Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Precisely, and of course we know that it was taken out of the pile of clothes, because at some point Dr Phillips arrived at Golden Lane carrying the G.S, piece. It was at Golden Lane where Dr Brown fitted the remnant to the G.S. piece. This, I believe, is why the "old piece of apron" was placed at the end.
It was put back with the clothes after being matched.

Collard subsequently made a List of Possessions only after the G.S. piece had been matched, which was some time after the body had been stripped.
Collard being present for the stripping, and his creation of the List, are not necessarily concurrent events.

when the body was stripped and the list compiled the apron piece had not even been found

It is normal procedure to remove clothes from homicide victims carefully and list them as they come off the body noting any signifcant marks, cuts, or bullet holes which is what happened thats why we see such a detailed list of clothing and detailed cuts and bloodstains

If as you and others suggest the clothes were just taken off and dumped in a pile and the list made later it would not have been in any significant order making it more difficult to note down the cuts and the blood stains.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

As such, there to appear be three underlying tenants:
1) The theory is your friend.
2) All true evidence will conform to the theory.
3) Those who question the theory must be blinkered.

This is hardly unique to Trevor. The majority of posters who are sure that they have solved the case seem to act this way.

[Wickerman]

when the body was stripped and the list compiled the apron piece had not even been found

That's not what I said though, is it Trevor.

I said Collard may have been present when the body was stripped, the G.S. piece arrived sometime later, at which point Dr Brown matched both pieces of apron, and Brown then placed his remnant back on top of, or at the end of the pile of clothes.
Collard then made his List of Possessions.

It's a suggestion based on the last version of rules you chose to play by. Tomorrow may be a different story.

It is normal procedure to remove clothes from homicide victims carefully and list them as they come off the body noting any signifcant marks, cuts, or bullet holes which is what happened thats why we see such a detailed list of clothing and detailed cuts and bloodstains.

Of course it is, today.
We may assume it was a century ago, but we can't insist it was.
However, Dr Brown has not conducted his autopsy, it is only 3:00am Sunday morning. Maybe Dr Brown doesn't want anyone messing with the clothes until he has conducted his autopsy. He needs to match cuts on the body with cuts in the clothes, before anyone starts meddling with his evidence.
So, if the clothes are placed in sequence along a bench as they are removed, Collard can still record them in sequence.

If as you and others suggest the clothes were just taken off and dumped in a pile and the list made later it would not have been in any significant order making it more difficult to note down the cuts and the blood stains.

The clothes may have been placed in a line along a bench or table, instead of a pile.
Golden Lane was an established, permanent mortuary. Not like in Whitechapel where they didn't have one, they had to use any available shed.
So Dr Brown may have been more organized.

[Doctored Whatsit]

I agree that the evidence suggests that the body was probably stripped before the apron piece at Goulston Street was found, or at least before it was known to have been found. Also, of course, that the clothing would be set out and examined carefully, and not "dumped in a pile". But we do not know exactly when Collard's list was compiled.

However, Collard says that she was apparently wearing an apron outside her dress, so that apron must have been removed before all or most other items of clothing. The fact that it was not listed with other items that she was wearing suggests that it had some significance. The fact that it was the only item that the doctors were going to specifically need to see at the post mortem is very likely the reason for that. Both Halse and Collard seemed to believe she was wearing the portion of apron.

Halse's evidence suggested a time of maybe 2.30 am - 3 am for he and Collard to go to the mortuary before Eddowes was stripped, and when he noticed a portion of her apron was missing. The apron was found about 2. 55 am, and Leman Street Police Station was informed shortly afterwards. I cannot establish when those at the mortuary might have been informed, but it may well have been quite quickly. The post mortem didn't take place till 2.30 pm Sunday afternoon, so the list could have been slowly and meticulously compiled almost any time before that. The existence of the second portion of the apron was known about long before that post mortem began.

We still are left with the problem that Collard's statement was that he believed she was wearing the apron, so he couldn't compile a list which "proved" that she wasn't wearing it. That makes no sense.

