Kate's Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

What some seem to be doing Jeff,Is totalling the number of various reportings,and accepting a majority as a deciding factor.Investigators ,police or otherwise, do not normally use that method.Here is another take on the apron.Eddowes removed and divided the apron at the police station.Think about that.

Hi Harry
I have touched on that by reason of the fact that she was in possession of a knife but the naysayers come up with an explantion that the knife would not have been sharp enough to cut. Any excuse to prop up the old theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

Halse,hearing there was a murder, went to Mitre square "I had the light turned on the body and saw it was a murder".
But after accompanying the body to the mortuary,he then said "I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron missing".
Only when he was in the mortuary as the body was stripped did he notice something about the apron.Same thing thing with the wearing of the apron,only in the mortuary as the body was stripped was it observed to be true by Brown and Collard.
Most likely because the body/clothing was a mess.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi harry,

I agree, that is how historical data has to be viewed, when there are multiple independent sources of information all point to the same thing, that indicates a bit of information that must be viewed as the most supported situation, and that trumps an alternative that is based upon "all those sources were in error, and the truth is the opposite of the evidence available".

Look, police in an active investigation do what Trevor is doing if they are going to do their job well. I get that. Look, I have no doubt that Trevor was a highly successful detective for precisely the approach he is using - questioning every detail of the statements, pondering all sorts of alternatives. That is essential to avoid the curse of the detective, which is tunnel vision and drawing a conclusion before the evidence has been thoroughly tested. The problem, though, is that that method is necessary because it gets the detective to go seek the answers, go re-interview the witness and get that clarification - it forces them to thoroughly test and retest the current best "working solution". So when we wonder "How big was the apron?", we would "Go photograph the two pieces with rulers in place to ensure their size could be determined from the photo graph". We would also photograph them together to show how they were matched to ensure they really did come from the same piece of cloth. We would question the people about information that would decide, and rule out, the alternatives that come to mind when we think one of their statements might be ambiguous and open to multiple possible interpretations. It is critical to a case that all avenues of possibility be shut down.

But we cannot do those things. We cannot go back and re-question, or seek clarification, or take photos and measurements. We're stuck with the testimony, as recorded. And the best we can do is collate the statements, and extract from them the most plausible and sensible option. We can never be sure we've got it exactly right and there is always room for some small probability that what they said and what got written down and what they meant are three different things. But if we think that alone is sufficient to prevent us from stating that this is the most plausible and probable inference of what happened, then it surely must prohibit presenting even less plausible and probable options as "the real situation".

There is nothing in the evidence we have, despite Trevor's insistence to the contrary, that raises the "she was not wearing an apron" alternative to a level of plausibility sufficiently to consider it a truly viable alternative. It conflicts in too many ways with the evidence we do have. If this were an active investigation, by all means, go ask those questions, go shut down those alternatives by gathering more evidence. A clever defense lawyer will look for any cracks in the case where doubt can be inserted, and creating reasonable doubt does not require the jury to even believe the alternative is more likely than the prosecutions case, they just have to believe it could possibly be true. It's a far lower bar to leap. Trevor's method of evidence questioning is unsuited to the JtR case because the way that sort of evidence questioning is resolved requires the ability to seek out new evidence from the witnesses and materials directly. It's a method unsuited to a case from 1888.

We're not a jury trial. We're not about reasonable doubt here. We're dealing with historic data that we cannot requestion the witnesses about, or re-examine the physical evidence. We are left with having to present a description of events that are tied to something we do have.

Trevor's experience as a homicide detective is interfering with his handling of the information. He's treating it like a defense lawyer, whose job we must remember is not to get at the truth but to present a defense case that targets the weaknesses in the evidence of the prosecutions case. But we're not the prosecution here. We're not putting anyone on trial. We're historians, trying to piece together the events from 1888, and we have limited information to work with, but it is our job to try and figure out, despite the gaps, what most likely took place.

The creative abilities of people are incredibly nimble, and one can always throw out alternatives. When it is possible to gather more information, those alternatives can be shut down, or they lead to new viable lines because the new information shuts down the previous idea. We can't gather new evidence, so unless some new source of information gets uncovered and presented, we're stuck with what we have.

