|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through May 03, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion):
Archive through May 03, 2001
Author: Diana
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 08:53 am |        | | I think Polly Nichols' husband summed it up nicely when he saw her in her coffin and forgave her for everything. What they did does not deserve our respect, but what happened to them is out of all proportion to their misdeeds. Now they deserve our compassion. "For all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God." (Romans 3:23) None of us is perfect. |
Author: Alegria
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 10:13 am | | Tom,
I did not say you were an ass. I said the statments that you made could cause you to sound like one. Second, allthough you are correct in saying that the bare facts that we know about these women would lead us to believe they were not worthy of much repect, the fact is that we really know nothing about these women at all save for what other people have said about them. Forming an opinion based on gossip and second hand information is foolish, however since that is all the information we have, I feel that it is better to err on the side of caution and as we are discussing their brutal slayings and mutilations, to give them respect whether they deserve it or not. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 11:11 am | | Martin,
Indeed you are right. How embarrassed I am! Perhaps it was a freudian slip as I was reading about Stride prior to writing that message.
Warwick,
You make good points. 1888 wasn't all that long ago, however, and even then it would be hard to justify abandoning your crippled child (Chapman) or any child, especially in Eddowes' case where Conway seems to have been abusive. Perhaps I just find it easier than some to call a spade a spade.
Ally,
If "forming an opinion based on gossip and secondhand information is foolish" than we're all in trouble! I would like to think that the majority of information I used is a matter of record, and not gossip. I am in no way insinuating that any of these women deserved their fates. Nothing could be farther than the truth. I will assert, though, that had their fates been different, I imagine so would your opinion of them be. When we approach this case we view these women as 'victims' and can have a tendency to continue doing so even when we study their lives prior to the murders. I am guilty of this as well. However, upon distancing myself from the 'Ripper' elements of their lives and viewing what is known of them, I find it difficult to excuse or glorify much of what they did while alive. I don't mean to say they weren't or couldn't be nice people, but they also seemed to be rather selfish and unaccountable. For some reason, people today tend to excuse virtually all behavior because they feel some sort of guilt and think that being judgemental is wrong. This tendency to 'root for the underdog' is very misplaced. Being judgemental is what keeps us alive. Of course, one should also use caution when judging, but blatantly excusing behavior that is detrimental to society can be and is very destructive. I think it's very selfish to not think of the effects our actions will have on the next generation. Anyway, I'm tired of this subject. Let's move back to Diana's theory of the time lapse. Perhaps PC Long simply didn't notice it the first time around. Or perhaps there was NO first time around. Let's not forget why he was let go from duty a few years later.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 01:22 pm | | Tom,
An American view is, everybody loves a winner, nobody loves a loser, is that right? Yet if the same ones keep winning over and over again it gets mighty boring. Yes I root for the underdog, I always have done, and I've lived long enough to know that nobody yells louder than the topdog when he suddenly finds himself the underdog,-- now, that is interesting, and enlightening! These women were certainly losers, but I see no reason to rub their noses in that fact. I think Donald Rumbelow or maybe another author said "They deserved better". You nor I, nor anybody can judge them for the way they lived their miserable lives, their education was bare or none at all, maybe they knew no better, and if they did, what state of mind were they in when they made their decisions. I'd say the winners were the upper and uppermiddle classes that employed them at starvation wages and forced them to live in slum hovels. working men in those days were treated like dogs, how do you think women were treated? If you haven't already read it, read "The People of the Abyss, it's an eyeopener.
Regards, Rick
P.S Tom, it's easier to start an argument
than finish it! |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 04:41 pm | | This argument is nonsense. First of all, we have no proof for such events as Annie Chapman abandoning her crippled child, or any of her children. We only have hearsay. No one has ever traced her children to prove or disprove this.
Second of all, why do we all assume these women left their families? In the 19th century, walking out on your husband & children would have been like throwing yourself off a cliff for a sober woman; for one with a drinking problem it would have been madness. For one thing, how would they support their habit? Where would they go? Anyone who seriously believes that these women planned on becoming prostitutes as a means of survival, instead of using it as a last resort when all other avenues failed, is incredibly naive.
These women's marriages either ended by mutual consent, or they were thrown out by their husbands. We only have the say-so's of these same husbands that any of them were the ones who left, & this is obviously incredibly subjective. Imagine admitting, after your wife had been murdered by Jack the Ripper, that you had thrown her out on the streets to meet such a fate simply because she liked a drink or two!
