Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

It creates doubt that Collard saw it removed, he apparently didn't otherwise he need not use "apparently".

Thats your interpretation not mine and I am not going to go over this again

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

With regards to the removal of clothes, list making, and so forth, one idea is that the clothes were removed, with the apron set aside in order for it to be compared with the G.S. piece. This would suggest that the recording of the items was done after the stripping. We know that in the previous cases there was no list making during the removal of the clothes, which is manifestly obvious in the confusion over the stays in the Nichols case. Notwithstanding the different police forces involved, there is no evidence to suggest that how post-motems were conducted were that different between forces. Certainly to assert that would require pretty specific evidence.

Anyway, we do have the testimony of Halse, who stays he went to the mortuary and saw the body stripped, at which time he noticed there was a piece missing from the apron. Trevor is flabbergasted that he would make such an observation, which is understandable because Trevor does not consider the possibility the apron was being worn by Eddowes. However, Halse was a detective, and his job is to note things about crimes and victims, and if, laying out in front of him, is a murder victim, wearing an apron with a very sizeable section of it missing, I suggest it is not asking for a huge leap of faith to consider the possibility he might just have spotted that.

Halse then indicates he went back to Mitre Square, passing through GS by the area the GS piece was later found, at 2:20. His actual testimony reads like this "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. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall."....

So it appears Major Smith was also at the mortuary. It also could be misinterpreted that DO Halse and Major Smith only left the mortuary and returned to Mitre-Square when they were informed about the apron piece being found in G.S., however, he indicates he passed G.S. at 2:20, well before it was found. As such, it is clear the "when we heard ..." portion refers to an event after they had arrived back at Mitre-Square.

Now, one thing that occurs to me is, DO Halse, having observed a large portion of missing cloth from the apron, which would be readily apparent if she was wearing it as when they went to remove it well, some of it just isn't there and they're all, you know, looking at it while it is being removed carefully, is probably wondering if they've overlooked some portion of the square and there's physical evidence still to be recovered (i.e. the missing portion of the apron). I think that would be a reasonable thing for a detective to possibly consider, although of course I can't know that for sure as he does not testify directly to that.

He does tell us he hears about the find in G.S. while he's still at Mitre-Square. I'm wondering if the punctuation is a bit off, though, as it would make a lot of sense if it read this way: "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, after visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall.".... (I've bolded the changes).

Note, the same meaning arises from either punctuation, so it's just a quibble, but basically he's saying he hears about the GS find, he goes to the station, and then back to GS.

Now, given he's also previously spotted that the apron Eddowes was wearing had a big chunk absent, which would be very remarkable for a garment she's wearing but hard worthy of attention if it was just a rag she was just in possession of, it would not surprise me if during his trip to the station he looked at the portion found, noted it appeared of about the right size and shape, and had it sent over to the mortuary for comparison. That would mean, the doctors would be performing an examination, PC Collard is probably either observing, asking questions, and so forth, when the apron piece shows up for comparison. So the doctors get on to doing that, PC Collard sits down to now itemize the clothing and possessions while the two pieces are being compared. He gets near the end of the items in front of him, the doctors have completed their apron comparison and get back to examining the body, so he adds the apron portion, and the last few items, and gets back to observing the examination.

While of course I don't know if that's what happened, and I'm certainly not saying there aren't other viable scenarios, it kind of feels like a natural flow of events to me. I accept, I can't refer to evidence that PC Collard did observe while the doctors conducted an examination of the body, and that is entirely a conjecture on my part, but given there is no documentation of what was going on exactly, I guess it boils down to whether or not that seems like a reasonable possibility (again, reasonable possibility does not mean it's proven).

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The term apparently wearing creates a doubt

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It creates doubt that Collard saw it removed, he apparently didn't otherwise he need not use "apparently".

[harry]

Joshua,in reply to your post 895,very few.In particular Watkins who found the body and could see by the light of his lantern.Dr Brown,at the murder sight,who had a clear vision of the body.You see,it does not matter if a hundred persons had seen Eddowes wearing an apron in the 24 hours preeceeding the finding of the body,the arguement centres on what she was wearing when found by Watkins.Unless,as one author claims,the clothing was interfeered with before reaching the Mortuary,but after discovery of the body.

[JeffHamm]

The fact that when Brown matched up the two pieces he didn’t mention that it didn’t make a whole apron shows that they made up the whole. If there was any part missing as you suggest it would certainly have been mentioned as another piece potentially lying around somewhere would have been of vital importance. The police would have prioritised finding it. And so as no one looked for a missing piece we can say for certain that no missing piece existed.

Oh god, no please. Not the "it's not a full apron but there's no piece missing" again. That is so agonizingly irrational that it almost hurts to recall.

- Jeff