Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    Funny you should bring this up, back in the early 70's my first three years out of school I was a butcher's apprentice and the apron we had was like calico material and the design had not changed since the 19th century. It had a bib & covered the front down to the ankles, though most of us folded it up so as only to extend no lower than the knee.

    Anyway....
    I have a whole bunch of 19th century photo's of working class women wearing their aprons...here's a couple.



    1860's, I believe.
    Two can play that game, one a longer version than the other, both attached at waist, could either of these failed to have not been noticed when the body was stripped and the list made up?

    Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian Apron 2.jpg
Views:	125
Size:	33.0 KB
ID:	754310 Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron.jpg
Views:	150
Size:	33.5 KB
ID:	754311

    Comment


    • Hi Trevor,

      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      There would be no need to mention any piece missing because Brown was present when the body was stripped and the list made up, so the list tells us that at that time she was not found to be wearing an apron, or the remnants of an apron but simply in possession of one old piece of white apron.
      An opinion you hold, for reasons never adequately explained, but an opinion nonetheless. Opinions can be countered with opinions, and mine is of course they would mention a missing piece if there had been on. Now there is doubt about your claim, so your claim is unsafe.

      See, I accept and acknowledge that they neither say it was or was not the whole apron. As such, we do not know if it was, or was not, the whole apron. You're insistence it was not a whole apron is not based on any information that states it was incomplete, nor based upon information that allows that inference. Your opinion is unsafe.


      We were not there when the pieces were matched but we are left with the descriptions and despite what you and others keep wanting to believe, those two pieces as described did not and could not have made up a full apron,...
      Could not? Seriously? They describe how two pieces of the apron matched together, how does that in any way indicate the apron could not then have been a complete one? I'm not saying it has to be, as matching two pieces could also leave with some of the apron still missing. But again, there is nothing about what they say that indicates the apron was incomplete. That's conjecture on your part, which is of course unsafe.

      It is unknown from the evidence we have if the end result is a whole or incompete apron. At best there is the argument that arises from "given the importance of the apron and the G.S. piece at the inquest, it is worth noting that there is no mention of any of the apron being unaccounted for", and while that does lean towards a whole apron, arguing solely from the absence of evidence is not particularly a strong case. Had someone tetified "and no other portions were missing", that would be evidence of absence.


      and as to another mysterious third piece which has been introduced that's just another feeble attempt by you and others to ignore the fact that the two pieces didn't make a full apron and still keep suggesting she was wearing an apron.
      Trevor, Trevor, Trevor! You are the one who introduced the mysterious 3rd piece, but maybe you don't realize the consequences of your statements? See, if the two pieces we know of do not make up a whole apron, as you yourself seem convinced of despite there being no mention of it being incomplete, that means there must be at the very least a 3rd piece that is not accounted for. Otherwise it's a whole apron if there's not at least one more piece missing. Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too? Or are you just knee jerk responding to anything people post and automatically nay-saying?

      Seriously, you do realize that if the apron is incomplete as you want to believe it was, then the whole apron must be comprised of more than the two pieces we know of, so there had to have at least been a 3rd piece, maybe even a forth if you're imagination runs so far as to know what the fate of the never-mentioned-unaccounted for section was. You seem to believe you have great insight into other things that are never mentioned and for which we have no evidence, so I would think the missing apron section should be a doddle for you.


      Looking at Wicks drawing the way the apron is depicted and cut is that the killer must have taken not a portion but half and that is a large piece to take to wipe his hands or his knife on especially when he could have done both on her clothes, and I yet again go back to how her clothes were up above her waist when the body was found and other items of her clothing would have been more accessible than an apron which would have been the most difficult to locate and cut.
      I'll let Wickerman address that as it's his drawing. Personally, I don't have a very clear idea of what the G.S. piece looked like because we're never told. It may have been as large as the piece Wickerman shows, it may have been even larger, or it may have been even smaller, or it may not have gone straight across but diagonally down, forming a triangle. Again, we have nothing recorded as to the size or shape, so suggestions can be made as long as we stop there, but to go further and build a theory upon the apron piece being of a particular size would be incredibly unsafe.


