Catherine Eddowes Apron piece the real truth ?

[Trevor Marriott]

The explanation I have for many years put forward with regards to Eddowes apron piece and who cut it and for what purpose and who deposited it in GS has never been fully documented on these boards I feel it is now the right time for it to be aired in full having regards to the fact that over the past week questions have been asked and answered which in my opinion make the old accepted theory unsafe to rely on.

During the past week, It has now been accepted that Eddowes clearly had the time to make her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean street where she was lodging after being released, and then she would have had the time to make her way back to the city where she would meet her killer. So could Eddowes have deposited the apron piece herself whilst in that location? The answer is yes.

The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron. Those who support the killer cutting a piece support the belief that she was wearing an apron and that he did cut the piece, later discarding it in GS.
However, the list showing the clothing she was wearing and the property she had in her possession makes no mention of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and the list made. What we do see is an entry at the end of her list of possessions which describes “one old piece of white apron” so that suggests to me that perhaps earlier in the day and before her arrest for being drunk she could have had been in possession of two old pieces of apron, that at some time previous may have come from a full apron.

Now having regard to the fact that we cannot discount her being in the location of the GS archway and my suggestion of her depositing it under the archway, we have to ask what would have been the reason for her doing this, The answer is quite simple and revolves around a female body`s natural functions, and feminine hygiene in Victorian Times, and how street women dealt with their monthly cycle. It is a known fact that street women would use rags or cloth when menstruating and then discard them when soiled.

Looking closely at the GS apron piece and how it was described, spotted/smeared with blood and faecal matter all on one side only. All of these put together are consistent with that piece being folded and used as such a device by her between her legs. Blood spotting is consistent with the monthly cycle and a gynaecologist tells me that the blood spots when menstruating are more likely to occur in undernourished women and would explain the blood spots residue being found on one side only likewise the faecal matter.

Now add the wetness to the mix, which is a debatable issue, as some suggest it, was blood, again this is contentious, but I am going to work with it being wet. Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and left in a cell for many hours. It is a known fact that when drunk people fall asleep they are prone to becoming incontinent so a clear explanation for the wetness described on the apron piece by a witness.

So after being released from the station and making her way towards Flower and Dean street she went under the archway to relieve herself and having regard to the fact that the apron piece was by that time wet and soiled she discarded it.

I fully understand how the old accepted theory was generated and how it has stuck for 130 years but I do not think this explanation should be disregarded especially as the evidence to support the old accepted theory is unsafe, and the evidence to support this other explanation is quite valid.

Those who do not subscribe to this suggestion highlight the fact that she had in her possession 12 pieces of white rag, and suggest she could have used one of them for the same purpose. We do not know what she was doing with that amount of white rags, or whether the rags were the remnants of torn or cut apron pieces, that should not be discounted. At a calculated guess she may have had them for selling as this is a large number of identical pieces for her to keep for any personal uses. She is documented in some reports as being a hawker so we cannot rule out this possibility.

It has also been asked how she would have kept in place this device when she was not wearing any drawers, but she was found in possession of one piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles which could have been used to affix the device to any other item of her clothing.

Let me also add that I don’t subscribe to the belief that Eddowes cut a piece from her apron to use for this purpose.

By posting this in full I hope that common sense will prevail and researchers will be able to consider this explanation as a valid alternative for the old accepted theory.

I accept that there are certain researchers and I have to say they are in the minority, that no matter what is presented to them will not be prepared to consider or accept anything new that goes against the old accepted theories. Time and time again I see lame brain excuses and a plethora of "what if`s" "maybes" "I think" being put forward to negate valid and plausible explanations, and its sad that these researchers in my opinion have alienated themselves from reality having immersed themselves so deeply in the old accepted theories and that I can do nothing about that is there prerogative.

In concluding I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888 because as a professional investigator I can see obvious flaws in evidence and witness testimony that perhaps others cannot see or if thy can they choose to reject it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

[FONT=Calibri]The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron.

As you know, it is not true that we have no evidence that the two pieces made up the entirety of the apron. We do have evidence to that effect, you just consider it "unsafe to rely on".

So it would be helpful if you would phrase it "there is no reliable evidence to show" etc. or some similar phrase.

[Trevor Marriott]

As you know, it is not true that we have no evidence that the two pieces made up the entirety of the apron. We do have evidence to that effect, you just consider it "unsafe to rely on".

So it would be helpful if you would phrase it "there is no reliable evidence to show" etc. or some similar phrase.

I call it how i see it, and there is no direct evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

The explanation I have for many years put forward with regards to Eddowes apron piece and who cut it and for what purpose and who deposited it in GS has never been fully documented on these boards I feel it is now the right time for it to be aired in full having regards to the fact that over the past week questions have been asked and answered which in my opinion make the old accepted theory unsafe to rely on.

During the past week, It has now been accepted that Eddowes clearly had the time to make her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean street where she was lodging after being released, and then she would have had the time to make her way back to the city where she would meet her killer. So could Eddowes have deposited the apron piece herself whilst in that location? The answer is yes.

The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron. Those who support the killer cutting a piece support the belief that she was wearing an apron and that he did cut the piece, later discarding it in GS.
However, the list showing the clothing she was wearing and the property she had in her possession makes no mention of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and the list made. What we do see is an entry at the end of her list of possessions which describes “one old piece of white apron” so that suggests to me that perhaps earlier in the day and before her arrest for being drunk she could have had been in possession of two old pieces of apron, that at some time previous may have come from a full apron.

Now having regard to the fact that we cannot discount her being in the location of the GS archway and my suggestion of her depositing it under the archway, we have to ask what would have been the reason for her doing this, The answer is quite simple and revolves around a female body`s natural functions, and feminine hygiene in Victorian Times, and how street women dealt with their monthly cycle. It is a known fact that street women would use rags or cloth when menstruating and then discard them when soiled.

Looking closely at the GS apron piece and how it was described, spotted/smeared with blood and faecal matter all on one side only. All of these put together are consistent with that piece being folded and used as such a device by her between her legs. Blood spotting is consistent with the monthly cycle and a gynaecologist tells me that the blood spots when menstruating are more likely to occur in undernourished women and would explain the blood spots residue being found on one side only likewise the faecal matter.

Now add the wetness to the mix, which is a debatable issue, as some suggest it, was blood, again this is contentious, but I am going to work with it being wet. Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and left in a cell for many hours. It is a known fact that when drunk people fall asleep they are prone to becoming incontinent so a clear explanation for the wetness described on the apron piece by a witness.

So after being released from the station and making her way towards Flower and Dean street she went under the archway to relieve herself and having regard to the fact that the apron piece was by that time wet and soiled she discarded it.

I fully understand how the old accepted theory was generated and how it has stuck for 130 years but I do not think this explanation should be disregarded especially as the evidence to support the old accepted theory is unsafe, and the evidence to support this other explanation is quite valid.

Those who do not subscribe to this suggestion highlight the fact that she had in her possession 12 pieces of white rag, and suggest she could have used one of them for the same purpose. We do not know what she was doing with that amount of white rags, or whether the rags were the remnants of torn or cut apron pieces, that should not be discounted. At a calculated guess she may have had them for selling as this is a large number of identical pieces for her to keep for any personal uses. She is documented in some reports as being a hawker so we cannot rule out this possibility.

It has also been asked how she would have kept in place this device when she was not wearing any drawers, but she was found in possession of one piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles which could have been used to affix the device to any other item of her clothing.

Let me also add that I don’t subscribe to the belief that Eddowes cut a piece from her apron to use for this purpose.

By posting this in full I hope that common sense will prevail and researchers will be able to consider this explanation as a valid alternative for the old accepted theory.

I accept that there are certain researchers and I have to say they are in the minority, that no matter what is presented to them will not be prepared to consider or accept anything new that goes against the old accepted theories. Time and time again I see lame brain excuses and a plethora of "what if`s" "maybes" "I think" being put forward to negate valid and plausible explanations, and its sad that these researchers in my opinion have alienated themselves from reality having immersed themselves so deeply in the old accepted theories and that I can do nothing about that is there prerogative.

In concluding I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888 because as a professional investigator I can see obvious flaws in evidence and witness testimony that perhaps others cannot see or if thy can they choose to reject it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can’t someone that disagrees with you do it for genuine reasons Trevor? I’d also ask why you appear to be allowed to speculate but when others do it you accuse them of trying to prop up the ‘old established theories? “What if’s,” “maybe’s,” and “I think’s,” are far better IMO that someone constantly guilty of over-confidence. Caution is not a bad thing.

Just because Eddowes might have had time to have gone back to Flower Snd Dean Street doesn’t justify a presumption that she did so. You are speculating (oh I forgot..you’re allowed to.) Against this speculation we have the fact that no one saw her at a residence where she would have been a familiar face. You’ve speculated on a dozing door keeper. Possible of course but would that lodging house have been totally dead at around 1.00am? No one sees her going in or leaving, or walking away? Then of course we have to ask why she would have walked back to F & D Street only to go straight back to the area from which she’d just came. So your speculation about her returning has some points against it (which you will no doubt dismiss.)

Could she have relieved herself in the GS doorway? Of course she could but you can no more state this with any degree of confidence than could anyone else state against it. I’d assume there were facilities in the police station so perhaps that makes on the way back from the station slightly less likely?

Collard mentions the piece of apron (separately from the pieces of cloth of course) and it matched the piece found in GS. This is a fact but, as you say, the sizes aren’t mentions and so you speculate that they might have been 2 pieces that Eddowes was carrying at the time of her death. I don’t see how this helps you because one piece still got to GS whether the killer just took it or cut it away so even if it was just 2 pieces the killer could still have taken it to assist in cleaning himself up (something that he wouldn’t have wanted to spend any time doing in Mitre Square.)

The blood on the cloth is totally inconclusive of course. Absolute speculation.

So nothing that you’ve said disproves the ‘old accepted theory.’ It’s simply speculation of course. If some agree with you that’s fine but if they don’t agree I’ll warn them now in preparation......you won’t be treated by Trevor as someone who’s looked at the facts and arrived at a different conclusion of course. You will have come to a different conclusion because you are desperate to prop up those ‘old established theories.’ Only Trevor is capable of looking at the facts, assessing them and arriving at a conclusion. In fact I’d say that all you want to do Trevor is to create your own “old established theories.”

[Kattrup]

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

There is, and you have been informed of this before. Stating that there is no evidence the two pieces made up one whole apron is factually incorrect.

E.g. The Star, October 11th: "THE APRON was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it"

What you're claiming is that there is no reliable evidence and therefore we do not know if the two pieces made up one full apron. For instance, that the Star's wording should not be relied on because they were known to change details or exaggerate or whatever.
That is another matter which may or may not be correct, but is not per se factually incorrect.


I do hope you consider the difference between the two positions before replying.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is, and you have been informed of this before. Stating that there is no evidence the two pieces made up one whole apron is factually incorrect.

E.g. The Star, October 11th: "THE APRON was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it"

What you're claiming is that there is no reliable evidence and therefore we do not know if the two pieces made up one full apron. For instance, that the Star's wording should not be relied on because they were known to change details or exaggerate or whatever.
That is another matter which may or may not be correct, but is not per se factually incorrect.


I do hope you consider the difference between the two positions before replying.

When I posted that there was no direct evidence I should have perhaps written primary evidence. Just to explain that primary evidence in this context would be someone being present and either physically matching the two pieces and be able to say they made up a full apron,or some being present and witnessing that same fact.

We dont have that, you refer to a newspaper article the source of what they printed cannot be established and is therefore what is known as at best secondary evidence, but of course in any event it is unsafe because there is no corroboration to it. So I stand bu my original statement that there is no evidence to show the two pieces were ever shown to have a full apron when matched

I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Can’t someone that disagrees with you do it for genuine reasons Trevor? I’d also ask why you appear to be allowed to speculate but when others do it you accuse them of trying to prop up the ‘old established theories? “What if’s,” “maybe’s,” and “I think’s,” are far better IMO that someone constantly guilty of over-confidence. Caution is not a bad thing.
become

Just because Eddowes might have had time to have gone back to Flower Snd Dean Street doesn’t justify a presumption that she did so. You are speculating (oh I forgot..you’re allowed to.) Against this speculation we have the fact that no one saw her at a residence where she would have been a familiar face. You’ve speculated on a dozing door keeper. Possible of course but would that lodging house have been totally dead at around 1.00am? No one sees her going in or leaving, or walking away? Then of course we have to ask why she would have walked back to F & D Street only to go straight back to the area from which she’d just came. So your speculation about her returning has some points against it (which you will no doubt dismiss.)

