Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Trevor,

Collard also testifies: "[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." - He unequivocally states the apron was worn by the deceased, and a portion of it was found in Goulston Street. There's no ambiguity here.

(This is found under the official documents here on Casebook.)

What you're not doing is combining the evidence into a whole. You find a statement you feel is, on its own, ambiguous. However, statements do not exist on their own, and all of them have to be looked at in combination. An ambiguous statement can mean one of many possible interpretations are valid. When you have two or more statements, even if all of them are somewhat ambiguous, there will be far fewer options that work for all of them. You're alternatives work for individual statements, but when they are taken together with all of the testimony, there are unambiguous statements, like the above, that indicate which of the interpretations for the ambiguous one's are the correct interpretation. And it's clear, there is nothing that puts the lie to the original police interpretation.

As I've said before, I think it's good practice to engage in this sort of "wait a minute, let's go back over everything and see if we can find a different explanation." That is often how cold cases are solved when new sets of eyes look at the data. They find that what was thought by the original investigative team overlooked a valid alternative. It's a valid alternative, though, because it too fits the data. The problem here is that the pro-offered alternative does not fit the data, and relies too much on presuming "this evidence is wrong and the truth is the opposite" in order to clear away the bits that refute it. Theory is driven by data, this is what narrows down the possible to the probable. When the data is driven by theory, there is only an infinitesimally small chance of getting it right.

- Jeff

[Fiver]

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.

The inventory of Catherine Eddowes possessions lists literally a dozen things that she would have been more likely to use as a sanitary device instead of a torn/cut piece of apron.

"12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained."

Multiple witnesses testified that Eddowes was wearing an apron - the owner of her lodging house, Inspector Collard, Dr. Brown, Constable Robinson, Constable Hutt. None had any reason to lie about that.

[Fiver]

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.

According to the newspapers, multiple witnesses testified that Eddowes was wearing an apron - the owner of her lodging house, Inspector Collard, Dr. Brown, Constable Robinson, Constable Hutt.

Lets look at the possibilities.

1) All five men lied under oath. So far, I've seen no motive for any of them to perjure themselves, let alone all of them. They gain nothing from the lie and risk loss of job and imprisonment for lying.

2) The newspapers got the testimony of all 5 men wrong. This could not be an error, it would have to be a deliberate choice, but again, there is no motive for the newspapers to lie about it. Everyone who was in the courtroom would know the newspaper got it wrong - the Coronor, the jury, the lawyers, all of the witnesses (not just the 5 testifying about the apron), the large crowd listening to the Inquest, and especially other members of the press present in that crowd. Yet this theory requires none of these people care that the newspapers got it all wrong, not even rival newspapers who could sell more papers by showing the incompetence of their rivals.

3) The newspaper accounts about the apron are relatively accurate. This is not only the simplest answer, it's the only one that makes sense.

[Fiver]

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.

Collard's testimony was that "A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased."

Collard's list does not contradict his testimony. The inventory of Catherine Eddowes possessions lists literally a dozen things that she would have been more likely to use as a sanitary device instead of a torn/cut piece of apron.

"12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained."

[Fiver]

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

The killer could have cut/torn a piece from Cather Eddowes apron whether or not she was wearing the apron. Even if you were able to prove that all five men who testified were wrong about Eddowes wearing the apron, that still does not prove that the killer did not take the part of Eddowes' apron that was found near the GSG.

[JeffHamm]

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

Hi Trevor,

As has been pointed out, your speculation of "if Eddowes was not wearing an apron then the killer could have not cut/torn a piece and the deposited it in GS." does not follow. There is nothing that would prevent JtR from cutting a piece from an apron he found amongst her possessions, even if she were not wearing it. Your conclusion does not follow from the initial speculation.

Moreover, the initial premise "if Eddowes was not wearing an apron..." is refuted by a numerous testimonies as to the fact she was indeed wearing an apron that day.

It would be like me suggesting "If there were a trail of blood leading out to Mitre Street, that terminated with carriage wheels running through it, then that means Eddowes was not killed on the location she was found but in a Royal Carriage."

I've used an intentionally silly example to avoid creating a new debate, it is not intended as a slight on your position. It's only to facilitate my points concerning the logic underlying the statements, and I hope this formulation does that.

First, my example demonstrates that there's nothing to warrant the conclusion the carriage was of Royal status.
Second, the evidence falsifies the very starting point of the whole speculative conjecture. We can't get past the initial premise, and so there's no point in spending time focusing on the proposed conclusion that follows from it because a true conclusion cannot be derived from a false premise.

In both cases, your statement and my invented one, the premise is falsified, and moreover, in both cases the proffered conclusion is not even warranted should we nevertheless pretend the premise is true.

It's not a failure to consider your position, nor is it reflective of people being "blinkered", to use your phrase. Rather, it's just the opposite, people have considered your position and have spent time evaluating it, and they simply have not found either your starting premises to be warranted nor the conclusions to be sound.

Personally, I think it's been a good exercise for everyone. It has required us all to step back, reconsider the evidence we have, and carefully work through the logic involved in our conclusions. That's a good thing.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

As has been pointed out, your speculation of "if Eddowes was not wearing an apron then the killer could have not cut/torn a piece and the deposited it in GS." does not follow. There is nothing that would prevent JtR from cutting a piece from an apron he found amongst her possessions, even if she were not wearing it. Your conclusion does not follow from the initial speculation.

Moreover, the initial premise "if Eddowes was not wearing an apron..." is refuted by a numerous testimonies as to the fact she was indeed wearing an apron that day.

It would be like me suggesting "If there were a trail of blood leading out to Mitre Street, that terminated with carriage wheels running through it, then that means Eddowes was not killed on the location she was found but in a Royal Carriage."

I've used an intentionally silly example to avoid creating a new debate, it is not intended as a slight on your position. It's only to facilitate my points concerning the logic underlying the statements, and I hope this formulation does that.

First, my example demonstrates that there's nothing to warrant the conclusion the carriage was of Royal status.
Second, the evidence falsifies the very starting point of the whole speculative conjecture. We can't get past the initial premise, and so there's no point in spending time focusing on the proposed conclusion that follows from it because a true conclusion cannot be derived from a false premise.

In both cases, your statement and my invented one, the premise is falsified, and moreover, in both cases the proffered conclusion is not even warranted should we nevertheless pretend the premise is true.

It's not a failure to consider your position, nor is it reflective of people being "blinkered", to use your phrase. Rather, it's just the opposite, people have considered your position and have spent time evaluating it, and they simply have not found either your starting premises to be warranted nor the conclusions to be sound.

Personally, I think it's been a good exercise for everyone. It has required us all to step back, reconsider the evidence we have, and carefully work through the logic involved in our conclusions. That's a good thing.

- Jeff

On a final note people have not considered my suggestions. All that has happened is that a plethora of newspaper reports which clearly detect from the official facts have been quoted in A desperate attempt to try to negate my theory

its a shame that you and others fail to see that the reports are secondary evidence and that it is the official signed testimony that should be discussed
if you notice I have never used any of these reports to corroborate my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Trevor,

Collard also testifies: "[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." - He unequivocally states the apron was worn by the deceased, and a portion of it was found in Goulston Street. There's no ambiguity here.

(This is found under the official documents here on Casebook.)

What you're not doing is combining the evidence into a whole. You find a statement you feel is, on its own, ambiguous. However, statements do not exist on their own, and all of them have to be looked at in combination. An ambiguous statement can mean one of many possible interpretations are valid. When you have two or more statements, even if all of them are somewhat ambiguous, there will be far fewer options that work for all of them. You're alternatives work for individual statements, but when they are taken together with all of the testimony, there are unambiguous statements, like the above, that indicate which of the interpretations for the ambiguous one's are the correct interpretation. And it's clear, there is nothing that puts the lie to the original police interpretation.

As I've said before, I think it's good practice to engage in this sort of "wait a minute, let's go back over everything and see if we can find a different explanation." That is often how cold cases are solved when new sets of eyes look at the data. They find that what was thought by the original investigative team overlooked a valid alternative. It's a valid alternative, though, because it too fits the data. The problem here is that the pro-offered alternative does not fit the data, and relies too much on presuming "this evidence is wrong and the truth is the opposite" in order to clear away the bits that refute it. Theory is driven by data, this is what narrows down the possible to the probable. When the data is driven by theory, there is only an infinitesimally small chance of getting it right.

- Jeff

Jeff, your a saint.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Jeff, your a saint.

Definitely

[Herlock Sholmes]

On a final note people have not considered my suggestions. All that has happened is that a plethora of newspaper reports which clearly detect from the official facts have been quoted in A desperate attempt to try to negate my theory

its a shame that you and others fail to see that the reports are secondary evidence and that it is the official signed testimony that should be discussed
if you notice I have never used any of these reports to corroborate my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No Trevor, it’s a shame that you are wilfully blind to the reasoned approach. How can keep on making such statements?