[JeffHamm]

This is hardly unique to Trevor. The majority of posters who are sure that they have solved the case seem to act this way.

Hi Fiver,

Sadly, this is true.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Trevor only accepts the official statements as accurate because any other source he argues has room for doubt, and it is the room for doubt that makes the statement "unsafe". Unsafe statements, of course, may be true or they may be false, but Trevor's approach is to ignore them completely because they may be false, and anyone who offers an interpretation derived from unsafe statements is blinkered, and has an agenda to support the police's theory.

Trevor's contention is that the list was made as each item of clothing was removed.

Unless Trevor sees something I do not, nowhere is it stated in the official documents that the list was made as each item was removed, nor is such stated in an unsafe source, such as a newspaper. The clothes are stated that they are removed, something we could have presumed (but note, it does not detail how they were removed). Collard is known to have been at the mortuary during the post mortem. Collard is known to have made the list of her clothes. Nowhere is it stated he made that list, item by item, as they were removed. That is Trevor's interpretation.

Because his statement assumes a very specific description of how and when the list was compiled, and because it is an interpretation not a fact, it is, like any other interpretation, possibly true and possibly false. As with any interpretation, there is room for doubt.

In other words, Trevor is making a statement for which there is room for doubt, and room for doubt is the rule by which Trevor calls statements unsafe. Therefore, Trevor's claim is unsafe, by his own definitions. If we apply the rules that he requires others to follow (otherwise one is blinkered), his statement must be set aside.

Because he is unable to point to official documents where that very specific claim about how and when the list was made has been recorded, the order of the items on the list cannot be argued to indicate the order they were removed, there is room for doubt because the list could have been compiled after the clothes were removed, and after the two pieces of apron were compared (as has been pointed out many times). So when I say there is room for doubt with regards to Trevor's interpretation I'm not just making a theoretical claim, I'm backing that up by pointing to actual alternatives that are also entirely consistent with the statements in the official documents, which are simply interpreted differently from how Trevor interprets them. It shows that Trevor's claim the list was compiled as the items were removed is just an interpretation - it is not a fact detailed in the inquest documents.

Room for doubt is the reason for ignoring other people's offered interpretations of events, and therefore, by Trevor's own rules, is reason to ignore his interpretation of the list compilation.

I personally don't follow Trevor's rules, and think that it is important to consider all interpretations. And when we consider Trevor's interpretation in the context of all of the other case evidence, we note that every other bit of information we have pertaining to the apron and it being worn, all point away from Trevor's interpretation and towards Kate wearing it. Therefore, the list cannot have been complied as each item was removed. At the very least, the apron she was wearing was set aside to be compared with the GS piece (which would require they knew about it and that it was going to be sent over), and so it was only given to Collard to examine and detail as he was nearing the end of his list. Alternatively, all items were removed, placed along a bench in some more or less ordered way but not necessarily in the exact order of removal, and the specific detailing of her clothes was done after the GS piece was brought over and the importance of her garments became apparent.

It is clear that Trevor's claim that detailing garments, and the order they were removed, which he bases upon the modern day police procedures that he has a wealth of knowledge about, is also unsafe. The police procedures of 1888 had not undergone the many improvements in protocol that Trevor would have worked under. We can see this in the Nichols case, with the confusion over the stays. Nowhere is a list of her clothing presented to clarify that issue - clearly it wasn't done the way it is now. Moreover, in the Nichols case, we see how the body was stripped before even the doctor arrived. While that was commented upon as an annoyance, it was not followed by a huge outcry over failure to follow a rigid protocol. Trevor's knowledge of modern police methods is interfering with his view of how the police did things in 1888 and he clearly finds it inconceivable they would compile the list well after the items were removed. But being unable to conceive of something is not proof against it.

