Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

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."

Oh, that's quite a collection. I thought it was only one paper that included the "with blood" phrase. It appears quite often, and as you point out, gets used back by witnesses as well. That does change things. Thanks.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

Do you think that the inquest was the first time the officers had been asked about the apron?

[JeffHamm]

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.

To be precise, Trevor's theory requires Long to have missed the apron on not only his 2:20 beat but also his 1:50 beat, and possibly also his 1:20 best, pending on what time Kate is speculated to have gone through Goulston Street.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

No, Trevor, I can't see any conflict on this point. Some of the inquest reports say that the apron was wet with blood, all say that it was wet. This is not a conflict. Saying that it was wet with a nice Chianti, or not wet at all, would be a conflict. But extra detail or a lack thereof do not equate to conflict.
Therefore your conclusion that they are unsafe to rely on is itself unsafe to 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

It cannot be proved to be correct, though. Not with the evidence available. All the evidence points to Eddowes wearing an apron before and up to her death. There is no evidence that shows she wasn't wearing one. All Collard's list can safely show is that by the time her body was undressed at the mortuary, she may no longer have been wearing an apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor, I can't see any conflict on this point. Some of the inquest reports say that the apron was wet with blood, all say that it was wet. This is not a conflict. Saying that it was wet with a nice Chianti, or not wet at all, would be a conflict. But extra detail or a lack thereof do not equate to conflict.
Therefore your conclusion that they are unsafe to rely on is itself unsafe to rely on.



It cannot be proved to be correct, though. Not with the evidence available. All the evidence points to Eddowes wearing an apron before and up to her death. There is no evidence that shows she wasn't wearing one. All Collard's list can safely show is that by the time her body was undressed at the mortuary, she may no longer have been wearing an apron.

So if that be the case what happened to the rest of the apron?just look at collards list and look to see where if she was still wearing an apron with a piece missing where it should have been, under her coat and over her skirt.how can that not be seen? In order to remove the skirt and the other clothing they would have to have removed the apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

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

Thats not even the case. Even if you could categorically prove that she was only carrying two parts of an apron and not wearing one (and you certainly can’t prove this) it still doesn’t mean that the killer couldn’t have taken one of those pieces away with him.

[Herlock Sholmes]

. I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress

I really don’t see the issue. That the apron was found ‘outside her dress’ doesn’t specifically mean that she wasn’t wearing it just that it was ‘outside’ her dress. In other words it was worn over (outside) rather than underneath her dress. Add this to those already quoted that stated that she word an apron and we clearly have a non-issue.....again.

[Trevor Marriott]

I really don’t see the issue. That the apron was found ‘outside her dress’ doesn’t specifically mean that she wasn’t wearing it just that it was ‘outside’ her dress. In other words it was worn over (outside) rather than underneath her dress. Add this to those already quoted that stated that she word an apron and we clearly have a non-issue.....again.

We get back to Collards testimony
"I produce a portion of the apron the deceased was apparently wearing"

Why not "I produce the apron the victim was wearing with a piece missing" after all he was present

The issue here is that when the body was stripped and the list made up, the GS piece had not been found but then days later retrospectively we see Collards inquest testimony partially falling in line with the belief that the killer cut it and deposited a piece in GS, and then we see Dc Halse also retrospectively falling in line with that belief in his inquest testimony about "noticing" a piece of her apron missing, but there is no mention of an apron in the main list which was made up at the time. Just a piece of old white apron

Yet you and others keep coming back and stating that the inquest testimony as is stands if safe to rely on and nothing else should be considered, You are blinkered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

We get back to Collards testimony
"I produce a portion of the apron the deceased was apparently wearing"

Why not "I produce the apron the victim was wearing with a piece missing" after all he was present

The issue here is that when the body was stripped and the list made up, the GS piece had not been found but then days later retrospectively we see Collards inquest testimony partially falling in line with the belief that the killer cut it and deposited a piece in GS, and then we see Dc Halse also retrospectively falling in line with that belief in his inquest testimony about "noticing" a piece of her apron missing, but there is no mention of an apron in the main list which was made up at the time. Just a piece of old white apron

Yet you and others keep coming back and stating that the inquest testimony as is stands if safe to rely on and nothing else should be considered, You are blinkered!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Calm down Trevor.

Why is it that it’s everyone else that’s blinkered? Why is it that you call pretty much every statement or piece of testimony unsafe and yet you feel that you’re on ‘safe’ ground when you apply your own interpretation of what Collard said? All based on one word plus what he didn’t say. It’s possible to look at any statement and ask why that person add more detail it doesn’t mean that we can make assumptions from them.

With your theory you claim to show evidence that the killer didn’t take a piece of Eddowes apron away with him so I’ll ask you again....

