Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • Originally posted by harry View Post
    Why would Brown be tasked with disrobing and checking.As I see it Brown was called to examine the body in the square.He next attended at the mortuary at 2pm that day to perform the autopsy.By that time the body had been disrobed and a list completed.How could he have taken anything from the body.Where is the evidence he (Brown) was at the mortuary anytime after leaving the square untill 2pm.It is stated that a Mortuary attendant removed,the clothing.Are you saying that is incorrect Jon,and it was Brown who removed the clothing?
    Like you imply Jeff,these quotes from Wickerman do need investigation as to their origin.Such as his claim the court reporters didn't use shorthand.Some of them did.Of course it appears a better arguement to prove paper reporters the more talented,when the information discussed is from newspapers.
    The quotes are very close to the inquest statements as recorded in the official inquest documents, and in the newspaper transcriptions as well. It's just the inclusion of the size portion that deviates. While it might be convenient to some of the arguments I've been making to grab on to that bit, I'm not interested in doing so because it's something that doesn't appear in the known contemporary sources. So until I know where it came from, and how it was obtained, I can't form an opinion as to whether or not it's "real", for lack of a better word. Just because it supports things I've said isn't the basis upon which I evaluate the source or truth of the evidence, despite what Trevor may think (he's wrong on that account, but continues to claim I'm determined to support the police of 1888 because it's his way of deflecting arguments he cannot counter with logic and evidence).

    The rest appears to be more or less a transcription of actual testimony. It is possible, as Wickerman points out, that there is a newspaper that reports the statement as having included that bit of information, which would then provide us with the source for the book. If that does turn up, mystery solved, if not, either we've not tracked it down yet or it's an error introduced during the writing of the book (meaning, we are left not knowing for sure; one can't prove a negative, meaning not finding it doesn't mean it's not out there).

    The newspapers record a lot more detail that the court recorders did. The papers often include the questions, who asked it, and also additional statements, often nearer the end of the testimony, that the court recorders did not. The inquest documents are written longhand, we have those, because people had to sign them, so even if they could do shorthand, they didn't. Newspapers didn't require signatures, and shorthand was a basic skill necessary to be a good reporter, so it would make sense they would use it. But, it may also be, the court recorders job didn't include documenting questions, just the witness statements, while the news wanted to cover all of it.

    In either case, both are transcripts of what the witnesses said, and having those records for our examination is very useful. We shouldn't limit ourselves to only examining one or the other. However, as we all know, when it comes to newspapers and more paraphrased presentations (typical of when interviews were held), a lot more caution needs to be taken as the reporters don't record the questions they asked, nor do they present a transcription of the reply, leaving lots of room to fudge the actual information to sell a story. But for the inquest transcripts, we are very lucky that some papers chose to publish them more or less verbatim.

    - Jeff
    Last edited by JeffHamm; 08-05-2021, 02:30 AM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      In Collard's evidence, given on the 4th Oct, he says that these two had already been found by house to house search and would be giving evidence later. So the report on 11th can't really refer to them, unless there's a major communication failure somewhere.
      Yes, I see Collards remarks.
      I don't see why there should be any conflict. Sheldon works for the Coroner, the City police had, sometime prior to the 4th discovered two witnesses.
      Presumably, statements were obtained by the police at the time.
      Those statements would be forwarded to Sheldon at the Coroner's office at some point, not necessarily the same day.
      Once Sheldon reads their statements on the 4th or 5th?, they both become official witnesses.

      With this sequence of events in mind, we read the Times article:

      A good deal of fresh evidence will be given at the adjourned inquest, which will be held to-day at the City Coroner's Court, Golden-lane, upon the body of the Mitre-square victim. Since the adjournment, Shelton, the coroner's officer, has, with the assistance of the City police authorities, discovered several new witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased, who was found to be occupying a respectable situation as a domestic in the neighbourhood of Kensington.

      It doesn't mean Sheldon accompanied the police on a house-to-house search. The police make the discovery, their statements are passed to the Coroners Office, and Sheldon makes out a summons for both to appear. The discovery is both Sheldon's & the police.

      The Times article doesn't contest them being Lawende & Levy.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • There is something else too.
        The Times article suggests the victim was alone.

        "Two witnesses have also been found who state that they saw the deceased standing at the corner of Duke-street, Aldgate, a few minutes' walk from Mitre-square. This was as near as they can recollect about half-past 1 o'clock, and she was then alone. They recognized her on account of the white apron she was wearing"

        We may recall when Lawende was questioned at the inquest Crawford, the Solicitor for the police, pleaded with the court that no description be given of the suspect.
        "I do not think further particulars should be given as to the appearance of this man."

