Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

As long as one piece matched the other where is the problem? Did the piece found in Goulston Street match the piece in Mitre Square? Yes it did. Was it an apron? Yes it was. So you can nitpick all you like. The debate is pointless and hopeless. The killer dropped the piece of apron in Goulston Street. Time to let this go.

Its not nitpicking it’s called thoroughly investigating assessing and evaluating the facts impartially which have resulted in coming to a professional opinion that the old accepted facts are unsafe to rely on

and I a m going to let it go because there is no point in trying to debate these issues with you until you take off the rose tinted glasses you seem to be wearing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Its not nitpicking it’s called thoroughly investigating assessing and evaluating the facts impartially which have resulted in coming to a professional opinion that the old accepted facts are unsafe to rely on

and I a m going to let it go because there is no point in trying to debate these issues with you until you take off the rose tinted glasses you seem to be wearing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’ll take them of when you take the Conspiracy Goggles off.

[Trevor Marriott]

I’ll take them of when you take the Conspiracy Goggles off.

I doubt you even know what a conspiracy is, but if you believe you have identified one please enlighten us all.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.u

[Herlock Sholmes]

I doubt you even know what a conspiracy is, but if you believe you have identified one please enlighten us all.

www.trevormarriott.co.u

Im talking in general terms. As a way of thinking. Where every minor discrepancy is always considered as having a sinister origin without considering that events involving people are bound to contain errors. Someone gets a time wrong and it means someone must be lying; someone words something poorly or they word it correctly and someone transcribes it poorly and it shows that someone is covering something up. It’s often aligned with the belief that anyone in authority or who is considered a part of the ‘establishment,’ is automatically a liar or a pantomime villain. If you look hard enough into pretty much any event or series of events you’ll be able to find a conspiracy.

In the case of events in Mitre Square it’s fairly simple. A piece of cloth discovered in Goulston Street matched exactly the apron worn by Eddowes. The fact that there was only blood on one side doesn’t prove anything just because we can’t conclusively explain this. What if the killer had a piece of cloth with him that he had for wiping his hands which he did at the scene before leaving. He then took the piece from Eddowes as a souvenir. As he passes a lamp he sees that he has blood on his trousers so he ducks into the doorway and uses the ‘souvenir’ to clean himself which he discards. Who knows?

I think you’re suggestion that Eddowes might have been carrying some cut up pieces of apron? How does this disproves the killer dropping a piece at Goulston Street as he might have grabbed on of these pieces? If he grabbed on and stuffed it into his pocket this would explain why there was only blood on one side. He might then have dropped it as a pointer to the grafitto?

Im speculating like you but I’m not claiming to know the exact truth about those events. But you’re speculating and claiming that your speculation is enough to dismiss all other possibilities.

[Trevor Marriott]

Im talking in general terms. As a way of thinking. Where every minor discrepancy is always considered as having a sinister origin without considering that events involving people are bound to contain errors. Someone gets a time wrong and it means someone must be lying; someone words something poorly or they word it correctly and someone transcribes it poorly and it shows that someone is covering something up. It’s often aligned with the belief that anyone in authority or who is considered a part of the ‘establishment,’ is automatically a liar or a pantomime villain. If you look hard enough into pretty much any event or series of events you’ll be able to find a conspiracy.

But someones way of thinking does not constitute a conspiracy. and all you keep doing is posting speculative guesses that cannot be proven to support your belief in the old accepted theory.

The only conspiracy I can see is where the police officers stood up in court and they all testified that an old piece of white apron they were shown came from an apron that Eddowes was seen wearing by them. How were they able to swear to that its farcical and clearly they had got their heads together in advance.

In the case of events in Mitre Square it’s fairly simple. A piece of cloth discovered in Goulston Street matched exactly the apron worn by Eddowes.

The two pieces matched but there is no evidence that they made up a full apron.

The fact that there was only blood on one side doesn’t prove anything just because we can’t conclusively explain this. What if the killer had a piece of cloth with him that he had for wiping his hands which he did at the scene before leaving. He then took the piece from Eddowes as a souvenir. As he passes a lamp he sees that he has blood on his trousers so he ducks into the doorway and uses the ‘souvenir’ to clean himself which he discards. Who knows?

You are really struggling now I would stop while you retain some form of sensibility and credibility

I think you’re suggestion that Eddowes might have been carrying some cut up pieces of apron? How does this disproves the killer dropping a piece at Goulston Street as he might have grabbed on of these pieces? If he grabbed on and stuffed it into his pocket this would explain why there was only blood on one side. He might then have dropped it as a pointer to the grafitto?

Can you prove the killer wrote the graffiti- no you cant, can anyone no they cant, this belief is nothing more than wild speculation. The wording has no relevance to any murder.

Im speculating like you but I’m not claiming to know the exact truth about those events. But you’re speculating and claiming that your speculation is enough to dismiss all other possibilities.

