Kate's Apron

[Wickerman]

Yes, that's why I referred to it as "Long's official summary", because it is a summary of Long's testimony recorded by the court on the official document, which must be correct, because it's official.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff.

There are five pages, in two different hands, listing a brief summary of each witnesses statement to police.
Two pages list all the jurors then the witnesses with a brief summary. Then in another very ornate hand three pages listing only the witnesses with a different summary.

All my pages are stamped, Not To Be Reproduced Without Permission. Yet you say they are available on line?

[harry]

Just a thought Jeff.What you have posted migh be an addition to the notes the Coroner himself made.There is a reference in the A to Z that appears to suggest this.In that case,what you've shown may not be an official summary,but an extension of the notes printed inn the Ato Z.

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff.

There are five pages, in two different hands, listing a brief summary of each witnesses statement to police.
Two pages list all the jurors then the witnesses with a brief summary. Then in another very ornate hand three pages listing only the witnesses with a different summary.

All my pages are stamped, Not To Be Reproduced Without Permission. Yet you say they are available on line?

Yes, the London Met. Archives has them under the digital documents, here:

https://search.lma.gov.uk/scripts/mw...uage=144&file=[WWW_LMA]home.html

Sorry, don't know how to make that look nice.

It's a bit of a pig to search around, but if you go to the "digital documents" from the main header menu, and then use Eddowes as your search term where you can "Search Digital Documents", the inquest is the first on the list. Just click on the Coroner's Inquest title and that will take you to it. May take a bit to load the images in the player, and you can't download them, but you can zoom in nicely to read them. I screen captured a few bits for the above post, and unless I missed it, there's nothing to indicate that's a problem.

But yes, there are a couple pages at the beginning that appear to be the same thing. It looks to me like a draft copy, then the fancy hand being the "final version."

The brief summaries either are indications to the coroner about what each witness will testify about, or are summaries after testimony was given. In either case, they are official documents summarizing the information, and so reflect the information as the court understood it to be.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Just a thought Jeff.What you have posted migh be an addition to the notes the Coroner himself made.There is a reference in the A to Z that appears to suggest this.In that case,what you've shown may not be an official summary,but an extension of the notes printed inn the Ato Z.

Hi harry,

I posted the link to the archives so you can view it yourself if you like. They are written out a couple times, which doesn't sound like notes taken down during testimony, rather they are listed as summaries, highlighting important aspects of either what was testified to, or what will be testified to (the latter suggesting they are summaries of the important information contained in the original police statement that the witness made). But, you can decide for yourself as they are freely available.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

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.

The info available does not depend on what you think Eddowes did or did not do. After Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting.
it's blank from after 1:00 AM to 2:20 AM..
We rely on Collard/Browns testimonies when in the mortuary the body got stripped whether the apron was worn when she was killed.
No you don't understand the argument and still don't.
But whatever.

[Varqm]

Maybe because I have almost 40 years of assesing and evaluating evidence in criminal cases and still do to this very day, and you dont

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Respect.But not on this issue and organs were taken by thieves.

[JeffHamm]

Respect.But not on this issue and organs were taken by thieves.

Let's not get into the organ topic. That's off topic for this thread, and has been discussed elsewhere. There's enough to focus on apron-wise (as our 83 pages seem to indicate, though I admit, I wouldn't have predicted that when it started).

- Jeff

[Varqm]

You have posed the same sort of questions that came to my mind years ago. Needless to say this is not the first time we have debated this signing issue.
In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.
So it was not a mandatory procedure, but then again Eddowes was a City inquest.

I can't see the court being held up while a witness reads, or has their testimony read to them.
It's quite possible that as they left the stand they were told to go to the Officer of the court who must have been given the court recorders account. The Officer deals with the signing, likely in an adjacent room, while the court carry's on uninhibited.

- So it was not a mandatory procedure.

It was.

