Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

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

  • #91
    Whether or not the apron piece found in Goulston Street was being used as a sanitary napkin at the time ,there is still reason to believe the two pieces found were for that purpose,and were among Eddowes possessions,and not being worn when killed.Lawende describes the woman he saw,who could have been Eddowes,as wearing a Black jacket.Had she been wearing an apron over or under the jacket,I imagine the lighter colour of the apron would have been visible.Not persuasive evidence,but equally as believable as police who much earlier only believed she had been wearing an apron.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by harry View Post
      Whether or not the apron piece found in Goulston Street was being used as a sanitary napkin at the time ,there is still reason to believe the two pieces found were for that purpose,and were among Eddowes possessions,and not being worn when killed.Lawende describes the woman he saw,who could have been Eddowes,as wearing a Black jacket.Had she been wearing an apron over or under the jacket,I imagine the lighter colour of the apron would have been visible.Not persuasive evidence,but equally as believable as police who much earlier only believed she had been wearing an apron.
      Hi Harry,

      The thing is, Lawende says she was back on to him, and the apron would be on her front, so he would not have seen it as from back on, all he would see is her jacket, dress, and bonnet. This is one of the reasons why his "identification" is risky, he only could identify her clothes, and only from the back. Not the most distinguishing part of clothing, sadly.

      And also, there are numerous different individuals testifying that they saw Eddowes, both alive and dead, wearing the apron. When dead, a portion was missing, a detail none of those who saw her living mention.

      - Jeff
      Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-15-2021, 08:47 AM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by harry View Post
        Whether or not the apron piece found in Goulston Street was being used as a sanitary napkin at the time ,there is still reason to believe the two pieces found were for that purpose,and were among Eddowes possessions,and not being worn when killed.Lawende describes the woman he saw,who could have been Eddowes,as wearing a Black jacket.Had she been wearing an apron over or under the jacket,I imagine the lighter colour of the apron would have been visible.Not persuasive evidence,but equally as believable as police who much earlier only believed she had been wearing an apron.
        Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown:
        [Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I
        fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the
        strings to the body.

        Who tied the strings to the body?
        Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
        M. Pacana

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

          Hi Varqm,

          You beat me to it. I have just gone through the inquest testimony for Eddowes as found here on Casebook. I've not gone to other versions of the inquest to cross reference all the slight changes in phrasing that arise depending upon which paper one reads the inquest in, but the differences are generally trivial (albeit there is one that I know does impact upon Trevor's idea).

          Ok, Trevor has offered an alternative to the original police theory that the apron piece found at Goulston Street was deposited there by her killer, namely that the piece of cloth was used by her as a sanitary napkin, and the fecal matter is because she soiled herself when drunk.

          This, of course, means she was wearing the sanitary napkin while in the drunk tank. Trevor also argues that she was not wearing an apron, it was just part of her possessions. That means, all of this testimony, given under oath, must be ignored, and Trevor argues that he knows they all got it wrong. I've bolded the person giving the testimony, tried to include some identifying information, and have indicated where I've cut out other testimony using ellipses (...)

          Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. …. I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron.

          Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: ….
          [Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

          Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: ….
          [Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

          City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
          ….
          Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

          Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning.

          [Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is. (

          Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it. The apron was lying in the passage leading to the staircase of Nos. 106 to 119, a model dwelling-house. Above on the wall was written in chalk, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." I at once searched the staircase and areas of the building, but did not find anything else. I took the apron to Commercial-road Police-station and reported to the inspector on duty.
          [Coroner] Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron? - I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.
          [Coroner] Are you able to say whether the apron was there then? - It was not.
          Mr. Crawford: As to the writing on the wall, have you not put a "not" in the wrong place? Were not the words, "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing"? - I believe the words were as I have stated.
          [Coroner] Was not the word "Jews" spelt "Juwes?" - It may have been.
          [Coroner] Yet you did not tell us that in the first place. Did you make an entry of the words at the time? - Yes, in my pocket-book. Is it possible that you have put the "not" in the wrong place? - It is possible, but I do not think that I have.
          [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

          (Trevor has acknowledged that the apron was wet, but with what is not clear, I think he means to suggest it was wet with urine as he has suggested Kate soiled herself while drunk. Also, it should be noted, that the qualifier "with blood" does not appear in some other transcripts of the inquest I believe. It is, therefore, a fair call to wonder if this is a journalistic addition.).