      Now I would argue that the Gs piece was nowhere near as big as that, if it had been that big Long could not have failed to miss it nor could Halse when they passed by the first time. Just imagine trying to screw up and discard a piece of materiel that size you couldn't, it is impossible it would unfurl as soon as it hit the ground. So it had to be much smaller and a corner piece is more fitting which is in line with the matching of the two pieces.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      There's so many assumptions in there I'm not sure where to begin. But sure, as I say, the piece could have been smaller, or larger, or that size, or a different shape, etc. Nowhere in the inquest document is the size of the G.S. piece mentioned, so you're just speculating making it all unsafe (I'm pretty sure that's your rule for others, so it must be your rule for you too).

      As I've suggested a few times now, if JtR did take it, I think it was just because PC Harvey scared him off and he grabbed whatever was close to hand, and I don't think he cut the apron with a specific purpose in mind. "Being too big" implies that he cut it to be a hand/knife wiper, and I don't see any reason to presume he intended to take the apron piece at the time he cut it. I'm speculating here of course, but I recognize I'm doing it, and I point it out.

      As for why D.O.Halse didn't notice it, I don't really see why he would be expected to. He was on his way to Mitre Square and just passing through. He would not be looking into the doorways and stairwells but concentrating on getting to Mitre Square - he's not on patrol he's going to a crime scene. He himself specifically tells us he would not necessarily have noticed it had it been there at 2:20. But I forgot, you know better than DO Halse what he would notice than he does himself because you are armed with the power of speculation.

      In short, whatever size the apron piece was, it clearly wasn't as you suggest impossible to miss.

      Even if it was as large as Wickerman's piece, I don't see why it would unfurl, as per your further speculation (unsafe). A piece of cloth, wet (with blood or rain or even your never mentioned urine) would tend not to unfurl, I would think. And thrown into a stairwell is not sitting out on the street in plain view. PC Long finds it during his patrol, but he's supposed to look into such places. He testifies it wasn't there at 2:20, and I wish we could ask him for more on that. If it's not there at 2:20, then you're wrong, Kate didn't put it there. If it was, PC Long also had to have missed it when he patrolled at 1:45 ish, because we know Kate's dead in Mitre Square at that time (but there's not been time for JtR to reach G.S. yet).

      It's about 8 minutes from the police station to Flower and Dean and then on to Goulston Street, so there's even a possibility he had to have missed it during his 1:10 round as well, but I think the odds would be against including that round to be fair. Anyway, the point is, if Kate left it, the apron piece was missed at least twice by PC Long. If JtR took it and fled straight through G.S., PC Long only misses it once (at 2:20). If JtR took it and does the bolt hole vanishing trick, only to emerge and engage in some littering and graffiti work, then PC Long sees it on the first pass. Given it's location, though, to speculate on its size based upon it being overlooked is highly unsafe.

      Since we don't know the size of the piece found in G.S. maybe it was as large as you say, and that's why PC Long found it on his first pass? Or maybe, it was just in a dark stairwell and did not stand out, and PC Long didn't check every stairwell that closely every time and he did, unfortunately, overlook it until the next time round. I have no idea, because nowhere is this information provided to us.

      Hmmm, I do see the appeal of your method Trevor. It's very easy to just insert Unsafe, speculation, conjecture, and feel vindicated. I wonder if I should go back and insert a few blinkereds, just for good measure?

      - Jeff

      Comment


      • Lets assume an apron of the sort pictured was on the body as the killer placed the body on the ground.To get to Eddowes midsection the clothing would have had to be hiked up around her upper torso causing the apron to be bundled up around the upper torso.So how could the killer make a clean cut as suggested by Wickerman.He coldn't have rolled the clothing down again as the intestines ,still attached to the body were out and laid across the right shoulder.Sure he could have cut the apron first,but that would mean there would be two seams to match up,not one as Brown describes,or one seam with apron attached and a length of seam with no apron attached,which Brown didn't mention.
        I think Jeff,we can proceed along the lines of a police investigation as opposed to an historical evaluation.The same law applies as of today,if slightly altered.My grandparents and parents were victorian,that is era not state in Australia,so it's not the long ago dark past.