All of these women were the victims of unfortunate circumstances; specifically, all these women had to survive without men, whether because they were widowed or because their men rejected them. The tragic irony is that in trying to survive without men, these women were forced to depend on men for mere survival thru the most degrading service possible.
The one possible exception to this is Mary Kelly. Perhaps we know too little of her life to judge her as yet, but it seems from what we do know that she need not have lived on the streets; she at least seems to have had ways out, but she wilfully turned her back on them. Unlike the rest, she was not a widow (until someone produces proof of her mythical marriage I won't believe it) & never spent time in the workhouse. She had no children to worry about supporting. She was not an orphan.
Incidentally, these women were not only prostitutes, but they could be compared to contemporary homeless people. The lodging houses acted much as shelters do today, only they charged the homeless for beds. Again with the exception of Mary Kelly, these women carried all their personal effects on their persons because they had no home or room in which to leave them. At the most basic level these women died in the struggle for shelter. |
Author: Joseph
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 08:05 pm | | Hi Tom,
Interesting polemic you've initiated here. :-)
I'll add the anthropological aspect to the conversation by saying that the patriarchal social element that dominated England during that period, was in its final stages. The latest coverage, of what we now recognize as the transition period to a women inclusive social environment, was becoming a daily newspaper event that many readers, of both genders, eagerly anticipated. The latest protest, and accompanying arrest, was the focus of many dinnertime conversations across the class spectrum.
Although the Whitechapel murders became a cause celebre to the British suffrage movement, it would be another 70 years before medical science would begin to understand alcoholism as a disease of addiction. One concept that hindered the advance of medical research, was that the academics
of social science in1888, perceived it as the end result of feminine hardship, and not the cause. This misconception of cause and effect was the stepchild of the contemporary PC of that era, and is apparently the burden you continue to labor under.
Every culture has had its share of addictive personalities throughout history, most are unknown to the public until an incident like the Whitechapel murders, brings the phenomenon to the public's attention. The stories describing the sole concern of addictive personalities, as the timing of the next ingestion of the addictive substance, sells newspapers. Whether it's coffee, nasal spray, alcohol, cocaine, etc, the driving force behind the victim's conduct is consistent, they must have a fix, and they will do anything to get it.
Poverty, plus addiction, equals a degenerative behavior that is far beyond the control of the individuals they victimize in any historical context, and make no mistake about it Tom, these women were victims in every sense of the concept; their demise was a mixed blessing to those who knew them. Every life they touched was wounded to some extent, as is witnessed by the children, and siblings of these women, who sought to avoid contact or had completely severed relations with their kin.
Tom, the sad epitaph that can be written on their headstones is this: They didn't request the genetic disorder that ruined the chance for happiness in their lifetime.
Perhaps the romanticism that we give them in our time, is the only piece of goodness connected to their lives. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Saturday, 03 March 2001 - 11:30 pm | | Warwick,
Obviously you took my 'root for the underdog' statement out of context. I was applying that to todays society, America inparticular as that's the country I live in and the only one I know first hand. Believe me when I say I am apalled at the conditions the people of the East End were forced to live and work in. I wonder how their employers/landlords slept at night. If I'd been alive back then, I would have shared the opinion of George Bernard Shaw. The current climate in America is one in which nobody will talk about problems in our society for fear of offending any particular group. 'Political correctness' they've dubbed it and it's a very bad thing. Politicians and leaders ignore very important issues for fear of ruffling feathers, and nothing gets done. The media spearheads this effort and feeds the gullible public misinformation while holding back on certain facts that may contradict or totally destroy their cause. I would discuss this more in depth, but I wouldn't want to take this discussion any further off track than it already is. Let me say, though, that the underdog is often the underdog for a reason. There will always be the strong and there will always be the weak, and while it is wrong for the strong to abuse the weak simply because they can, it is also wrong to chastise the strong simply because they're stronger. Your credo of 'I always root for the underdog' reminds me a bit of those who don't like rich people simply because they're rich. But as to your little post script, I did not start an argument. I started a discussion. The particular people who choose to throw around words like 'ass' and 'naive' make it appear as if it's an argument. When you do that you automatically lose the debate. And incidentally, if I believe in what I'm saying I can hold my own as well as the next guy.
Colleen,
A good portion of the statements you made seem to be based either on misinformation or lack of information. I would point them out but I'm sure (or would like to think) that they would be obvious to anyone reading your post.
