Kate's Apron

[Abby Normal]

Unless he was a schoolteacher of course Abby

or a tailor

[Trevor Marriott]

Can you not comprehend that just because you make a point posters aren’t obliged to agree with you? We have no reason to assume that there testimony is ‘unsafe.’ You do so only because it suits your cause.

But I keep telling you how and why it is unsafe yet you seem to not want to listen or accept it. I am not just making it up with the reasons why it is unsafe, yet you stil blatantly wont even consider what has been said to show how unsafe it is.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

Anyone with half a brain can see how the list was prepared and I can tell you from experience in these situations that when a homicide victim is stripped the items of clothing are removed starting at the top and working down and are listed in order they come off the body and are examined for any knife cuts or bullet holes which is what happened in this case and any that are found are listed as in this case.

If the items listed were removed in order, then "1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief" was removed from Eddowes body after every garment except for her stockings.

We know the list of personal items is not in any particular order.

"Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me." - Inspector Collard testimony

Yet these items that were the first found do not head or end Collard's list of Eddowes possessions.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the items listed were removed in order, then "1 piece of red gauze silk worn as a neckerchief" was removed from Eddowes body after every garment except for her stockings.

We know the list of personal items is not in any particular order.

"Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me." - Inspector Collard testimony

Yet these items that were the first found do not head or end Collard's list of Eddowes possessions.

Why should they form part of the list they were not on or with the body when stripped at at the mortuary

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

But I keep telling you how and why it is unsafe yet you seem to not want to listen or accept it. I am not just making it up with the reasons why it is unsafe, yet you stil blatantly wont even consider what has been said to show how unsafe it is.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I don’t believe that it is unsafe to place weight on 2 police officers who saw Eddowes at close quarter and over a period of time just because they were remembering events of 4 days ago. I don’t accept it just because you keep saying it. Add Collard, add Brown and the others and there’s really no need even for a discussion on the topic. Eddowes was wearing an apron. There can be as close to no doubt as possible.

[Herlock Sholmes]

or a tailor

[Fiver]

Why should they form part of the list they were not on or with the body when stripped at at the mortuary

The items found near Eddowes body at the crime scene are part of Collard's list.

"Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me." - Inspector Collard testimony

Yet these items that were the first found do not head or end Collard's list of Eddowes possessions.

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
• 2 short black clay pipes
• 1 tin box containing tea
• 1 tin box containing sugar
• 1 tin matchbox, empty
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
• 1 piece coarse linen, white
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
• 6 pieces soap
• 1 small tooth comb
• 1 white handle table knife
• 1 metal teaspoon
• 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
• 1 ball hemp
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• Several buttons and a thimble
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
• Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road

• Portion of a pair of spectacles
• 1 red mitten

So we know Collard's list of items is not in any particular order.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The items found near Eddowes body at the crime scene are part of Collard's list.

"Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me." - Inspector Collard testimony

Yet these items that were the first found do not head or end Collard's list of Eddowes possessions.

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
• 2 short black clay pipes
• 1 tin box containing tea
• 1 tin box containing sugar
• 1 tin matchbox, empty
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
• 1 piece coarse linen, white
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
• 6 pieces soap
• 1 small tooth comb
• 1 white handle table knife
• 1 metal teaspoon
• 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
• 1 ball hemp
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• Several buttons and a thimble
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
• Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road

• Portion of a pair of spectacles
• 1 red mitten

So we know Collard's list of items is not in any particular order.

Can you believe that you’re having to explain this Fiver? We’ll have coded messages in the list next.

[JeffHamm]

I've gone quiet on this topic, not because you've cowed me into silence, Trevor, but because I'm looking into sanitary devices in the LVP (and I'm too busy with other stuff to dedicate much time to it at the moment).

Much of what I'm seeing thus far actually indicates that lower class women in the LVP (particularly in Britain and Germany), didn't use any sanitary device. They just let it all hang out, as their petticoats would hide the evidence.