Even if you could somehow prove beyond all doubt that Eddowes wasn’t wearing an apron but that she was simply carrying two pieces of apron on her person how does that prove that the killer didn't take a piece away with him? He could simply have grabbed one of the pieces that she was carrying and then discarded it in Goulston Street. So not only does your theory not prove that she wasn’t wearing an apron, it doesn’t prove that, even if she wasn’t, he didn’t take a piece away with him and drop it in Goulston Street. So it’s a double fail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Do you think that the inquest was the first time the officers had been asked about the apron?

Yes I do

[Trevor Marriott]

Calm down Trevor.

Why is it that it’s everyone else that’s blinkered? Why is it that you call pretty much every statement or piece of testimony unsafe and yet you feel that you’re on ‘safe’ ground when you apply your own interpretation of what Collard said? All based on one word plus what he didn’t say. It’s possible to look at any statement and ask why that person add more detail it doesn’t mean that we can make assumptions from them.

With your theory you claim to show evidence that the killer didn’t take a piece of Eddowes apron away with him so I’ll ask you again....

Even if you could somehow prove beyond all doubt that Eddowes wasn’t wearing an apron but that she was simply carrying two pieces of apron on her person how does that prove that the killer didn't take a piece away with him? He could simply have grabbed one of the pieces that she was carrying and then discarded it in Goulston Street. So not only does your theory not prove that she wasn’t wearing an apron, it doesn’t prove that, even if she wasn’t, he didn’t take a piece away with him and drop it in Goulston Street. So it’s a double fail.

The question you have to ask which has been asked time and time again is why would he do that? the explanations given in my opinion are beyond consideration for the reasons that are are well documented and the physical steps I have taken to prove or disprove those explanations.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

I had asked over on the other apron thread whether it was feasible that Kate's apron could have been removed to compare to the GS rag prior to the invent being taken, thus explaining its omission on the invent.

Do we know whether the invent of clothing and belongings was taken in Mitre Square or back at the morgue?

For the record, there are no blinkers here!

I'm merely exploring different ideas....

[Joshua Rogan]

I had asked over on the other apron thread whether it was feasible that Kate's apron could have been removed to compare to the GS rag prior to the invent being taken, thus explaining its omission on the invent.

Do we know whether the invent of clothing and belongings was taken in Mitre Square or back at the morgue?

For the record, there are no blinkers here!

I'm merely exploring different ideas....

It was taken at the mortuary. For the record, and despite it's position on Collard's list, according to the Irish Times 1 Oct the official list of clothing includes the apron piece;

The following is the official description of the body and clothing:- "Age about 40, length 5 feet, dark auburn hair, hazel eyes; dress - black jacket with imitation fur collar, three large metal buttons, brown bodice, dark green chintz (with Michaelmas daisy and Gordon lily pattern); skirt (three flounces), thin white vest, light drab linsey underskirt, dark green alpaca petticoat, white chemise, brown ribbed stockings (mended at feet with piece of white stocking), black straw bonnet, trimmed with black beads and green and black velvet, large white handkerchief round the neck, a pair of men's old laced boots, and piece of course white apron. The deceased had 'T C' on left forearm, tattooed in blue ink."

[Ms Diddles]

Thanks for that, Joshua!

[Herlock Sholmes]

The question you have to ask which has been asked time and time again is why would he do that? the explanations given in my opinion are beyond consideration for the reasons that are are well documented and the physical steps I have taken to prove or disprove those explanations.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Absolutely nothing that you have said is ‘beyond consideration’ Trevor. Why do you believe that when you say something it cannot be questioned? Is that really how you think?

. The question you have to ask which has been asked time and time again is why would he do that?

Why would he leave the police station, walk all the way back to her lodgings, enter and leave unseen by anyone, then walk all the way back to the area that she’d come from in the first place? Why do you have zero problem with that and yet you find the idea of a serial killer taking a piece of cloth away so unlikely as to be almost as if we’re suggesting that the killer was wearing a rabbit costume.

He only had very limited time at the crime scene so he might have taken it away to clean himself up in a safer spot with more time available. Can you in any way show that this couldn’t have been the case? No you can’t. Therefore we have a possible explanation.

....


So to sum up - we have numerous people saying that Eddowes wore an apron but they were all mistaken. We have Collard using the word ‘apparently’ which in your language means ‘wasn't.’ We have a list that can be eliminated as useless because the compliler didn’t go into enough detail. We have a suggestion that she was simply carrying two pieces of cloth which, even if true, doesn’t discount by any stretch of the imagination the suggestion that the killer took a piece of cloth away. We have an unlikely and seemingly illogical back and forth journey with Eddowes remaining unseen.

What’s left?

Nothing.