Joseph,
There is no genetic disorder that is an outright CAUSE of alcoholism. It can simply make a person predisposed to it. Not all alcoholics have this gene, and the ones that do would never know they had it unless they began drinking alcohol. Gene or no gene, a person is still responsible for their actions. There are people who can remain 'functional alcoholics' and raise a family well and hold down a job. There are those who choose to overcome their addiction (I understand that those means of support were not available to the poor in 1888, so you need not point it out), and there are those who choose to ruin the lives of those around them or plow their car (which they shouldn't be driving) into innocent bystanders. I'm not sure what your point is, but it seems that you're saying that if a person is an alcoholic than they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. Of course, that's not logical, so I'm sure that's not your point. I have a friend who is a recovering alcoholic. When he was 'practicing' he admits to having hurt a lot of people, and stands responsible for his actions. He is a great guy and I admire him for his courage. I have absolutely no sympathy, though, for those who drink and drive. There's no excuse. I guess, being a father, I tend to think of the kids first. If you're a bad parent, then that's all I see. I don't give a crap about the rest. I live in Oklahoma and see more bad parenting than you can imagine, and it makes me very sensitive to the issue. Perhaps that's why I latched on to this possible aspect of the victims' lives. If they were indeed good parents, then none of this applies to them. If they weren't good parents, then to hell with them. I still enjoy reading all the fiction, because that's exactly what it is...fiction. The people we read about, watch in movies, and care about aren't these women at all, they simply bear their names. That's what I was getting at...The REALITY behind it. All the fiction seems to have fused in with our reality. Bob Hinton's book (which has it's good points) paints a picture of Eddowes like she was June Cleaver, which is totally contradicted by the known facts of her. That's not to say she was a horrible person, but it's no more realistic than if I were to paint her as the devil incarnate. That was the original intention of my discussion, before it got off track.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 06:32 am | | Tom,
this discussion is getting a little twisted, I suppose because, as you said to Martin, it's written discussion, not face to face. I like ordinary American people--in general--very much, thats going back to 1942/43. When I find myself part of a group of people, and talk starts to critizise Americans, I don't like it, I stand up for them,----I ROOT FOR THEM,--TO ME THEY ARE THE UNDERDOG! Of course thats just one instance of my "rooting " for people who are getting treatment I don't think they deserve. It's nothing at all to do with jealousy or dislike of rich people!! I wouldn't want to lead their lives, I'm too happy with my own, thank you very much. I thought I had been careful with my words, I didn't call you naive, I infered that perhaps I was. Now,-- there are two words you could use more often,--Perhaps, and Maybe,-- in my little P.S. I refered to an argument, I was wrong, I should have said discussion. I'm tired of this discussion lets move on to something else.
RICK |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 10:48 am | | Warwick,
You said, "I'm tired of this discussion let's move on to something else". I said that two days ago, and I still agree. I know you didn't call me naive...Colleen did. That was in reference to her comment. Americans are the underdogs? That's the first and probably last time I'll hear that! But I get your point. I certainly wouldn't consider myself an ordinary American, though. I always thought it would be cool to visit England, if for nothing else than to experience what it's like to be a foriegner. Americans (including myself) have a hard time thinking of ourselves as foriegners. I've known a few Brits who've moved over here, and frankly have a hard time thinking of them as 'foriegners', but I suppose they are. This, of course, has nothing to do with what we were talking about, I'm simply thinking out loud at this point. Anyway, I appreciate the sentiment of your words, and unless the girls have more names they'd like to call me I'll consider this discussion closed. Onto the next one!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Joseph
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 03:09 pm | | Hi Tom,
My point was simple, and despite your refusal to understand the debilitation of alcoholism, it remains valid. A drunk is NOT responsible for their actions, when under the influence. They can barely stand up unassisted, let alone make rational decisions about their conduct, or the simplest household chores.
Whether the genetics makes one "simply predisposed" or not is of little consequence to the outcome, the outcome is the same regardless of genetic disposition. Whether all alcoholics have the gene or not is, again, of no consequence; the fact is, if a person has become an alcoholic they are no longer responsible for the arrangement of the priorities in their life; that isn't my opinion; that is the professional diagnosis of medical researchers, specializing in the field of addictive conduct, and substance abuse. Functional alcoholics are the exception rather then the rule. They constitute one in every 150 cases; therefore, they represent the smallest piece of the research model pie.