I have no problem with Trevor personally. In fact, while it may not come across, I have a great respect for his skills because I can see how they would make him a very good detective. I have a problem, however, with him applying the wrong set of tools because this is only superficially a murder investigation now, it's an historical investigation of a murder, and there's no way we can apply the methods of a modern murder investigation when all we have is historical documents. If we were to try that, we might as well just point out "the whole set of evidence is to be tossed; the crime scene was not secured properly, the evidence was not documented properly, there was no photographing of the crime scenes with proper rulers placed to ensure scale, nothing was recorded as to the position it was found (where were Annie Chapman's things found at her feet exactly? What do you mean "appeared to be arranged? What was where, how were they "arranged", what does that mean?" etc. Nothing is suited for the modern police approach because the procedures at the time had not yet advanced to the careful documentation that is now standard procedure. We can't expect to find such documentation, nor can we expect it to be done in the way it would be now. None of the modern rules apply, because those rules did not exist in 1888.

- Jeff

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Doctored Whatsit]

Trevor, "one white apron is the same as another". No, this was a distinctive apron with a repaired patch on it, and thus easily recognized.

[harry]

Well said Trevor.It is murder cases we are examining.The fact that they were many years ago,is neither here nor there.It is evidence from those cases we are writing about. Now here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron could therefor be seen.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, "one white apron is the same as another". No, this was a distinctive apron with a repaired patch on it, and thus easily recognized.

But they never stated that, thats why it was important to ascertain how they were positive about her wearing an apron.

There were two portions produced at the inquest, none of the witnesses mentioned the repair if they had have done that would add weight to their testimony and would likley as not prove their testimony to be accurate. But as another poster stated, there is a time gap between those witnesses and what they saw between then and the time the body was stripped.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Well explained Trevor.Evidence is what is being discussed,and unless that has changed,historical has little meaning.Here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron would be exposed?
Provide information Jon.That's exactly what I did do.I said the case I referred to was a conducted in a Coronial Court.I gave the name of the victim and of the murderer.I gave the result they arrived at.I found that out by research,which I suggest you do if you want to contradict me.
I gave the name of the Judge regarding the use of shorthand in court.That you remarked on the status of that judge,then confessed you had the wrong judge,shows either a lack of ability,or you deliberately construct false information.I do not need to read the act,when I can produce evidence of what a coronial court can do.
I gave a location where the Coroners notes in the Eddowes case can be found.I have held nothing back,except how I found the information.You too should be able to do the same,if you are as good as you make yourself out to be.

[JeffHamm]

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But all you're doing is saying what everyone knows, the evidence we have is not ready for trial. Just because one can think of questions that still would need to be investigated doesn't mean the evidence is wrong, which is what you are arguing for. You are arguing that because you can think of something that makes the evidence wrong. it doesn't. You haven't proved the evidence is in error, you are simply presenting a very complex story because our incomplete evidence has gaps in it. That is where your story becomes unsupportably complicated, because those gaps in the evidence are also gaps in your story - your story is increasingly "unsafe" because the points that people are arguing about have nothing at all in the evidence behind them. The position of the apron on the list isn't support for your idea, it's a bit of evidence that has been widely over interpreted, piled upon with heaps of speculation and conjecture about details of how and when the list was compiled and for we have no information about at all. It's speculation to the nth degree, and that is what is making it fall apart. Your story doesn't have any support for how you fill in the blanks with all this incredible minute detail, none of which can be called safe. The story that involves her wearing the apron has support in the evidence because multiple people testify she was wearing it. How the list was compiled, everyone says we don't know but offer various ideas about how it might have been done given she was wearing it and the apron appears last. Nobody but you is claiming to know exactly how and when it was done, everyone else admits we don't know, and only offers tentative suggestions about various ways it could have been done - we admit the blanks are voids but we can see that there are many ways those voids could be filled easily given the bits we can see. Your approach is to effectively imagine anything at all in those voids, and then use that imagined event to come back out and say all you can see is lies. That's not interpreting the data and evidence, it's interpreting the void.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