        It is likely then that originally Lawende was cautioned not to say anything about this man, possibly Levy too.
        The Times reporter cannot have interviewed Lawende due to the fact he had been sequestered by police. That only leaves Levy as the source. In order to comply with a likely caution, he made no mention of a suspect with the victim?
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Hi Wick,
          I was trying to say that as the two new witnesses had completely different stories from L and L, they had to be two other people. As their evidence was only of a sighting in the vicinity of Mitre Square, of a woman on her own, and at a time which seems to be a few minutes before L and L, then their evidence became of little or no value once L and L saw her later and in the company of a man. I would have thought that the coroner could see little point in calling them to the inquest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

            Which is why Tabram wasn't, Nichols wasn't, Chapman wasn't, Stride wasn't, and Kelly wasn’t.

            - Jeff
            What Trevor actually meant was ‘every Victorian woman except Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Stride and Kelly’ of course.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • Jeff,
              The post -mortem report of Dr Brown is preserved at the Corporation of London records.One doesn't need to refer to newspapers.It is in the form of notes taken by Coroner Langham.
              The following is taken from a 1880's newspaper.
              Judge Lumb said that in reference to the shorthand notes alluded to,in every court in England,shorthand writers attended the court,not officially,but to take note of the cases,so that afterwards,if the notes were required,who ever wanted them would have to pay for them.

              In the report I mentioned above,Brown is said to have had his attention drawn to the apron pieces.and to have matched them by the hem and the seams.Now if you study that closely,you should be able to observe that it would be very difficult to prove the two pieces were from the same garment,as Trevor has repeatedly tried to explain.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                Jeff,
                The post -mortem report of Dr Brown is preserved at the Corporation of London records.One doesn't need to refer to newspapers.It is in the form of notes taken by Coroner Langham.
                The following is taken from a 1880's newspaper.
                Judge Lumb said that in reference to the shorthand notes alluded to,in every court in England,shorthand writers attended the court,not officially,but to take note of the cases,so that afterwards,if the notes were required,who ever wanted them would have to pay for them.

                In the report I mentioned above,Brown is said to have had his attention drawn to the apron pieces.and to have matched them by the hem and the seams.Now if you study that closely,you should be able to observe that it would be very difficult to prove the two pieces were from the same garment,as Trevor has repeatedly tried to explain.
                The pieces are testified as matching along the repair seam. That would be a unique identifier for the same garment, making it a piece of observable evidence that identifies the two pieces as coming from one and the same. Similar to how wear patterns on shoes and important with prints for identifying that a print found at a crime scene matches a suspect's shoes and not just matching shoes of the same brand and make. New shoes are harder to uniquely identify. The repair makes it a positive match, and that is testified to under oath as how the match was made.

                As for the shorthand, we don't have those preserved, and having a short hand set of recordings doesn't change the fact we only have the long hand ones, and those were signed then and there. So they may have had them at one time, but we only have the ones we have. Still, good to know.

                - Jeff

                Comment


                • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                  The pieces are testified as matching along the repair seam. That would be a unique identifier for the same garment, making it a piece of observable evidence that identifies the two pieces as coming from one and the same. Similar to how wear patterns on shoes and important with prints for identifying that a print found at a crime scene matches a suspect's shoes and not just matching shoes of the same brand and make. New shoes are harder to uniquely identify. The repair makes it a positive match, and that is testified to under oath as how the match was made.- Jeff
                  There is no dispute in my opinion with regards to the matching of the two pieces, what is in dispute is whether the two pieces made up a full apron, if they did then there can be no argument that she was wearing a full apron but the fact is they didnt make up a full apron and that can be proved.

                  Brown states in his official inquest testimony that the mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached this is contrary to what is reported in a newspaper report but if we are going to be unbiased at this point we have to accept that as being fact.

                  We know that the two pieces were matched by the seams and the border but it is quite easy to see from that it was impossibe for those two pieces to have made up a full apron when matched

                  The mortuary piece with a string attached must have been a piece from either the left or right corner of the apron which would have been around the waistline I dont think there can be any arguments about that.

                  The GS piece was fitted as described but how it was described and fitted could only have come from the lower left or right of the apron, thus finishing up with half an apron which had been cut down the middle at some point in the past this is consistent with Major Smiths comments

                  "By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'.
                  - (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

                  If that was correct which way had it been severed down or across? down would fit with the matching of the apron pieces by Brown at a later stage, across would have left the remaining part of the apron still tied to the body and I would suggest cleary visible when stripped.

                  So I still maintain that based on all of that she was not wearing an apron when she was killed but simply been in possession of pieces of an old white apron which had come from at some point in time in the past from a full apron.

