Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

Trevor, it is a few years since we debated this topic but I feel I need to ask you again.
The very last item listed on Collards list is:
1 Piece of old White Apron.

As these items were undoubtedly removed from her body at Golden Lane mortuary, why do you not believe what it says?

[Varqm]

My favorite picture of Sherlock Holmes.

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=3636498889789238&set=a.614016652037492

[JeffHamm]

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.

Hi Wickerman,
I think the one on casebook was written to help people sort the items. Sadly, it's been confused for something official. Collard's list is not split the way it's being assumed, and his original list is just a single list mixed between what she was wearing and what was found with her. Because the apron has been misplaced as a possession and not as an article of clothing it has led to this confusion. A careful examination of the original documents, combine with the testimony, clarifies things, and puts the lie to the alternative being proffered here. We're no closer to when the piece was deposited in GS, but there's nothing to suggest it wasn't by Kate's killer. Trevor's idea is a clever alternative on the surface, but there's enough information to show it doesn't work. As such, it's done it's job of forcing a reevaluation, but once that reevaluation is done we're still at the same point. That leads us to have to accept, unless a better alternative is proposed, the original police explanation stands. That's how it works, in my view. Others may differ.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, it is a few years since we debated this topic but I feel I need to ask you again.
The very last item listed on Collards list is:
1 Piece of old White Apron.

As these items were undoubtedly removed from her body at Golden Lane mortuary, why do you not believe what it says?

Hi
Well for a start as I have stated the the apron piece appears at the end of the list in her possessions. It is logical to assume that had she been wearing an apron it would have been located under her jacket and over her skirt and I would suggest that having regards to how the clothing was removed and documented would have been clearly visible and documented as part of her clothing she was wearing. If she had been wearing an apron there is no logical reason for it not to have been seen and documented in the relevant part of the list.

Secondly as can be seen from the list the clothing she was wearing section it clearly shows how the clothes were removed from the body and listed, and my explanation is borne out by the first item on the list removed is her bonnet and the second item her jacket so that shows they were removing the clothes starting at the top and working down.

That list of clothing also identifies the cuts to the clothing caused by her being stabbed, and also identifies blood stains on the various items of clothing relative to those those cuts and the various blood stains on those items associated with the action of the killer with his knife and are in great detail as can be seen from the list of clothing and cuts which I am not going to list yet again.

Finally in answer to your question in line with how the list was prepared if she had have been wearing it surely would have been described not as one old piece of white apron, but one old white apron with piece missing, how could they have got it so wrong given the accuracy of the rest of the list? There is no evidence that the mortuary piece had any cuts to it in line with all the other cuts to the other items of clothing. which would have been in close proximity to the apron

The mortuary piece was described and listed long before anyone knew about the GS piece and its connection to the mortuary piece and that in my opinion is why the list can be relied upon as being accurate and the rest of the inquest testimony unsafe given that there was no evidence produced from witnesses that the testimony they gave was from notes made at the time and simply what I would describe as unsafe recollections from witnesses trying to be too helpful in propping up the belief to show which way the killer left and the police actions with regards to erasing the graffiti

The list was made at the time and is primary and irrefutable evidence.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

How this list can be used to prove anything is beyond reason. As it’s being suggested that things were listed as they were removed why is the chintz skirt and bodice listed before the petticoat? Why was the bodice listed before that man’s vest? Isn’t the simple explanation for why the apron was last on the list that as it lay on a table (as it had come away from the body) with other items it had the appearance of a just piece of white cloth until it was picked up and examined? After all Kate was carrying more cloth than a tailors shop....1 piece of red gauze silk, 1 large white handkerchief, 12 pieces of white rag, 1 piece of white coarse linen, 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of flannel, 1 piece of red flannel....1 piece of apron.

To make ‘deductions’ from this list is an exercise in fog-knitting. The lengths that are being gone to here are well into desperation territory I’m afraid. Trevor uses the fact that the bonnet was listed first as evidence that the clothes were listed top down but how does he explain items worn underneath her clothes being listed before the clothes that were worn on top of he’s claiming some kind of order? I’d suggest that the bonnet was listed first because.....it was a bonnet and had come off in Mitre Square and was probably being carried by a Constable. There is simply no mystery with this list. Can we please get real!

