Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

For a man who is well known for parroting “old established theories’ every time someone disagrees with him, asking me to change the record is a bit rich. As is calling me ‘obsessive’ when you’re the one defending a theory at all costs. For some, reason flies out of the window for some when there’s a theory to be defended.

Im not at all ‘worked up’ Trevor nor will I follow your instruction to ‘zip it.’ Sorry about that.

The fact that you ‘know’ that you are right is based on a mix of a biased interpretation of evidence and the ignoring of inconvenient evidence combined with baseless speculations. Opinion stated as fact AGAIN.

As another example of what I deem to be unsafe testimony which you and others seem to want to disregard, I mention the official testimony of Pc Robinson
"The last time I saw her in the police cell was 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing"

Now how on earth was he able to say that whatever piece of apron produced was the one/or part of the apron she was wearing? a piece of white apron is just that a piece of white apron, and unless there are any unusual distinguishing marks to positively identify it that's what it will remain a piece of old white apron he is clearly making it up to suit the police scenario surrounding the GS piece.

The same comments apply to Pc Hutts testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

As another example of what I deem to be unsafe testimony which you and others seem to want to disregard, I mention the official testimony of Pc Robinson
"The last time I saw her in the police cell was 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing"

Now how on earth was he able to say that whatever piece of apron produced was the one/or part of the apron she was wearing? a piece of white apron is just that a piece of white apron, and unless there are any unusual distinguishing marks to positively identify it that's what it will remain a piece of old white apron he is clearly making it up to suit the police scenario surrounding the GS piece.

The same comments apply to Pc Hutts testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Two parts.

1st part - They both saw her wearing an apron - This was an observation not an assumption.

2nd part - They appeared to be making an assumption.

Just because they shouldn’t have made the assumption in the 2nd part in no way affects the validity of the 1st parts.

If the 2nd part was a piece of provenly incorrect observation then you would have a point about the 1st part being potentially unsafe.

[JeffHamm]

As another example of what I deem to be unsafe testimony which you and others seem to want to disregard, I mention the official testimony of Pc Robinson
"The last time I saw her in the police cell was 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing"

Now how on earth was he able to say that whatever piece of apron produced was the one/or part of the apron she was wearing? a piece of white apron is just that a piece of white apron, and unless there are any unusual distinguishing marks to positively identify it that's what it will remain a piece of old white apron he is clearly making it up to suit the police scenario surrounding the GS piece.

The same comments apply to Pc Hutts testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

He says "I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing" not "I confirm the apron produced was the one she was wearing". The former would indicate that the apron produced looked enough like the one he saw her wearing in the cell that it was sufficient for him to believe it to be the same garment. The latter, which he neither said nor implied, is what you're arguing he could not do - which is probably why he didn't do that.

His initial portion of the quote you provide, however, states directly that she was wearing an apron. He can confirm that, as that is based upon his direct observation.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Two parts.

1st part - They both saw her wearing an apron - This was an observation not an assumption.

2nd part - They appeared to be making an assumption.

Just because they shouldn’t have made the assumption in the 2nd part in no way affects the validity of the 1st parts.

If the 2nd part was a piece of provenly incorrect observation then you would have a point about the 1st part being potentially unsafe.

Of course it effects their witness credibility.

The fact is that the second part of their testimony which I have highlighted is clearly unsafe, so that has to raise a big question mark about the reliability of the rest of their testimony, and their so called ability to "recall" without aide de memoirs, 4 days after the event that she was wearing an apron, yet another officer who also had direct contact with her says nothing about her wearing an apron.

Hutt and Robinson were not cross examined as they would have been in a normal trial, but just sit and think what questions they would have been asked by the defense, and what answers they could have given to try to convince a jury to rely on their testimony if it had been a proper trial, and how would a jury have looked on their testimony then?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

He says "I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing" not "I confirm the apron produced was the one she was wearing". The former would indicate that the apron produced looked enough like the one he saw her wearing in the cell that it was sufficient for him to believe it to be the same garment. The latter, which he neither said nor implied, is what you're arguing he could not do - which is probably why he didn't do that.

