Kate's Apron

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apparently is not a definitive statement.

If you analyze his statement "which had been cut through" he was referring to the two matched pieces which we know had been cut through.

If all she had were two old pieces of old white apron then that is the reason why no one has mentioned the fact that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

why do we not see terms such as "the remnants of the apron" the rest of her apron" "the remaining part" being used

I should also make mention that some senior officers doubted the killer cutting a piece from her apron in any event as the letter below shows and questions

I refer to a letter dated October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman. I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?]. Very truly yours, C.W.

There is no evidence from any source to show that when the body was found in Mitre Square she was wearing an apron if ther was we would not be debating this issue


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No.

Why do you make a point of them not mentioning that the 2 pieces made a whole but you refuse to make a point of them not mentioning that they didn’t?

After all why would they have mentioned specifically that the two parts made up a whole? It was implied. They had a piece of apron with the body and another found at GS. And yet if they knew that there was a piece missing missing then we would expect to have had it mentioned specifically, and it wasn’t. Because there wasn’t any part missing.

You’re on a fishing expedition Trevor. An exercise in pointless and very selective nitpicking.

“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.”

“I noticed she was wearing an apron.”

“He believed she was wearing an apron on Saturday morning.”

Guess what?

She was wearing an apron. Of that there can be no doubt except for an entirely deliberate attempt to create a theory from nothing.

[Trevor Marriott]

We should notice how it was observed the body lost much blood in moving it from the crime scene to the mortuary. Once the body is on the post-mortem table, on it's back, you should admit removing her clothes without turning her over and loosing more blood & potentially internal organs too would be of huge concern.
Her clothes are cut off, even today this is common practice in similar cases.

Therefore, as the apron was attached around her neck by a string, this string could also have been cut. Or perhaps it was the string around the waist that is being referred to. Even so, the knot will not be untied, evidence can be lost that way, so the string will be cut to enable easy removal.
In this case the two strings were tied around her body, but Mr Davis cut the string when removing the piece of apron. The "one string" was actually both strings tied together just retaining the existing knot.

Another desperate explanation, had that been the case Dr Brown would have mentioned that fact, and the full apron would have been visible to those taking it off and it would have been listed as part of her clothing, and you are forgetting that the two pieces as described could not have made up a full apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

So the Mortuary piece according to Brown could only have been a top left or top right corner of the apron for the two pieces to have been matched as described, the GS piece would have to have been bottom left or bottom right. The apron could not have been cut in half across midline because then the apron would have still been attached by both strings to the body and easily noticed when the body was stripped. So matching those two pieces clearly shows to me that they did not make up a full apron, and as such she could not have been wearing an apron which the list also clearly shows and that we are simply dealing with two portions of an old apron and not a full apron.

I would suggest, something like this...
The bib section is omitted, though we know the apron had one.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would suggest, something like this...

but they would know they were cutting off an apron because according to you the remaining part would still have been tied to the body at the waist, there is no evidence from the mortuary other than the list and the matching of the two pieces and it would have been described as an old white apron with piece missing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

but they would know they were cutting off an apron because according to you the remaining part would still have been tied to the body at the waist, there is no evidence from the mortuary other than the list and the matching of the two pieces and it would have been described as an old white apron with piece missing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

And yet when they matched the two pieces there was no mention of them not making up a full apron. As ever, you’re cherrypicking what would or wouldn’t have occurred. Wick’s explanation is entirely reasonable and very obviously plausible unlike anything that you’ve said. Time wasting on a complete non-issue.

[Trevor Marriott]

And yet when they matched the two pieces there was no mention of them not making up a full apron. As ever, you’re cherrypicking what would or wouldn’t have occurred. Wick’s explanation is entirely reasonable and very obviously plausible unlike anything that you’ve said. Time wasting on a complete non-issue.

Well thats excatly what you are doing, the only time wasting that is being done is by me in having to keep putting you and others right and I have more important things to attend to

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Aprons come in many formats, so yes, there are aprons worn as you describe (I believe a butcher's apron would do as you describe, for example). Kate, however, was wearing a jacket, so any part that wrapped around her upper torso would be covered. As to the lower portions, I don't know, but sure, it could be that it was of the type that also would wrap around and be visible from the back.

Funny you should bring this up, back in the early 70's my first three years out of school I was a butcher's apprentice and the apron we had was like calico material and the design had not changed since the 19th century. It had a bib & covered the front down to the ankles, though most of us folded it up so as only to extend no lower than the knee.

Anyway....
I have a whole bunch of 19th century photo's of working class women wearing their aprons...here's a couple.



1860's, I believe.

[Wickerman]

Another desperate explanation, had that been the case Dr Brown would have mentioned that fact,....