[Trevor Marriott]

How this list can be used to prove anything is beyond reason. As it’s being suggested that things were listed as they were removed why is the chintz skirt and bodice listed before the petticoat? Why was the bodice listed before that man’s vest? Isn’t the simple explanation for why the apron was last on the list that as it lay on a table (as it had come away from the body) with other items it had the appearance of a just piece of white cloth until it was picked up and examined? After all Kate was carrying more cloth than a tailors shop....1 piece of red gauze silk, 1 large white handkerchief, 12 pieces of white rag, 1 piece of white coarse linen, 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 1 piece of flannel, 1 piece of red flannel....1 piece of apron.

To make ‘deductions’ from this list is an exercise in fog-knitting. The lengths that are being gone to here are well into desperation territory I’m afraid. Trevor uses the fact that the bonnet was listed first as evidence that the clothes were listed top down but how does he explain items worn underneath her clothes being listed before the clothes that were worn on top of he’s claiming some kind of order? I’d suggest that the bonnet was listed first because.....it was a bonnet and had come off in Mitre Square and was probably being carried by a Constable. There is simply no mystery with this list. Can we please get real!

Does it say the bonnet was detached from the body does it say a constable carried it to the mortuary-No it doesnt, read the entry then you will see what an idiot you are making of yourself with all of these half hearted explanations you keep coming out with.

“Black Straw Bonnet – trimmed with green and black velvet and black beads, black strings. The bonnet was loosely tied and had partially fallen from the back of her head, no blood on front, but the back was lying in a pool of blood, which had run from the neck.

The only reality that needs to be addressed is yours along with your lack of understanding of the facts, and your misinterpretation of those facts and your failed desperate attempt to negate this part of the investigation.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Does it say the bonnet was detached from the body does it say a constable carried it to the mortuary-No it doesnt, read the entry then you will see what an idiot you are making of yourself with all of these half hearted explanations you keep coming out with.

“Black Straw Bonnet – trimmed with green and black velvet and black beads, black strings. The bonnet was loosely tied and had partially fallen from the back of her head, no blood on front, but the back was lying in a pool of blood, which had run from the neck.

The only reality that needs to be addressed is yours along with your lack of understanding of the facts, and your misinterpretation of those facts and your failed desperate attempt to negate this part of the investigation.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Unlike you Trevor, I’ll admit an error. I posted in haste whilst trying to do something else. No one’s fault but my own.

Doesn't change a thing though. Catherine Eddowes was wearing an apron. This is proven beyond all doubt.

[Wickerman]

Hi
Well for a start as I have stated the the apron piece appears at the end of the list in her possessions.

Yes, thankyou.

It is logical to assume that had she been wearing an apron it would have been located under her jacket and over her skirt and I would suggest that having regards to how the clothing was removed and documented would have been clearly visible and documented as part of her clothing she was wearing. If she had been wearing an apron there is no logical reason for it not to have been seen and documented in the relevant part of the list.

Secondly as can be seen from the list the clothing she was wearing section it clearly shows how the clothes were removed from the body and listed, and my explanation is borne out by the first item on the list removed is her bonnet and the second item her jacket so that shows they were removing the clothes starting at the top and working down.

Ok, so you think that Collard made his list as the body was stripped?
All Insp. Collard says is that the body was stripped by Mr Davis, in the presence of the doctors & himself. Not that he made his list as the articles were removed - that would be an assumption.
I doubt anyone will drop clothing on top of a hat, or on top of the boots, so the hat, boots & loose possessions are placed aside separate to the clothes.

The truth is we do not know at what point Collard made his list, it could have been anytime after the body was stripped.
Lets assume, as you rightly point out, an apron should have been listed among her outer clothing, beneath her coat but on top of her dress. As well it may have been but in his testimony Dr. Brown specifically says: "My attention was drawn to the apron", this was the piece with the string attached (as he says), so it was the piece taken from her body.

This remark indicates that during his investigation of the wounds to the body - long after the body was stripped by Mr Davis - Dr. Brown had cause to go to the pile of clothing and pick out that piece of apron.
We are told why, he says because the piece from Goulston st. had arrived and he had cause to try fit the two pieces together.
Which means the apron piece was pulled out of sequence in the pile of clothing, matched with the G.S. piece, and then presumably was placed back on top of the pile, making it the last piece to be listed by Collard, if it was only then when he made his list.
Because we do not know what time he made his list, this explanation is perfectly feasible.