I saw an interesting account from a lady who ran a mill, stating that at the end of a long shift, the straw on the floor of the mill would be dotted with blood from the menstruating mill girls...

More research required, but there's some interesting stuff on the Museum of Menstruation website.

Yep, that exists!!!

Hi Ms Diddles,

Oh, great to hear that you are finding some interesting information. It will be helpful in further assessing things, and also for getting a better idea of the living conditions for the destitute of the time. Much appreciated.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Anyone with half a brain can see how the list was prepared and I can tell you from experience in these situations that when a homicide victim is stripped the items of clothing are removed starting at the top and working down and are listed in order they come off the body and are examined for any knife cuts or bullet holes which is what happened in this case and any that are found are listed as in this case.

The old piece of apron which you and others suggest she was wearing is not conducive of her wearing an apron, there were no cuts or blood stains mentioned on that piece as there were on and around other items of clothing which would have been in close proximity to an apron.

Then the possessions are then listed, so stop playing with words. Thats how the list was prepared and it is clearly in line with police procedures and clearly shows that she was not wearing an apron or half an apron if she had have been it would have been visible under her jacket and over her skirt.

All valid points which you continue to ignore.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I have no doubt the modern standard is to record as removed, etc. But anyone with even a modicum of common sense can tell that the order of the items on the list do not correspond to an order they would be removed.

Moreover, the possessions are also not in any particular order.

Your assumption that procedures have not improved since 1888 is both naive and erroneous. The systematic approach is far more rigorous now than it is clear it was in 1888.

The data is clear, and your repeated claims that the testimonies are so unsafe that one should conclude the opposite of what they said is simply so remarkable in how inappropriate that is as a research method that I tend to believe you're just having us on.

Anyway, the more consideration that is give to this idea, the more clear and obvious it's failings become.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I have no doubt the modern standard is to record as removed, etc. But anyone with even a modicum of common sense can tell that the order of the items on the list do not correspond to an order they would be removed.

Moreover, the possessions are also not in any particular order.

Your assumption that procedures have not improved since 1888 is both naive and erroneous. The systematic approach is far more rigorous now than it is clear it was in 1888.

The data is clear, and your repeated claims that the testimonies are so unsafe that one should conclude the opposite of what they said is simply so remarkable in how inappropriate that is as a research method that I tend to believe you're just having us on.

Anyway, the more consideration that is give to this idea, the more clear and obvious it's failings become.

Thats what you would like to believe but it isnt going to happen

- Jeff

Why should the possessions be in any particular order, she had tick bags with her possessions in.You can see quiet clearly where the clothing finished on the list and the possessions begin. The items in the bags had to be taken out first before being listed, and that how the old apron piece so described was discovered. it was probably the last item take out of one of the bags that is why it is at the end of the list of her possessions.

And your reply clearly shows how blinkered you are when reviewing the list but also clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about police procedure in dealing with homicide victims at a mortuary.

And on the subject of her possessions I come back to the 12 pieces of rag as described, well further research shows that women did carry a number of rags so that they could change them when soiled.

So they could have been made up from an old apron, one of which she was using at the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

.
Anyway, the more consideration that is give to this idea, the more clear and obvious it's failings become

Its a complete non-starter Jeff. A piece of desperate speculation which conveniently ignores evidence. We see far too much cherrypicking in this case by people obsessed with having a theory.

[JeffHamm]

Why should the possessions be in any particular order, she had tick bags with her possessions in.You can see quiet clearly where the clothing finished on the list and the possessions begin. The items in the bags had to be taken out first before being listed, and that how the old apron piece so described was discovered. it was probably the last item take out of one of the bags that is why it is at the end of the list of her possessions.

And your reply clearly shows how blinkered you are when reviewing the list but also clearly shows that you know absolutely nothing about police procedure in dealing with homicide victims at a mortuary.