I do respect and recognize Trevor's experience in modern policing methods. But our biggest strengths can also be our biggest weakness, and in this instance I think that is clearly the case. All of the evidence we have about any of the Whitechapel murders contains "room for doubt", and we cannot go back and requestion the witnesses, or reexamine any of the items. We can only offer interpretations from what we have, and our interpretations should be based upon the totality of the evidence where ever possible. I do not claim to know for certain how or when the list was compiled exactly, but given all of the evidence we have, I do know it was not done the way Trevor specifically interprets it to have been done because his interpretation flies in the face of all sorts of evidence that she was wearing it, and he spends most of his time trying to argue why the contradicting evidence should be ignored. Ignoring evidence is surely not the way to solve anything.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

This whole debate should have ended at this….

“I produce the list of articles found on her – she had no money whatever on her – I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.”

And this…..

“He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”

Much of this case is down to interpretation and the weighing up of the strengths of various witnesses but this part isn’t. It’s in black and white. There simply is no argument. Catherine Eddowes was definitely wearing an apron. Everyone apart from Trevor knows this and to be honest I’m finding it difficult to believe that Trevor doesn’t know it too. This is another case of defending a theory at all costs in spite of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Trevor only accepts the official statements as accurate because any other source he argues has room for doubt, and it is the room for doubt that makes the statement "unsafe". Unsafe statements, of course, may be true or they may be false, but Trevor's approach is to ignore them completely because they may be false, and anyone who offers an interpretation derived from unsafe statements is blinkered, and has an agenda to support the police's theory.

Trevor's contention is that the list was made as each item of clothing was removed.

Unless Trevor sees something I do not, nowhere is it stated in the official documents that the list was made as each item was removed, nor is such stated in an unsafe source, such as a newspaper. The clothes are stated that they are removed, something we could have presumed (but note, it does not detail how they were removed). Collard is known to have been at the mortuary during the post mortem. Collard is known to have made the list of her clothes. Nowhere is it stated he made that list, item by item, as they were removed. That is Trevor's interpretation.

Because his statement assumes a very specific description of how and when the list was compiled, and because it is an interpretation not a fact, it is, like any other interpretation, possibly true and possibly false. As with any interpretation, there is room for doubt.

In other words, Trevor is making a statement for which there is room for doubt, and room for doubt is the rule by which Trevor calls statements unsafe. Therefore, Trevor's claim is unsafe, by his own definitions. If we apply the rules that he requires others to follow (otherwise one is blinkered), his statement must be set aside.

Because he is unable to point to official documents where that very specific claim about how and when the list was made has been recorded, the order of the items on the list cannot be argued to indicate the order they were removed, there is room for doubt because the list could have been compiled after the clothes were removed, and after the two pieces of apron were compared (as has been pointed out many times). So when I say there is room for doubt with regards to Trevor's interpretation I'm not just making a theoretical claim, I'm backing that up by pointing to actual alternatives that are also entirely consistent with the statements in the official documents, which are simply interpreted differently from how Trevor interprets them. It shows that Trevor's claim the list was compiled as the items were removed is just an interpretation - it is not a fact detailed in the inquest documents.

Room for doubt is the reason for ignoring other people's offered interpretations of events, and therefore, by Trevor's own rules, is reason to ignore his interpretation of the list compilation.

I personally don't follow Trevor's rules, and think that it is important to consider all interpretations. And when we consider Trevor's interpretation in the context of all of the other case evidence, we note that every other bit of information we have pertaining to the apron and it being worn, all point away from Trevor's interpretation and towards Kate wearing it. Therefore, the list cannot have been complied as each item was removed. At the very least, the apron she was wearing was set aside to be compared with the GS piece (which would require they knew about it and that it was going to be sent over), and so it was only given to Collard to examine and detail as he was nearing the end of his list. Alternatively, all items were removed, placed along a bench in some more or less ordered way but not necessarily in the exact order of removal, and the specific detailing of her clothes was done after the GS piece was brought over and the importance of her garments became apparent.