His initial portion of the quote you provide, however, states directly that she was wearing an apron. He can confirm that, as that is based upon his direct observation.

- Jeff

Then they both should have been asked to be specific was it or was it not ? and in any event their answers as recorded make it unsafe to suggest that what was produced was from her apron or the remains of her apron. I do accept that there is other evidence from the mortuary and GS, but that evidence does not show that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, in fact Collards lists negates that fact.

See my previous post#739

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Then they both should have been asked to be specific was it or was it not ? and in any event their answers as recorded make it unsafe to suggest that what was produced was from her apron or the remains of her apron. I do accept that there is other evidence from the mortuary and GS, but that evidence does not show that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered, in fact Collards lists negates that fact.

See my previous post#739

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

What they should have been asked is something we can't change, what we have is what they were asked and how their answers were written down. I agree that if we had the opportunity to seek out clarification from the various witnesses that would be one of the first things that would have to be done, but we can't do that. We have to deal with what we have.

I would suggest that if the piece shown was the GSG piece, which from previous posts sounds like it was a fair percentage of the portion of an apron below the wasteband, that would be insufficient for him to recognize as being the apron she wore. Since he does testify that be believes the one shown is the one she was wearing, that would suggest it was the section from the crime scene, that everyone from the time who mentions her and the apron says she was wearing, although you have decided she wasn't.

Let's also look at the point you're focused on. Specifically, it's the reliability of whether or not he can attest to the fact that the bit of apron shown at the inquest was indeed from the apron he saw her wearing. You are suggesting he is not in a position to identify it as such. As I pointed out, he didn't confirm that it was, only that he believed it was, pointing to a visual similarity between what he was shown and what he recalls her wearing. I agree that he cannot make a statement that confirms the match, and he didn't make such a statement, so we're agreeing he can't say something he didn't say. Oddly, you seem to want to ask him if he can make that confirmation statement, knowing he can't unless, of course, he's privy to some document that tracks the chain of custody of the apron piece; a protocol I suspect was not in place in 1888 (procedures and handling of evidence was no where near the standards you would be familiar with).

What you're arguing is that he cannot state his belief that the portion shown was the one he saw her wearing, which of course he can. He can state he believes them to be one in the same. Questioning the accuracy of that belief is to get at the idea that the apron shown in court was not the one he saw her wearing. If it's not, though, either it's a fabricated piece of evidence (the police for reasons unknown found an apron and pretended they found it with Edddowes), or Eddowes was wearing a different apron, and this is a second apron that had been in her possession. I think we can dismiss the "corrupt planted evidence apron" option, leaving only the second option for you to be suggesting might be the case because he cannot be more specific with regards to her wearing an apron when she was in custody; he states she was wearing an apron, not "he thinks she was" or "he believes she was" he states it as a definite fact and you have produced nothing that indicates that fact is incorrect, you've only said you believe it is incorrect. But if a witness cannot state their beliefs, then you have to retract your statement of belief, leaving us again at the statement of fact before us.

So, if the piece is not the one she was wearing, and not some sort of planted evidence, then you are starting to head towards arguing it must come from a second apron that she carried on her person.

And even if we go there, you now need to offer an explanation for where is the apron she was seen to be wearing? Because nothing on any list, or testimony, points to Eddowes being the owner of two aprons. And even this option leads to the fact that Eddowes was indeed wearing an apron, all you're doing is suggesting it might have not been the one they showed at the inquest. So where did the one she was wearing go?

You're painting yourself into yet another corner by dismissing all of the direct statements that she was wearing an apron.

- Jeff

P.S. Collard himself testifies towards her wearing the apron, regardless of the importance of his word "apparently". The idea that Collard's list negates anything is only your conjecture of how it was composed. Making such a list in the way you insist it was done was not standard police procedure. We know that when we look at other cases, where there's no official list of the victim's clothing even made (note the confusion over the stays in the Nichol's case, for example).

