Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    You’ve a worryingly extensive knowledge of women’s clothing items Wick.
    Consequences of a misspent youth?
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      But that doesnt prove Eddowes was wearing that type full length bib apron there was no mention of a bib apron
      But there was mention of a bib, we've debated that.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Caz,

        Working fast with a sharp knife in the dark, a cut is not an unreasonable possibility. Presuming he would have brought something to carry away organs, he could have quickly wiped his hands on her clothing rather than carrying away an incriminating piece of cloth. So had he cut himself, what could he do. Walk away leaving a blood trail? My thinking is he only needed the apron for something he hadn't anticipated.

        Cheers, George
        Hi George and Caz,

        I admit, I've wondered if JtR may have cut himself as well, and the possibility of that getting infected in this case is worth considering. Certainly, if it developed into septicemia, as Caz suggests, would likely be fatal. Given Mary's murder follows, JtR has not died by that point, ruling out that line of consequences unless one believes Eddowes and Kelly were murdered by different people. My belief is that the odds of that are very very low. However, an infection could still arise that is less life threatening. While I think it a long shot, I've wondered for awhile if somewhere in medical records JtR's name shows up as someone in need of medical attention to a severe cut to his hand, infected or not, in the day or two following Eddowes's murder. Given the clamour that followed, it would have to be someone who could present such an injury in a way that wasn't suspicious of course, so one's interest would be definitely peaked by someone with a knife injury to their left hand (although injury to the right, holding the knife, can't be overlooked as this can happen if the knife slips in the grip, but I think that's more common in stabbing attacks?), in the day or two following the double event, where their occupation would render that injury unsurprising enough not to raise interest. While I suppose butcher or slaughterman may immediately come to mind, but perhaps chef, medical personnel, leather worker, fish fileter, sailor, etc might be more of even more interest given butchers and slaughter men were mentioned as possible occupations at time and so might create more suspicion (perhaps medical should be included in that list too, as there were suspicions towards Dr. Jack as well). Anyway, quibbling about what occupations might be more or less of interest (given anyone with a hand injury would be interesting enough to look into), it is an intriguing line of speculation to wonder about. I suspect, however, such medical records do not exist, and where exactly would one look? Maybe the local hospital, but there's no reason why he would have to go there even if he did cut himself (which we don't even know) as he could just as easily gone to a local doctor at their office.

        If he used the apron piece for more than just wiping himself clean, as in he did cut himself, even if not severely, it is a shame that the GS piece no longer exists. If it did, unlike the shawl (for which there is no provenance), that would be a great place to try some modern techniques. If he left any of his blood on it, that might very well be possible to have analysed.

        hmmmm, since I'm dreaming, I want a pony too.

        - Jeff

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          How can anyone misidentify an apron. they are big white things that go around the waist.

          look again at the list and look to see how the first items that were carefully removed from the body

          1st item removed-Black Cloth Jacket
          2nd item removed -Chint skirt

          Any apron would have been worn under the jacket and over the skirt, and visible to all, if it had been a bib type apron it would have been even more visible because there would have been a lot more of it.
          Not as obvious as you try to make out.
          The apron was dirty, and the remaining piece was caught up in her clothes which we know had been thrown up and over her. Which means the remaining piece of apron was likely not visible, and if it was, it was not obvious in the dark of the square.
          Even as they undressed the body the piece of cloth was not obviously a piece of apron.
          We've been over this, how many times?


          The list show one old piece of white apron not one old white apron with piece missing.
          No, "with piece missing" is presumptive. You describe what you see, not what you think you see.

          The problem with the evidence is that when the body was stripped and the list made up no one at the mortuary was aware that the GS piece had been found it was only when the two pieces were later matched that people suddenly remembered her wearing an apron...
          The GS piece was brought to the mortuary, that's where it was fitted.
          Yes, (people suddenly remembered her wearing an apron) finally you admit she was wearing an apron.
          Thankyou.

          ......and Halse recalls seeing a piece missing at the mortuary despite all that was going on at the mortuary with the stripping of the body and listing all the cuts to the clothing he recalls a piece of her apron missing.
          Well, Halse wasn't involved in stripping the body, or washing the body, or making the list of possessions.
          Fault him for paying attention if you like, but I would assume that was part of his job.
          [/QUOTE]

          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            How can anyone misidentify an apron. they are big white things that go around the waist.

            ...
            Hey, we agree! It would be hard to misidentify one, and hard to miss seeing a big white thing that goes around the waist, etc. Hence, we have multiple independent witnesses all recognizing that she was wearing one on the day, starting from the time she left her lodgings, right on up and through her time in the drunk tank.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              [B]No you are stretching the facts to suit

              Take a look at the list of clothing as it came off the body, if she had been wearing a bib apron as you suggest that would have been under her jacket and over her skirt, and easily visible and easily recorded and Collard would not have then said "apparently wearing"

              You cannot dismiss Collards list which makes no mention of her wearing an apron that was taken down at the time and is prime evidence.
              How do you explain the Times reporter in the Monday morning paper identifying a piece of old apron around her neck?

              "....and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".
              Times, 1 Oct. 1888.

