enough, I like that actually. It's a point that does need to be thrown into the mix.

Trevor seems to think aprons were common garments, if you check his post. I don't know where he gets that from, but I would presume from old photos from the time (which are available here, and we could have a search around to see if aprons worn by women of the day are of the sort you describe). If they're not, though, it would be quite the coincidence that a bunch of testimony where people definitely say she's wearing an uncommon item of clothing all get it wrong and she just happens to have one secreted on her.

Your last sentence is factually incorrect. There is overwhelming evidence pointing towards her wearing an apron, and only one bit put forth, combined with a collection of very specific assumptions, that is bieng used to suggest she wasn't. You might feel the evidence pointing towards her wearing the apron to be of lower quality, which is fine, but there are far more bits of it than against it (against it there's only one bit, plus the acceptance of unverified claims).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Wickerman admits when he is in error. That is important to acknowledge as he aids in setting the record straight. There's nothing wrong with being wrong, only with refusing to acknowledge it. And if you read their posts, you will find more good and correct ideas than mistakes.

Aprons come in many formats, so yes, there are aprons worn as you describe (I believe a butcher's apron would do as you describe, for example). Kate, however, was wearing a jacket, so any part that wrapped around her upper torso would be covered. As to the lower portions, I don't know, but sure, it could be that it was of the type that also would wrap around and be visible from the back. I was indeed thinking of an apron that does not wrap around, though not a maids outfit, just one that protects the front and is tied around the waist with strings (given the Dr's statement referencing strings at a corner). But of course, you're right, I don't know that fors sure. On the other hand, the only people we have who possibly see Eddowes from the back are Lawende et co when they describe the Church Passage Couple, who we cannot establish if they were or were not Eddowes and her (probable) killer. So we're still left with things like those witnesses conform to your argument, and simply did not remember the apron, (or they did and it was part of the clothing that Lawende recognized) or her apron was not of the sort you describe. Given we do not have the apron to examine, we cannot determine if was of the sort you describe. So, I do not think I was being misleading, but yes, I did not cover all the bases. You've raised a fair point there, but without the original item, there's nothing we can do to resolve that other than be left with both alternatives still (it was or was not an apron that could be visible from behind; we don't know; and as a critical point it only arises with regards to the Church Passage Couple, who we do not know if they were or were not Eddowes and JtR. But fair enough, I like that actually. It's a point that does need to be thrown into the mix.

Trevor seems to think aprons were common garments, if you check his post. I don't know where he gets that from, but I would presume from old photos from the time (which are available here, and we could have a search around to see if aprons worn by women of the day are of the sort you describe). If they're not, though, it would be quite the coincidence that a bunch of testimony where people definitely say she's wearing an uncommon item of clothing all get it wrong and she just happens to have one secreted on her.

Your last sentence is factually incorrect. There is overwhelming evidence pointing towards her wearing an apron, and only one bit put forth, combined with a collection of very specific assumptions, that is bieng used to suggest she wasn't. You might feel the evidence pointing towards her wearing the apron to be of lower quality, which is fine, but there are far more bits of it than against it (against it there's only one bit, plus the acceptance of unverified claims).

- Jeff

I feel the need to return to this thread and point out one other piece of evidence which i think also goes to prove she was not wearing an apron and I will refer to Dr Bowns official signed testimony in which he says "My attention was drawn to the apron piece it was the the "corner" with a string attached" so he is at this time referring to the mortuary piece and the matching off the two pieces. As has been stated that matching could not have been done at the time the body was stripped. So we know by that the apron piece he referred to at some point was an apron that tied around the waist with two strings

he goes onto say " I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece evidently sewn to the piece I have- The seams of the borders actually corresponding"

So the Mortuary piece according to Brown could only have been a top left or top right corner of the apron for the two pieces to have been matched as described, the GS piece would have to have been bottom left or bottom right. The apron could not have been cut in half across midline because then the apron would have still been attached by both strings to the body and easily noticed when the body was stripped. So matching those two pieces clearly shows to me that they did not make up a full apron, and as such she could not have been wearing an apron which the list also clearly shows and that we are simply dealing with two portions of an old apron and not a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

I feel the need to return to this thread and point out one other piece of evidence which i think also goes to prove she was not wearing an apron and I will refer to Dr Bowns official signed testimony in which he says "My attention was drawn to the apron piece it was the the "corner" with a string attached" so he is at this time referring to the mortuary piece and the matching off the two pieces. As has been stated that matching could not have been done at the time the body was stripped. So we know by that the apron piece he referred to at some point was an apron that tied around the waist with two strings

he goes onto say " I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece evidently sewn to the piece I have- The seams of the borders actually corresponding"

So the Mortuary piece according to Brown could only have been a top left or top right corner of the apron for the two pieces to have been matched as described, the GS piece would have to have been bottom left or bottom right. The apron could not have been cut in half across midline because then the apron would have still been attached by both strings to the body and easily noticed when the body was stripped. So matching those two pieces clearly shows to me that they did not make up a full apron, and as such she could not have been wearing an apron which the list also clearly shows and that we are simply dealing with two portions of an old apron and not a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, I'm not following you? How does that show there must have been at least a third, unaccounted for, piece? If the mortuary piece refers to the upper left or right, and the G.S. is the lower portion, where's the missing piece?