[Herlock Sholmes]

Of course it effects their witness credibility.

The fact is that the second part of their testimony which I have highlighted is clearly unsafe, so that has to raise a big question mark about the reliability of the rest of their testimony, and their so called ability to "recall" without aide de memoirs, 4 days after the event that she was wearing an apron, yet another officer who also had direct contact with her says nothing about her wearing an apron.

Hutt and Robinson were not cross examined as they would have been in a normal trial, but just sit and think what questions they would have been asked by the defense, and what answers they could have given to try to convince a jury to rely on their testimony if it had been a proper trial, and how would a jury have looked on their testimony then?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re wrong. And obsessed.

They are two entirely unconnected things.

There’s nothing suspicious about Hutt and Robinson. They saw Eddowes and said that she was wearing an apron. Therefore she wearing an apron.

[harry]

How would anyone know how many aprons she was wearing or had in her possession prior to being undressed at the mortuary?
How many knew she was wearing three skirts?
Why did Hutt and Robinson not mention a skirt?

[JeffHamm]

How would anyone know how many aprons she was wearing or had in her possession prior to being undressed at the mortuary?
How many knew she was wearing three skirts?
Why did Hutt and Robinson not mention a skirt?

Given it's being argued people who saw her cannot know she was even wearing one, that's a fair point.

But I would like to make it clear, in case it's not, I'm not saying I think she was in possession of multiple aprons as a matter of fact, I'm pointing out that the line of speculation being followed here leads to effectively making the claim she had at least two. Whether or not someone could know that, other than Eddowes, is not the point - it becomes a part of the claim this sort of conjecture has to make.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re wrong. And obsessed.

They are two entirely unconnected things.

There’s nothing suspicious about Hutt and Robinson. They saw Eddowes and said that she was wearing an apron. Therefore she wearing an apron.

and Collards list show that she was not wearing an apron, but you and others say that evidence is unsafe, and have invented all manner of explanations in an attempt to negate that prime piece of evidence

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

What they should have been asked is something we can't change, what we have is what they were asked and how their answers were written down. I agree that if we had the opportunity to seek out clarification from the various witnesses that would be one of the first things that would have to be done, but we can't do that. We have to deal with what we have.

I realize that but we have to look at what context it was said, and ask can that testimony be safely relied on and how can it be tested. We cant ask them questions now and they were not questioned back then. They gave their testimony 4 days later, and a simple test of recollection would be to ask yourself at this point in time what color shirt you can recall wearing 4 days ago, and why do you specifically recall wearing that color shirt and what was it about that shirt that sticks in your mind

I would suggest that if the piece shown was the GSG piece, which from previous posts sounds like it was a fair percentage of the portion of an apron below the wasteband, that would be insufficient for him to recognize as being the apron she wore. Since he does testify that be believes the one shown is the one she was wearing, that would suggest it was the section from the crime scene, that everyone from the time who mentions her and the apron says she was wearing, although you have decided she wasn't.

The evidence relating to the piece found in GS and the mortuary pieces I am not challenging other than the fact that we do not know the sizes of either piece. But for a witness to stand up and say that what was shown to him he believes was from the apron she was wearing is farcical a white apron is a white apron an as common as horseshit in the roads in Victorian times. Both witnesses were never asked what was unusual about the apron she was wearing which would make the court identification safe to rely on and corroborate their testimony.

By the time the inquest took place the police case was based on the fact that the killer took a piece of apron which was linked to the victim and deposited it in GS. In order for that to fit it first had to be proved that she was wearing an apron, so along comes Hutt and Robinson who conveniently confirm that fact so it all fits nicely together, and then we have Collards testimony who again has to go with the flow, but he is not so sure and uses the term apparently wearing, and then to top it all out of all the things that were happening that night, 4 days later at the inquest Halse just happen to recall that he remembers seeing at the mortuary a piece of her apron missing.


So, if the piece is not the one she was wearing, and not some sort of planted evidence, then you are starting to head towards arguing it must come from a second apron that she carried on her person.