              Check the other morning papers, you'll find there's no mention of the Mitre Square victim wearing an apron.
              The only mention of an apron, aside from Leather Apron, is where a select few newspapers published Collards List of Possessions.
              Apart from the Times, The Daily Telegraph, and People, also mention this piece of apron around her neck.

              So, if it wasn't there, in your opinion, then how did three independent reporters all see the same article?
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                Hi George and Caz,

                I admit, I've wondered if JtR may have cut himself as well, and the possibility of that getting infected in this case is worth considering. Certainly, if it developed into septicemia, as Caz suggests, would likely be fatal............ While I think it a long shot, I've wondered for awhile if somewhere in medical records JtR's name shows up as someone in need of medical attention to a severe cut to his hand, infected or not, in the day or two following Eddowes's murder....... it is an intriguing line of speculation to wonder about. I suspect, however, such medical records do not exist, and where exactly would one look? Maybe the local hospital, but there's no reason why he would have to go there even if he did cut himself (which we don't even know) as he could just as easily gone to a local doctor at their office.

                - Jeff
                Hi Jeff,

                I agree that the search for medical records of an injury would be challenging to say the least. But if the septicemia had proved fatal, would a search of death records be any more realistic? Is there somewhere a death certificate from late 1888 showing cause of death "Septicemia from infected cut on hand"?

                Cheers, George

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  But there was mention of a bib, we've debated that.
                  It took a while to find that.

                  Charles Warren to James Fraser.

                  Oct. 3, 1888.

                  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.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                    Hi Jeff,

                    I agree that the search for medical records of an injury would be challenging to say the least. But if the septicemia had proved fatal, would a search of death records be any more realistic? Is there somewhere a death certificate from late 1888 showing cause of death "Septicemia from infected cut on hand"?

                    Cheers, George
                    Hi George,

                    That would be an interesting find, though septicemia sets in really fast, so if that were the case it would be more likely to be shortly after Kelly's murder, but that's a minor point. I think if such a case were found in early Dec, then that would potentially put a new person in the list. After that, it would see if by doing so suddenly more and more loose ends start tying themselves together.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                      Hi George,

                      That would be an interesting find, though septicemia sets in really fast, so if that were the case it would be more likely to be shortly after Kelly's murder, but that's a minor point. I think if such a case were found in early Dec, then that would potentially put a new person in the list. After that, it would see if by doing so suddenly more and more loose ends start tying themselves together.

                      - Jeff
                      Hi Jeff,

                      I am not entirely convinced that Kelly was a JtR victim. I'd start looking for a death certificate dated in October.

                      Cheers, George

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                        Hi Jeff,

                        I am not entirely convinced that Kelly was a JtR victim. I'd start looking for a death certificate dated in October.

                        Cheers, George
                        Ok, given you question Kelly's inclusion, that would make sense. I would probably start looking just after Kelly's murder, but as you say, it would be prudent to also look just after Eddowes as well, just in case. There are more than a few who question Kelly's inclusion.

                        - Jeff

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                          Ok, given you question Kelly's inclusion, that would make sense. I would probably start looking just after Kelly's murder, but as you say, it would be prudent to also look just after Eddowes as well, just in case. There are more than a few who question Kelly's inclusion.

                          - Jeff
                          It's probably not related, but looking at the Coram knife with its turned over edge and blood stained handkerchief, I can envisage the dulling of a blade edge by someone who considers it has done them harm.

                          Heresy I know, but I don't think Stride was JtR either. I think that was Kosminski as a one and only.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            It took a while to find that.

                            Charles Warren to James Fraser.

                            Oct. 3, 1888.

                            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.
                            and where did Warren get his information from there is no mention of a bib from the mortuary and I see you have ignored the fact that if there had have been a bib apron where it would have been located on the body in relation to the other clothing and easily visible and documented

                            Warrens letter clearly also shows a doubt about whether or not she was wearing an apron


                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              How do you explain the Times reporter in the Monday morning paper identifying a piece of old apron around her neck?

                              "....and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".
                              Times, 1 Oct. 1888.

                              Check the other morning papers, you'll find there's no mention of the Mitre Square victim wearing an apron.
                              The only mention of an apron, aside from Leather Apron, is where a select few newspapers published Collards List of Possessions.
                              Apart from the Times, The Daily Telegraph, and People, also mention this piece of apron around her neck.

                              So, if it wasn't there, in your opinion, then how did three independent reporters all see the same article?
                              They were not present when the body was stripped and the list compiled so nothing more than hearsay !

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                and where did Warren get his information from there is no mention of a bib from the mortuary and I see you have ignored the fact that if there had have been a bib apron where it would have been located on the body in relation to the other clothing and easily visible and documented

                                Warrens letter clearly also shows a doubt about whether or not she was wearing an apron


                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                                It’s baffling how you can make that deduction from that letter Trevor? I think that we can assume that Sir Charles Warren and Henry Matthews had very limited expertise on the subject of the clothing of working class women and so, for him, the words ‘bib’ and ‘apron’ were just interchangeable.

                                The letter clearly shows no doubt about the existence of the apron as it’s an attempt to get clarification on whether the possibility existed that it could have found it’s way to Goulston Street without being carried their by the killer. Basically, why would the Home Secretary be asking “how did x get to y” if he suspected that x didn’t exist in the first place?
                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X