[JeffHamm]

On a final note people have not considered my suggestions. All that has happened is that a plethora of newspaper reports which clearly detect from the official facts have been quoted in A desperate attempt to try to negate my theory

its a shame that you and others fail to see that the reports are secondary evidence and that it is the official signed testimony that should be discussed
if you notice I have never used any of these reports to corroborate my theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

People have considered your suggestions, it is clear from their responses. What they have not done is come to the same conclusion you have, which is not the same thing as not considering your suggestions.

Moreover, the reports in the papers are not being relied on without question. People have been comparing the coverage of the inquests from multiple newspapers, and also the signed versions, and from that examination of the totality of the information we have available to work with, they extract commonalities of meaning rather than focus on diversity of wording. Yes, the latter is important to consider, but when the various wordings all point to a common meaning, that common meaning is what we have to work with. One cannot simply focus on one particular instance of the wording that affords an ambiguity when either other testimony or presentations remove that ambiguity. Because you focus on only one source, you run the risk of over emphasizing idiosyncratic aspects of that one particular source. And none of the sources are direct recordings, even the official documents are hand written, and therefore may contain errors of wording. Hence, the emphasis on combining as many of the sources we have available in order to extract the common meaning underlying them.

And when we do that, it is clear she was wearing an apron, and that the piece found in Goulston Street came from the apron she was wearing when she was found dead in Mitre Square.

Despite all of the testimonies that lead to this conclusion by the police at the time, who were in a position to know more than we, you are offering an alternative for which these is absolutely nothing of evidential value, unsafe or not, upon which to build it. There is never any indication that Eddowes was menstruating or that the blood on the GS showed a pattern consistent with menstruating. Rather, we have explicit statements to the contrary from Dr. Brown, that in his opinion some aspects of the blood on the cloth looked as if something, either a hand or knife, had been wiped on it. There is never any indication that Eddowes wet herself while in gaol, and yet you insist the corner of the GS piece was wet with urine, and not blood, a statement that appears multiple times during the inquest, both by the police and in questions from the jury. You offer that Eddowes headed towards Flower and Dean despite the only statement we have as to the direction of travel she took was in the opposite direction, towards Houndsditch, which directly leads towards the location she was found murdered.

If we hold your account to the same criterion that you are holding the original police interpretation, your own explanation would fare worse in its evaluation. That alone should indicate that the alternative is the less valid option. There is nothing at all contained within the evidence we have to support the alternative you are offering, while there are evidential statements behind the original police explanation. And we know, as a fact, the police had far more information than we do. It does not stand to reason that we should replace their explanation with yours.

I fully understand your concerns, though, with regards to the sources we have to work with. If this were a modern situation, there are lots of details one would want to clarify and get on record. It is a shame, for example, that when it was testified the GS piece matched the portion found at the crime scene, it wasn't asked if there were any bits still unaccounted for. It is implied, but not specifically stated, and I would be much more comfortable if they had that specifically on record. Your experience with modern policing and evidence handling must raise your hackles when looking at the details, because the standards have improved so much since 1888. The problem is, that at best you can argue that the information we have is incomplete, pointing to where we cannot be absolutely sure of some things (which I think we all agree with). The problem comes when you then offer a detailed alternative that simply has no foundation upon which to build and try and argue that this unfounded alternative must be considered as equally plausible. It is not, and so all we are left with is the original explanation, which at least has some, if not entirely adequate, support.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff, your a saint.

There are those who would disagree, but thank you.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

Just to clarify that last bit, the most direct route from the police station to Flower and Dean would take about 5 minutes to walk at an average walking pace, and it's about a 10 minute walk from Flower and Dean to St. Botolph's Church, with GS roughly half way, so that would be 5 minutes to GS from F&D.

So, from the police station to Flower and Dean and then Flower and Dean to GS, would require about 10 minutes of walking, meaning she would arrive at G.S. around 1:10, which would be prior to PC Long's patrol at around 1:20 suggesting he missed it 3 times before finally finding it at 2:55.

However, Trevor doesn't state that she went to Flower and Dean and immediately leaves at 1:05, so there is some unknown period of delay at Flower and Dean. That means his idea allows for her to wait around at Flower and Dean for 10 minutes until after 1:15, and that would mean she then passes GS after PC Long's 1:20 patrol so it wasn't there for him to find at 1:20 (so he only missed it twice), and she arrives at St. Botolph's closer to 1:25. And arriving in that area around 1:25 still gets her there with enough time for the murder to happen. As such, I cannot conclude that PC Long would have had to miss the apron piece at GS during his 1:20 patrol, but if Kate didn't spend at least 10 minutes at Flower and Dean (which we have no evidence she even was there, and if so, how long she remained) then she would have passed GS before PC Long's 1:20 patrol.

Now, don't forget to consider the fact that at 1:20 there hadn't been a murder, so there would be less reason for him to take note of a discarded piece of cloth. Also, we do not know if PC Long was aware of the murder during his 1:50 round, so again the same applies. It's not clear to me if he was aware of the murder by 2:20, but by that time it does appear many police in the vicinity were informed of this, so the chances are PC Long had been informed, but again, we (or at least I) am not aware of anything that indicates he knew of the murder until his 2:55 patrol.

- Jeff

[Al Bundy's Eyes]

Hi Trevor,

People have considered your suggestions, it is clear from their responses. What they have not done is come to the same conclusion you have, which is not the same thing as not considering your suggestions.

Moreover, the reports in the papers are not being relied on without question. People have been comparing the coverage of the inquests from multiple newspapers, and also the signed versions, and from that examination of the totality of the information we have available to work with, they extract commonalities of meaning rather than focus on diversity of wording. Yes, the latter is important to consider, but when the various wordings all point to a common meaning, that common meaning is what we have to work with. One cannot simply focus on one particular instance of the wording that affords an ambiguity when either other testimony or presentations remove that ambiguity. Because you focus on only one source, you run the risk of over emphasizing idiosyncratic aspects of that one particular source. And none of the sources are direct recordings, even the official documents are hand written, and therefore may contain errors of wording. Hence, the emphasis on combining as many of the sources we have available in order to extract the common meaning underlying them.

And when we do that, it is clear she was wearing an apron, and that the piece found in Goulston Street came from the apron she was wearing when she was found dead in Mitre Square.

Despite all of the testimonies that lead to this conclusion by the police at the time, who were in a position to know more than we, you are offering an alternative for which these is absolutely nothing of evidential value, unsafe or not, upon which to build it. There is never any indication that Eddowes was menstruating or that the blood on the GS showed a pattern consistent with menstruating. Rather, we have explicit statements to the contrary from Dr. Brown, that in his opinion some aspects of the blood on the cloth looked as if something, either a hand or knife, had been wiped on it. There is never any indication that Eddowes wet herself while in gaol, and yet you insist the corner of the GS piece was wet with urine, and not blood, a statement that appears multiple times during the inquest, both by the police and in questions from the jury. You offer that Eddowes headed towards Flower and Dean despite the only statement we have as to the direction of travel she took was in the opposite direction, towards Houndsditch, which directly leads towards the location she was found murdered.

If we hold your account to the same criterion that you are holding the original police interpretation, your own explanation would fare worse in its evaluation. That alone should indicate that the alternative is the less valid option. There is nothing at all contained within the evidence we have to support the alternative you are offering, while there are evidential statements behind the original police explanation. And we know, as a fact, the police had far more information than we do. It does not stand to reason that we should replace their explanation with yours.

I fully understand your concerns, though, with regards to the sources we have to work with. If this were a modern situation, there are lots of details one would want to clarify and get on record. It is a shame, for example, that when it was testified the GS piece matched the portion found at the crime scene, it wasn't asked if there were any bits still unaccounted for. It is implied, but not specifically stated, and I would be much more comfortable if they had that specifically on record. Your experience with modern policing and evidence handling must raise your hackles when looking at the details, because the standards have improved so much since 1888. The problem is, that at best you can argue that the information we have is incomplete, pointing to where we cannot be absolutely sure of some things (which I think we all agree with). The problem comes when you then offer a detailed alternative that simply has no foundation upon which to build and try and argue that this unfounded alternative must be considered as equally plausible. It is not, and so all we are left with is the original explanation, which at least has some, if not entirely adequate, support.

- Jeff

Christ on a slice Jeff! Do you have to be so rational and reasonable all the time? We'd love to argue the toss with you, but your so damn likeable. And knowledgeable. And willing to share that knowledge with others. Essentially, a nice guy. The voice of reason in Ripperology.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Christ on a slice Jeff! Do you have to be so rational and reasonable all the time? We'd love to argue the toss with you, but your so damn likeable. And knowledgeable. And willing to share that knowledge with others. Essentially, a nice guy. The voice of reason in Ripperology.