It is clear that Trevor's claim that detailing garments, and the order they were removed, which he bases upon the modern day police procedures that he has a wealth of knowledge about, is also unsafe. The police procedures of 1888 had not undergone the many improvements in protocol that Trevor would have worked under. We can see this in the Nichols case, with the confusion over the stays. Nowhere is a list of her clothing presented to clarify that issue - clearly it wasn't done the way it is now. Moreover, in the Nichols case, we see how the body was stripped before even the doctor arrived. While that was commented upon as an annoyance, it was not followed by a huge outcry over failure to follow a rigid protocol. Trevor's knowledge of modern police methods is interfering with his view of how the police did things in 1888 and he clearly finds it inconceivable they would compile the list well after the items were removed. But being unable to conceive of something is not proof against it.

I do respect and recognize Trevor's experience in modern policing methods. But our biggest strengths can also be our biggest weakness, and in this instance I think that is clearly the case. All of the evidence we have about any of the Whitechapel murders contains "room for doubt", and we cannot go back and requestion the witnesses, or reexamine any of the items. We can only offer interpretations from what we have, and our interpretations should be based upon the totality of the evidence where ever possible. I do not claim to know for certain how or when the list was compiled exactly, but given all of the evidence we have, I do know it was not done the way Trevor specifically interprets it to have been done because his interpretation flies in the face of all sorts of evidence that she was wearing it, and he spends most of his time trying to argue why the contradicting evidence should be ignored. Ignoring evidence is surely not the way to solve anything.

- Jeff

Excellent post Jeff.

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent post Jeff.

Sadly ill informed !!!!!!!!!!!

and on the list I will say one final thing that is the list clearly shows how the clothes were taken off the body, starting at the top with her bonnet then followed by her jacket. followed by her skirt. How many time do I have to keep saying that had she been wearing an apron it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt and clearly visible. According to Wickerman it was a big bloody white garment with shoulder straps.

The mortuary piece was decsribed as a piece of old white apron, with no cuts to it and no signs of blood stains. If she had been wearing an apron how could this have avoided the killers knife when all the other garments underneath it were cut and bloodstained. The mortuary piece was not documented as having blood stains on it nor any sign of knife cuts. It was described as a corner piece with a string attached. so it had to be from the top left corner, or the top right corner nearest to the waist line. That would rule out a bib apron in my opinion. so if she was simply wearing an apron that tied around the waist, The attcahed pic shows how the two pieces could have been matched, and why there was evidnce that when matched they did not makeup a full apron.

So if the mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached and the GS piece matched by the seams then the GS piece had to have been either the bottom half left or right side, and if that be the case then it would not be a complete apron in any event

Not withstanding the suggestion that the killer cut a piece from the apron she was apparently wearing. At the crime scene her clothes were up around her waist with any apron she could have been wearing buried under all the other items of clothing, but by doing this the killer would have made any apron nearest to the blood being dispursed from the abdominal wounds yet there were no mention of blood or knife cuts on the mortuary piece.

Yet the GS piece was decsribed as having blood spots and traces of faecal matter and was wet




www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Sadly ill informed !!!!!!!!!!!

and on the list I will say one final thing that is the list clearly shows how the clothes were taken off the body,

Nowhere in the official documents is it stated the list reflects how the clothes were taken off the body. That is your interpretation, subject to doubt because other interpretations exist. Your rules define this as an unsafe claim, and unsafe claims are to be set aside and ignored.

starting at the top with her bonnet then followed by her jacket. followed by her skirt. How many time do I have to keep saying that had she been wearing an apron it would have been under her jacket and over her skirt and clearly visible.

You do not have to keep repeating this at all, as everyone agrees that's how aprons are worn, and everyone agrees that yes, it would be highly visible, which is why there are multiple witnesses all testifying that she was wearing it. Everyone agrees it was a clearly visible garment, and being white, would contrast highly with her other garments, making it stand out and memorable - everyone but you that is, but you have an agenda to get that apron off her and into her possessions.

Given the size of the apron, how did she carry it on her person? She didn't have a large satchel or bag to carry such a thing, and she was apparently wearing every other large clothing item she owned - what makes you think she wouldn't be wearing this one as well, other than your need for her not to be?

According to Wickerman it was a big bloody white garment with shoulder straps.

The mortuary piece was decsribed as a piece of old white apron, with no cuts to it and no signs of blood stains. If she had been wearing an apron how could this have avoided the killers knife when all the other garments underneath it were cut and bloodstained. The mortuary piece was not documented as having blood stains on it nor any sign of knife cuts. It was described as a corner piece with a string attached. so it had to be from the top left corner, or the top right corner nearest to the waist line. That would rule out a bib apron in my opinion. so if she was simply wearing an apron that tied around the waist, The attcahed pic shows how the two pieces could have been matched, and why there was evidnce that when matched they did not makeup a full apron.

Oh no, are we back to the idea of there being a missing piece but there is no missing third piece again? That one really is painful.

That aside, it is nice to see that you qualify things about ruling out a bib apron as being your opinion rather than insisting your opinion is a fact. While of course we each have to form our own opinions, given the various posts on this, I can't see how a bib apron could be ruled out. With a number of newspapers misidentifying it as a white neckerchief, or scarf, however, it seems far more likely it was a bib apron.

And, while we do not know how the clothes were specifically arranged at the crime scene, if the apron was first cut across to remove the piece later found in GS and the rest tossed up out of the way, it may very well have simply bunched up closer to the top of her body out of the way of the subsequent knife strokes. Basically, there is nothing about it being free of further slashing that is all that problematic, so it does not force the conclusion she wasn't wearing it. And given the large number of people who tell us she was wearing it, clearly something like my conjecture must have happened. We just can't know specifically how it avoided slashes, but there are easy situations to imagine where that could happen. One of those is likely the case, which one, we cannot know.

So if the mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached and the GS piece matched by the seams then the GS piece had to have been either the bottom half left or right side, and if that be the case then it would not be a complete apron in any event

? How does the GS piece being a bottom, left, or right side section somehow lead to the conclusion the apron wasn't complete in the first place? That makes absolutely no sense.

Not withstanding the suggestion that the killer cut a piece from the apron she was apparently wearing. At the crime scene her clothes were up around her waist with any apron she could have been wearing buried under all the other items of clothing, but by doing this the killer would have made any apron nearest to the blood being dispursed from the abdominal wounds yet there were no mention of blood or knife cuts on the mortuary piece.

We do not know the exact position of the apron, it may very well have been bunched up towards the top of her body, particularly if JtR originally cut it to get it out of the way, decided that took too long, flung it up, then just started cutting though the remaining clothes. If it was tossed out of the way, it would not get cut, and it would be covered by the other clothes, protecting it from cast off.

Yet the GS piece was decsribed as having blood spots and traces of faecal matter and was wet




www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which to the doctors looked like either a hand or knife was wiped upon it. Transference from the victim, to the murderer, to the cloth, to GS. You ignore the doctor's description of the blood pattern, because it goes against your theory. But theories are tested by the evidence, not the other way round.

- Jeff

[harry]

Doesn't most posters accept that official statements are the most suitable.Do we have to have a sworn statement to show how Collard handled the situation.He made a list of clothing as the clothing was removed.There is nothing to refute that,and there is no mention of an apron having been removed from the body.If as implied,she was known to have been wearing an apron at time of death,it would have been an outer garment,and one of the first two items removed.

[JeffHamm]

Doesn't most posters accept that official statements are the most suitable.Do we have to have a sworn statement to show how Collard handled the situation.He made a list of clothing as the clothing was removed.There is nothing to refute that,and there is no mention of an apron having been removed from the body.If as implied,she was known to have been wearing an apron at time of death,it would have been an outer garment,and one of the first two items removed.

