Kate's Apron

[Michael W Richards]

I believe that for any killer to have been in need of an apron section while in the throes of a murder its an indication that the section was for more than just wiping his hands. He could have done that on her clothing. Without slicing and ripping sounds or the time taken to make them.

I believe it held the takeway items, which also suggests that he would be unlikely on the way home to remove them from the wrapping to just discard the cloth in Gouston. He would use it until he could plop the organs somewhere...likely in spirits.

The cloth was placed there later.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe that for any killer to have been in need of an apron section while in the throes of a murder its an indication that the section was for more than just wiping his hands. He could have done that on her clothing. Without slicing and ripping sounds or the time taken to make them.

I believe it held the takeway items, which also suggests that he would be unlikely on the way home to remove them from the wrapping to just discard the cloth in Gouston. He would use it until he could plop the organs somewhere...likely in spirits.

The cloth was placed there later.

One of the tests clearl showed that this was not possible see the photo relative to this

https://www.trevormarrriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Of course it doesn't negate it because my argument was precisely that the remaining portion of the apron had been pushed aside, that is, on or close to the body but not actually in an area cut by the killer. The apron was described as hanging loosely from her neck, so it's entirely consistent with the killer holding it out stretched with one hand, using the body as counterweight, which makes it easy to cut with the other hand. The remaining half falls down and is scrunched away around the neck area, not around the sternum.

Collard mentions that her listed possessions were more or less stained with blood and cut, so your idea that the mortuary piece was neither bloodstained nor cut is also unsupported. Just to remind you: something not mentioned is not necessarily absent, nor is the opposite of something not mentioned necessarily true - e.g. if not mentioned directly that the mortuary piece was bloodstained then you believe it was not - however that is not the case.

Collard makes no mention of her wearing anything resembling an apron or a piece of an apron.

Look at the description of the cuts to the clothing as described in Collards list, there is no way that if she had been wearing an apron it could have avoided any of the cuts or not finished up with any signs of blood on it.

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Lindsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.
“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.

and you prove that the mortuary piece was spotted or stained with blood and had been penetrated with a knife

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

and you prove that the mortuary piece was spotted or stained with blood and had been penetrated with a knife

Why should I prove it? The problem here is you stating for a fact that the apron piece was NOT bloodstained, when in fact we do not know that.

Collard stated that the items on his list were more less blood-stained and cut. The apron piece was on his list. Ergo, the apron piece was more or less blood-stained and cut.

[Trevor Marriott]

Why should I prove it? The problem here is you stating for a fact that the apron piece was NOT bloodstained, when in fact we do not know that.

Collard stated that the items on his list were more less blood-stained and cut. The apron piece was on his list. Ergo, the apron piece was more or less blood-stained and cut.

It says nothing of the sort now stop making it up

You need to put you glasses on because clearly your vision as to how you view these facts is totally blurred

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

It says nothing of the sort now stop making it up

You need to put you glasses on because clearly your vision as to how you view these facts is totally blurred

Excuse me, what am I making up?

Collard, at the inquest: "I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut."

Please don't start with the personal insults.

[Trevor Marriott]

Excuse me, what am I making up?

Collard, at the inquest: "I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut."

Please don't start with the personal insults.

That to which you refer is from Collards inquest testimony where he produces two lists which related to the body being stripped at the mortuary and showed the clothing worn by the victim and her personal possessions. The only reference to any apron piece is in her possessions and there is no mention of any cuts or blood stains to that piece, so you are making it up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

That to which you refer is from Collards inquest testimony where he produces two lists which related to the body being stripped at the mortuary and showed the clothing worn by the victim and her personal possessions. The only reference to any apron piece is in her possessions and there is no mention of any cuts or blood stains to that piece, so you are making it up

That's interesting, my version of the Ultimate only mentions one list and the apron is on it.
Which edition are you referring to?

[jerryd]

That to which you refer is from Collards inquest testimony where he produces two lists which related to the body being stripped at the mortuary and showed the clothing worn by the victim and her personal possessions. The only reference to any apron piece is in her possessions and there is no mention of any cuts or blood stains to that piece, so you are making it up.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor.

Dr. Brown mentions fitting the portion found in Goulston Street and the piece he saw on the body and they corresponded. So that's not the only reference to the apron.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Collard only produces one list. Why would he have two lists?

[jerryd]

From a portion of Dr. Browns written statement.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Trevor.

Dr. Brown mentions fitting the portion found in Goulston Street and the piece he saw on the body and they corresponded. So that's not the only reference to the apron.

Thats a quote I use too jd, the fact that the recent repair lines intersect with the tear/cut lines helps validate a match I believe. A footnote....the fact that the apron section doesnt appear to have been there at Longs 2:20 pass indicates that whomever placed the apron there, they placed the apron there. Which when considering the proximity to chalk writing, and the mention of Jews...figuring in to some extent at both murders..IF Lawende saw Kate, it suggests both were done at the same time.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor.

Dr. Brown mentions fitting the portion found in Goulston Street and the piece he saw on the body and they corresponded. So that's not the only reference to the apron.

I am not disputing that but what I am arguing is how did the two pieces become separated and when, and moreover we do not know if the two pieces when matched made up a full apron, If Eddowes had simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron at some time previous to her murder that would explain why one piece was not covered in blood abd the second piece from GS was

There are two different quotes in two different reports

Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
“Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”

If it had still bee attached to the body by the strings when stripping the body they would have had to either undo it or cut it from the body and as no apron was listed that is a moot point.

Dr Browns official inquest testimony
. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.”
This shows that this apron was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

Now to silence those who postulate a bib apron I think this rules that suggestion out

So which is correct, as there was no apron listed from her clothing list you have to accept his official inquest testimony

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Collard only produces one list. Why would he have two lists?

The two lists merge into one if you read down you can see where the clothing stops and the possessions begin

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The two lists merge into one if you read down you can see where the clothing stops and the possessions begin

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

One list with the clothing listed first? It’s not 2 lists.