Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

But if the clothes were taken off as I suggest from top to bottom which they had to have been, and placed in a pile as you suggest. If they came to be listed later then then last piece of clothing taken off would top of the pile and then be the first on the list, so that idea goes down like a lead balloon. Or are you going to suggest they were not placed in a pile but neatly laid out on a table easily recognizable and identifiable?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

From the above it seems you missed my post that raised Dr Brown's "my attention was drawn to the piece of apron....." point.

This is where he received the G.S. piece brought by Phillips, many hours after the body had been stripped. Therefore, the piece of apron found on the body is pulled out of the pile and matched to the newly found piece. After which, the piece from the pile is simply placed back on top.
A list made after the match would itemize the piece of apron at the end, instead of sequentially as it was removed.
Which implies that Collard only made the list long after Davies had stripped the body, in fact the list may have been made after the G.S. piece was brought to Golden Lane - this is what I am suggesting.

[Trevor Marriott]

From the above it seems you missed my post that raised Dr Brown's "my attention was drawn to the piece of apron....." point.

This is where he received the G.S. piece brought by Phillips, many hours after the body had been stripped. Therefore, the piece of apron found on the body is pulled out of the pile and matched to the newly found piece. After which, the piece from the pile is simply placed back on top.
A list made after the match would itemize the piece of apron at the end, instead of sequentially as it was removed.
Which implies that Collard only made the list long after Davies had stripped the body, in fact the list may have been made after the G.S. piece was brought to Golden Lane - this is what I am suggesting.

The list was made at the time the clothes were taken off the body common sense determines this to be correct, There is no sense not to make the list up at the time when Collard knew what the procedure was.

The two pieces were matched much later when the GS piece was taken to the mortuary, very likely as not at the time the post mortem was carried out.

Brown would already been aware that another piece of apron was in her possessions because he was present when the body was stripped and the list made up.

and there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

From the above it seems you missed my post that raised Dr Brown's "my attention was drawn to the piece of apron....." point.

This is where he received the G.S. piece brought by Phillips, many hours after the body had been stripped. Therefore, the piece of apron found on the body is pulled out of the pile and matched to the newly found piece. After which, the piece from the pile is simply placed back on top.
A list made after the match would itemize the piece of apron at the end, instead of sequentially as it was removed.
Which implies that Collard only made the list long after Davies had stripped the body, in fact the list may have been made after the G.S. piece was brought to Golden Lane - this is what I am suggesting.

While you are conjuring up explanations then perhaps you might want to conjure one up in answer to this

On page 157 of “The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z” compiled by several "eminent" Ripper researchers, there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote, “And that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

While you are conjuring up explanations then perhaps you might want to conjure one up in answer to this

On page 157 of “The Complete Jack the Ripper A-Z” compiled by several "eminent" Ripper researchers, there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote, “And that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying”.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Without the surrounding context I could be mistaken but that quote ticks all the boxes for the Church Passage Couple (although I would have said possibly rather than probably).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

The list was made at the time the clothes were taken off the body common sense determines this to be correct,

Where is that officially recorded? Otherwise, it's pure conjecture as you say.

There is no sense not to make the list up at the time when Collard knew what the procedure was.

Where is it recorded that this was the procedure in 1888? It might be now, but was it in 1888? The procedure then could very well just to ensure the items were documented, not that they were documented as the body was stripped. Indeed, in other cases we have the fact that the body was sometimes stripped with nobody official present, and while the Dr. was annoyed, there was no mention of "in violation of protocol". Where is your evidence, otherwiwse it's conjecture that the procedures have not changed since 1888, something I find hard to believe.

The two pieces were matched much later when the GS piece was taken to the mortuary, very likely as not at the time the post mortem was carried out.

Well, the post mortem was carried out the afternoon of the next day. Plenty of time to get the G.S. piece over in time for, or during, it, but possibly after it as well. Do you have an official document telling us the time the G.S. piece was taken over? If not, it's more conjecture.

Brown would already been aware that another piece of apron was in her possessions because he was present when the body was stripped and the list made up.

and there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, as pointed out before, there are indications it was, but you are correct in that there's no official document stating that the two pieces made a whole. Again, another indication that the procedures of 1888 are no where near as strict as the one's you would have worked under. What they would have done as routine you would view as sloppy and problematic. Learning from the errors that arose from those times is what has led to improved and more controlled methods today, but we must remember when considering the police behaviour in 1888 that they were not constrained by modern requirements.

- Jeff

[Ms Diddles]

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

Hi Jeff / All,

This thread has moved on considerably in the last couple of days and I don't want to drag things backwards.

Just for the record, I did spend a bit of time poking around on the internet, but the fact is that there was very little information relating to lower class women in this respect.

It's fairly well known that Victorian's found discussing such things somewhat unseemly, so really all I could find were medical texts and records of prevailing attitudes of the time (actually it turns out I would have been encouraged to loll about on a chaise longue for four days each month ensuring no physical or mental strain! Sounds alright!)