Could she have relieved herself in the GS doorway? Of course she could but you can no more state this with any degree of confidence than could anyone else state against it. I’d assume there were facilities in the police station so perhaps that makes on the way back from the station slightly less likely?

Collard mentions the piece of apron (separately from the pieces of cloth of course) and it matched the piece found in GS. This is a fact but, as you say, the sizes aren’t mentions and so you speculate that they might have been 2 pieces that Eddowes was carrying at the time of her death. I don’t see how this helps you because one piece still got to GS whether the killer just took it or cut it away so even if it was just 2 pieces the killer could still have taken it to assist in cleaning himself up (something that he wouldn’t have wanted to spend any time doing in Mitre Square.)

The blood on the cloth is totally inconclusive of course. Absolute speculation.

So nothing that you’ve said disproves the ‘old accepted theory.’ It’s simply speculation of course. If some agree with you that’s fine but if they don’t agree I’ll warn them now in preparation......you won’t be treated by Trevor as someone who’s looked at the facts and arrived at a different conclusion of course. You will have come to a different conclusion because you are desperate to prop up those ‘old established theories.’ Only Trevor is capable of looking at the facts, assessing them and arriving at a conclusion. In fact I’d say that all you want to do Trevor is to create your own “old established theories.”

I have said time and time again I am happy to debate these issues with one and all providing the person I am having the debate with is prepared to listen and to consider what the body of the debate is about. You have made it clear that you are not prepared to do that. You are one of the researchers that I highlighted as being so immersed in the old accepted theories that you are looking at this particular murder through tunnel vision.

I have simply offered up another plausible explanation with factual evidence to negate the old theory, and factual evidence to support the new theory, None of which you want to accept, and that's a matter for you. I am not forcing you or anyone else to do so. I am simply asking people to consider the alternative.

But the fact that I posted this post some 8 hours ago and have only had two replies one of which was your and I would have bet my house that if anyone was going to reply it would be you. I think that suggests other researchers may now be looking more closely at the unsafe evidence in support of the old accepted theory and i hope giving consideration to the new one.

Over the past week you have been constantly arguing against all I have said and posted but all you argue with is "if`s " I think" "maybes" and "perhaps" If you have anything in the way of real evidence to show in support of your old accepted theory then bring it on because from what I see that old accepted theory is on shaky ground.

I don't want you to take this personally what I am going to say. I feel that between us there is nothing more to say that has not already been said so I to prevent constant repetition I will not be engaging further with you on this topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

I have said time and time again I am happy to debate these issues with one and all providing the person I am having the debate with is prepared to listen and to consider what the body of the debate is about. You have made it clear that you are not prepared to do that. You are one of the researchers that I highlighted as being so immersed in the old accepted theories that you are looking at this particular murder through tunnel vision.

I have simply offered up another plausible explanation with factual evidence to negate the old theory, and factual evidence to support the new theory, None of which you want to accept, and that's a matter for you. I am not forcing you or anyone else to do so. I am simply asking people to consider the alternative.

But the fact that I posted this post some 8 hours ago and have only had two replies one of which was your and I would have bet my house that if anyone was going to reply it would be you. I think that suggests other researchers may now be looking more closely at the unsafe evidence in support of the old accepted theory and i hope giving consideration to the new one.

Over the past week you have been constantly arguing against all I have said and posted but all you argue with is "if`s " I think" "maybes" and "perhaps" If you have anything in the way of real evidence to show in support of your old accepted theory then bring it on because from what I see that old accepted theory is on shaky ground.

