Kate's Apron

[harry]

The witnesses were not delusional about her wearing an apron,they simply were not sure.It's 'I believe she was'or words to that effect.No witness,to my belief,asserts she was.I am with Trevor about that.As to the apron pieces being used as a sanitry rag,I second that,it could have been..That statement does not mean I support the notion she was wearing it that night.Posters should read carefully what I write before attempting a reply.
As to Brown's statements we have him declaring he was present at about 2 am the morning of her murder.He mentions clothing,but does not mention apron.his next reported appearance is at the autopsy at 2pm that day,twelve hours later,and it is clear from his remarks at the inquest,she had by then had her clothing removed.So using Brown as a reference to wearing an apron isn't a bit convincing.
Was it even found in the building in Goulstan Street? We have one person saying it was,so anything based on that claim is belief in that persons words.Now how many posters over the years have declared it isn't safe to accept anything that is unsupported by other evidence.What other evidence supports Long's claim?

[Varqm]

No, just if you are able to analyse the witness testimony and identify all the flaws and conflicts in the evidence then if you are able to come to a sensible conclusion that is it unsafe to totally rely on.

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. Now you and all others can keep quoting the testimony which, is unsafe but you cannot refute that list despite all the lame brained explantions which have been used by some on here to try to prop up the suggestion that she was wearing one.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The witnesses in the inquest were also under oath and their verbal testimony came after the list or any written testimony.The witnesses then could be asked questions and expound on what they went through or saw or wrote in their statements.The Coroner had enough witnesses discussing the apron,that she was wearing one,starting from Saturday morning, and the half/part was missing,found in Goulston, and matched the apron she was wearing.
The Coroner proved his point and there was no need to add more because it was understood already.No witness police/doctor volunteered to say or said she was not wearing the apron ,that it was with one of her possessions, together with the handkerchief,etc. .Why would the Coroner dwell on it further.
And beside the most important thing is the killer dropped it on Goulston per PC Long testimony.Whether she was wearing it or not is meaningless and I do not see why this is of any importance.

[Varqm]

Yes, they are "unsafe" to rely on because they weren't questioned like Trevor Marriott believes they ought to have been questioned. I realise that in stating this I am "blinkered" and doing my very best to prop up the old accepted theories that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Sadly, my blinkerdness prevents me from accepting theories with no empirical basis. I really ought to discard this tedious fact-based reality!

The Coroner proved his point and really did not need any more testimony about it,Nobody interjected that the incomplete apron was not worn when discovered .

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witnesses were not delusional about her wearing an apron,they simply were not sure.It's 'I believe she was'or words to that effect.No witness,to my belief,asserts she was.I am with Trevor about that.As to the apron pieces being used as a sanitry rag,I second that,it could have been..That statement does not mean I support the notion she was wearing it that night.Posters should read carefully what I write before attempting a reply.
As to Brown's statements we have him declaring he was present at about 2 am the morning of her murder.He mentions clothing,but does not mention apron.his next reported appearance is at the autopsy at 2pm that day,twelve hours later,and it is clear from his remarks at the inquest,she had by then had her clothing removed.So using Brown as a reference to wearing an apron isn't a bit convincing.
Was it even found in the building in Goulstan Street? We have one person saying it was,so anything based on that claim is belief in that persons words.Now how many posters over the years have declared it isn't safe to accept anything that is unsupported by other evidence.What other evidence supports Long's claim?

The things is though Harry, George Hutt wasn’t expressing any doubt that Kate was wearing an apron.

I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station

He’s only saying that he couldn’t say with 100% certainty that the one produced at the Inquest was the one that she wore. After all I’m sure you’d agree that it would have taken a Sherlock Holmes-like piece of observation to distinguish one white apron from another. Your also right that Brown didn’t mention the apron before the Inquest but he didn’t describe the clothes in any kind of detail so we can’t really read anything into the fact that he didn’t mention an apron.

The bonnet was at the back of the head – great disfigurement of face, the throat cut across, below the cut was a neckerchief. The upper part of the dress was pulled open a little way.

When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary. The clothes were taken off carefully from the body, a piece of deceased’s ear dropped from the clothing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The witnesses in the inquest were also under oath and their verbal testimony came after the list or any written testimony.The witnesses then could be asked questions and expound on what they went through or saw or wrote in their statements.The Coroner had enough witnesses discussing the apron,that she was wearing one,starting from Saturday morning, and the half/part was missing,found in Goulston, and matched the apron she was wearing.
The Coroner proved his point and there was no need to add more because it was understood already.No witness police/doctor volunteered to say or said she was not wearing the apron ,that it was with one of her possessions, together with the handkerchief,etc. .Why would the Coroner dwell on it further.
And beside the most important thing is the killer dropped it on Goulston per PC Long testimony.Whether she was wearing it or not is meaningless and I do not see why this is of any importance.