There were lots of adverts for sanitary products and strange belt device things aimed at more middle / upper class women.

I did find a couple of bits of purely anecdotal evidence relating to lower class women free bleeding, but there were also several references to the use of rags as described by Trevor.

I would suggest that as with so many other things, these women just made do with what they had.

If rags were to hand, great!

If not, no big deal!

Anyway, forwards with the thread....

Move along folks!

There's nothing to see here....!

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff / All,

This thread has moved on considerably in the last couple of days and I don't want to drag things backwards.

Just for the record, I did spend a bit of time poking around on the internet, but the fact is that there was very little information relating to lower class women in this respect.

It's fairly well known that Victorian's found discussing such things somewhat unseemly, so really all I could find were medical texts and records of prevailing attitudes of the time (actually it turns out I would have been encouraged to loll about on a chaise longue for four days each month ensuring no physical or mental strain! Sounds alright!)

There were lots of adverts for sanitary products and strange belt device things aimed at more middle / upper class women.

I did find a couple of bits of purely anecdotal evidence relating to lower class women free bleeding, but there were also several references to the use of rags as described by Trevor.

I would suggest that as with so many other things, these women just made do with what they had.

If rags were to hand, great!

If not, no big deal!

Anyway, forwards with the thread....

Move along folks!

There's nothing to see here....!

Thanks for that Ms Diddles. It was always going to be a long shot. I had heard that rags were used for this purpose, though not the idea they were pinned to clothes, etc. Anyway, your search was much appreciated. Feel free to spend however much time you choose on the chaise lounge!

Cheers.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The list was made at the time the clothes were taken off the body common sense determines this to be correct, There is no sense not to make the list up at the time when Collard knew what the procedure was.

So in your view Collard would tell Davis to "hold-up, not so fast, I have to finish capturing the description of this jacket".....etc....etc... Davis is whipping her clothes off faster than Collard can investigate & record the specifics of each garment.
Honestly?, no, I don't think Collard needs to be trying to capture these details at the moment they are removed. Collard needs to look for cuts & bloodstains on each garment, on each article, and note distinguishing marks where he finds them.
No, Collard can just as easily & more efficiently work on the pile of clothing at his leisure anytime after they have been removed. If he was concerned about recording them sequentially he knows to pull them out from the bottom, items at the bottom came off first.
That is "if he was concerned", yet when we read the list it is not entirely sequential - so clearly this was not his true concern.

The two pieces were matched much later when the GS piece was taken to the mortuary, very likely as not at the time the post mortem was carried out.

No, the P.M. was the next day. Post-Mortem's were never performed on a Sunday.

This missing half of the apron we are told arrive "shortly after" the body arrived at the mortuary. We don't have an exact time but PC Long left Goulston st. with the apron about 3:00, arriving at Commercial street about 5 or 10 minutes past 3.
Long returned to G.S. with the Inspector, then they both proceeded to Leman street where the piece of apron was handed to Dr. Phillips.
Perhaps, Phillips arrived at Golden Lane sometime between 4:00-5:00am?

Brown would already been aware that another piece of apron was in her possessions because he was present when the body was stripped and the list made up.

He was present, but that does not mean he was standing over the body.

....and there is no evidence to show that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

But isn't that a mute point?
How does that fact help your argument?

We know that the two pieces, when put together, provided sufficient detail that reasonably intelligent people who saw the match could easily discern that the items formed a woman's apron. Not a skirt, not a petticoat, not a chemise, but an actual apron.
That's all we need to know.

[JeffHamm]

...
No, the P.M. was the next day. Post-Mortem's were never performed on a Sunday.
...

Hi Wickerman,

Dr. Brown states at the inquest (at least in the version under the Casebook official files, which I think is from the Times) that "... I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon..."

It appears an exception was made in this case, suggesting it was considered of high priority. That would also be consistent with your suggestions that the G.S. piece would have been rushed over for comparison as well.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

Indeed it does Jeff, thankyou.
I wonder if the source I came across was referring to the Metropolitan authority, at the time I read that small point of trivia, I didn't think to look

[JeffHamm]

Indeed it does Jeff, thankyou.
I wonder if the source I came across was referring to the Metropolitan authority, at the time I read that small point of trivia, I didn't think to look

Hi Wickerman,

No worries. When I read that, I thought I had misinterpreted when the post-mortem was done so went back to double check how it was worded and expected to find I had made an error (happens all the time, I'm used to it! ). I suppose the Met and City police could have different policies, but it strikes me that it would be the medical profession that might have set such things? I don't know, obviously, but if you come across that bit of trivia again it would be interesting to consider if the Eddowes post-mortem on a Sunday reflects an exception to the rule, or if the rules were just different. If it's an exception being made, that would indicate a greater level of urgency, which needs to be taken into consideration when viewing the other actions the police were doing at that time as well, such as things like getting the pieces of apron compared, but other activities as well.