          [Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about. (the blood on the apron clearly prompts this search)

          Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police:

          I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street.

          By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

          This corresponds to the time that PC Long testifies that he found the apron. Given PC Long spends quite a bit of time searching the area once he found it, the only explanation is that D.O. Halse passed through Goulston Street shortly before PC Long's arrival. Given that D.O. Halse is in transit from teh station to Mitre Square, he can only be estimating the time he passed through, and so his 2:20 is an estimate. He's clearly off by a bit. Presumably, PC Long checks his watch to determine the time he found the apron piece, otherwise he too is working off an estimated time. The conflict (i.e. Halse doesn't see Long), therefore, is viewed as inconsequential due to the fact that at least one of these 2:20 is an estimate, and therefore likely to be in error.


          The word “apron” appears 4 more times during the inquest, but these appearances all relate to the searching of the buildings at Goulston street, and have no bearing on whether Kate was wearing an apron, or whether the piece found at Goulston Street matched the apron she was wearing.

          Ok, the above covers all the instances of "apron" in the inquest. There is, therefore, no basis for the claim that Kate was not wearing an apron. Moreover, she was known to be wearing it when released from jail, and the last direction she was seen travelling was towards Houndsditch, not towards Flower and Dean. It requires a "what if" to get her to turn around, sure it's possible, but it is not based upon any evidence that we have to work with.

          Now, I suppose one could argue that Kate turned around because she needed a sanitary item. But she had a collection of rags on her, and so there would be no reason to tear the apron she was wearing, that goes beyond reason.

          Now, on another point. Trevor argues that Kate had soiled herself while drunk in jail, producing the fecal matter on the apron piece she's wearing as a sanitary item, and presumably wetting one corner (with urine, not blood). First of all, there is never any mention of urine, so that can't work. To be fair, I'm not sure Trevor means to imply that the apron corner was wet with urine or not, but I got that impression at one point.

          However, she is supposed to have soiled herself (as in defecated). Here's her behaviour just before release, as testified by Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police:
          [Coroner] How often did you visit the prisoners? -
          About every half-hour. At first the deceased remained asleep; but at a quarter to twelve she was awake, and singing a song to herself, as it were. I went to her again at half-past twelve, and she then asked when she would be able to get out. I replied: "Shortly." She said, "I am capable of taking care of myself now."

          This does not strike me as the behaviour of someone sitting in a gaol after having soiled themselves. I would expect a request to be allowed to wash up, or at least some sign of distress. I see nothing in this that would be considered support, or an indication of, what Trevor puts forth as an alternative to the police's original idea.

          Basically, the alternative we are being asked to consider requires we ignore all of the testimony that she was wearing an apron that was given under oath by multiple police officers, members of the medical profession, and those who knew Kate personally and saw her that day. Moreover, although she was last seen heading towards Houndsditch, we are to believe that she must have turned around and gone towards Flower and Dean, despite there being no indication of this. Finally, we are also to believe that Dr. Brown cannot recognize menstrual blood patterns and fecal patterns generated by someone soiling themselves and that he confuses this with someone possibly wiping hands or knife on the cloth.

          In short, after considering how the alternative fits the evidence we have compared to the original police theory, one can only conclude that the original police theory is a better fit to the data.

          - Jeff

          Jeff
          Do you believe that all that testimony you refer to is 100% accurate, or are you so blinkered that you cannot see, or dont want to see the flaws in that testimony, flaws which I have pointed out many times on here, which make it unsafe to categorically say that at the time of her murder she was wearing an apron.