The reference to a second apron has been brought up before, She was found to be in possession of twelve pieces of rag we do not know where these pieces of rag came from for all we know they could have come from an old apron that had been cut up by the victim, but clearly they served some purpose for the victim to have had them in her possession.

And even if we go there, you now need to offer an explanation for where is the apron she was seen to be wearing? Because nothing on any list, or testimony, points to Eddowes being the owner of two aprons. And even this option leads to the fact that Eddowes was indeed wearing an apron, all you're doing is suggesting it might have not been the one they showed at the inquest. So where did the one she was wearing go?

Your explanation is that she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered and if you want to accept the evidence then why not consider the fact that she could have cut up her own apron into many pieces before meeting her killer I don't go with that theory but it is a theory than cannot be negated she was in possession of a knife.

You're painting yourself into yet another corner by dismissing all of the direct statements that she was wearing an apron.

Those statements are unsafe

P.S. Collard himself testifies towards her wearing the apron, regardless of the importance of his word "apparently". The idea that Collard's list negates anything is only your conjecture of how it was composed. Making such a list in the way you insist it was done was not standard police procedure. We know that when we look at other cases, where there's no official list of the victim's clothing even made (note the confusion over the stays in the Nichol's case, for example).

he does no such thing he use the word apparently that to me means he is unsure and is relying on the testimony of others.

As to the list this murder came under the City police they clearly had different procedure from the Met as we see with how the inquest was conducted

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

I actually do remember what shirt I was wearing 4 days ago, that was Friday for me, and I was wearing a black t-shirt, with a Guinesse logo on it surrounded by green, as it was put out for St. Paddy's this year. I admit, I had to think about it a bit, but it wasn't all that hard to do.

I see you're back to suggesting that the police were suffering from tunnel vision, they had latched on to the GS piece, and for some reason needed to have Eddowes wearing the apron, rather than as they knew, simply possessing it. Why they would need to do that, though, is beyond me? How would her possessing the apron change anything to their case? It wouldn't. Nor does your conspiracy approaching explanation account for why Frederick William Wilkinson, of 55 Flower and Dean, who knew Eddowes for 7 or 8 years, state in his testimony "...On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron, she was not dressed in anything particular." I suppose you'll suggest they gave him a few bob to help them out?

You are also sounding like you think these requests about her wearing an apron came out of the blue to the police. They found the GS piece just over an hour of the murder being discovered. As they tracked her movements down, locating her arrest, and so forth, those police involved would have been talked to. This would have happened in well under the 4 days that the inquest started, so it's more like "Do you remember that drunk women you arrested yesterday? or maybe 2 nights ago?", etc. Can you not remember what shirt you wore yesterday?

And however you wish to view PC Collard's "apparently", he in no way can be contrived to be indicating she only possessed the apron, which if the list means what you imagine it to mean, he would do given he has heard others state she was wearing it. He would correct the record, but he did not, putting the lie to your conjecture the list is indicative of some sort of order.

None of these ideas you're putting forth hold up if they are given even a modicum of thought, and the explanation you're hinting at about the police "wanting her to be wearing the apron" is bereft of any imaginable motivation. Wearing or carrying is neither here nor there to their case, it's only of importance to yours. Perhaps your projecting onto the police of 1888 your own approach.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

and Collards list show that she was not wearing an apron, but you and others say that evidence is unsafe, and have invented all manner of explanations in an attempt to negate that prime piece of evidence

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It does no such thing Trevor. There are other very plausible explanations which have been put forward on this thread which you choose to ignore. If there are more than one possible explanations then you cannot claim one as being conclusive. And yet you do exactly that.

To be honest Trevor you do this in pretty much every thread that you post in. You either attempt to establish some kind of ‘rule’ which no one else agrees with purely to achieve your aim or you attempt to apply strange logic just to dismiss a piece of evidence or a witness that is inconvenient to your particular theory or belief. I can give three very obvious examples - and yes I’m conscious of not wanting to derail the thread but I want to illustrate what I mean.