Let's step back in time, and analyze the situation facing five woman predisposed to excessive drinking, in 1888. The quality of life they experienced was at the very lowest echelon available to humanity in an industrialized society. To say that economic opportunities were available to these women, that in the long run, would position them to overcome their hardships, is itself a romanticized fantasy of misguided conservativism. They did get work on an irregular basis that was, at best, a short term fix. In order to have a long-term improvement to their lot in life, they needed the ability to work at a job long term, and that is an objective that was incompatible with a drinking problem.
Your statement that they chose to live as they did, "there are those who choose to ruin the lives of those around them or plow their car (which they shouldn't be driving) into innocent bystanders". (Wescott, Saturday, March 03, 2001 - 11:30 pm) ignores the simple, and unavoidable truth, that they chose nothing, they had no options; they took what came their way, and were thankful for it.
"I'm not sure what your point is, but it seems that you're saying that if a person is an alcoholic than they shouldn't be held responsible for their actions." (Wescott, Saturday, March 03, 2001 - 11:30 pm) My reply was in response to your flippant observations of people who were tremendously less fortunate then you.
When we approach this case we view these women as 'victims' and can have a tendency to continue doing so even when we study their lives prior
to the murders. I am guilty of this as well. However, upon distancing myself from the 'Ripper' elements of their lives and viewing what is known
of them, I find it difficult to excuse or glorify much of what they did while alive. I don't mean to say they weren't or couldn't be nice people, but they also seemed to be rather selfish and unaccountable. For some reason, people today
tend to excuse virtually all behavior because
they feel some sort of guilt and think that being judgemental is wrong. This tendency to 'root for the underdog' is very misplaced. Being judgemental is what keeps us alive. (Wescott, Saturday, March 03, 2001 - 11:30 pm)
There is a difference between: excusing behavior and understanding it, of the "liberal left's" feeling of guilt for social inequity, and the centrists observation of criminal guilt, of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and judging other people because they are unable to meet ones personal standards. People should be held accountable for their conduct, as long as they are in fact accountable for it.
Being judgmental serves no useful purpose; it is socially derisive, and counterproductive, it is the use of an insensitive wedge; when what is needed is an open-minded clamp. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 06:00 pm | | Tom,
I did NOT say YOU were naive, I said anyone who believed the Ripper victims planned on pursuing prostitution as a means of livelihood was incredibly naive. Are you saying you actually believe that????
Also, exactly what "misinformation" or "lack of information" are you referring to? If you can produce proof that any of these women wilfully abandoned their families or their children, please do so. Since you can't, I rest my case.
Incidentally, while it "was believed" that Annie Chapman's child was crippled, this has never been adequately researched, & in fact none of her children are listed as crippled in the 1881 census. This census had a column entitled "Impediments" in which such adjectives as "blind, deaf, mute, imbecile, crippled, lame, senile," were frequently used. This column remains blank for the children of Annie Chapman. Unless we are to believe her child became lame within 7 years, I would question this.
Joseph--thank you for the above post. |
Author: Diana
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 09:25 pm | | | Now, ahem, as to the time gap in the finding of the shred of apron. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 04 March 2001 - 09:47 pm | | Joseph,
Just when I thought this discussion was over you bring me kicking and screaming back in. 
I really don't mean to sound flippant. I think we are misunderstanding each other on some points. For instance, one of the messages I got out of your above, very well written post, is that if an alcoholic drives his car into me while drunk, or beats his wife and children, he shouldn't be punished or held accountable. Do you have any idea how that sounds? Do you have any idea how that sounds? |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 12:19 am | | Hi Tom,
Apparently, you are confusing: accountability with approval, and recognition with understanding. I will try to clarify my position on these issues for you. I do not advocate a blasé acceptance of criminal behavior; however, I do advocate an understanding of the benign behavior of people struggling to cope with desperate circumstances. Tom, I certainly hope you can see the difference in perspectives here. These women were not running any one down in their BMW's after a six Martini lunch with the girls from the club. They were living in their own piss, and vomit, they had precious little in the way of personal grooming and hygiene. You are analyzing the lives of these women, and then proposing value judgments out of context to their historical era. Your traffic hazard/domestic violence scenario is an example of an extreme conduct that isn't applicable to the realities of 1888; you have the gender, and the common mode of transportation wrong.
"There is a difference between: excusing behavior and understanding it, […] of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and judging other people because they are unable to meet ones personal standards. People should be held accountable for their conduct, as long as they are in fact accountable for it" (Joseph, Sunday, March 04, 2001 - 03:09 pm).