All I have done is to highlight the flaws in the evidence and testimony which casts a major doubt about the old accepted theory, and not only that I have postulated another plausible explanation for the apron piece being found in GS based on the facts and evidence already available and what I have been able to deduce. I have not simply gone out and picked from the sky an explanation that does not have any corroboration to it.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Can you prove the killer wrote the graffiti- no you cant, can anyone no they cant, this belief is nothing more than wild speculation. The wording has no relevance to any murder

I don’t know of anyone stating as a fact that the graffiti was written by the ripper and nor should they. Neither should it be stated as a fact that it wasn’t. We don’t know. It’s hardly ‘wild’ speculation though as a piece of apron from the murder scene was found next to it which introduces the possibility that the killer wrote it.

Your suggestion, I believe, is that Catherine Eddowes dumped it there on her way to Mitre Square (or at least she was heading in that direction) You raise the point, why would he cut off a piece of cloth when he could have cleaned his hands/knife in situ (it’s actually a point that I’ve made myself in the past as well) so we have...


a) Eddowes dumped the cloth on the way to Mitre Square.

or

b) The killer dropped the cloth as a way of showing that the message was written by him.

or

c) The killer took it so that he could wipe away any blood from his clothing. Something he couldn’t do in the poor lighting of Mitre Square?

So....

How can you say that one is more likely that the other? Or that we should dismiss b) and c) because they are two of those dreaded ‘old established theories?’

[Trevor Marriott]

I don’t know of anyone stating as a fact that the graffiti was written by the ripper and nor should they. Neither should it be stated as a fact that it wasn’t. We don’t know. It’s hardly ‘wild’ speculation though as a piece of apron from the murder scene was found next to it which introduces the possibility that the killer wrote it.

Your suggestion, I believe, is that Catherine Eddowes dumped it there on her way to Mitre Square (or at least she was heading in that direction) You raise the point, why would he cut off a piece of cloth when he could have cleaned his hands/knife in situ (it’s actually a point that I’ve made myself in the past as well) so we have...


a) Eddowes dumped the cloth on the way to Mitre Square.

or

b) The killer dropped the cloth as a way of showing that the message was written by him.

or

c) The killer took it so that he could wipe away any blood from his clothing. Something he couldn’t do in the poor lighting of Mitre Square?

So....

How can you say that one is more likely that the other? Or that we should dismiss b) and c) because they are two of those dreaded ‘old established theories?’

I am going to start a new thread setting out in full the reasons why I believe Eddowes deposited it and the evidence to support that belief, and why is was deposited. But I do not intend to keep going over the same ground as has been covered this past seven days. The post is for the benefit for those who may not be so familiar with my explanation and for one and all to either now accept or reject it as it flies in the face of the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Michael W Richards]

Its not nitpicking it’s called thoroughly investigating assessing and evaluating the facts impartially which have resulted in coming to a professional opinion that the old accepted facts are unsafe to rely on

and I a m going to let it go because there is no point in trying to debate these issues with you until you take off the rose tinted glasses you seem to be wearing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Again with the misleading posts. The apron was not there at 2:20, so the killer did not just "drop" it...with the implication in that sentence being it was discarded on the way home. It wasnt.

[Sunny Delight]

Again with the misleading posts. The apron was not there at 2:20, so the killer did not just "drop" it...with the implication in that sentence being it was discarded on the way home. It wasnt.

The apron cannot be conclusively proven to have not been there at 2:20am. We have PC Long stating quite categorically it wasn't but of his copying down of the gaffitti is testament to his thoroughness it doesn't say much particularly for him does it.

[Sunny Delight]

I don’t know of anyone stating as a fact that the graffiti was written by the ripper and nor should they. Neither should it be stated as a fact that it wasn’t. We don’t know. It’s hardly ‘wild’ speculation though as a piece of apron from the murder scene was found next to it which introduces the possibility that the killer wrote it.

Your suggestion, I believe, is that Catherine Eddowes dumped it there on her way to Mitre Square (or at least she was heading in that direction) You raise the point, why would he cut off a piece of cloth when he could have cleaned his hands/knife in situ (it’s actually a point that I’ve made myself in the past as well) so we have...


a) Eddowes dumped the cloth on the way to Mitre Square.

or

b) The killer dropped the cloth as a way of showing that the message was written by him.

or

c) The killer took it so that he could wipe away any blood from his clothing. Something he couldn’t do in the poor lighting of Mitre Square?

So....

How can you say that one is more likely that the other? Or that we should dismiss b) and c) because they are two of those dreaded ‘old established theories?’

C is an interesting one. Very plausible. I hadn't thought of that but of everything I have read its the most convincing. I would wager that if JTR had been caught and questioned on why he took the part of apron it would be quite a boring reason and his dropping it also likely just as such.

[Scott Nelson]

Slight variant of b) and c), the killer dropped the piece of apron, but the message was already there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Slight variant of b) and c), the killer dropped the piece of apron, but the message was already there.