I don't want you to take this personally what I am going to say. I feel that between us there is nothing more to say that has not already been said so I to prevent constant repetition I will not be engaging further with you on this topic.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ive no problem with that Trevor because I’m tired of seeing you repeat the phrase ‘old accepted theories.’ It’s a ‘get out’ clause; a way of deflecting. You have raised questions but the problem that you are blind to is that you phrase this as “with factual evidence to negate the old theory.” Which of course isn’t true. You haven’t disproved anything Trevor. You’ve raised issues and no one can object to that. But we know what happens when people disagree with you. You don’t say “ok, that’s your point of view but I think x is more likely.” That’s debate. What you actually do when someone disagrees or suggests an alternative is to accuse them of defending the ‘old accepted theories.’ You simply refuse to accept other opinions if they clash with your own. You don’t want people to ‘consider the alternative,’ or to ‘debate these issues,’ you just want people to tell you that you’re right. And when they don’t it’s out with the ‘old accepted theory,’ mantra.

But again, as you are simply looking for people to agree with you I’m happy to walk.

[harry]

I believe Trevor,the second paragraph in your opening post,is the drawback.Yes it has been established Eddowes would have had time to return to Flower and Dean street,then back to the vicinity of Mitre Square via Goulstan Street.As a theory it is quite sound.Even the use of the apron piece as a sanitary towel is not out of the question,but the theory leaves no room for any missing minutes.

[Trevor Marriott]

I believe Trevor,the second paragraph in your opening post,is the drawback.Yes it has been established Eddowes would have had time to return to Flower and Dean street,then back to the vicinity of Mitre Square via Goulstan Street.As a theory it is quite sound.Even the use of the apron piece as a sanitary towel is not out of the question,but the theory leaves no room for any missing minutes.

Hi Harry
I estimated that which ever way Eddowes went after leaving the police station it would have taken her approx 10 mins to get to Flower and Dean Street and approx 10 mins to get back, and if the couple seen were her and the killer that time still leaves 15 mins up to 1.35am when the couple were seen. If she had just simply wandered around the area in and around the area near to Mitre Square which some suggest. It is quite likely that she might have been seen by one of the many police officers who were also in that same area, and their presence is fully documented but no one saw her. So she clearly was somewhere, and as she was not seen in and around Mitre Square area before 1.35am we must rightly or wrongly speculate that she was somewhere within easy walking distance from the Mitre Square area with a time frame that would allow her to be back at Church passage by approx 1.35am.

I fully appreciate that she could have gone anywhere but we are still left with the issues surrounding the Apron piece which is crucial to which ever theory you want to accept, and that to my mind tends to support my alternative theory.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

The explanation I have for many years put forward with regards to Eddowes apron piece and who cut it and for what purpose and who deposited it in GS has never been fully documented on these boards I feel it is now the right time for it to be aired in full having regards to the fact that over the past week questions have been asked and answered which in my opinion make the old accepted theory unsafe to rely on.

During the past week, It has now been accepted that Eddowes clearly had the time to make her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean street where she was lodging after being released, and then she would have had the time to make her way back to the city where she would meet her killer. So could Eddowes have deposited the apron piece herself whilst in that location? The answer is yes.

The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron. Those who support the killer cutting a piece support the belief that she was wearing an apron and that he did cut the piece, later discarding it in GS.
However, the list showing the clothing she was wearing and the property she had in her possession makes no mention of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and the list made. What we do see is an entry at the end of her list of possessions which describes “one old piece of white apron” so that suggests to me that perhaps earlier in the day and before her arrest for being drunk she could have had been in possession of two old pieces of apron, that at some time previous may have come from a full apron.

Now having regard to the fact that we cannot discount her being in the location of the GS archway and my suggestion of her depositing it under the archway, we have to ask what would have been the reason for her doing this, The answer is quite simple and revolves around a female body`s natural functions, and feminine hygiene in Victorian Times, and how street women dealt with their monthly cycle. It is a known fact that street women would use rags or cloth when menstruating and then discard them when soiled.

Looking closely at the GS apron piece and how it was described, spotted/smeared with blood and faecal matter all on one side only. All of these put together are consistent with that piece being folded and used as such a device by her between her legs. Blood spotting is consistent with the monthly cycle and a gynaecologist tells me that the blood spots when menstruating are more likely to occur in undernourished women and would explain the blood spots residue being found on one side only likewise the faecal matter.