Hi Harry,

Could you please post the official statement where it says Collard made the list while the clothes were being removed? Not just that he made a list of her clothes, but where it specifically states he did it as the clothes were being removed. All I see on the version of the inquest testimony here on the site is "...It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut." And all that says is that he was there while Mr. Davis stripped the body. And that he has a list of the clothing. It doesn't say, or even imply, he made the list while the clothes were being taken off, and the list could very well have been made after the body was fully stripped. If he is there to observe the removal of the evidence, he would be wanting to see each garment while on the body, so there is every reason to suspect he made the list after all the clothes have been removed and the actual medical examination, in which he could not contribute, began. And that means, there is no reason to assert the order of the items on the list reflect the order in which they were removed. And we have not even considered the possibility that itemizing all of her clothing was not decided upon until the piece found in GS was brought to the mortuary for comparison. If so, that more than suggests he may have started on the list at that point, and adds the apron piece after the doctors have finished their examination of it.

There are multiple people, some of whom knew Eddowes for over 7 years (so no mistaken identity), all telling us she was wearing an apron. Nothing in the documents tell us the list was made as each item came off, so the list is not evidence of the order the items were removed, that is only Trevor's opinion, it's not a fact.

- Jeff

[harry]

Jeff.
Can anyone,can you even.produce an official statement of anything.Direct evidence,no,I cannot,but circumstancially there is good reason to believe that,as Collards name is associated with the list,and the list appears to be in the order worn,then yes,Collard was present at the mortuary,and did witness the removal of Eddowes clothing.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff.
Can anyone,can you even.produce an official statement of anything.Direct evidence,no,I cannot,but circumstancially there is good reason to believe that,as Collards name is associated with the list,and the list appears to be in the order worn,then yes,Collard was present at the mortuary,and did witness the removal of Eddowes clothing.

Thank you harry. We agree. I know I cannot produce any such official document, which was of course my point. I, and others, am simply pointing out that neither Trevor, nor anyone else, can produce an official statement that tells us the list was made specifically as Trevor insists it was. And also that Trevor requires that of others, so it is entirely reasonable to require it from him.

Of course, Trevor could argue it might have been made while the clothes were being removed, and based upon that assumption, argue it would suggest she wasn't actually wearing it. Then, that initial assumption could be evaluated by the rest of the evidence, and given the number of eye witness statements, it would result in that initial assumption being deemed so improbable to be correct we could set it aside. This is called forming a hypothesis, and then testing it.

But he doesn't do that. He insists that it is a fact the list was constructed as he assumes it was, but there is no basis in fact for that insistence. Yes, there is a basis for presenting that idea as a hypothesis, absolutely, but Trevor doesn't want that statement tested, he just wants it accepted. And that is the issue that is so problematic.

Is it a hypothesis one could formulate from the evidence? yes
Once formulated, is it a hypothesis that makes sense of the rest of the evidence? No, it conflicts with multiple testimonies, it suggests that while Collard made the list he still testifies that she was apparently wearing it (clearly, if it was listed last because she wasn't wearing it, he would know she wasn't - there would be no "apparently" about it), and so forth.

so is it a hypothesis that can be considered sufficiently supported that it warrants further consideration? No, at least not in my opinion. Others may feel it is still worth examining to see if anything comes to light that does support it. So far, however, all of the other evidence we do have weigh against it.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Jeff.
Can anyone,can you even.produce an official statement of anything.Direct evidence,no,I cannot,but circumstancially there is good reason to believe that,as Collards name is associated with the list,and the list appears to be in the order worn,then yes,Collard was present at the mortuary,and did witness the removal of Eddowes clothing.

No-one contests the fact Collard was present, the question is did he make the list at that time.

At commencement of the undressing, if Dr Brown placed the victims hat on a table, removed the jacket placing beside the hat. Remove the Chintz skirt placing that beside the Jacket, then the bodice, the petticoat, the Alpaca skirt, etc. All items beside each other across the length of the table for ease of inspection.
Collard could, at any time permitted by Dr Brown, then make his List of Possessions.

Wouldn't that end up with the same results regarding Collards list?