Equally possible Scott

[Varqm]

Does the graffiti have any connection to a murder -No
can we prove the killer wrote it -No
Can we prove the killer deposited the apron piece -No

Why would the killer walk all that way to GS to deposit a piece of apron and write graffiti on a wall, when he could have deposited anywhere between MS and GS. The apron piece could have been found by any Tom Dick or Harry and be treated as just that an old piece of apron and the graffiti treated as just that graffiti with neither being connected to Eddowes murder. Why cant people apply some logic to this murder instead of having their heads buried in the sand readily accepting the old theories.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

How do you know the graffito had nothing to do with the murder.
We cannot prove the killer wrote it but it is 50-50.
Yes we can prove the killer deposited it in Goulston because of PC Alfred Long,he testified it was not there at 2:20 am so it could not have been dropped by Eddowes.


All the testimonies in the inquest were under oath as much as any list.Their testimonies were done in front of their superiors,coroner,solicitor and were good as any piece of evidence like a list.In the inquest they could expound.The Coroner put six witnesses talking about the apron plus Long because it was important to point out that Eddowes was wearing an apron and the one in Goulston fitted the piece in the dead body. Insp. Collard and Dr. Brown said the Goulston piece fitted with the one in Eddowes's dead body.
PC long's said that the apron was not there at 2:20 am,so Eddowes could not have put it there,and we cannot discard this.The inquest was clear,there is nothing to debate,the testimonies below were sufficient.


Frederick William Wilkinson : I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron

City-constable Lewis Robinson: 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:
Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

Daniel Halse, detective officer:subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing...


Inspector Collard, of the City Police: A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

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.

[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.

[JeffHamm]

How do you know the graffito had nothing to do with the murder.
We cannot prove the killer wrote it but it is 50-50.
Yes we can prove the killer deposited it in Goulston because of PC Alfred Long,he testified it was not there at 2:20 am so it could not have been dropped by Eddowes.


All the testimonies in the inquest were under oath as much as any list.Their testimonies were done in front of their superiors,coroner,solicitor and were good as any piece of evidence like a list.In the inquest they could expound.The Coroner put six witnesses talking about the apron plus Long because it was important to point out that Eddowes was wearing an apron and the one in Goulston fitted the piece in the dead body. Insp. Collard and Dr. Brown said the Goulston piece fitted with the one in Eddowes's dead body.
PC long's said that the apron was not there at 2:20 am,so Eddowes could not have put it there,and we cannot discard this.The inquest was clear,there is nothing to debate,the testimonies below were sufficient.


Frederick William Wilkinson : I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron

City-constable Lewis Robinson: 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:
Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

Daniel Halse, detective officer:subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing...


Inspector Collard, of the City Police: A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased.

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.

[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.

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

[JeffHamm]

Oh, sorry, I should make a correction. Above, where I talk about how PC Long and DO Halse may have just missed each other at 2:20, and conclude that DO Halse must have passed before PC Long, that's not correct. I had overlooked the fact that PC Long doesn't find the apron until 2:55, that's when he would have spent time in the stairwell. As such, either could have passed shortly before the other. The rest, however, stands as is - given that DO Halse's time of 2:20 must be an estimate (there's no reason why he would have checked his watch, if he had one, in Goulston Street since that was just the route he took to get to Mitre Square. He would, however, check his time upon arrival at Mitre Square, and from that estimate back when he had passed through Goulston Street - hence his time is an estimate of the time. PC Long also may be estimating his time based upon time checking each of his rounds).

And, one other thing to consider.

Why is there so much focus on the piece of apron found at Goulston Street, going to lengths to ensure that it was matched with the portion found "still attached by the strings to the body" (in Dr. Brown's words) and which had a portion missing at the crime scene (as specifically noted by D.O. Halse)?

Because, it was clear then that this was an important piece of evidence and they were working to establish that fact, that the portion found in Goulston Street was the bit missing from the apron that Eddowes was wearing. They asked a lot of people about her wearing an apron to establish that fact on record. It was clear to them the importance of this physical evidence with regards to inferring the direction of the Ripper's travels after the murder. The multiple questions (for PC Long and also DO Halse) concerning the apron's presence at roughly 2:20 are clearly trying to establish whether or not it is safe to conclude the apron piece was dropped during an immediate flight from Mitre Square. However, as PC Long states without reservation that the apron was not there at 2:20, then it cannot be stated with certainty that JtR did indeed go straight from Mitre Square to Goulston. I tend to think that is the most probable case, and that PC Long simply overlooked it the first time by, but I can't be sure of that and don't present it as such.

Anyway, with the clear focus and interest on the apron Kate was wearing, and the piece found in Goulston Street, I think it is beyond reasonable to suggest that two did not make up a whole apron. If they did not, that would be important to note, and when the two portions were fitted together it would have been stated that while they fit, they were not complete. Because this would imply that either the police should keep looking for another piece (giving another point to plot his travels) or to keep on the lookout for it should they investigate a suspect (i.e. can they find the missing piece on a suspect, or in their home, that would be great evidence). Moreover, I think it beyond reasonable to presume that Dr. Brown could not tell if the piece found was soiled due to an "accident", or that the blood was menstrual blood patterns, and would not mention the presence of urine.

- Jeff