Finally in answer to your question in line with how the list was prepared if she had have been wearing it surely would have been described not as one old piece of white apron, but one old white apron with piece missing, how could they have got it so wrong given the accuracy of the rest of the list?

As a large portion was missing, it would have been a non-descript piece of cloth. It would not have looked like an apron until it was joined up with the piece found in G.S.
This is quite possible because there are several press reports of this list of clothing and a few of them identify a "large white handkerchief round neck", which is what it probably looked like. A dirty piece of cloth that could only be used as a "handkerchief".
However, the Times newspaper do not list this "handkerchief" around her neck, but provide a more accurate description: "...a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".

The piece of apron found at G.S., like the buttons & mustard tin found by Sgt. Jones, are not listed among her possessions because they are separate pieces of evidence found away from the body.

The list was made at the time and is primary and irrefutable evidence.

Agreed, but evidence needs to be interpreted correctly, or it is of no use to anyone.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, thankyou.

Ok, so you think that Collard made his list as the body was stripped?
All Insp. Collard says is that the body was stripped by Mr Davis, in the presence of the doctors & himself. Not that he made his list as the articles were removed - that would be an assumption.

But its a fair assumption as to how the list was made up, if you are suggesting it was later made up from a pile of clothes and her possessions they would not know what came from where, So it is logical to assume that the clothing was listed as it came off the body as the list tells us, and procedure would have dictated that process that is why Insp Collard was present.

I doubt anyone will drop clothing on top of a hat, or on top of the boots, so the hat, boots & loose possessions are placed aside separate to the clothes.

Thats another uncorroborated assumption on your part

The truth is we do not know at what point Collard made his list, it could have been anytime after the body was stripped.
Lets assume, as you rightly point out, an apron should have been listed among her outer clothing, beneath her coat but on top of her dress. As well it may have been but in his testimony Dr. Brown specifically says: "My attention was drawn to the apron", this was the piece with the string attached (as he says), so it was the piece taken from her body.

No it is wrong to assume that in the light of the list there is nothing to show that it was taken other than when the body was stripped. procedure would have dictated that

The matching of the two pieces could not have been made before 5.20am because when the body was stripped there was nothing known about the Gs piece to even connect it to the mortuary piece and that was long after the list was made up.

We are told why, he says because the piece from Goulston st. had arrived and he had cause to try fit the two pieces together.
Which means the apron piece was pulled out of sequence in the pile of clothing, matched with the G.S. piece, and then presumably was placed back on top of the pile, making it the last piece to be listed by Collard, if it was only then when he made his list.
Because we do not know what time he made his list, this explanation is perfectly feasible.

I have answered this above the list had to have been made at the time the body was stripped and knowing the need to document clothes and possessions do you think that they decided to wait 3 more hours before compiling the list?

As a large portion was missing, it would have been a non-descript piece of cloth. It would not have looked like an apron until it was joined up with the piece found in G.S.

We do not know the sizes of either of the apron pieces, so you are wrong to suggest a large piece was missing. After they were joined there was no evidence that they made up a complete apron.

This is quite possible because there are several press reports of this list of clothing and a few of them identify a "large white handkerchief round neck", which is what it probably looked like. A dirty piece of cloth that could only be used as a "handkerchief". Thats conjecture on your part and secondary evidence and unreliable

However, the Times newspaper do not list this "handkerchief" around her neck, but provide a more accurate description: "...a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely around the neck".

Secondary evidence unreliable and even conflicts with the report you refer to above if those had been around her neck they would have been seen quiet clearly, again you have fallen into the trap of seeking to rely on spurios newspaper articles which are unsafe.

The piece of apron found at G.S., like the buttons & mustard tin found by Sgt. Jones, are not listed among her possessions because they are separate pieces of evidence found away from the body.

But we are only discussing the list here, why would they add to the list items found at the crime scene they would form another part of the evidence.

Agreed, but evidence needs to be interpreted correctly, or it is of no use to anyone.

I totally agree but some see to not be able to, or dont want to do that !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

That list of clothing also identifies the cuts to the clothing caused by her being stabbed, and also identifies blood stains on the various items of clothing relative to those those cuts and the various blood stains on those items associated with the action of the killer with his knife and are in great detail as can be seen from the list of clothing and cuts which I am not going to list yet again.

