Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

On the point that Eddowes was menstruating, and cut her apron to use as a makeshift sanitary towel, I have a few observations.

Firstly, we have all of the references to her wearing an apron, and even if she allegedly removed it late on during the evening, we still have Collard saying that she was apparently wearing it - the correct way to describe an apron which was in place "outside her dress", but cut and hanging off. Also we have Shelton's press release which demonstrates that the City Police believed she was wearing an apron at 1. 30 am.

Eddowes had just one apron, which was obviously of some importance to her, as she had repaired it once and continued to wear it. I am lost for words at the suggestion that she cut her apron (with a table knife!) rather than use one of the 12 pieces of rag which she was keeping for some purpose. I struggle to accept that 12 pieces of rag were more precious to her than her one and only apron.

Then we have the post mortem report. Dr Brown, apparently observed by Sequeira, Saunders and Phillips, found "no evidence of connexion", but none of them noticed she was menstruating! Furthermore, Brown felt that the apron portion had been used to wipe hands or a knife. We are asked to believe that not one of the four experienced doctors could recognize a home made sanitary towel!!!!

Somewhere along the line we have to consider the possibility that the police were not complete idiots, and that the experienced doctors were not totally incompetent.

and sadly your asssement is way off the reality, why would they look to see if she was menstruating for all we know she could have finished, and what would the doctors being looking for recent connection why should they recognise it was a piece of apron, the type victorian women of the lower class would ues for that purpose.

You also cannot prove Eddowes repaired the apron, for all we know that is why the original apron was cut up into pieces because it was of no use as an apron.

I have already covered the statement made by Brown and how that statement can be challenged

Fo all we know the 12 pieces of rag could be the remains of the original apron, although Eddowes was described as a hawker so she could have had them to sell.

When you look carefully at the decscription of the GS piece it has all the hall marks of being used as decsribed and all the hall marks of it being between her legs, It was spotted with blood this is consistent with the menstruation process, it had traces of faecal matter on it. All these stains were on one side only thats also consitent with it being folded and being between her legs.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Surely the task is to change the status quo?

As Hutt was the last person to see Kate alive, and Hutt saw her wearing an apron. Then that is the status quo.
The burden of proof lies with anyone who suggests she removed it, or someone else removed it. No proof is required to say she kept it on, it already is 'on'.
Where proof is needed is to suggest it was taken off.

The status quo is the rule to break, if it cannot be broken by facts, then the status quo rules the day.
This is a general rule of thumb in any investigation.

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

-To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

Yes but you are speculating what the stains actually look like and how the ripper wiped his knife - it could have also been accidental as he used the knife to cut the apron. When he held the apron ,cutting it and carrying it, blood most likely touched the apron. This is unsolvable.

Read the chapter in my book and look at the pics then you might be more convinced

-Is quiet easy to explain if she was not wearing an apron but had been in possession of two old pieces she could have quite easily been using one as a sanitary device which had become wet and soiled whilst in custody and on leaving and making her was back in the direction of Flower and Dean street a route which would have taken her past the GS archway she could have gone under the arch to go to the toilet and then disposed of the soiled piece of apron, and then deciding against going to her lodgings. It should be noted that she would have had time to walk to GS and back to MS following her release.

But you are ignoring PC Long's testimony.The portion of the apron was not there at 2:20 Am so Eddowes could not have dropped it. This is asking for too much, disregard PC Long's testimony.

So he says !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he also doesnt see Dc Halse who it seems was also in GS at the same time as Long,at that time of the night how could they have not seen or heard each other?

--The general consenus is that the killer carried the organs away in it, However I have effcetively shown this to not be an option having regard for how the apron would have been decsribed if fresh organs from a body were taken away in it

That was a useful experiment. But this was not the only possible reason he wanted that useless half/apron as there were other items of clothing he could have taken quicker, without the need to cut.

He already had experience in dealing with organs, taking them ,from Chapman's murder and he wanted organs. What if he came prepared and had a pouch/container for it this time? And used the apron for other purposes like planning to put it somewhere and write the graffito? We just do not know. A piece of apron was more likely to be connected to Eddowes than her other possessions ? This is unsolvable.

Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

I believe in PC :Long and cannot disregard him. Around 10 minutes walk to Goulston from Mitre square, the portion of the apron was not there at 2:20 am.,so it was at least around 35 minutes before he got rid of it. Which tells us he either hid in a building opening/alley/etc. or he had a bolt hole, but whichever of those it was it was just "temporary", he wanted to go somewhere else.