1. When we were discussing Druitt you tried to introduce some kind of category of suspect (as used in an ongoing police investigation) to try and relegate and sideline Druitt whilst keeping a focus on your own suspect. You wanted to ‘categorise’ Druitt as no more than a person of interest but your own suspect as a ‘suspect’ with the very obvious implication that your suspect is more valid. Many of us tried to explain this to you (myself, Paul Begg, Wickerman and others) that this wasn’t an ongoing police investigation and so we have no issues about wasting manpower or allowing a guilty man to kill again and that, for us, ‘suspect’ simply means someone named by someone as a suspect. You wouldn’t accept this very obvious point though because it didn’t suit your agenda.

2. In the Chapman thread you sought to discredit a witness and so sideline or dismiss him from the argument. The method you chose was this. The witness said 2 things (x and y) He expressed x with caution, admitting the possibility of him being mistaken. He expressed y however with complete confidence; stating that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Your ‘logic’ was that as he was cautious about x his y statement couldn’t be trusted. I tried to explain this but you just wouldn’t have it. But this is what you do. You look for absolutely anything, no matter how illogic or tenuous, to try and discredit and so bolster your point/theory.

3. You repeatedly mention the fact that no one else heard MacNaghten’s Private Info and so it is unsafe to rely on (no one else that we know of did hear it of course) but no one else heard Feigenbaum’s alleged confession to Lawton in the police cells either. So no matter what facts ‘might’ tie up the confession could have been invented and any facts related by Lawton could have been gained at any other time. No one heard MacNaghten’s private info and no one heard Feigenbaum tell Lawton that he had an overwhelming desire to kill women. Can anyone on here guess which of these 2 you accept and which one you dismiss?

4. On here you are trying to discredit 2 police witnesses for simply remembering something. That a woman that they both spent time in the company of was wearing a white apron. We have no reason to doubt them but you are trying to use something that doesn’t call into question their powers of observation as a reason for discrediting their powers of observation when at most they are guilty of nothing more than making an assumption. They weren’t ‘assuming’ that she was wearing an apron though. They actually saw her wearing it.

......

Everyone realises that witnesses can make mistakes or lie. This doesn’t automatically mean that every witness is ‘unsafe.’ Jeff explained this when he made the point that a witness isn’t ‘unsafe’ simply because we have to accept a 0.000001% possibility of them being mistaken or lying. I made the chair example. How irritated would you be if someone followed you around yelling ‘unsafe’ and telling you not to sit on any chair that you came into contact with purely because a 0.000001% chance exists that the chair might have some kind of fault and collapse beneath you? You need a valid reason to claim that something is ‘unsafe.’ You need evidence for it and not just that a ten million to one chance exists.

So mistaken or lying? Hutt and Robinson both saw Eddowes. Both spent considerable time in her company. A white apron is an easily spotted item. So the fact that they both said that she was wearing one is strong evidence. Could they have lied? Why? There was no controversy at the time. No one was doubting that the GS piece came from her apron. There was no need for Hutt and Robinson to support some kind of police cover-up. So we have no reason to suspect that they were mistaken and even less reason to suspect them of lying. There statements are therefore in no way ‘unsafe.’

As everyone but you can see. So please stop trying to ‘fix’ the evidence to suit your theories. Let the evidence stand and be assessed fairly and without an agenda.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. Nor does your conspiracy approaching explanation account for why Frederick William Wilkinson, of 55 Flower and Dean, who knew Eddowes for 7 or 8 years, state in his testimony "...On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron, she was not dressed in anything particular." I suppose you'll suggest they gave him a few bob to help them out

No agenda here. Straight forward evidence. Eddowes was wearing an apron. As we’ve known all along...it’s game over.

[Trevor Marriott]

It does no such thing Trevor. There are other very plausible explanations which have been put forward on this thread which you choose to ignore. If there are more than one possible explanations then you cannot claim one as being conclusive. And yet you do exactly that.