Coroners Act 1887:

It shall be the duty of the coroner in case of murder or manslaughter to put into writing the statement on oath
of those who know the facts and circumstance of the case,or so much of such statement as is material, and any such
deposition shall be signed by the witness and also by the coroner.

But I'm looking for other Roderick Mcdonald inquests and see if they were signed. Northeast Division July 1888-1890 records are not catalogued and may have perished,
So maybe after.

-It's quite possible that as they left the stand they were told to go to the Officer of the court who must have been given the court recorders account. The Officer deals with the signing, likely in an adjacent room, while the court carry's on uninhibited

If that was the case, then Barnett, Bowyer. Mccarthy, the first 3 witnesses at least in the Mary Kelly inquest would have had signatures. I think everybody waited until the end, then they sign the statements, and if the coroner/jury had a question they can recall the witness and then he/she would not have to re-sign it.

- In the Kelly inquest none of the testimony was signed by the witness.

I have argued years ago the Kelly inquests was ordered from above to conclude and finish so there are no signatures. That's why it was short. I think the thread No PC on Dorset St. or something. I have more reasons why but I do not want to argue again.

[Varqm]

Let's not get into the organ topic. That's off topic for this thread, and has been discussed elsewhere. There's enough to focus on apron-wise (as our 83 pages seem to indicate, though I admit, I wouldn't have predicted that when it started).

- Jeff

I know, it will go on and on.
But I guess it's all good.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know, it will go on and on.
But I guess it's all good.

From my perspective I can add nothing further to what has been said on this thread however, i am more than happy to debate other issues concerning the removal of the organs and the GS apron piece and the old accpeted theories researchers have readily accepted with out question.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Summaries or notes,Jeff,it doesn't answer the question of whether it was official trancript recordings,or how they were taken by the recorder,and it certainly doesn't rule out the possibility the original transcipt was taken down in shorthand,and then transcribed back in longhand or text.We will never know.That however is a side issue and has no bearing,that I can see,on the validity or otherwise,of the evidence.So I'll leave it there.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The info available does not depend on what you think Eddowes did or did not do. After Hutt's 1:00 AM sighting.
it's blank from after 1:00 AM to 2:20 AM..
We rely on Collard/Browns testimonies when in the mortuary the body got stripped whether the apron was worn when she was killed.
No you don't understand the argument and still don't.
But whatever.

You are another one (to join The Baron) who’s content in connection to me is based on personal acrimony. A past disagreement between us led to your patronising post claiming that I ‘don’t understand the argument.’

Your ‘understanding’ has to be seriously questioned with that post about the blank time between 1.00 and 2.20. Your suggestion was that she might have taken off her apron after leaving the station but she was found dead at 1.44 so that chops 36 minutes from that time range. The suggestion that she took of her apron after leaving the station makes no sense unless the basis of your point is that it’s not physically impossible that she might have done so.

So your suggestion can safely be eliminated.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

Just grabbed a couple of screen shots of the original inquest documents (well, from the online presentation of them found at the London Metropolitan Archives). The first two are official statements about the witnesses, and Long's official summary indicates the G.S. piece of apron he found corresponds with the part (or portion) found on the body. Not found with the body, as it would be if it was part of her possessions, or found next to the body, if it was scattered from her possessions, but on the body, as it would be if she was wearing it.

After that, as we've been talking about how the testimony was recorded and signed, I grabbed a couple of shots showing the breaks between witnesses and where a signature, or mark (for Eliza Gold), was made. As we can see, the statements are recorded in long hand, not short hand. Moreover, the next witness statement begins right after the previous witness signed off. So these are the "official" versions, taken in longhand. And by the looks of how there's a signature, then the next statement begins, it appears that upon completing their testimony, the witness must have just gone over to where the court recorder is sitting, signed the document (or put their mark), and once that was completed, the next witness would begin. Presumably the signing would be happening while the next witness is sworn in (do they do that at an inquest? Or would something like that be done prior to them getting up to present their statements?). Anyway, it doesn't look to me like the witnesses would go to a separate room to sign off, but more like they just signed upon completion.