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Let's just stick to the time between 1:05 Am to 1:30 Am., forget the rest, Brown/Collards testimony and the inquest.
If somebody is going to the electric chair based on your answer and if your answer is yes he will be, if no not, and the question is, yes or no:

Are you sure she did not take off her apron between 1:05 am and 1:30 am.?

Ive already answered that one Varqm. As I’ve said, of course it’s not physically impossible that she took her apron off. But when we’re trying to suggest a possible conclusion to any issue would you simply list as alternatives everything that’s not impossible? As I sarcastically said, it’s not impossible that someone attacked her a stole her apron. It’s not impossible that she bumped into a woman who desperately needed an apron and so Catherine sold hers. Neither of these are impossible but would anyone consider them at all likely or plausible? And that’s what we’re talking about with your suggestion. Not that it’s physically impossible but that it’s unlikely and not plausible. No matter how hard we think what plausible reason can we think of that might have led her to take off her apron at between 1.0- and 1.30. If she didn’t take it off in the station why would she when she got outside.

Surely you can see that we are talking about likelihood’s and plausibility?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor, you do realise that you can’t make something true by simply repeating it don’t you?

Ill say it again, if the 2 pieces didn’t make up a full apron someone would certainly have mentioned it and as no one did mention this then this means that the 2 pieces did make up a full apron. The apron that she was wearing when Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt saw her. No matter what you say the evidence is against you.

[Wickerman]

But I said forget the rest, you included Collards/Brown/Halse's testimonies but without them? We are talking about 1:05 am and 1:30 am..
That's what I'm saying it was those trio's testimonies that clinched it, not before.

Rarely is there ever one single fact that proves a case. More often a decision is made on an accumulation of evidence.
You've heard the expression, 'by a preponderance of the evidence' - that means more than one fact was considered.
Likewise, circumstantial evidence as a rule implies one than one circumstance.

You want to ask for a decision on one detail - that simply is not done.
And, it shows clearly you find yourself in a corner with no way out.

Enough of this thread.

Promise?

[Wickerman]

The proof is the list of clothing. and the fact that the two pieces as decsribed did not make up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's not a 'fact', and you know it.

[Varqm]

Ive already answered that one Varqm. As I’ve said, of course it’s not physically impossible that she took her apron off. But when we’re trying to suggest a possible conclusion to any issue would you simply list as alternatives everything that’s not impossible? As I sarcastically said, it’s not impossible that someone attacked her a stole her apron. It’s not impossible that she bumped into a woman who desperately needed an apron and so Catherine sold hers. Neither of these are impossible but would anyone consider them at all likely or plausible? And that’s what we’re talking about with your suggestion. Not that it’s physically impossible but that it’s unlikely and not plausible. No matter how hard we think what plausible reason can we think of that might have led her to take off her apron at between 1.0- and 1.30. If she didn’t take it off in the station why would she when she got outside.

Surely you can see that we are talking about likelihood’s and plausibility?

What I'm saying is stick to the 1st fact first, we do not know, we do not have info on what Eddowes actually did between after 1:00 am and 1:30ish, when it comes down to it. She could have taken it off and put it back in for all we know. Our onlly inference was Hutt, not really really good. But it was Collard/Brown that proved she was wearing it when she was killed - not Hutt, since the body was not interfered with when she was killed up to the stripping in the mortuary, which is what this debate is about. Hutt's testimony was 44 minutes before the murder.
I have always believed she was wearing it all the time from her release to her death, most likely, for years and never changed my mind. I never believed in the apron as sanitary device and Eddowes dropped it in Goulston for one second.

[Varqm]

Rarely is there ever one single fact that proves a case. More often a decision is made on an accumulation of evidence.
You've heard the expression, 'by a preponderance of the evidence' - that means more than one fact was considered.
Likewise, circumstantial evidence as a rule implies one than one circumstance.

You want to ask for a decision on one detail - that simply is not done.
And, it shows clearly you find yourself in a corner with no way out.



Promise?

After I answered the reply today.

[Herlock Sholmes]

What I'm saying is stick to the 1st fact first, we do not know, we do not have info on what Eddowes actually did between after 1:00 am and 1:30ish, when it comes down to it. She could have taken it off and put it back in for all we know. Our onlly inference was Hutt, not really really good. But it was Collard/Brown that proved she was wearing it when she was killed - not Hutt, which is what this debate is about. Hutt's testimony was 44 minutes before the murder.
I have always believed she was wearing it all the time from her release to her death, most likely, for years and never changed my mind. I never believed in the apron as sanitary device and Eddowes dropped it in Goulston for one second.