But all you're doing is saying what everyone knows, the evidence we have is not ready for trial. Just because one can think of questions that still would need to be investigated doesn't mean the evidence is wrong, which is what you are arguing for. You are arguing that because you can think of something that makes the evidence wrong. it doesn't. You haven't proved the evidence is in error, you are simply presenting a very complex story because our incomplete evidence has gaps in it. That is where your story becomes unsupportably complicated, because those gaps in the evidence are also gaps in your story - your story is increasingly "unsafe" because the points that people are arguing about have nothing at all in the evidence behind them. The position of the apron on the list isn't support for your idea, it's a bit of evidence that has been widely over interpreted, piled upon with heaps of speculation and conjecture about details of how and when the list was compiled and for we have no information about at all. It's speculation to the nth degree, and that is what is making it fall apart. Your story doesn't have any support for how you fill in the blanks with all this incredible minute detail, none of which can be called safe. The story that involves her wearing the apron has support in the evidence because multiple people testify she was wearing it. How the list was compiled, everyone says we don't know but offer various ideas about how it might have been done given she was wearing it and the apron appears last. Nobody but you is claiming to know exactly how and when it was done, everyone else admits we don't know, and only offers tentative suggestions about various ways it could have been done - we admit the blanks are voids but we can see that there are many ways those voids could be filled easily given the bits we can see. Your approach is to effectively imagine anything at all in those voids, and then use that imagined event to come back out and say all you can see is lies. That's not interpreting the data and evidence, it's interpreting the void.

- Jeff

But you dont understand in order for you and others to satsify your beliefs, you should be asking yourself those questions and not readliy accepting the evidence as conclusive, and after you have asked yourself those questions a normal reasonable person who is unbiased must agree that the evidence is unsafe, and the evidence from the mortuary should also raise concerns about the reliabilty of those officers statements, because there is no evidence to show that she was wearing an apron when the body was stripped

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

It doesnt mater what type of investigation it is. the facts and the evidence are the important factors, and as I have stated some of the evidence you and others seek to rely on as I have said before is untested and as it stands unsafe and cannot be totally relied on for that reason.

To clarify my statement, if this matter was the subject of a trial and I know its not but these have to be considered with regards to the police officers and Wilkinson and the police officers who gave sworn evidence that they saw her wearing an apron, These statements form the backbone of the arugments from you and others to show that she was wearing an apron. Although this is not a trial you and the others still have to ask yourslelves the same questions as if it were a trial to ascertain whether or not you, can safely rely on that evidence.

There are questions which would be asked in a court and should be asked by you and others based on the inquest testimony in coming to a sensible and unbiased view

Firstly the inquest did not take place until Oct 5th 5 days after the murder. They gave their signed statements at that time I would challenge their evidence as to their recollection of events 5 days previous to the point of asking these questions

1. How can you be sure she was wearing an apron when you last saw her?

2. And the most important question "Whats was unusual about the apron you saw her wearing for you to identify the apron piece before you as being worn by the deceased?"

3. "Did you make an notes at the time or as soon as practicable of the events that night or are you today speaking from memory?"

Pc Robinson is catergoric in his testimony "I belive the apron produced was the one she was wearing" that is an unsafe statement one white apeon is the same as another unless he was able to answer question 2 above his evidence is unsafe to rely on.

The same applies to Pc Hutt who says the same "I belive the one produced was the one she was wearing"

There was never one produced the two pieces were produced separtely by Dr Phillips and Dr Brown, There is no evidence to show that the two pieces were ever joined by the police to make up a full apron and produced in court as one.

All in all in my professional opinion there is sufficient evidence to cast a major doubt about the testimony of those witnesses,

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

What we have is what we have.
The inquests was not a trial. In a normal trial testimonies have to be open to "cross-examination" which is a right/must, but there is a suspect defending himself/herself.
In a lot of inquests there is no suspect like all the c5 inquests but the inquests can go on, the testimonies were under oath and valid lawful evidence.


Wilkinson Pc Hutt/Robinson supported the slightly more important testimonies by Brown/Collard. To conclude the killer dropped the apron in Goulston, the portion he took from Eddowes.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You do not understand the argument.

From Wilkinson to Hutt brings us to 1:00 AM that Kate was wearing an apron. But what about after? For arguments sake, there was more than 30 minutes unaccounted for. Kate could have taken off the apron then. At 1:35 Am seen by Lawende and co., then at 1:44/after (at this point the body/clothings was a mess) by Watkin and Morris with lamps,then Harvey, Holland, there was no mention of Kate wearing an apron.
The crucial time that determined Kate was wearing an apron when she was murdered was when the body was stripped carefully (the layers of clothing and the position of the apron then could be seen) at the mortuary (better lighting?), not before or after. The two that said Kate was wearing an apron were present at the stripping and saw it, Brown and Collard.

I do understand the argument.

Why would Catherine remove her apron between leaving the Police Station at 1.00 and the time of her death around 1.35? She was outdoors so why take it off to carry it? It makes no sense. When Watkin, Holland, Harvey etc saw her her clothing was in disarray and they were distracted by the fact that she’d been horribly mutilated.

Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt show that she was wearing an apron that night.

[Trevor Marriott]

I do understand the argument.

Why would Catherine remove her apron between leaving the Police Station at 1.00 and the time of her death around 1.35? She was outdoors so why take it off to carry it? It makes no sense. When Watkin, Holland, Harvey etc saw her her clothing was in disarray and they were distracted by the fact that she’d been horribly mutilated.

Again you are not prepared to consider alternative as to what happened to the apron

and despite all of that the clothes were taken off carefully and had she been wearing an apron in that carefull process it should have been clearly visible

On the topic of the apron and the sugestion that the killer cut a piece taking it with him. The evidence shows that all her clothes were drawn up above her waist at the crime scene, had she been wearing an apron then that apron would have been nearest to her abdomen and furthest away from the outside., If the killer wanted to cut a piece of material there were countless other garments much closer to the outside

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[ChrisGeorge]

Well said Trevor.It is murder cases we are examining.The fact that they were many years ago,is neither here nor there.It is evidence from those cases we are writing about. Now here is another piece of that evidence.Eddowes was wearing a jacket.How much of the apron could therefor be seen.

Are you kidding? These aprons were big. Not like the apron your mum wore. See this famous photograph of Dorset Street in 1902 from Jack London's People of the Abyss.

[Wickerman]

....
Provide information Jon.That's exactly what I did do.I said the case I referred to was a conducted in a Coronial Court.I gave the name of the victim and of the murderer.I gave the result they arrived at.I found that out by research,which I suggest you do if you want to contradict me.
I gave the name of the Judge regarding the use of shorthand in court.That you remarked on the status of that judge,then confessed you had the wrong judge,shows either a lack of ability,or you deliberately construct false information.I do not need to read the act,when I can produce evidence of what a coronial court can do.

Your post made no mention of shorthand, why can't you provide the press article instead of trying to remember the details yourself.
If I can post press articles, so can you.

I gave a location where the Coroners notes in the Eddowes case can be found.I have held nothing back,except how I found the information.You too should be able to do the same,if you are as good as you make yourself out to be.

No, you didn't. There are no Coroner's notes. I have a copy of the original paperwork.
You're bluffing, & sadly ill informed.
I'll tell you what, don't bother with anymore idle accusations until you can post something with any substance.

[Wickerman]

Again you are not prepared to consider alternative as to what happened to the apron

I think you could be accused of the same.

....and despite all of that the clothes were taken off carefully and had she been wearing an apron in that carefull process it should have been clearly visible

We don't have a statement from the person who actually stripped the body. So you can't say it wasn't noticed.
Halse saw it, neither Brown or Collard did, that's all we can assume at this point.

On the topic of the apron and the sugestion that the killer cut a piece taking it with him. The evidence shows that all her clothes were drawn up above her waist at the crime scene, had she been wearing an apron then that apron would have been nearest to her abdomen and furthest away from the outside., If the killer wanted to cut a piece of material there were countless other garments much closer to the outside

You're not allowing for the killer removing the apron piece first, before he mutilates the body.