And I also grabbed a screen shot of Collard's testimony where he describes the apron she was "apparently wearing", and how he describes it as being found outside her dress, as it would be if she's wearing it, and not "amongst her possessions", or some other phrase that would suggest it was just something she had in one of her pockets.

The "pockets", I think there's two described? Are these like waist packs people wear? They are described as having strings, etc. I presume they would be tied around the waist, and worn outside the clothing (under a jacket of course but something that would probably worn as the outter most garment around her waist?) It's interesting to note that the "strings" for these were cut. An earlier post had suggested maybe the apron was cut vertically, as Trevor has suggested, then also had one of the strings cut to remove that section, which later gets deposited at GS. If JtR was just cutting through things tied around her waist to get them out of the way as they would interfere with him getting access to her abdomen, then that could explain why anything tied around her waist was cut differently than her skirts, etc, which could then be just flipped upwards. Not suggesting that has to be the case, of course, but it's something I've not seen considered before (though maybe it has been suggested and I've missed it).




This is Collard's testimony. Starting on the 3rd line, at the inserted text “I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress – "

- Jeff

Thanks for posting these Jeff as I can’t recall ever seeing them before as I assume that they’re not generally accessible

[Herlock Sholmes]

Lets take Chris post first.My mother Chris was a Victorian who wore Victorian style aprons.So were my aunts and my grandmother.Sure they wore large aprons,but they also wore large coats,and when the coats were worn over the aprons,they hid the aprons from sight.So i speak from experience Chris.Eddowes was wearing a coat over her clothing.
Now Herlock.How much time,while Eddowes was in the cells was she under personnel surveilance of Hutt.All the time,part of the time,or what. If she had started her periods while in the cells,and Trevors explanation is correct,and allows for that,,then she could have a reason to remove and cut the apron there.Not saying it happened,but it is as much a possibility as any of the sarcastic comments you have put forward.

My sarcastic comments are the result of the constant frustration experienced on here with levels of desperation exhibited to try and shoehorn a theory into place. Trevor’s ‘method’ is to simply label every piece of evidence that disagrees with the theory as ‘unsafe.’ How is that a fair or reasonable approach Harry? All three witnesses stated under oath (which in other circumstances Trevor treats as a kind of guarantor of accuracy) that she was wearing an apron. Hutt watched her leave the station wearing an apron. It can’t be clearer.

Trevor tries to imply that he and Robinson were just ‘towing the company line’ by repeating a belief that she was wearing one but reason tells us that this doesn’t hold water. The apron piece in Goulston Street only served two purposes for the police and one of those was by no means a certainty. 1) that it showed the killers direction of escape from Mitre Square, and 2) that it might point to the graffito being written by the killer. The Police would have had no reason for defending the suggestion that the killer dropped the apron piece if they’d known that it wasn’t true. Therefore Robinson and Hutt had absolutely no motive for saying what they did if they weren’t certain that it was true. So why is it repeatedly suggested when it’s clearly a non-starter.

Under any normal circumstances the evidence of Wilkinson, Robinson and Hutt would have been considered close to conclusive (taking into consideration the fact that we know that witness can make mistakes - but 3 of them? And Wilkinson wasn’t a PO.)

I’m afraid that I make no apologies for sarcasm Harry because it’s like dealing with a brick wall of complete bias. A theory being defended at any cost by editing reality to suit. And I have to point out that you take exception about my mild sarcasm but turn a blind eye to Trevor calling those that disagree with him as ‘numpties’ and other such things. Restraint has to work both ways.

[JeffHamm]

Thanks for posting these Jeff as I can’t recall ever seeing them before as I assume that they’re not generally accessible

Hi Herlock,

They are readily available online. See my post 1233 for the link to the archives, and how to find them. You can't download them, but you can screen capture if you want. I just grabbed bits to illustrate how they're signed and the next statement immediately follows, and a few other interesting bits from the archive.

- Jeff