          And I have not suggested she crapped herself, the fecal smears could have been skids marks consistentwith it being between her legs as i have suggested.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 03-15-2021, 09:14 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            Well no Jeff.The female would have been side on to Lawende as he passed,and those aprons were large enough to cover most of the lower body.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by harry View Post
              Well no Jeff.The female would have been side on to Lawende as he passed,and those aprons were large enough to cover most of the lower body.
              Hi Harry,

              My understanding is that the club was located towards Algate, meaning they don't walk past Church Passage, they enter the club, Church Passage is across and slightly up, and they go down the street. I had thought they walked past them, but they don't, they exit, turn, and walk away from them. He says he saw her back on, so never walks by them to get a side view.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                Jeff
                Do you believe that all that testimony you refer to is 100% accurate, or are you so blinkered that you cannot see, or dont want to see the flaws in that testimony, flaws which I have pointed out many times on here, which make it unsafe to categorically say that at the time of her murder she was wearing an apron.

                And I have not suggested she crapped herself, the fecal smears could have been skids marks consistentwith it being between her legs as i have suggested.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                Hi Trevor,

                I believe there are enough independent witnesses all testifying that Eddowes was wearing an apron to make your suggestion that she wasn't unreasonable. You've offered nothing but "if's" and "maybe's" to try and suggest that all of those witnesses are wrong, and that somehow you have worked out that no, indeed, she was not wearing an aprong - everyone at the inquest was wrong. I'm afraid that's not likely to be the case. Sorry if that's not what you want to believe, but there's no foundation for your claim she wasn't wearing the apron, as much as you appear to want that to be the case. For the life of me I can't figure out why.

                But I accept, having gone back and re-reading a post you made, that you didn't say she crapped herself. That was my mistake. You did, however, say she became incontinent to explain the wet corner. Again, without any foundation you would ask me to accept as fact that the corner was wet with urine and yet there is never any mention of urine being on the cloth. If there were, that is something that Dr. Brown would have noted and remarked upon. With nothing but "if's" and "Maybe's" to suggest that there was urine on the apron it's completely unsafe to make that claim, because it is groundless. The corner is stated in at least one of the transcripts to be wet with blood, but other copies omit the "with blood". Whether that's a case of journalistic addition, or deletion, we don't know. It could be it was wet from the rain, which is the other most plausible explanation (assuming that the "with blood" is an addition, rather than when it's missing being a "deletion". I lean towards addition given that, as you've pointed out, it's not in the signed version of his statement).

                Anyway, I know you've stated your case many times, but there is nothing to support your speculations with regards to the apron in my view. So far, the best explanation is the original police explanation of the time, and they had a lot more information about the apron pieces than we do. I've given your alternative suggestions a fair go, and I've read and considered your arguments, but in the end, they do not stand up to the evidence and too many of the statements have to be ignored in order for your alternative to work.

                That's my view, although I realize it will not be yours.

                - Jeff
                Last edited by JeffHamm; 03-15-2021, 09:54 AM.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Ok.I see where the arguments are heading,to just ignore the witnesses,the police,the coroner and the inquest.
                  Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced,it started civil society).
                  M. Pacana

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                    Ok.I see where the arguments are heading,to just ignore the witnesses,the police,the coroner and the inquest.
                    Yes, they are "unsafe" to rely on because they weren't questioned like Trevor Marriott believes they ought to have been questioned. I realise that in stating this I am "blinkered" and doing my very best to prop up the old accepted theories that don't stand up to scrutiny.

                    Sadly, my blinkerdness prevents me from accepting theories with no empirical basis. I really ought to discard this tedious fact-based reality!