Neither do I Varqm. As I said in an earlier post even if Trevor is correct and Kate wasn’t wearing an apron but was carrying pieces of an apron this still in no way negates the suggestion that the killer dropped that piece in Goulston Street. He could just as easily have grabbed one of the pieces that she was carrying. So his inference is faulty.

[Trevor Marriott]

Neither do I Varqm. As I said in an earlier post even if Trevor is correct and Kate wasn’t wearing an apron but was carrying pieces of an apron this still in no way negates the suggestion that the killer dropped that piece in Goulston Street. He could just as easily have grabbed one of the pieces that she was carrying. So his inference is faulty.

I said I was not going to post further on this this thread but I cannot sit back and watch the desperation in some to protect the old accepted theory without passing comment

Now you have again pulled a proverbial rabbit out of the hat in another attempt to prop up the old theory. So if that had been the case what would have been the purpose for him to have done that? To negate that explanation there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece. The likelihood of the killer who is suggested as having bloody hands removing a piece of apron from her possessions and not transferring blood on to more than one side is very remote.

The apron piece was described as having blood spots and fecal smears, how unlikely is it that having put his hands inside the abdomen where the blood and fecal matter were mixed together and then wiping his hands, and from that wiping both blood and fecal matter were then separated from each other because the two were listed and being separate from each other?

The answer is as I have suggested, and the explanation for the two to be described separately on the apron piece is that it was between her legs. The blood was from the vagina and the fecal matter residue from her anus.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I said I was not going to post further on this this thread but I cannot sit back and watch the desperation in some to protect the old accepted theory without passing comment

Now you have again pulled a proverbial rabbit out of the hat in another attempt to prop up the old theory. So if that had been the case what would have been the purpose for him to have done that? To negate that explanation there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece. The likelihood of the killer who is suggested as having bloody hands removing a piece of apron from her possessions and not transferring blood on to more than one side is very remote.

The apron piece was described as having blood spots and fecal smears, how unlikely is it that having put his hands inside the abdomen where the blood and fecal matter were mixed together and then wiping his hands, and from that wiping both blood and fecal matter were then separated from each other because the two were listed and being separate from each other?

The answer is as I have suggested, and the explanation for the two to be described separately on the apron piece is that it was between her legs. The blood was from the vagina and the fecal matter residue from her anus.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have no interest in protecting the ‘old accepted theories.’ It doesn’t affect me or my life in the slightest whether she was wearing an apron or not. Likewise it doesn’t bother me if the killer wrote the graffito or not or whether Stride was a ripper victim. So I can only assume that you resort to this accusation because you simply expect posters to agree with you? Why would you accuse Jeff or Joshua of the same or any poster? Would it be correct if we claimed that you were simply trying to show that certain older theories are wrong because you believe it will prove that you’re somehow cleverer than everyone else? People disagree because they’ve looked at the evidence and interpreted it differently. Why can’t you accept that?

Why is my suggestion the equivalent of ‘pulling a rabbit out of a hat?’ Why isn’t your totally baseless suggestion a ‘rabbit out of a hat?’ That Kate went all the way back to her lodging house, remained totally unseen at a location where she was a familiar face and that people were up and about all hours, then she headed straight back to where she’d come from? You have no factual basis for yours either. It’s pure speculation but I forgot - you appear to be allowed to speculate whereas the rest of us get criticised for doing the same.

Why can’t you accept that accept that George Hutt said without any equivocation that Kate was wearing an apron when she left the Police Station? That should end the discussion unless we descend to accusing him of lying.

The chances of there only being blood on one side of the cloth being remote is neither here nor there. It’s entirely possible and as Hutt saw her wearing an apron you’ve advanced no further.

When you stress that the blood and fecal matter we’re listed as being separate from each other do you mean this?

The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street.

Are you seriously using this to claim that the blood and fecal matter couldn’t have been mixed? Please tell me you aren’t Trevor?