He did, his observation is covered by several sources...eg:

Court Record - When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary

Morning Advertiser - When the body arrived at Golden-lane the clothes were more covered with blood than when I first saw them, but that was in consequence of the removal.

Witnesses made a point of the fact very little blood was on her front when found, only in consequence of the removal did the blood spill down her front.
Obviously then, undoing her clothing in the regular fashion was out of the question. They couldn't roll her over or there would have been one unholy mess of internal organs spilling out. The body is evidence, and must be treated with care - as they acknowledged.

......and the full apron would have been visible to those taking it off and it would have been listed as part of her clothing, and you are forgetting that the two pieces as described could not have made up a full apron.

You saw the sketch Foster made, you know yourself you couldn't identify specific articles of clothing. Remember, it is only you who have raised the issue of "no apron", these officials had no cause to pay particular attention to the apron. It matters to you, but it didn't matter to them, so they do not mention it.

[Trevor Marriott]

He did, his observation is covered by several sources...eg:

Court Record - When the body arrived at Golden Lane some of the blood was dispersed through the removal of the body to the mortuary

Morning Advertiser - When the body arrived at Golden-lane the clothes were more covered with blood than when I first saw them, but that was in consequence of the removal.

Witnesses made a point of the fact very little blood was on her front when found, only in consequence of the removal did the blood spill down her front.
Obviously then, undoing her clothing in the regular fashion was out of the question. They couldn't roll her over or there would have been one unholy mess of internal organs spilling out. The body is evidence, and must be treated with care - as they acknowledged.



You saw the sketch Foster made, you know yourself you couldn't identify specific articles of clothing. Remember, it is only you who have raised the issue of "no apron", these officials had no cause to pay particular attention to the apron. It matters to you, but it didn't matter to them, so they do not mention it.

But the sketch clearly shows the wound to the throat it doesn’t show any clothing around the neck and she was not wearing a bib apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Well thats excatly what you are doing, the only time wasting that is being done is by me in having to keep putting you and others right and I have more important things to attend to

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What? You’ve invented another theory from nothing?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

Well one has to be right and one wrong,

Well, no, not really. Both are handwritten transcriptions of testimony, there will be errors of omissions, insertions, miswording, and so forth in both of them, without any doubt there will be transcription errors.

I will go with the official signed deposition by Brown who states it was a corner piece with a STRING attached (singular) he would have been asked to read it back before signing so as evidence goes it is safe to rely on.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Now, as you know, I believe by working with as much of the information we have, and will look at the official transcript and that reported in the Times, which the police kept in the official files. I believe that indicates the police at the time had confidence in the Times reporting, so of the newspapers it is arguably the best to rely upon. Looking at the relevant section, either the Times has added "on the body" or the inquest transcript has left it out. While I can't know for sure which is correct, there are other testimonies all pointing to Kate wearing the apron, as such, in this instance it looks to be the official transcriber has fallen behind, and did not record that aspect.

And, if people were anything like they are today, people just signed their transcribed statements and did not spend ages pouring over each and every word and phrase.

But, how I do things is not the point here.

You yourself have said about evidence I present that if there is reason to believe things are not 100% accurate, and that is definately the case with any handwritten transcription done on the fly like the inquest document, that makes it unsafe and not to be relied upon.

For you to shift the goal posts now is unacceptable. I expect you to hold to your own rules and requirements you set for myself and others. So, try and again, and present me with evidence that is 100% without doubt reliable.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Apparently is not a definitive statement.

... apparently was wearing. - Is in no way a statement that supports the idea she was not wearing it and as such is still testimony towards her wearing it. We could quibble over the degree of confidence he's intending by "apparently", or even if it just police jargon used within the context of giving testimony, but it is testimony that is still in the polar opposite direction of what you are claiming. And it comes from the very author of the list.

If you analyze his statement "which had been cut through" he was referring to the two matched pieces which we know had been cut through.

If all she had were two old pieces of old white apron then that is the reason why no one has mentioned the fact that when the two pieces were matched they made up a full apron

Pure conjecture. Another "if" story from you that nobody else is allowed to use. There is every reason to doubt this is 100% accurate, making it entirely unsafe.

why do we not see terms such as "the remnants of the apron" the rest of her apron" "the remaining part" being used

Human language is one of the most fascinating aspects of our species. With a finite set of words available to us, we are able to combine them in practically an infinite number of ways to convey a range of concepts beyond the meaning of each individual word. With language, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. There are also an unendless way to convert a concept into a sentence, and yet still convey similar information.

The apron was cut ...
The cut apron ....
The apron had been sliced into separate sections ...
and so on ....

The fact the witnesses do not use words you've come up with would have many sides to that explanation. First, you are not the witness and they have chosen to convey the concept with different words. Second, you have a vested interest to come up with words that convey the same idea and so found phrasings (which I'm sure wasn't hard to do, see above) as if they are somehow special. They're not, they are just another example of the point I made above. This is called smoke and mirrors.