                    Comment


                    • .
                      Jeff
                      Do you believe that all that testimony you refer to is 100% accurate, or are you so blinkered that you cannot see, or dont want to see the flaws in that testimony, flaws which I have pointed out many times on here, which make it unsafe to categorically say that at the time of her murder she was wearing an apron
                      As I said on the other thread Trevor, you don’t want debate you just want people to agree with you. So you call Jeff blinkered? At the risk of criticism for giving someone praise I’d say that there’s no more balanced, fair-minded, reasoned posters on here than Jeff. And yet he’s ‘blinkered’ because he’s laid out the evidence fairly and shown that Eddowes was very obviously wearing an apron. Just labelling inconvenient testimony as unsafe whilst at the same time postulating that Eddowes took a strange journey back to her lodging house (whilst remaining unseen by anyone) and that she then went back in the direction of Mitre Square via Goulston Street is bizarre. And as Jeff pointed out, this explanation also requires Long to have missed the cloth when he passed. How can you call testimony ‘unsafe’ whilst at the same time you place importance on Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently?’ The only reasoned, reasonable deduction we can make from the evidence is that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed. The people who were there at the time tell us this.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Varqm View Post
                        Ok.I see where the arguments are heading,to just ignore the witnesses,the police,the coroner and the inquest.
                        No, just if you are able to analyse the witness testimony and identify all the flaws and conflicts in the evidence then if you are able to come to a sensible conclusion that is it unsafe to totally rely on.

                        And while you are doing that, dont forget Collards list, a list that was compiled at the time which in my opinion is irrefutable evidence. Now you and all others can keep quoting the testimony which, is unsafe but you cannot refute that list despite all the lame brained explantions which have been used by some on here to try to prop up the suggestion that she was wearing one.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                          Trevor has acknowledged that the apron was wet, but with what is not clear, I think he means to suggest it was wet with urine as he has suggested Kate soiled herself while drunk. Also, it should be noted, that the qualifier "with blood" does not appear in some other transcripts of the inquest I believe. It is, therefore, a fair call to wonder if this is a journalistic addition
                          It is a fair point to wonder this, but I think the fact that both the Telegraph and the Times (two of the less sensationalist papers) independantly reported Long saying the apron was wet with blood lessens the chance of them phrase being a journalistic flourish. Indeed, the Times even goes on to report the words of a juror putting a question to Long and using the same phrase back at him.
                          ​​​​​​​The Morning Advertiser also uses the same phrase in an article discussing the inquest evidence. So they at least got the impression from his evidence that Long didn't mean wet with rain, or urine.

                          Daily Telegraph 12 Oct
                          "Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."

                          Times 12 Oct
                          "He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood."

                          "The juryman. - You did not search the rooms, but left a man to watch the building, and the whole clue seems to have passed away. I do not wish to say anything harsh, as I consider that the evidence of yourself and of the other members of the police redounds to the credit of all of you; but this does seem a point that requires a little investigation. You find a piece of apron wet with blood; you search all the passages, and then you leave the building in the care of a man to watch the front. Witness. - I thought the best thing I could do was to go to the station and report the matter to the inspector on duty."
                          ​​​​​​​

                          Morning Advertiser 12 Oct
                          ​​​​​​​"It is a reasonable assumption that it was the work of the murderer, for near it was found part of the victim's apron, wet with blood."
                          ​​​​​​​

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            As I said on the other thread Trevor, you don’t want debate you just want people to agree with you. So you call Jeff blinkered? At the risk of criticism for giving someone praise I’d say that there’s no more balanced, fair-minded, reasoned posters on here than Jeff. And yet he’s ‘blinkered’ because he’s laid out the evidence fairly and shown that Eddowes was very obviously wearing an apron. Just labelling inconvenient testimony as unsafe whilst at the same time postulating that Eddowes took a strange journey back to her lodging house (whilst remaining unseen by anyone) and that she then went back in the direction of Mitre Square via Goulston Street is bizarre. And as Jeff pointed out, this explanation also requires Long to have missed the cloth when he passed. How can you call testimony ‘unsafe’ whilst at the same time you place importance on Collard’s use of the word ‘apparently?’ The only reasoned, reasonable deduction we can make from the evidence is that Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was killed. The people who were there at the time tell us this.
                            I dont give a rats arse whether people believe me or not the testimony to support the fact that she was wearing one is unsafe. Collards list tell us she wasn't, who do I believe having identified all the flaws in the testimony. Is there any flaws in Collards list?

                            So he gives his evidence some days after the murder using the term apparently wearing thats not a definitive answer either way and doesnt help you or I and I wonder why this was not picked up on at the time, but of course we also see contentious police testimony in those officers who state she was wearing an apron who also give their testimony days later after the murder with no questions be asked of them.

                            Like i said on the other post I am not going to continue to debate these issues all that needs to be said has been said, but you and the other nay sayers will still continue to prop up the old accepted theory relying on evidence which has been proven to be unsafe, but thats the state of Ripperology sad really.

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk


                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                              Slight variant of b) and c), the killer dropped the piece of apron, but the message was already there.
                              If we take the constables language used to answer the question of whether the cloth was there at his 2:20 pass, there is little doubt that the cloth was placed there at a later time. Not dropped for convenience passing through on his way home from the square. If thats the case, then a message written almost directly above it is either highlighted by the killer, or he left them both sometime after 2:20. Since the message contains reference to Jews one might be comfortable with the fact it written outside the Model Homes entrance, almost exclusively populated by immigrant jews, and accept it as basic antisemitic referencing. The killer from Mitre Square might have agreed with that kind of thinking and leave the cloth as agreement.

                              Its the word Blame that gets me. Leaving the cloth there could be his attempt at suggesting blame for something, like leaving false clues..but why take a chance putting a message so close to the cloth. It suggests that the person who is suggesting blame towards the Jews, had an incriminating piece of evidence on himself from Kates murder. So, not someone coming home to the Model Homes, which would have explained why they were there. So its Blame for some other reason......perhaps the fact that Jews were earlier that night running around suggesting that the man known as Jack killed a woman with a single cut on their property. Maybe the man they called Jack was actually the guy with the cloth, who might be suggesting that "another murder" as it was heard called that night had nothing to do with him.
                              Michael Richards

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                                It is a fair point to wonder this, but I think the fact that both the Telegraph and the Times (two of the less sensationalist papers) independantly reported Long saying the apron was wet with blood lessens the chance of them phrase being a journalistic flourish. Indeed, the Times even goes on to report the words of a juror putting a question to Long and using the same phrase back at him.
                                ​​​​​​​The Morning Advertiser also uses the same phrase in an article discussing the inquest evidence. So they at least got the impression from his evidence that Long didn't mean wet with rain, or urine.

                                Daily Telegraph 12 Oct
                                "Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."

                                Times 12 Oct
                                "He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood."

                                "The juryman. - You did not search the rooms, but left a man to watch the building, and the whole clue seems to have passed away. I do not wish to say anything harsh, as I consider that the evidence of yourself and of the other members of the police redounds to the credit of all of you; but this does seem a point that requires a little investigation. You find a piece of apron wet with blood; you search all the passages, and then you leave the building in the care of a man to watch the front. Witness. - I thought the best thing I could do was to go to the station and report the matter to the inspector on duty."
                                ​​​​​​​

                                Morning Advertiser 12 Oct
                                ​​​​​​​"It is a reasonable assumption that it was the work of the murderer, for near it was found part of the victim's apron, wet with blood."
                                ​​​​​​​
                                You keep quoting newspaper reports how many times do you need telling that these reports as you can see conflict with each other and are clearly unsafe to totally rely on.

                                But again you are missing the point the whole issue is that if Eddowes was not wearing an apron then the killer could have not cut/torn a piece and the deposited it in GS. If that can be proved to be correct then there has to be another explanation as to how it got there and who deposited it -Its not rocket science

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X