- Jeff

[Joshua Rogan]

Hi Wickerman,

Dr. Brown states at the inquest (at least in the version under the Casebook official files, which I think is from the Times) that "... I made a post-mortem examination on Sunday afternoon..."

It appears an exception was made in this case, suggesting it was considered of high priority. That would also be consistent with your suggestions that the G.S. piece would have been rushed over for comparison as well.

- Jeff

Evening News 1 Oct
"Dr. Gordon has made his post-mortem of the Mitre-square body without waiting for the coroner's order. He knows that is out of the rule, but he thought under the circumstances that it was necessary, and he hopes he will be backed up by public opinion."

[JeffHamm]

Evening News 1 Oct
"Dr. Gordon has made his post-mortem of the Mitre-square body without waiting for the coroner's order. He knows that is out of the rule, but he thought under the circumstances that it was necessary, and he hopes he will be backed up by public opinion."

Ah, good find Joshua. Whether "out of the rule" is just starting before he gets the coroner's order, which could have come on a Sunday, or if we're starting to narrow in on Wickerman's previous trivia (i.e. can't start before getting the order, coroner's took Sunday off, so no post-mortems would occur until the order came in on Monday at the earliest, type thing). Regardless, it points to a level of urgency, although this seems to indicate it was the doctor who felt it was urgent to start right away. I suppose it's possible that when the body was brought to the mortuary, and the doctor was there, he did a cursory check and noted the uterus missing (something I could easily see him checking for, given the prior Chapman case), and so concluded this needed to be attended to right away. Obviously I don't know he did that, but it strikes me as the type of thing that a doctor might do in those circumstances. If he did, it's a shame that wasn't recorded, so as it is, it's nothing but a hypothesis in need of support.

- Jeff

[harry]

Brown writes that the clothes were carefully removed from the body.not hastely.It would have been Collards duty to record.As Collard would have charge,he would dictate the rate of progress,and I see no need for speed,and certainly no reason why he should not ,or could not,record at that time.
Why is the list not sequential?.It starts with the outer garment and finishes with the inner garment,the vest. What,in between,would you Jon,think out of order.The three skirts? Now three skirts is unusual,to the point that it could be asked did Collard make a mistake there,but as I sometimes wear a pullover under my shirt,and in cold weather, pyjamas under my clothing,who am I to think anything odd about Eddowes, incloding using an apron as a sanitary pad.

[JeffHamm]

Brown writes that the clothes were carefully removed from the body.not hastely.It would have been Collards duty to record.As Collard would have charge,he would dictate the rate of progress,and I see no need for speed,and certainly no reason why he should not ,or could not,record at that time.
Why is the list not sequential?.It starts with the outer garment and finishes with the inner garment,the vest. What,in between,would you Jon,think out of order.The three skirts? Now three skirts is unusual,to the point that it could be asked did Collard make a mistake there,but as I sometimes wear a pullover under my shirt,and in cold weather, pyjamas under my clothing,who am I to think anything odd about Eddowes, incloding using an apron as a sanitary pad.

Hi harry,

A petticoat is worn under skirts, so the skirts should come off first, and the petticoat last but we have one skirt, then the petticoat, then 2 more skirts. We also have what appears to be a random jumping between upper and lower garments; jacket (upper), then a skirt (lower), then bodice (upper again), petticoat (lower), skirt (lower), skirt (lower), chemise (upper), vest (upper), no drawers or stays (so items not found; presumably specifically mentioned because the stays I believe became a bit of a contentious item in I think the Nichols case?), then boots (far lower), some red silk worn as a scarf (back to far upper), and so forth. It looks slightly ordered in some ways, but scrambled. There's also no mention of a sanitary napkin, and if she's menstruating and in the habit of wearing one, one should be on this list (why would she discard one if she's not going to replace it, after all she had what is supposed to be the material she used).

I'm sure one could make up something and convince themselves that the above order is "in order", but it looks fairly haphazard to me. And I think something like what Wickerman has suggested far more likely to account for the order the items are listed in. It also explains why the apron she was wearing comes last, it was either being compared as he composed his list or had been set aside so he dealt with what was before him first and put the apron at the end, knowing it was there.

And Collard did record the items. It's only by modern standards that the notion that had to be done at the very time the clothes were being removed. There's no reason to presume that was the standard of the day. Policing methods have vastly improved, and become much more standardized, since 1888. We can't impose modern standards on Victorian police. If someone can locate a police procedures manual, and it indicates the items have to be recorded as they are removed, then I'll have learned something from all this. But if all we are doing is voicing opinions about how we think it should have been done (and I agree, it should have been done that way), that's not worth a hill of beans with regards to how it was done. And it looks random to me, which would occur if Collard recorded the items after they had all been removed.

Anyway, that's what it looks like to me. You may see things differently.

- Jeff