                  If that scenario is accepted then that leads us as to how one of those portions ended up in GS and who placed it there?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                  Comment


                  • Let me see if I follow your argument, Trevor. Smith says that about one half of the apron was missing, severed by a clean cut. That is one cut done on one occasion with a sharp knife, not several little cuts. The mortuary piece as described by Brown had a string attached, and therefore had to be a downward cut. This would leave the apron, if she had been wearing it, hanging loose, but in place, or as Collard said, "a portion of the apron deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was outside her dress". That makes sense to me. She was wearing an apron which was cut by JtR. Thank you for making that clear.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                      Let me see if I follow your argument, Trevor. Smith says that about one half of the apron was missing, severed by a clean cut. That is one cut done on one occasion with a sharp knife, not several little cuts. The mortuary piece as described by Brown had a string attached, and therefore had to be a downward cut. This would leave the apron, if she had been wearing it, hanging loose, but in place, or as Collard said, "a portion of the apron deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was outside her dress". That makes sense to me. She was wearing an apron which was cut by JtR. Thank you for making that clear.
                      I merely offered an alternative based on Smiths comment but the point still stands that the two pieces when matched could not have made a full apron.
                      i would you suggest you read my previous post in more detail before you start to be a smart arse.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • There was no piece missing because it would have been mentioned at the time that there was. And it wasn’t mentioned. So there was no missing piece.
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                          There was no piece missing because it would have been mentioned at the time that there was. And it wasn’t mentioned. So there was no missing piece.
                          There had to be a piece missing when the body was stripped and the list compiled because the Gs piece had not yet been found and that was later matched to the mortuary piece !!!!!!!!!!

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
                            Let me see if I follow your argument, Trevor. Smith says that about one half of the apron was missing, severed by a clean cut. That is one cut done on one occasion with a sharp knife, not several little cuts. The mortuary piece as described by Brown had a string attached, and therefore had to be a downward cut. This would leave the apron, if she had been wearing it, hanging loose, but in place, or as Collard said, "a portion of the apron deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was outside her dress". That makes sense to me. She was wearing an apron which was cut by JtR. Thank you for making that clear.
                            It should also be noted that Smith was not present when the two pieces were matched
                            So he could have only seen the mortuary piece and his description then fits with what was left after the two pieces of apron were later matched half an apron in length with the mortuary piece with the string attached forming the top part of the apron and the GS piece forming the lower half of the apron both making half an apron in visual form.

                            Conforming that she could not have been wearing an apron but in possession of pieces on an old white apron, one piece found amongst her possessions the other found in GS

                            See attached photo

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	Victorian apron new corner 2.jpg
Views:	82
Size:	104.7 KB
ID:	764574

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post

                              The following is taken from a 1880's newspaper.
                              Judge Lumb said that in reference to the shorthand notes alluded to,in every court in England,shorthand writers attended the court,not officially,but to take note of the cases,so that afterwards,if the notes were required,who ever wanted them would have to pay for them.
                              I really wasn't aware you were so interested in court trivia.

                              There is a major difference between criminal trial courts and inquest proceedings, you appear to be confusing the two.

                              Research the subject a little deeper and you will find criminal courts & queens council across the land (UK) used shorthand recorders, we have examples from the Old Bailey, that is not the issue. Courts that deal with high profile & capitol crimes have the necessary expenses that local inquest courts do not have access to.

                              Local inquests did not even have an assigned location they had to set up hearings in any local pub or town hall that could accommodate them. The local Coroner operated on a shoestring, expenses for the luxury of a shorthand recorder were simply not available. We even have instances where witnesses complained about not receiving their daily expenses for being summoned to court. Money was tight for the Coroner, and as you can see Langham had the Eddowes inquest recorded in longhand, and each testimony was signed by the respective witness.
                              There is no shorthand version, there never was, the same goes for the Kelly inquest.

                              From the press side of things, a reporter assigned by the editor to cover a court proceedings had to know shorthand as part of the requirements, only the top reporters were considered for a court assignment.


                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Click image for larger version

Name:	2E0340D9-0E70-4F4D-881F-C25A3E8B9E91.jpeg
Views:	47
Size:	22.3 KB
ID:	764577

                                Brown at the Inquest. Times

                                “My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin – I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street. I believe the wounds on the face to have been done to disfigure the corpse.”


                                Apologies for the very rough sketch being the wrong way up but I haven’t a clue why it happened.

                                Brown specifically mentions the piece sown on which appears to mean a patch. So why can’t he mean that the patch had been cut through (broken line) and he matched the seams of the patch marked as ‘ab’ and ‘cd’ in my sketch? Note that Brown says ‘seams’ plural and not ‘seam.’


                                Regards

                                Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X