[Trevor Marriott]

I have no interest in protecting the ‘old accepted theories.’ It doesn’t affect me or my life in the slightest whether she was wearing an apron or not. Likewise it doesn’t bother me if the killer wrote the graffito or not or whether Stride was a ripper victim. So I can only assume that you resort to this accusation because you simply expect posters to agree with you? Why would you accuse Jeff or Joshua of the same or any poster? Would it be correct if we claimed that you were simply trying to show that certain older theories are wrong because you believe it will prove that you’re somehow cleverer than everyone else? People disagree because they’ve looked at the evidence and interpreted it differently. Why can’t you accept that?

Why is my suggestion the equivalent of ‘pulling a rabbit out of a hat?’ Why isn’t your totally baseless suggestion a ‘rabbit out of a hat?’ That Kate went all the way back to her lodging house, remained totally unseen at a location where she was a familiar face and that people were up and about all hours, then she headed straight back to where she’d come from? You have no factual basis for yours either. It’s pure speculation but I forgot - you appear to be allowed to speculate whereas the rest of us get criticised for doing the same.

Why can’t you accept that accept that George Hutt said without any equivocation that Kate was wearing an apron when she left the Police Station? That should end the discussion unless we descend to accusing him of lying.

The chances of there only being blood on one side of the cloth being remote is neither here nor there. It’s entirely possible and as Hutt saw her wearing an apron you’ve advanced no further.

When you stress that the blood and fecal matter we’re listed as being separate from each other do you mean this?



Are you seriously using this to claim that the blood and fecal matter couldn’t have been mixed? Please tell me you aren’t Trevor?

Yes because it fits with the suggestion that the blood and fecal matter had been as a result it it being between her legs

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes because it fits with the suggestion that the blood and fecal matter had been as a result it it being between her legs

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s what I mean. You’re deliberately interpreting it to suit your theory when in actual fact it means nothing of the kind. How else could he have written or said it unless he’d said ‘there was blood in one area and fecal matter in another?’ Saying ‘blood and fecal matter’ is more likely mean that they were mixed. It certainly in no way suggests that they were separated.

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s what I mean. You’re deliberately interpreting it to suit your theory when in actual fact it means nothing of the kind. How else could he have written or said it unless he’d said ‘there was blood in one area and fecal matter in another?’ Saying ‘blood and fecal matter’ is more likely mean that they were mixed. It certainly in no way suggests that they were separated.

It doesnt matter how he could have written it is about how we have to interpret that description and compare with the other alternatives and there is more than one way to do that, and you cannot dismiss my suggestion outright.

You accuse me of speculating on the issue of the apron and seeing as you also keep speculating explanations for not accepting that at the time of her murder she was not wearing an apron.

Let me pull my rabbit out of the hat as another plausible alternative which I don't subscribe to but in the light of all the non believers I feel justified in bringing it into the public domain. If it is accepted that she was wearing an apron at the time of her arrest and when placed into custody how do we not know that whilst in custody over that long period of time she did not tear or cut a piece from her apron for the purposed suggested? She was in possession of a table knife and unless all her property was taken from her she would have had that with her in the cell. I do not know what the practice was back then as to whether the police took her property from her before placing her in a cell and I am sure nobody else does. So there is no room to comment on that.

It is quite plausible, and then where does the evidence then take us from what then followed. Well for a start it would corroborate the lodging house keeper, and the policemen that say they saw her wearing an apron. It also corroborates Dc Halse

However then it takes us back to Collards list which shows she wasn't wearing an apron, but does show that a piece found in her possession did match the GS piece

So there are several other plausible explanations to question the old accepted theory.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It doesnt matter how he could have written it is about how we have to interpret that description and compare with the other alternatives and there is more than one way to do that, and you cannot dismiss my suggestion outright.

You accuse me of speculating on the issue of the apron and seeing as you also keep speculating explanations for not accepting that at the time of her murder she was not wearing an apron.

Let me pull my rabbit out of the hat as another plausible alternative which I don't subscribe to but in the light of all the non believers I feel justified in bringing it into the public domain. If it is accepted that she was wearing an apron at the time of her arrest and when placed into custody how do we not know that whilst in custody over that long period of time she did not tear or cut a piece from her apron for the purposed suggested? She was in possession of a table knife and unless all her property was taken from her she would have had that with her in the cell. I do not know what the practice was back then as to whether the police took her property from her before placing her in a cell and I am sure nobody else does. So there is no room to comment on that.

It is quite plausible, and then where does the evidence then take us from what then followed. Well for a start it would corroborate the lodging house keeper, and the policemen that say they saw her wearing an apron. It also corroborates Dc Halse

However then it takes us back to Collards list which shows she wasn't wearing an apron, but does show that a piece found in her possession did match the GS piece

So there are several other plausible explanations to question the old accepted theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That’s not plausible Trevor.

1. She had 12 pieces of cloth with her so why would she start tearing up her clothing?
2. We have a list of her property and there was no knife. Things were undoubtedly different in those days but I think we’re on safe ground if we assume that Hutt wouldn’t have been in the habit of handing knives to drunken prisoners.

.She said, ‘Well what time is it?’ I said, ‘Just on one,’ and ‘I shall get a Damned fine hiding when I get home.’ I said, ‘And serve you right you have no right to get drunk.’ I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station.

and 3. We can see from the above quote that Hutt said that she was wearing an apron as she left the station but he didn’t mention a sizeable chunk being missing.

Then just to confirm that not only was she wearing an apron when she left the station PC Robinson confirms that she was wearing one in the cell (and by inference when he arrested her unless you suggest that the police gave her an apron at the station?)

. “The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing.”

Can this be more obvious? These officers weren’t as highly trained as modern day police officers of course but they weren’t all prone to hallucinating or in the habit of telling pointless lies. Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. There can be no doubt about this and unless you can produce a police officer who said that she definitely wasn’t wearing one (and you can’t of course) then the issue is settled.

[Trevor Marriott]

That’s not plausible Trevor.

1. She had 12 pieces of cloth with her so why would she start tearing up her clothing?
2. We have a list of her property and there was no knife. Things were undoubtedly different in those days but I think we’re on safe ground if we assume that Hutt wouldn’t have been in the habit of handing knives to drunken prisoners.



and 3. We can see from the above quote that Hutt said that she was wearing an apron as she left the station but he didn’t mention a sizeable chunk being missing.

Then just to confirm that not only was she wearing an apron when she left the station PC Robinson confirms that she was wearing one in the cell (and by inference when he arrested her unless you suggest that the police gave her an apron at the station?)



Can this be more obvious? These officers weren’t as highly trained as modern day police officers of course but they weren’t all prone to hallucinating or in the habit of telling pointless lies. Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. There can be no doubt about this and unless you can produce a police officer who said that she definitely wasn’t wearing one (and you can’t of course) then the issue is settled.

I did say that this was a hypothetical scenario but perhaps it not so hypothetical after all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you not believe anything anyone tells you and do you not read these posts before engaging your brain because your replies don't seem to suggest that you do

In her possessions " One white handle table knife" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ob you other points

Pc Robinson- "The last time I saw her was 8.50pm in the cell and he conveniently says 4 days later at the inquest she was wearing an apron and 4 hours later she was released what could she have done in those 4 hours. I wonder if he had been asked what color Jacket she was wearing he would have been able to say !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Again I stated that I do not know what the procedure was back then for taking property off of prisoners we simply do not know, and you may be right they might have taken her property of her but again they might just have thrown her in the cell tick bags and all.

And good old Pc Hutt 4 dys later also remembers her wearing an apron and then defying all the rules of evidence he states that the apron piece produced was the one she was wearing. Now isnt that convenient, what was so memorable about the apron she was wearing for him to positively identify the piece produced as what she was wearing. Can you remember the color of the shirt you wore 4 days ago

After all of this how can now not accept that much ff this testimony is flawed. The apron piece was found in GS and the police believed the killer took it and deposited it. To prove that theory the police needed to identify it as having come from her apron and the fact that she was seen wearing an apron.

As stated previous Sgt Byfield makes no reference to her wearing an apron, perhaps he didnt want to go perjure himself

Assume nothing with Victorian Policing

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

Do we have any idea in regard to the size of the piece of apron found? Was it big or small? I always think that knowing this would make a difference to everything in that if it was small, it would have been easy to have missed by Long. If it was big it probably was not used as a sanitary napkin. Any ideas?

[Joshua Rogan]

She was in possession of a table knife and unless all her property was taken from her she would have had that with her in the cell. I do not know what the practice was back then as to whether the police took her property from her before placing her in a cell and I am sure nobody else does. So there is no room to comment on that.

Um...
Telegraph 12 Oct, Hutt's evidence;
"A Juror: Do you search persons who are brought in for drunkenness? - No, but we take from them anything that might be dangerous."

[Fiver]

However then it takes us back to Collards list which shows she wasn't wearing an apron, but does show that a piece found in her possession did match the GS piece

Your interpretation of Inspector Collard's list is that it shows she wasn't wearing an apron. Your interpretation is contradicted by Inspector Collard's testimony at the Inquest.

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