And who said the apron wasn't easily seen on the body? I think those of us arguing for her wearing the apron would fully agree that it wasn't hard to tell it was attached to the body. Dr. Brown even says it was still attached by the strings to the body, which is what you're describing. Personally, I have no clear idea how it was cut, and don't think I've suggested it was cut in half anywhere. Perhaps others have offered that, but as the description is so minimalist I don't really have any strong opinions other than a piece was cut from it. I don't see how the above shows there must have been more than one though?

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

I feel the need to return to this thread and point out one other piece of evidence which i think also goes to prove she was not wearing an apron and I will refer to Dr Bowns official signed testimony in which he says "My attention was drawn to the apron piece it was the the "corner" with a string attached" so he is at this time referring to the mortuary piece and the matching off the two pieces. As has been stated that matching could not have been done at the time the body was stripped. So we know by that the apron piece he referred to at some point was an apron that tied around the waist with two strings

he goes onto say " I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece evidently sewn to the piece I have- The seams of the borders actually corresponding"

So the Mortuary piece according to Brown could only have been a top left or top right corner of the apron for the two pieces to have been matched as described, the GS piece would have to have been bottom left or bottom right. The apron could not have been cut in half across midline because then the apron would have still been attached by both strings to the body and easily noticed when the body was stripped. So matching those two pieces clearly shows to me that they did not make up a full apron, and as such she could not have been wearing an apron which the list also clearly shows and that we are simply dealing with two portions of an old apron and not a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

So the piece at the Mortuary had the string attached to it so it was the waistband part of the apron. The piece in Goulston Street was from the lower part of that apron. That it became unattached could have meant that it was nicked by the knife during the murder or that it became unknotted as it twisted around her body or as he body was being moved? After all, Kate would have had to have taken it off herself at times so surely she wouldn’t have knotted very tightly? The fact that apron at the mortuary was listed at the end of her possessions can be explained simply by misidentification. We can’t assume that the list was done as the body was stripped so it’s more than reasonable to suggest that everything was put onto a table for Collard. We can’t assume that these were neatly arranged and folded of course and so a bunched up apron piece might easily have appeared as yet another piece of cloth/rag with the strings not initially seen. Then when Collard opens it out he sees what it is.

And I still say that if a piece was missing the police would have mentioned it and made a serious effort to find it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, I'm not following you? How does that show there must have been at least a third, unaccounted for, piece? If the mortuary piece refers to the upper left or right, and the G.S. is the lower portion, where's the missing piece?

There is no missing third piece if she was not wearing an apron and had been in possession of two old pieces from an old apron which the evidence clearly confirms.

And who said the apron wasn't easily seen on the body? I think those of us arguing for her wearing the apron would fully agree that it wasn't hard to tell it was attached to the body. Dr. Brown even says it was still attached by the strings to the body, which is what you're describing. Personally, I have no clear idea how it was cut, and don't think I've suggested it was cut in half anywhere. Perhaps others have offered that, but as the description is so minimalist I don't really have any strong opinions other than a piece was cut from it. I don't see how the above shows there must have been more than one though?

he doesn't say that he says "It was a corner piece with a string attached" why is it so difficult for you to understand that? the apron was not seen on the body because it was never on the body.

- Jeff

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So the piece at the Mortuary had the string attached to it so it was the waistband part of the apron. The piece in Goulston Street was from the lower part of that apron. That it became unattached could have meant that it was nicked by the knife during the murder or that it became unknotted as it twisted around her body or as he body was being moved? After all, Kate would have had to have taken it off herself at times so surely she wouldn’t have knotted very tightly? The fact that apron at the mortuary was listed at the end of her possessions can be explained simply by misidentification. We can’t assume that the list was done as the body was stripped so it’s more than reasonable to suggest that everything was put onto a table for Collard. We can’t assume that these were neatly arranged and folded of course and so a bunched up apron piece might easily have appeared as yet another piece of cloth/rag with the strings not initially seen. Then when Collard opens it out he sees what it is.

And I still say that if a piece was missing the police would have mentioned it and made a serious effort to find it.