        Comment


        • What you displayed Jon means nothing as regards the Eddowes case.We know her death and the autopsy were on a sunday.This ,it couldn't happen,recalls another statement you made in the past,that police could not interview prisoners in prison.Totally false.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by harry View Post
            Lets assume an apron of the sort pictured was on the body as the killer placed the body on the ground.To get to Eddowes midsection the clothing would have had to be hiked up around her upper torso causing the apron to be bundled up around the upper torso.So how could the killer make a clean cut as suggested by Wickerman.He coldn't have rolled the clothing down again as the intestines ,still attached to the body were out and laid across the right shoulder.Sure he could have cut the apron first,but that would mean there would be two seams to match up,not one as Brown describes,or one seam with apron attached and a length of seam with no apron attached,which Brown didn't mention.
            I think Jeff,we can proceed along the lines of a police investigation as opposed to an historical evaluation.The same law applies as of today,if slightly altered.My grandparents and parents were victorian,that is era not state in Australia,so it's not the long ago dark past.
            Hi harry,

            I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown says he found the seams of a repair piece (a patch) matched exactly, not the seams of the apron at the hem, or the sides of the apron. A patch would be a far more identifying match as it would be something unique to Kate's apron.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • This apron business? So the argument as I understand it is that if Kate wasn't wearing the apron, but carrying it in bits, then the killer didn't cut it, therefore he didn't use it? Or is it a way of bolstering a theory to rule out a Goulstan St escape?

              If it was already in sections, why couldn't the killer have just grabbed a piece? That would be quicker and easier, in my opinion.

              The remaining evidence falls heavily on the side of Kate wearing the apron. Why is there such a push to have it not worn, but just in her possession? Does it dramatically alter the outcome?

              Here you go, how about: The apron wasn't worn, it was already cut up. The killer took a piece, and dropped it in Goulstan St. Everyone's a winner!
              Thems the Vagaries.....

              Comment


              • Here's something to think about Jeff.Theoreticaly,if Eddowes had two aprons and why not,she had three skirts,it would answer a lot of problems.One she was wearing,which the killer took away,and one in two pieces which is the subject of so much discussion.Personelly,I cannot accept that the amount of blood on the apron piece found in Goulstan street,was enough to account for the blood that would have been on the hands of the killer, and on the organ/organs that were missing.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  Hi harry,

                  I'm pretty sure Dr. Brown says he found the seams of a repair piece (a patch) matched exactly, not the seams of the apron at the hem, or the sides of the apron. A patch would be a far more identifying match as it would be something unique to Kate's apron.

                  - Jeff
                  I am sorry to again disagree the Gs piece was the piece that had a patch sewn to it and we do not know what that repair entailed, so that could have been two small pieces sewn together to effect the repair or two large pieces. I would suggest that there was no match made in relation to the repair piece of that apron piece, because the piece used for the repair would be slightly different having come from another apron, so the match made was between the two pieces of an original apron which she had in her possession.

                  So at some point Eddowes would have to have acquired a piece from another apron, so it is not beyond the realms ff fantasy to assume that the 12 pieces of rag found on her could have been the cut up remains of an old apron from which Eddowes had cut her repair piece from and from where she acquired her sanitary piece.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • GOULSTON STREET !!!

                    Ironically 1888's Goulstonian lectures were on Insanity in Relation to Aortic and Cardiac Diseases by William Julius MICKLE.

                    Jack was headed for Dorset Street on Michaelmas.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DJA View Post
                      GOULSTON STREET !!!

                      .
                      Sorry Sir. Won't happen again.
                      Thems the Vagaries.....