I should also make mention that some senior officers doubted the killer cutting a piece from her apron in any event as the letter below shows and questions

I refer to a letter dated October 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser head of The City of London Police:

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer. In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers-on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman. I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?]. Very truly yours, C.W.

There is no evidence from any source to show that when the body was found in Mitre Square she was wearing an apron if ther was we would not be debating this issue


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That is not expressing doubt. That is Warren requesting their case evidence and proof be sent to him so he can make sure their case would stand up in court. If he noticed any holes in the argument, he would direct them to investigate further and plug those holes. He's thinking ahead in case someone should be arrested, and anticipating defense lawyer type arguements, where they try to sow seeds of doubt rather than find the truth. The prosecution is obliged to present only events they believe to be true, but it's not enough to have a believable story for the prosecution, it must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. All the defense needs to argue is that "here's another story, and as long as you think it has some reasonable chance of being true, you must aquit". The bar is much lower for the defense as all they have to establish is a reasonable level of doubt in the prosecution's story, while the prosecution must get over the much higher bar of leaving no room for reasonable doubt.

You are treating the debate like a court case, and you consider the original police theory the crown's case, and you are presenting the defense case. This is why you set the bar so much lower for your story and so much higher for the original police explanation. You are not so much concerned with finding out what happened as simply trying to show there could be doubt in the crown's case.

But nobody has ever claimed any of this is without doubt, because other than you, nobody is treating this as a court case but rather as historical research in which the goal is not to have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt or simply show some doubt exists, but to try and establish what are the most plausible and probable chain of events. That's far far far below the bar a prosecutor has to meet. While it would be nice if we could reach that level, as we all know, the evidence we have is so limited and the methods so outdated, that bar will be forever out of reach.

While you might think the historical bar is too low, it's higher than the defense bar that you've set for yourself. Maybe it's time to stretch yourself and reach that little bit higher.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Another desperate explanation, had that been the case Dr Brown would have mentioned that fact, and the full apron would have been visible to those taking it off and it would have been listed as part of her clothing, and you are forgetting that the two pieces as described could not have made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Oh, just like he would have mentioned the fact that when he compared the two pieces there was still some amount of apron missing? - Oh, no, not those facts would have been mentioned ...

Do you recognize when you shift the goal posts, or has it become so habitual that you no longer even realize you're doing it?

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Funny you should bring this up, back in the early 70's my first three years out of school I was a butcher's apprentice and the apron we had was like calico material and the design had not changed since the 19th century. It had a bib & covered the front down to the ankles, though most of us folded it up so as only to extend no lower than the knee.

Anyway....
I have a whole bunch of 19th century photo's of working class women wearing their aprons...here's a couple.



1860's, I believe.

Thanks Wickerman. Those ones do not seem to wrap all the way around to the back, but I'm assuming there are some that do as harry suggests?

It would be great if we had a section somewhere where images of various items of clothing could be archieved. Hats and apons and jackets, etc, each in their own section, are mentioned quite often and given the differences in clothing style between then and now, a collection of images would be a wonderful resource (without discussions, just a brief description - discussions would be held on the boards, and the archive images could be linked to if necessary).

Hmmm, if I'm going to be wishing, I would like a pony.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh, just like he would have mentioned the fact that when he compared the two pieces there was still some amount of apron missing? - Oh, no, not those facts would have been mentioned ...

Do you recognize when you shift the goal posts, or has it become so habitual that you no longer even realize you're doing it?

- Jeff

There would be no need to mention any piece missing because Brown was present when the body was stripped and the list made up, so the list tells us that at that time she was not found to be wearing an apron, or the remnants of an apron but simply in possession of one old piece of white apron.

We were not there when the pieces were matched but we are left with the descriptions and despite what you and others keep wanting to believe, those two pieces as described did not and could not have made up a full apron, and as to another mysterious third piece which has been introduced that's just another feeble attempt by you and others to ignore the fact that the two pieces didn't make a full apron and still keep suggesting she was wearing an apron.

Looking at Wicks drawing the way the apron is depicted and cut is that the killer must have taken not a portion but half and that is a large piece to take to wipe his hands or his knife on especially when he could have done both on her clothes, and I yet again go back to how her clothes were up above her waist when the body was found and other items of her clothing would have been more accessible than an apron which would have been the most difficult to locate and cut.

Now I would argue that the Gs piece was nowhere near as big as that, if it had been that big Long could not have failed to miss it nor could Halse when they passed by the first time. Just imagine trying to screw up and discard a piece of materiel that size you couldn't, it is impossible it would unfurl as soon as it hit the ground. So it had to be much smaller and a corner piece is more fitting which is in line with the matching of the two pieces.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk