Kate's Apron

[Fiver]

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

"1 white handle table knife" was among Eddowes possessions. Table knives are one of the bluntest knives and they lack a point, which makes them a rather poor for cutting cloth. And Eddowes had no reason to cut up an apron for a sanitary rag - she already had "12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained".

[Fiver]

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

So you are assuming that Frederick Wilkinson, Inspector Collard, Dr Brown, Constable Robinson, and Constable Hutt committed perjury? Why would they do that?

Sergeant James Byfield made no reference to Eddowes wearing an apron, but no one asked him if she was wearing an apron. Nobody asked John Kelly, Constable Watkin, Morris the watchman at Kearley and Long's warehouse, Constable Hollins/Holland, Dr. Sequeira, Sergeant Jones, Davis the mortuary keeper, Constable Harvey, Joseph Lawende, Joseph Levy, and Harry Harris about an apron, either.

And the five men who clearly testified that Eddowes was wearing an apron are at least somewhat supported by two other witnesses.

"I have seen the articles at the police-station, and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing." - Joseph Lawende

"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." - Detective Halse

[Herlock Sholmes]

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" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


www.trevormarriott.co.uk[/B]

Again, calm down Trevor. You’re correct of course about the knife. I missed that. It was an error on my part something that I have absolutely no problem in acknowledging. Unlike some.

........

That said, Joshua’s post # 179 tells us quite clearly that Hutt would have taken it from her but ill also re-state - she had 12 pieces of cloth on her when she was killed so why would she start tearing up her clothing rather than using one of these?

[B]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 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What kind of thinking is this? Robinson wasn’t being asked to recall the colour of her eyes or her stockings or what make of shoes she was wearing he was recalling a white apron! This would have stood out so that it would have been unmissable. If he couldn’t have remember that then he pretty much couldn’t have remembered anything. It’s ludicrous to hint that it’s ‘suspicious’ that he remembered her as wearing a white apron.

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

Again I can’t see why you believe that Victorian Policeman might have had such appalling memories Trevor? Of course there’s nothing suspicious about him recalling her wearing a white apron. I’m sorry Trevor but you sound like a conspiracy theorist.

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

And all Hutt was saying was that he believed that it was the same one based on the fact that his colleagues had retrieved it from the crime scene. This is ridiculous nitpicking on your part Trevor.

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

Or perhaps he wasn’t asked about it?

Assume nothing with Victorian Policing

True. But you seem to ‘assume’ that from the top down they were all crooks. There’s not a scintilla of proof that Hutt or Robinson were lying and it’s a sign of desperation to do so.

After all of this how can now not accept that much ff this testimony is flawed.

All of what? You’ve shown nothing apart from “you can’t trust those Victorian Police Officers.” How fair or reasonable would you have believed that attitude to have been when you were in the job Trevor? There’s just no evidence that Hutt and Robinson lied and you’re only suggesting it because they disprove your theory.

[JeffHamm]

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.

It's absolutely not at all remote. Grab a piece of cloth in the middle and pick it up and it folds over itself so that when you wipe something, like a knife, or your other hand, you're holding and wiping on the same side. It happens automatically due to the fact that cloth is all floppy and then there's gravity. It's not remote at all, it's how the world works.

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?

Who said they were separate, other than you? There is no evidence at all that says the stains were separate. The blood and fecal matter could very well be mixed together.

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

Yes, that's where the blood a fecal matter would come from in your story. I think we all know enough biology to have worked that out. But there's absolutely nothing in the evidence to support you. Just like there's absolutely nothing in the evidence to support the made up story I presented about her dropping a glass and getting dog poop on her hands. You've got just as much evidence for your made up story as I do. So you cannot in any rational way say yours is better than mine. Neither is good, of course, because neither has any support.

In fact, the most supported thing we probably have in all of the series is the fact that Kate was wearing an apron! I'm trying to think of anything else that has so many witnesses all testifying to the same thing.

Rather than everyone else having a desire to maintain the original police interpretation, perhaps it is your desire for fame and recognition is clouding your judgement?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Q: 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?
...

A: 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

And this is a prime example of the theory driving the data. As everyone knows, that is the wrong way to do things. Data drives the theory, not theory drives the data. First one good, second one bad.

- Jeff

[Herlock Sholmes]

And this is a prime example of the theory driving the data. As everyone knows, that is the wrong way to do things. Data drives the theory, not theory drives the data. First one good, second one bad.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

And this is a prime example of the theory driving the data. As everyone knows, that is the wrong way to do things. Data drives the theory, not theory drives the data. First one good, second one bad.

- Jeff

and in this case the data is unsafe to rely on as has been pointed out many times, but for some reason you wont accept it, and all that keeps happening is that you and others keep posting your data in the form of questionable witness testimony, and conflicting newspaper reports that you seek to rely on that are unsafe to prop up your theory.

Instead of keep flogging them to death maybe you and others should take time out and compare them and perhaps you are then able to see what you clearly cant see now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

and in this case the data is unsafe to rely on as has been pointed out many times, but for some reason you wont accept it, and all that keeps happening is that you and others keep posting your data in the form of questionable witness testimony, and conflicting newspaper reports that you seek to rely on that are unsafe to prop up your theory.

Instead of keep flogging them to death maybe you and others should take time out and compare them and perhaps you are then able to see what you clearly cant see now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

In this case your alternative story relies upon your imagination of events, but for some reason you won't recognize that, and all that keeps happening is that you keep posting a made up story and dismissing any evidence that goes against it. You imagine that all of the police officers and witnesses perjure themselves because they state categorically that Eddowes was wearing an apron. You rely on your interpretation of Collard's lists and ignore the fact that he too unambiguously states she was wearing an apron. You make up urine, menstruation, and a journey that runs counter to the last reported sighting of her travels. You have no basis whatsoever for any of these, making them not only unsafe, but unsupported.

Nobody has said the testimonies are 100% accurate or true, but common to many testimonies is the fact that Eddowes was wearing an apron. This comes up many times in the inquest because of the importance of establishing, on record, that there was a connection between an article of clothing worn by the victim and the portion of it later found blocks away from the crime scene. This suggests a direction of travel of her killer, and it was important to establish on record the connection. It was also important to establish the time at which the portion found in Goulston Street was deposited there. According to the testimony, as stated, that would be after 2:20 but before 2:55. That conclusion, however, is "unsafe", because despite PC Long's clear statement that the piece was not there at 2:20 there is a question concerning the validity of that statement (notice, right there, not taking testimony as 100% correct, it is indeed being questioned).

Your approach of fitting the data to suit your theory is not an effective method; it's called tunnel vision.

- Jeff

[harry]

Four days after the event,with all the publicity about the apron,it is quite likely a person could be ,relying on memory,induced to believe the apron must have been worn.Collard identified and documented items of clothing at the time of removal.Had the apron or part of it been on the body at that time,it would have been the first item entered.It was not.I accept Collard's testimony to be the more reliable.It was quite normal in my young days for women,and young girls to be in possession,carry and reuse their'Rags',why not in Eddowes time.That she had other items of cloth which might also serve the same purpose on her person,does not negate the suggestion that the apron pieces were used as sanitary napkins.

[Herlock Sholmes]

and in this case the data is unsafe to rely on as has been pointed out many times, but for some reason you wont accept it, and all that keeps happening is that you and others keep posting your data in the form of questionable witness testimony, and conflicting newspaper reports that you seek to rely on that are unsafe to prop up your theory.

Instead of keep flogging them to death maybe you and others should take time out and compare them and perhaps you are then able to see what you clearly cant see now.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I can’t make out if you truly believe what you are saying here? I can’t escape the conclusion that you don’t. How can you?

You’re the one with the theory that you’re trying and failing to prop up. Simply stating that Police office must have been lying isn’t even approaching good enough. There is absolutely nothing ‘unsafe’ about Hutt or Robinson. We have no reason to suspect that they, or any other police officer lied. That doesn’t mean that anyone can’t lie of course but we need evidence to show it. Your thinking appears to be “well they don’t fit my theory therefore they must have been lying.”

What have you come up with that’s ‘safe’ to rely on?

The sanitary towel idea - no, it’s simply your interpretation of events. Speculation.
The journey back to her lodging house - no, that’s simply a piece of unprovable speculation to prop up your theory.
The stains on one side - no, Jeff has explained how this could have occurred whether you accept it or not.
The blood and fecal matter being separate - no, of course Brown’s testimony doesn’t say or even imply that.
That Hutt and Robinson lied - no, why would they? There’s no evidence for them lying apart from disproving your theory.
The ‘wetness’ on the cloth being urine - no, speculation on your part again.
Your ‘calculated’ guess that she intended to sell the pieces of cloth - no, more groundless speculation.