Now add the wetness to the mix, which is a debatable issue, as some suggest it, was blood, again this is contentious, but I am going to work with it being wet. Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and left in a cell for many hours. It is a known fact that when drunk people fall asleep they are prone to becoming incontinent so a clear explanation for the wetness described on the apron piece by a witness.

So after being released from the station and making her way towards Flower and Dean street she went under the archway to relieve herself and having regard to the fact that the apron piece was by that time wet and soiled she discarded it.

I fully understand how the old accepted theory was generated and how it has stuck for 130 years but I do not think this explanation should be disregarded especially as the evidence to support the old accepted theory is unsafe, and the evidence to support this other explanation is quite valid.

Those who do not subscribe to this suggestion highlight the fact that she had in her possession 12 pieces of white rag, and suggest she could have used one of them for the same purpose. We do not know what she was doing with that amount of white rags, or whether the rags were the remnants of torn or cut apron pieces, that should not be discounted. At a calculated guess she may have had them for selling as this is a large number of identical pieces for her to keep for any personal uses. She is documented in some reports as being a hawker so we cannot rule out this possibility.

It has also been asked how she would have kept in place this device when she was not wearing any drawers, but she was found in possession of one piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles which could have been used to affix the device to any other item of her clothing.

Let me also add that I don’t subscribe to the belief that Eddowes cut a piece from her apron to use for this purpose.

By posting this in full I hope that common sense will prevail and researchers will be able to consider this explanation as a valid alternative for the old accepted theory.

I accept that there are certain researchers and I have to say they are in the minority, that no matter what is presented to them will not be prepared to consider or accept anything new that goes against the old accepted theories. Time and time again I see lame brain excuses and a plethora of "what if`s" "maybes" "I think" being put forward to negate valid and plausible explanations, and its sad that these researchers in my opinion have alienated themselves from reality having immersed themselves so deeply in the old accepted theories and that I can do nothing about that is there prerogative.

In concluding I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888 because as a professional investigator I can see obvious flaws in evidence and witness testimony that perhaps others cannot see or if thy can they choose to reject it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

We have a pretty meticulous and thorough invent of what Eddowes was wearing at the time of her death, and the items which she had in her possession.

As we all know, there is no mention of an apron.

At the inquest City Constable Lewis Robinson who was present at the time of Kate's arrest for drunkenness earlier that evening states in relation to the apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood that "to the best of his knowledge it was the apron that the deceased was wearing".

Admittedly the "to the best of his knowledge" admits some room for error, however this would appear to be primary evidence that she was indeed wearing an apron at the time at which she was arrested.

Is there any possibility that the apron was removed immediately after the rag was found in GS for the purpose of matching the two pieces, and the inventory of belongings / clothes taken thereafter, hence the omission of the apron?

I'm a bit unsure of the exact timeline for that evening off the top of my head.

I keep a pretty open mind on these matters and am not married to any particular theory, so I'd be genuinely interested to know your (or indeed anyone else's thoughts).

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

We have a pretty meticulous and thorough invent of what Eddowes was wearing at the time of her death, and the items which she had in her possession.

As we all know, there is no mention of an apron.

At the inquest City Constable Lewis Robinson who was present at the time of Kate's arrest for drunkenness earlier that evening states in relation to the apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood that "to the best of his knowledge it was the apron that the deceased was wearing".

Admittedly the "to the best of his knowledge" admits some room for error, however this would appear to be primary evidence that she was indeed wearing an apron at the time at which she was arrested.

Is there any possibility that the apron was removed immediately after the rag was found in GS for the purpose of matching the two pieces, and the inventory of belongings / clothes taken thereafter, hence the omission of the apron?

I'm a bit unsure of the exact timeline for that evening off the top of my head.

I keep a pretty open mind on these matters and am not married to any particular theory, so I'd be genuinely interested to know your (or indeed anyone else's thoughts).

How can that officer recall whether or not she was wearing an apron, was there anything unusual about it for him to remember, when most of the women in Whitecghapel and beyond wore white aprons, and he didn't give his testimony for some time after the event.