To be honest Trevor you do this in pretty much every thread that you post in. You either attempt to establish some kind of ‘rule’ which no one else agrees with purely to achieve your aim or you attempt to apply strange logic just to dismiss a piece of evidence or a witness that is inconvenient to your particular theory or belief. I can give three very obvious examples - and yes I’m conscious of not wanting to derail the thread but I want to illustrate what I mean.

1. When we were discussing Druitt you tried to introduce some kind of category of suspect (as used in an ongoing police investigation) to try and relegate and sideline Druitt whilst keeping a focus on your own suspect. You wanted to ‘categorise’ Druitt as no more than a person of interest but your own suspect as a ‘suspect’ with the very obvious implication that your suspect is more valid. Many of us tried to explain this to you (myself, Paul Begg, Wickerman and others) that this wasn’t an ongoing police investigation and so we have no issues about wasting manpower or allowing a guilty man to kill again and that, for us, ‘suspect’ simply means someone named by someone as a suspect. You wouldn’t accept this very obvious point though because it didn’t suit your agenda.

2. In the Chapman thread you sought to discredit a witness and so sideline or dismiss him from the argument. The method you chose was this. The witness said 2 things (x and y) He expressed x with caution, admitting the possibility of him being mistaken. He expressed y however with complete confidence; stating that he couldn’t have been mistaken. Your ‘logic’ was that as he was cautious about x his y statement couldn’t be trusted. I tried to explain this but you just wouldn’t have it. But this is what you do. You look for absolutely anything, no matter how illogic or tenuous, to try and discredit and so bolster your point/theory.

3. You repeatedly mention the fact that no one else heard MacNaghten’s Private Info and so it is unsafe to rely on (no one else that we know of did hear it of course) but no one else heard Feigenbaum’s alleged confession to Lawton in the police cells either. So no matter what facts ‘might’ tie up the confession could have been invented and any facts related by Lawton could have been gained at any other time. No one heard MacNaghten’s private info and no one heard Feigenbaum tell Lawton that he had an overwhelming desire to kill women. Can anyone on here guess which of these 2 you accept and which one you dismiss?

4. On here you are trying to discredit 2 police witnesses for simply remembering something. That a woman that they both spent time in the company of was wearing a white apron. We have no reason to doubt them but you are trying to use something that doesn’t call into question their powers of observation as a reason for discrediting their powers of observation when at most they are guilty of nothing more than making an assumption. They weren’t ‘assuming’ that she was wearing an apron though. They actually saw her wearing it.

......

Everyone realises that witnesses can make mistakes or lie. This doesn’t automatically mean that every witness is ‘unsafe.’ Jeff explained this when he made the point that a witness isn’t ‘unsafe’ simply because we have to accept a 0.000001% possibility of them being mistaken or lying. I made the chair example. How irritated would you be if someone followed you around yelling ‘unsafe’ and telling you not to sit on any chair that you came into contact with purely because a 0.000001% chance exists that the chair might have some kind of fault and collapse beneath you? You need a valid reason to claim that something is ‘unsafe.’ You need evidence for it and not just that a ten million to one chance exists.

So mistaken or lying? Hutt and Robinson both saw Eddowes. Both spent considerable time in her company. A white apron is an easily spotted item. So the fact that they both said that she was wearing one is strong evidence. Could they have lied? Why? There was no controversy at the time. No one was doubting that the GS piece came from her apron. There was no need for Hutt and Robinson to support some kind of police cover-up. So we have no reason to suspect that they were mistaken and even less reason to suspect them of lying. There statements are therefore in no way ‘unsafe.’

As everyone but you can see. So please stop trying to ‘fix’ the evidence to suit your theories. Let the evidence stand and be assessed fairly and without an agenda.

No one is suggesting they were deliberately lying but what I do suggest is that they were trying to be too helpful in proving the police theory as to which direction the killer went after the murder.

No one is trying to fix the evidence other than you and Herlock who are in denial to the fact that police testimony which you say supports the fact that she was wearing an apron is unsafe for the reasons given.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk