Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, her Dark Green Chintz Skirt was described in the Monday morning papers as having a Michaelmas Daisey pattern & Golden Lilies, yet the official list makes no mention of either Michaelmas Daisey's or Golden Lilies.
Somehow the press knew this before they went to press Sunday night for the morning papers.

Why would the official list make mention of daisies and lillies? How do we know she was wearing a skirt with daisies and lillies again you are putting to much faiht in newspaper reports.

What I will say is that is is known that the press were encamped outside the mortuary until the early hours of the morning

But you are digressing, the issue we were discussing is whether or not she was wearing anything around her neck, and the official list shows she was not, the sketch also shows she was not. The officla list also show she was not wearing a bib apron in fact the officla list does not show her wearing any apron when the body was stripped.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The press do not sleep. Especially through the Ripper scare.
Regardless, it doesn't matter, I think Trevor knows he has trapped himself. Even if no press were there it means Dr Brown, Phillips, Collard, Halse, etc. had to have spoken to the press about the list, so even by any process of elimination, the source had to be official.
A press version of the list was available on Sunday for it to appear in the papers on Monday, and the source had to be official.

As I recall it was the police who gave the list of clothing and details of the tattoo in an effort to identify the victim

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

As I recall it was the police who gave the list of clothing and details of the tattoo in an effort to identify the victim

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can very well imagine the police doing that, but did they do it on Sunday, that's the question.
Can you share your recollection? I'm just wary if it's anything like mine it's probably better to read the actual source itself.

[Wickerman]

But you are digressing, the issue we were discussing is whether or not she was wearing anything around her neck, and the official list shows she was not, the sketch also shows she was not. The officla list also show she was not wearing a bib apron in fact the officla list does not show her wearing any apron when the body was stripped.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think the problem here is not the list, by the press or by the court, but your interpretation of the list. One piece of old white apron is the last item listed. Collard was not required to say where it came from, the press being more descriptive just happened to do that.

The argument could also be made that for the press to report where the piece came from suggests very strongly that they were present for the stripping of the body.

[Wickerman]

Here we are Trevor, issued by police.
And, here we read about the tattoo.

The following is the description of the deceased issued by the police authorities with a view to identification:- "Age about forty, no rings on fingers, black cloth jacket, three large metal buttons down the front, brown bodice, dark green chintz dress, with Michaelmas daisies, golden lily pattern; three flounces, dark linsey skirt, white chemise, brown ribbed stockings, feet mended with white material, a large white neckerchief round neck, pair of men's old lace-up boots. Tattoo marks on right forearm, 'T.C.', the whole of the clothing being very old. She also wore a black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads".
Pall Mall Gazette. 1 Oct 1888.

The Pall Mall Gazette is an evening paper, so we still can't be sure when they received this official release by police.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think the problem here is not the list, by the press or by the court, but your interpretation of the list. One piece of old white apron is the last item listed. Collard was not required to say where it came from, the press being more descriptive just happened to do that.

The argument could also be made that for the press to report where the piece came from suggests very strongly that they were present for the stripping of the body.

But they were not present the list was given to the press some time later after the post mortem by the police.

The list was clearly compiled as the clothes were being taken off the body. If she had been wearing an apron they could not have failed to see it because as I said previous it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt and they could not have failed to notice the top part of a bib apron because it would have still beem in situe where she wore it.

There is no mention of a neckerchief when the body was stripped and the list compiled

Notes made at the time are regarded as prime evidence.

It should also be noted that the piece of apron so described was not blood stained, and did not have any cuts through it whereas the rest of her clothing was described as having cuts and bloodstains significant with a knife being thrust into her abdomen several times and being drawn down and across.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I could post Collards List, but most can see it in Stewart's Ultimate. What may be of interest is the official release of the list of possessions is a little different to Collards List.
And, it must be noticed the official police list places "a large white neckerchief round her neck".
Each newspaper seems to want to rewrite the list to their own satisfaction, some call this item a handkerchief.

I found it interesting that the Times called the handkerchief an apron. "...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".
However, the Daily Telegraph write that it was a large white handkerchief around her neck, but there was a piece of course white apron among her possessions.
I gathered ten newspapers to see how varied the descriptions were. The Evening News & Irish Times published the same list. It described a large white handkerchief around the neck, but also listed a piece of course white apron.

I think this is important because we have two pieces of apron to consider. The piece found on the body and the piece found in Goulston street.

Collard does not list the piece found in Goulston street. He can't, he knows that is evidence from another scene. Just the same as the buttons, thimble and mustard tin containing pawn tickets, all of which were found at the crime scene. These are not included on Collards List. So the police actually have three lists; the items found in Mitre Square, the possessions removed from Eddowes body, and the single piece of apron from G.S.

So, how do we interpret the discrepancies between the press list & Collards List?
First, we all know about that last item on Collards List (1 piece of old white apron). As I explained, this cannot be the G.S. piece for reason's given, so this is the "neckerchief" found around the neck reported in the official release printed by the Pall Mall Gazette.
Collard recognised it for what it was, the remnants of an apron.

The Daily News & Morning Advertizer change "neckerchief" to "handkerchief" but keep it around the neck.

The Times describe the material around her neck as a "piece of apron", not neckerchief or handkerchief.

Interestingly, the Daily Telegraph, Irish Times, & Evening News while changing "neckerchief" to "handkerchief", they also include the piece of apron brought from Goulston street.

"...large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron".

[Trevor Marriott]

I could post Collards List, but most can see it in Stewart's Ultimate. What may be of interest is the official release of the list of possessions is a little different to Collards List.
And, it must be noticed the official police list places "a large white neckerchief round her neck".
Each newspaper seems to want to rewrite the list to their own satisfaction, some call this item a handkerchief.

I found it interesting that the Times called the handkerchief an apron. "...and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".
However, the Daily Telegraph write that it was a large white handkerchief around her neck, but there was a piece of course white apron among her possessions.
I gathered ten newspapers to see how varied the descriptions were. The Evening News & Irish Times published the same list. It described a large white handkerchief around the neck, but also listed a piece of course white apron.

I think this is important because we have two pieces of apron to consider. The piece found on the body and the piece found in Goulston street.

Collard does not list the piece found in Goulston street. He can't, he knows that is evidence from another scene. Just the same as the buttons, thimble and mustard tin containing pawn tickets, all of which were found at the crime scene. These are not included on Collards List. So the police actually have three lists; the items found in Mitre Square, the possessions removed from Eddowes body, and the single piece of apron from G.S.

So, how do we interpret the discrepancies between the press list & Collards List?
First, we all know about that last item on Collards List (1 piece of old white apron). As I explained, this cannot be the G.S. piece for reason's given, so this is the "neckerchief" found around the neck reported in the official release printed by the Pall Mall Gazette.
Collard recognised it for what it was, the remnants of an apron.

The Daily News & Morning Advertizer change "neckerchief" to "handkerchief" but keep it around the neck.

The Times describe the material around her neck as a "piece of apron", not neckerchief or handkerchief.

Interestingly, the Daily Telegraph, Irish Times, & Evening News while changing "neckerchief" to "handkerchief", they also include the piece of apron brought from Goulston street.

"...large white handkerchief round neck. She wore a pair of men's old lace-up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron".

which ever way you look at it, if anything was around her neck it was not the remains of an apron she had been wearing, according to reports you seek to rely on it was decsribed as a neckerchief/handkerchief

So we are back to square one in as much as no apron was taken or the remains of an apron were taken from her body when it was stripped. It all lends itself to what I have previoulsy suggested that she had in her possession at the time she was killed the remnants of an apron which had originally formed a full apron.