I have already highlighted this flaw. How can that Pc and I think another officer stand up in court and give evidence that the piece of apron that he or they was shown came from an apron that she was supposedly wearing. Thats how flawed all of this apron evidence is when closely scrutinized

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

How can that officer recall whether or not she was wearing an apron, was there anything unusual about it for him to remember, when most of the women in Whitecghapel and beyond wore white aprons, and he didn't give his testimony for some time after the event.

I have already highlighted this flaw. How can that Pc and I think another officer stand up in court and give evidence that the piece of apron that he or they was shown came from an apron that she was supposedly wearing. Thats how flawed all of this apron evidence is when closely scrutinized

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Thanks for the response, and apologies if you have covered this elsewhere and I am asking you to boil your cabbages twice, so to speak!

I take your point, but equally Robinson's testimony is quite clear that Kate was wearing an apron.

He doesn't say "I can't actually recall whether or not she was wearing an apron, but if she was, that scrap of material is likely a match" or indeed simply "I don't know" when asked the question.

Presumably if arresting her for drunkenness (and I'm assuming transporting her manually to the police station??) he would have been in her company for some time, so would have got a good look for quite a prolonged period, which would have made accurate recall more likely.

If I remember correctly, Robinson mentioned that Kate smelled of alcohol, so he was presumably up close and personal.

I concur completely that white aprons would have been ubiquitous in Whitechapel at this time.

One could equally argue that had Kate been sans apron, that may have stuck in his mind and illicited a response of "Apron? What apron?" when asked the same question.

This apron thing is a minefield!

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the response, and apologies if you have covered this elsewhere and I am asking you to boil your cabbages twice, so to speak!

I take your point, but equally Robinson's testimony is quite clear that Kate was wearing an apron.

He doesn't say "I can't actually recall whether or not she was wearing an apron, but if she was, that scrap of material is likely a match" or indeed simply "I don't know" when asked the question.

Presumably if arresting her for drunkenness (and I'm assuming transporting her manually to the police station??) he would have been in her company for some time, so would have got a good look for quite a prolonged period, which would have made accurate recall more likely.

If I remember correctly, Robinson mentioned that Kate smelled of alcohol, so he was presumably up close and personal.

I concur completely that white aprons would have been ubiquitous in Whitechapel at this time.

One could equally argue that had Kate been sans apron, that may have stuck in his mind and illicited a response of "Apron? What apron?" when asked the same question.

This apron thing is a minefield!

You are right it is a minefield
the problem I have with this is that the time gap between the date of her murder and the alleged inquest was quite significant and therefore The accuracy of the testimony is brought into question and out of all the things going on remembers the apron

You mention the officers seeing her wearing an apron but you make no mention of Sgt Byfield who was the officer on duty at the police station when she was booked into custody and then released her and he makes no mention of her wearing an apron

not forgetting that the list does not show she was wearing an apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ms Diddles]

You are right it is a minefield
the problem I have with this is that the time gap between the date of her murder and the alleged inquest was quite significant and therefore The accuracy of the testimony is brought into question and out of all the things going on remembers the apron

You mention the officers seeing her wearing an apron but you make no mention of Sgt Byfield who was the officer on duty at the police station when she was booked into custody and then released her and he makes no mention of her wearing an apron

not forgetting that the list does not show she was wearing an apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I agree that the lapse in time could lead to inaccurate recollections, certainly.

With regard to Sgt Byfield though, as far as I am aware he was never asked any questions pertaining to what Kate was or wasn't wearing (or indeed the GS material), so he would have had no cause to pass comment on this either way.

It would have been a bit weird had he given a statement to the effect of " Yep! I booked her in. She was drunk and wearing / not wearing an apron"!!

You're quite right, the lack of apron mentioned in the invent completely contradicts what I'm saying.

As previously stated, the list seems pretty thorough and comprehensive.

That's why I had asked whether there was any possibility that the apron could have been removed to match to the newly discovered GS rag, prior to the invent being taken, thus explaining it's omission.

Whilst that wouldn't be indicative of the greatest policing in the world, it's no worse than an officer giving inaccurate testimony at an inquest 11 days after the event about something so critical to the case.

Merely idle musings on my part though!