You’re not alone in doing what you’ve done. You’ve come up with a theory; you’ve decided that you like it; you think that because you think it’s correct then it must be; you expect everyone to concur; then when they don’t it’s out with the same old tiresome accusations. Everyone is simply defending the ‘old established theories.’

Simply accusing everyone else of either bias or of having an impaired capacity to read and reason is hardly a convincing method of debate is it? You really don’t do yourself any favours Trevor. Try admitting that you could be wrong for once.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Four days after the event,with all the publicity about the apron,it is quite likely a person could be ,relying on memory,induced to believe the apron must have been worn.Collard identified and documented items of clothing at the time of removal.Had the apron or part of it been on the body at that time,it would have been the first item entered.It was not.I accept Collard's testimony to be the more reliable.It was quite normal in my young days for women,and young girls to be in possession,carry and reuse their'Rags',why not in Eddowes time.That she had other items of cloth which might also serve the same purpose on her person,does not negate the suggestion that the apron pieces were used as sanitary napkins.

But Hutt and Robinson both saw her wearing it Harry. They both spent time with her. It’s also worth mentioning that she had 12 pieces of cloth that she could have used for that purpose so why would she cut up an item of clothing?

[harry]

Which was in Eddowes possession the longest,which to her was chosen as the more suitable,and what was the sizes of the twelve pieces Herlock.We can rightly believe the apron pieces were suitable,and large enough.

[Varqm]

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.

Yes for the sake of analyzing the case that's what's relevant.
If the apron was not worn then it would be described as such."we found a torn apron among the victim's possession,a piece of it missing and it corresponded to the piece found in Goulston",simple enough.But no the Coroner had 3 witnesses saying Eddowes was wearing an apron which helped proved the point that she was wearing it when she was killed.It also negated the killer bringing an apron with him initially,leaving the other piece in Goulston and leaving the rest in the victim.

[Varqm]

And this is a prime example of the theory driving the data. As everyone knows, that is the wrong way to do things. Data drives the theory, not theory drives the data. First one good, second one bad.

- Jeff

Agreed.But glaring in this case is the putting a square peg into a circular hole.

[JeffHamm]

Which was in Eddowes possession the longest,which to her was chosen as the more suitable,and what was the sizes of the twelve pieces Herlock.We can rightly believe the apron pieces were suitable,and large enough.

Hi Harry,

For a sanitary napkin, perhaps the better adjective would be to assume the apron piece was small enough. A sanitary napkin is not a particularly large piece of material, after all. We do not have the sizes of either the collection of rags or of the piece found in Goulston Street. Given the police at the time were under the impression the piece found in Goulston Street was cut by the killer to wipe their hands or his knife on (even if Trevor argues against this being its use, it is what the police at the time believed). It therefore would have to be large enough for "wiping hands on" to be considered a viable option. That doesn't rule out it being small enough to be used as a sanitary napkin, but we do not know the size of the piece.

If we apply Trevor's approach that he takes towards the amount of time available for the murder to take place, specifically when considering the CPC as being Eddowes and JtR, despite there being 6 minutes unaccounted for under the most restrictive reading of the evidence, which exceeds the longest estimate of time stated as required (5 minutes, although this is qualified with a "maybe more" we'll just simplify the example for now), Trevor does not concede that there is sufficient time available for the murder. Rather, he argues "but we don't know what time the CPC left the spot they were seen in, and so because they could have left later there wasn't enough time available).

I'm going to use Trevor's method here now. Because we do not know the size of the apron piece, it could have been too large to be used as a sanitary napkin, and therefore it was too big to be used that way.

It is this approach that I believe makes it impossible to advance our understanding. My preference is to suggest that the only way the apron piece could have been used as a sanitary napkin is if it were suitably small. We do not know the size, and therefore cannot say that Trevor's idea is supported but we cannot refute it based upon the size of the piece. We could try to infer whether it was more likely to be a larger than suitable piece based upon the fact it must have been large enough to wipe one's hands and/or knife on, but that can be done with a face cloth (I believe flannel is the UK term?), which would not be too large. However, a much larger piece could still be used to wipe hands/knife even if unsuitable for use as a sanitary napkin. As such, while Trevor's idea must assume the piece was small, the original police idea does not fail regardless of the size of the found piece. Of the two, therefore, Trevor's is more unsafe because it requires making an unfounded assumption as to the size of the found piece, while no assumption about the size need be made with regards to the original police idea. Of course, it would be far better for us had the dimensions of the piece been stated on record, but I fear if it were too large, Trevor would insist they measured it wrong.

- Jeff