Well there is no mention of that so we can rightly assume that they were not of that opinion and didnt need to look for a third piece, and in any event it doesnt change the identification and the matching of the two pieces which clearly showed they did not make up a full apron and supports the belief that she was not wearing an apron.

So do you still think the police officers testimony is safe to rely on?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

I know you don't like the inquest coverage in the news, but as Wickerman points out earlier, the inquest recorders did not use shorthand (we have the long hand written version after all), while reporters used shorthand (which is why they get the questions too).

But regardless, given the court reporters had to write things out long hand, there is therefore a non-zero probability that the court recorder got it wrong, making it unsafe and not to be relied on.

Your rules and definition, after all, must surely apply to you too.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well there is no mention of that so we can rightly assume that they were not of that opinion and didnt need to look for a third piece, and in any event it doesnt change the identification and the matching of the two pieces which clearly showed they did not make up a full apron and supports the belief that she was not wearing an apron.

So do you still think the police officers testimony is safe to rely on?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sorry Trevor but I’ll have to ask you to explain that one. You are suggesting that the 2 pieces (mortuary piece + GS piece) didn’t make up a full apron. Yes there were the pieces of rag, the handkerchief and other ‘pieces’ of cloth but the piece of apron was identified as such and Collard said:

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress”

So it was very obviously believed to have been worn by Kate. So to sum up, we have a piece of apron, believed by the police to have been worn by Eddowes which when matched to the GS piece, according to you, had a piece missing? So I ask again why did no one mention that the apron was incomplete? And why was no effort made to recover the missing piece if one existed?

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry Trevor but I’ll have to ask you to explain that one. You are suggesting that the 2 pieces (mortuary piece + GS piece) didn’t make up a full apron. Yes there were the pieces of rag, the handkerchief and other ‘pieces’ of cloth but the piece of apron was identified as such and Collard said:

“I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress”

So it was very obviously believed to have been worn by Kate. So to sum up, we have a piece of apron, believed by the police to have been worn by Eddowes which when matched to the GS piece, according to you, had a piece missing? So I ask again why did no one mention that the apron was incomplete? And why was no effort made to recover the missing piece if one existed?

Apparently is not a definitive statement.

If you analyze his statement "which had been cut through" he was referring to the two matched pieces which we know had been cut through.

If all she had were two old pieces of old white apron then that is the reason why no one has mentioned the fact that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

why do we not see terms such as "the remnants of the apron" the rest of her apron" "the remaining part" being used

I should also make mention that some senior officers doubted the killer cutting a piece from her apron in any event as the letter below shows and questions

I refer to a letter dated October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman. I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?]. Very truly yours, C.W.

There is no evidence from any source to show that when the body was found in Mitre Square she was wearing an apron if ther was we would not be debating this issue

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

I know you don't like the inquest coverage in the news, but as Wickerman points out earlier, the inquest recorders did not use shorthand (we have the long hand written version after all), while reporters used shorthand (which is why they get the questions too).

But regardless, given the court reporters had to write things out long hand, there is therefore a non-zero probability that the court recorder got it wrong, making it unsafe and not to be relied on.

Your rules and definition, after all, must surely apply to you too.

- Jeff

Well one has to be right and one wrong, I will go with the official signed deposition by Brown who states it was a corner piece with a STRING attached (singular) he would have been asked to read it back before signing so as evidence goes it is safe to rely on.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Coroner's Act of 1887.

Page 9, S. 3 (1) explains that the Post-Mortem (investigation of the body) is part of the Inquest. An Inquest cannot be performed without the writ from the Coroner, and if the Coroner is satisfied that a death is not suspicious then he is not required to order an Inquest.



However, the Coroner cannot order the writ for an Inquest/Post-Mortem on a Sunday.



We will recall, the Post-Mortem of Liz Stride was held Monday afternoon, some 38? hours following her murder.

[Wickerman]

Well one has to be right and one wrong, I will go with the official signed deposition by Brown who states it was a corner piece with a STRING attached (singular) he would have been asked to read it back before signing so as evidence goes it is safe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We should notice how it was observed the body lost much blood in moving it from the crime scene to the mortuary. Once the body is on the post-mortem table, on it's back, you should admit removing her clothes without turning her over and loosing more blood & potentially internal organs too would be of huge concern.
Her clothes are cut off, even today this is common practice in similar cases.

Therefore, as the apron was attached around her neck by a string, this string could also have been cut. Or perhaps it was the string around the waist that is being referred to. Even so, the knot will not be untied, evidence can be lost that way, so the string will be cut to enable easy removal.
In this case the two strings were tied around her body, but Mr Davis cut the string when removing the piece of apron. The "one string" was actually both strings tied together just retaining the existing knot.