And I’m not disputing that that’s what you’ve always believed. The reason that I feel the need to mention Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt is because Trevor keeps trying to label these witnesses as ‘unsafe’ so that he can attempt to bolster his theory. You haven’t labelled them as unsafe of course.

[Varqm]

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

-The picture of the original apron is what will make it convincing, we do not know how the ripper handled the apron.
I have seen pictures of your experiments somewhere. Your experiment on the organ carrying blood stains was good .

-Pc Long's and Halse's timing of 2;20 am were not obviously accurate. A difference of 2 minutes was enough that they could not see each other, or even 1 minute ,even 30 seconds if Halse went through New Goulston St. or depending how fast he was moving. Halse already knew of the Mitre Square murder and was looking for people to stop and question. I think he stopped/questioned 2 in Wentworth. Since one was from the Met and the other from the City they did not confer as their testimonies conflict.

--My first initial thought is the ripper's "temporary" bolt hole or hiding place was too close to drop the apron nearby, or he did not want to drop it along the way to his bolt hole/hiding place, for obvious reasons. He bided his time,35 minutes at least from the records. When he decide to move he dropped it along the way, further from his hiding place.
He could also have been holding on to the apron and planning to drop the apron and write the graffito.
I've said it before ,I believe he was going to the Spitalfields Market as buyers come at 3:00 Am.,the apron was discovered at 2:55 am..There he will be lost in the crowd.
But of course,Spitalfields,Norton Foldgate,Shoreditch,Mile End NewTown,Behtnal Green were direct destinations from wherever he was hiding from.

[Varqm]

And I’m not disputing that that’s what you’ve always believed. The reason that I feel the need to mention Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt is because Trevor keeps trying to label these witnesses as ‘unsafe’ so that he can attempt to bolster his theory. You haven’t labelled them as unsafe of course.

They helped in the fact Kate was wearing apron that night and the early next morning 9/29-30.But if questioned as to was the apron worn by Kate in the mortuary the "exact" apron worn by her earlier when they saw it, a reasonable doubt could be had. But for our discussion that it was very similar is enough. I learned re-reading the inquest testimonies of Collard/Brown/Halse/Watkin/Morris/Harvey but I do not know how did I get sucked in debating whether Kate was wearing the apron when killed or not.
Wearing it or one of her possessions did not matter.
It was the direction the Ripper was escaping that was important as PC Long helped prove,this is useful.

[Wickerman]

After I answered the reply today.

You made it obvious which answer you were looking for - we can't know for sure what she did after leaving jail - but we can't leave out those who provide sworn testimony as if they don't exist. So that is why the scenario you posed is invalid.

Glad to see you didn't mean it

[Varqm]

I've said it before ,I believe he was going to the Spitalfields Market as buyers come at 3:00 Am.,the apron was discovered at 2:55 am..There he will be lost in the crowd.

March 16 1888 - Per Robert Horner lease holder of Spitalfields Market, to the effect "buyers come at 3:00 am during the summer time."
I believe it was the same during autumn.

[harry]

Yes Jeff,It is a side issue,and should be discontinued,but as long as Wickerman will not let it go,and keeps quoting me I have to put him straight.

It was not my claim that shorthand was used in every court in England.False again on Wickerman's part.It was Justice Lumb.I made that very clear.Neither I nor Wickerman,attended every court in England to observe if this statement was true or false so it's a statement on the part of Justice Lumb that cannot be disproved.
Obviously it was not a directive ,not part of the acts,or an admendment to the acts, and neither Lumb nor I have said it was.Quite possibly it was a policy decision allowing shorthand to be used.
All Wickerman has done in posting items from newspapers,and quotes from acts, and if those posts are read properly,is to show that in some cases,in court,shorthand was used.
The one opposition at the time.was to the effect,that if a shorthand writer made a mistake,no one except that person would know. Of course it would be hard to find an example of a hearing printed in shorthand symbols.They were transcribed back into longhand or text,and when a trial ended,the shorthand edition ceased to have any value.Another opposition to believeing that all courts would employ shorthand writers in the 1800's.is the demand for their services,and the shortage of qualified persons.
So Wickerman and his cronies,can submit as many paper examples as they wish,I am happy to announce that while I cannot prove the Ripper coronial hearings were taken by shorthand,there will be no evidence to show they weren't.