This fits with the mortuary piece having been listed amongst her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

I can't believe that we are still being told that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron when she was killed. We have so many reports from different police officers that she was wearing an apron, from officers at the police station when she was arrested, to detectives like Halse afterwards, who reported that at the mortuary he noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing. Then Shelton, the coroner's officer, gave a press release on 11th October 1888, that two witnesses had been found who had seen Eddowes a few minutes before she was murdered - they recognized her by the white apron she was wearing. OK, the witnesses might well have been mistaken, but the point is that the police thought they were valid witnesses because they saw a woman in a white apron. The police clearly are saying she wore a white apron, or these witnesses wouldn't have been valid.

[Trevor Marriott]

I can't believe that we are still being told that Eddowes wasn't wearing an apron when she was killed. We have so many reports from different police officers that she was wearing an apron, from officers at the police station when she was arrested, to detectives like Halse afterwards, who reported that at the mortuary he noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing. Then Shelton, the coroner's officer, gave a press release on 11th October 1888, that two witnesses had been found who had seen Eddowes a few minutes before she was murdered - they recognized her by the white apron she was wearing. OK, the witnesses might well have been mistaken, but the point is that the police thought they were valid witnesses because they saw a woman in a white apron. The police clearly are saying she wore a white apron, or these witnesses wouldn't have been valid.

The facts tell us that she wasnt "when she was killed"

The [post mortem took place some time after the murders when the officers were asked to recall if she was wearing an apron.

I have to ask can you recall what your partner was wearing on any given day 7 days previous?

To you and others I refer to the list of clothing compiled as the body was stripped and there is no mention of her wearing an apron but there is mention of her being in "possession" of an apron piece amongst her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

This is another example, and we have many in this case, of a discrepancy in wording being woven into a scenario. Eddowes was wearing an apron. We can take this to the bank. To try and show otherwise we have to work far too hard. Hurt and Robinson confirmed it and we have no reason to doubt them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The facts tell us that she wasnt "when she was killed"

The [post mortem took place some time after the murders when the officers were asked to recall if she was wearing an apron.

I have to ask can you recall what your partner was wearing on any given day 7 days previous?

To you and others I refer to the list of clothing compiled as the body was stripped and there is no mention of her wearing an apron but there is mention of her being in "possession" of an apron piece amongst her possessions

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

If they’d have found a hat with her but it wasn’t actually on her head when her body had arrived at the mortuary don’t you think that it would have been entirely reasonable to have assumed that she’d originally been wearing it? Especially if two police officers confirmed that she’d been wearing a hat when they’d last seen her?

[Trevor Marriott]

This is another example, and we have many in this case, of a discrepancy in wording being woven into a scenario. Eddowes was wearing an apron. We can take this to the bank. To try and show otherwise we have to work far too hard. Hurt and Robinson confirmed it and we have no reason to doubt them.

By the time the post mortem took place it had been genarally "accepted" that the GS piece had been cut from an apron she was wearing the police officers in my opinion simply went along with that by miraculaosly remebering days previous that she was wearing an apron.

As we have seen with other aspects of the police evidence in this case from contables to senior officers some of which is unsafe this is another unsafe part, especially when you have the custody Sgt who books her in and releases her making no mention of her wearing an apron.

And even if you accept there evidence it doesnt confirm that when she was killed she was still wearing an apron because the list from the mortuary tells us she wasnt.

There is no point or nothing to be gained by labouring this issue you and others are at liberty to believe she was wearing an apron despite the weight of evidence to suggest she was not myself and others can look at it in a different way.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

If they’d have found a hat with her but it wasn’t actually on her head when her body had arrived at the mortuary don’t you think that it would have been entirely reasonable to have assumed that she’d originally been wearing it? Especially if two police officers confirmed that she’d been wearing a hat when they’d last seen her?

But she was wearing a hat and it was still attached to the back of her head

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

Is Trevor beating his dead hobbyhorse again?

Groundhog day.