This is the other point I feel you are misunderstanding. The cuts to her clothing are described after her dress & skirts were pulled up from the waist, in other words some of the clothes were upside down. Which seems to have left you with the impression she was cut more in the lower abdomen, when in actual fact the skirt was up above the waist as the knife was thrust into her upper abdomen, but through the skirt.
When the skirt is then placed in it's regular wearing position (hanging down from the waist) the cut is lower than the mutilation on the body.

[Trevor Marriott]

This is the other point I feel you are misunderstanding. The cuts to her clothing are described after her dress & skirts were pulled up from the waist, in other words some of the clothes were upside down. Which seems to have left you with the impression she was cut more in the lower abdomen, when in actual fact the skirt was up above the waist as the knife was thrust into her upper abdomen, but through the skirt.
When the skirt is then placed in it's regular wearing position (hanging down from the waist) the cut is lower than the mutilation on the body.

Why would the killer after pulling all of her clothes up above the waist then inflict the stabs and cuts to the clothing, her abdomen would be clearly visible and easily accessible surely the point of raising the clothes up above the waist was to gain access to the abdomen if of course that was the killers motive,

If you read the descriptions of the stabs and slash cuts from the list, they go in different directions

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

So these two are matched

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Lindsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

And again these two are also matched

These are clearly point of entry of the knife either to create a specific wound or when the killer was cutting and slashing during the frenzied attack and I would suggest that it would be almost impossible to create those specific cuts in the way you suggest.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The clothing is described as if the waistband is the top, which is the conventional view.
A woman wears a skirt which hangs down from the waistband, with the hem below the knee. However, we know from the medical evidence that the mutilation began with the knife plunged into the chest, at the uppermost point under the ribcage, then the knife was dragged down across the abdomen towards the pubes.

The body was described as found with the clothes pulled up, so although the skirt was still around her, it was now upside down covering her chest from the waist up.
This means that the knife was plunged through the skirt, into the chest, and ripped downwards through the waistband and towards the exposed pubes.

[Trevor Marriott]

The clothing is described as if the waistband is the top, which is the conventional view.
A woman wears a skirt which hangs down from the waistband, with the hem below the knee. However, we know from the medical evidence that the mutilation began with the knife plunged into the chest, at the uppermost point under the ribcage, then the knife was dragged down across the abdomen towards the pubes.

You dont know. nor does anyone in which order the wounds were inflicted

The body was described as found with the clothes pulled up, so although the skirt was still around her, it was now upside down covering her chest from the waist up.
This means that the knife was plunged through the skirt, into the chest, and ripped downwards through the waistband and towards the exposed pubes.

and the other cuts to the other items of clothing which went sideways ?

and how is part of the debate going to prove that she was wearing an apron

It only proves that had she been wearing an apron significant cuts would have been seen on both pieces of the apron in line with the cuts to the clothing. You should also note that no cuts or blood was found on the mortuary piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Found here on the Casebooks official documents, inquest testimony:

City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased.
The Coroner: What state was she in? - Drunk. Lying on the footway? - Yes. I asked the crowd if any of them knew her or where she lived, but got no answer. I then picked her up and sat her against the shutters, but she fell down sideways. With the aid of a fellow-constable I took her to Bishopsgate Police-station. There she was asked her name, and she replied "Nothing." She was then put into a cell.
[Coroner] Did any one appear to be in her company when you found her? - No one in particular.
Mr. Crawford: Did any one appear to know her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.

(bolding, underling, italics, etc, mine);
- Jeff

[harry]

So it's now being suggested that Collard compiled the list from memory,and not at the time the clothes were removed.An amazing feat of memory if that were true,considering the variety and number of articles and clothing.Why would he stand by doing nothing,knowing he would at some time have to compile a List?
The apron pieces,we are led to believe,were compared at the mortuary by Brown,his attention being drawn to the piece found in Goulstan Street,by Dr Phillips? in whose possession it then was.Think of that. Long Takes an apron piece to a police station,and it next turns up at the mortuary in the possession of a doctor.Well I do not have an answer for that.Police evidence in the possession of doctors,and used by them (doctors) to evaluate evidence,and that evidence is not seemingly double checked by police.No wonder Trevor advises caution.
I have read two differing accounts regarding Long's evidence.One writes he (Long) had no knowledge of a murder when finding the apron piece,the other writes Long had heard rumors of another murder,while the murder in Mitre Square was common knowledge.Regardless,he maintains it was because he believed a victim might have been in the building in Goulstan Street,as the reason he left his post and took his find to the police station.