                      Comment


                      • Just as well Bundy,I'm keeping an eye on you

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post

                          Here you go, how about: The apron wasn't worn, it was already cut up. The killer took a piece, and dropped it in Goulstan St. Everyone's a winner!
                          The argument then would be why would he need to take it with him, and why travel the distance he traveled before discarding it? The organs were certainly not taken away in it, and for those who say he took it to wipe his hands or his knife on, that argument can be rebutted by saying he could have wiped his knife or his hands on her clothing before leaving.

                          And I also concur with you in that the apron became important for the two separate police forces, to first prove the connection between The Gs piece and the victim and to show which way the killer went, murder in City police area, Apron found in Met area. that's is why the Met commissioner was concerned about how it could have got to GS and the indication that the killer lived in the Met area.

                          I fully agree that this argument about was she or was she not wearing an apron has been blown up beyond all proportions simply by those who are so blinkered that they cannot see the flaws in the testimony which they seek to rely on to prop up the old accepted theory. I have wasted a week of my life which I am not going to get back arguing back and forth on this topic

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            I am sorry to again disagree the Gs piece was the piece that had a patch sewn to it and we do not know what that repair entailed, so that could have been two small pieces sewn together to effect the repair or two large pieces. I would suggest that there was no match made in relation to the repair piece of that apron piece, because the piece used for the repair would be slightly different having come from another apron, so the match made was between the two pieces of an original apron which she had in her possession.

                            So at some point Eddowes would have to have acquired a piece from another apron, so it is not beyond the realms ff fantasy to assume that the 12 pieces of rag found on her could have been the cut up remains of an old apron from which Eddowes had cut her repair piece from and from where she acquired her sanitary piece.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                            Hi Trevor,

                            No problem. The wording of how he did the match was always a bit strange to me, and it sounded like he was matching the seams of the repair, but without knowing what the repair was it didn't make much sense. If not that, I figured "seams" simply referred to the cut edge, but I can see how it could be the edges and bottom of the apron too, pending on how it was cut.

                            What sanitary napkin are you talking about? The one missing from the crime scene? I mean really, if she discarded one in G.S. should would have replaced it there, so it should still have been pinned to her clothes. She wasn't wearing one, so she wasn't menstruating, so the one in G.S. isn't her sanitary device.

                            - Jeff

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                              Hi Trevor,

                              No problem. The wording of how he did the match was always a bit strange to me, and it sounded like he was matching the seams of the repair, but without knowing what the repair was it didn't make much sense. If not that, I figured "seams" simply referred to the cut edge, but I can see how it could be the edges and bottom of the apron too, pending on how it was cut.

                              What sanitary napkin are you talking about? The one missing from the crime scene? I mean really, if she discarded one in G.S. should would have replaced it there, so it should still have been pinned to her clothes. She wasn't wearing one, so she wasn't menstruating, so the one in G.S. isn't her sanitary device.

                              - Jeff
                              Not if she had come to the end of her monthly cycle there would be no need to replace it, and modern day medical evidence tells us that women who were malnourished did not have heavy periods hence the blood spotting found on the GS piece

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                Here's something to think about Jeff.Theoreticaly,if Eddowes had two aprons and why not,she had three skirts,it would answer a lot of problems.One she was wearing,which the killer took away,and one in two pieces which is the subject of so much discussion.Personelly,I cannot accept that the amount of blood on the apron piece found in Goulstan street,was enough to account for the blood that would have been on the hands of the killer, and on the organ/organs that were missing.
                                Hi harry,

                                I think we're having enough problems with just one apron, which some suggest isn't even all there. I'm not sure we could handle the fall out from two! ha ha

                                How do you sufficiently know how much blood was on the G.S. piece in order to draw that conclusion? The medicals at the time saw the piece in real life, and that's what they thought, so I'm wondering how you've come to the conclusion an amount of blood you've not seen is not the right amount?

                                While some may differ, I personally don't think he used the apron to carry the organs. I think if he did, the medicals would have noticed the stain patterns and commented on them. As it is, theres just random blood spots and drops, and an area that they thought looked like a hand or knife was wiped on it.

                                - Jeff
                                Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-28-2021, 09:26 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X