And on the subject of her possessions I come back to the 12 pieces of rag as described, well further research shows that women did carry a number of rags so that they could change them when soiled.

So they could have been made up from an old apron, one of which she was using at the time.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

It's clear your tunnel vision is complete and you would discard a photograph showing Eddowes wearing the apron at the mortuary and claim it was put there by the equally unsupported organ thief.

Your interpretations are strained and forced, you evidence highly culled in order to try and make it work, and the idea also lacks any inherent plausibility. If Eddowes was one to wear a sanitary napkin in the way I suspect you had to invent because she wasn't wearing underwear ( or can you actually document this fore and aft pinned cloth method as being historically accurate? No, I thought not) you seem to have forgotten that you've made the apron her source of material, and yet, shes not wearing one when murdered, which she would be if she was menstruating, so that means she wasn't menstruating and so didn't leave the piece in Goulston Street.

When you just make stuff up, rather than draw inferences from the evidence, you're bound to get it wrong. That is the one this g you have proven with your made up tale that you are so wedded to you cannot recognise how tortured your logic and arguments have become.

There's no evidence she was menstruating, there is plenty evidence she was wearing an apron. There's no mention anywhere of urine, there are statements the indicate blood was was made the corner wet. If you argued it might have been rain water I could see that as at least having some face value, but your made up soiling herself is laughable in its desperation.

She's last seen headed towards where she eventually found, so you concoct a story about her turning around and heading in the opposite direction, never spotted or hinted at in any testimony, so that she can then approach the crime scene from a direction where one route (but not the most plausible) at least would get her in the spot you need her. This is entirely conjecture just to make the story fit the bits of evidence you have not chosen to ignore entirely with a tossing out of "unsafe".

How any of the claims you put forth could possibly be safe is beyond me, and you are just having a go, and can't possibly believe what you're claiming.

- Jeff

[harry]

I can accept the listing that Collard made Starting with the hat,is in the order of removal,just as Trevor states,and the apron piece,had it been worn would have been one of the outer pieces.Brown,at the mortuary,would have seen the apron piece but not it's removal,so any comment he made is conjecture.He presumed she had been wearing it.
That Eddowes would have had to have afterwards travelled without any covering is incorrect.There was a method of using underclothing as substitute rag.It would not have been visible to anyone after the body was found,as it would certainly have been disturbed by the killer.It is a tempory method,for emergencies,and of course we do not know how long Eddowes might have needed it.It could have been only for a short time.
One thing is for certain.Eddowes could not have carried all her possession in her hands.

[Wickerman]

The items found near Eddowes body at the crime scene are part of Collard's list.

"Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me." - Inspector Collard testimony

Yet these items that were the first found do not head or end Collard's list of Eddowes possessions.

• 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
• 2 short black clay pipes
• 1 tin box containing tea
• 1 tin box containing sugar
• 1 tin matchbox, empty
• 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
• 1 piece coarse linen, white
• 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
• 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
• 6 pieces soap
• 1 small tooth comb
• 1 white handle table knife
• 1 metal teaspoon
• 1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings
• 1 ball hemp
• 1 piece of old white apron with repair
• Several buttons and a thimble
• Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets, One in the name of Emily Birrell, 52 White's Row, dated August 31, 9d for a man's flannel shirt. The other is in the name of Jane Kelly of 6 Dorset Street and dated September 28, 2S for a pair of men's boots. Both addresses are false.
• Printed handbill and according to a press report- a printed card for 'Frank Carter,305,Bethnal Green Road

• Portion of a pair of spectacles
• 1 red mitten

So we know Collard's list of items is not in any particular order.

I think it's time that List of Possessions on Casebook was taken down.

https://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

The original list is available as part of the Inquest Papers, and I sent Trevor a copy of the original by email. The one available on Casebook is not correct, why people do this is beyond me, and I do not know who wrote that article, but the fact remains that list is not correct.