The above statement is a commentary on one perspective of the lives of a disagreed upon number of women, who were murdered in a London ghetto, with-in an undefined time frame. They were ripped open, and exposed; whatever dignity they still possessed was torn from them. They were easy pray because they were weak from poverty and liquor, and in no physical condition to offer serious resistance; he too had little respect for them, they were pariahs, and an embarrassment to God.
If Mr. Hinton returns some element of dignity to Ms. Eddowes Tom, what's the harm?
Diana, please accept my apologies, I'm sorry I brought this topic back to life on this thread.
Tom, I was responding to your message of Saturday, March 03, 2001 - 11:30 pm. I realize that you should, at least, have an opportunity to respond to my observations. Out of respect for Diana, put it on an old thread, or create a new one for it, and I'll be happy to leave it there without further comment. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 01:22 am | | Joseph,
There's no need for me to start another thread, as I now understand your meaning and agree with you. My confusion was in not knowing when you were referring to 1888 and when to today. It all makes sense to me now.
As for Diana, I've already responded to her post twice with two alternate views. The ball's in someone elses court now!
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 01:17 pm | | Hi Tom, Diana, All,
It's probably my fault that this discussion turned. Whether Eddowes prostituted herself once or a thousand times, I wasn't making any personal comment or judgement on the extent of her moral shortcomings or degradation, just trying to address Tom's question about the evidence that she was 'a prostitute', by which I assumed he meant someone who habitually sold herself as her main means of financial support, whether from choice or not. I was in Alegria's mode of comparing a prostitute with a bookseller (I taught Sunday School kids a few times when I was sixteen or seventeen, but no one would ever refer to me as 'a teacher'), rather than comparing an act of prostitution with an act of stealing or murder. Yes, if someone steals or murders once, they are 'a thief' or 'a murderer'. If a woman sells her body once, Tom can call her a prostitute. But that's not what I took his original question to be about. I thought he was concerned with the evidence of what Eddowes was doing on a day-to-day basis to earn her living in 1888. I think it's far more important to know such things about the victims' lives, and get as accurate a picture as we can, than it is for any of us to discuss where our individual sympathies with these women lie.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Joseph
Monday, 05 March 2001 - 10:10 pm | | Hi Tom,
It is just as much a pleasure talking to you now, as it was in 1998.
You are well versed, and gentleman to boot. :-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 06 March 2001 - 04:27 am | | Joseph,
It takes one to know one. |
Author: Diana
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 02:03 pm | | | THE BLOOD IN THE SINK -- It just occurred to me that we don't know the time that bloody water was allegedly observed swirling down the sink in Dorset Street (do we? -- I checked the Casebook and couldn't find anything.) If Eddowes was killed circa 1:30 AM and the rag and graffito were found circa 2:55 AM and the swirling bloody water sometime thereafter you have to wonder how much of Eddowes blood would have dried by then. Don't forget he had that piece of apron to wipe his hands on too. Unless he was trying to clean a blood - soaked garment. Fabrics of the right texture can absorb prodigious amounts of blood and after drying release it again into water. But after 3:00 AM I would think he would have had very little on his hands. Of course he might have been rinsing the organs he removed to stop them from oozing and dripping (yuk!). I would think he would have saved the job of clothes washing till after he got to ground. All this brings me to the adventure of the tuna can. One afternoon a number of years ago I was opening a can of tuna and I cut my thumb on the can lid rather deeply. I slapped a bandaid on and within minutes it was soaked through and I was depositing blood hither and yon. After several hours and a gazillion bandaids it slowly dawned on me that I would need stitches so I hied me off to the Dr. Is it possible that the blood in the sink was not Eddowes' but Jack's? I know that the sink story may be apocryphal but if it happened it almost seems more likely that way and it would support the theory of Jack possibly sustaining a cut in the struggle with Eddowes. |
Author: Martin Fido
Monday, 12 March 2001 - 04:13 pm | | I think your problem with the A-Z is that the authors are unwilling to commit themselves to any opinion on a story which simply doesn't quite work, Diana. For one thing Major Smith ascribes it to different occasions in different paragraphs (the night of the double murder and the day of the Dorset Street murder). For another, the movements he proposes in getting from Cloak Lane to Mitre Square and then on up into Spitalfields don't make sense of recently washed hands when he got to Dorset Street. We don't suggest that Major smith made the whole thing up. But as a fine raconteur and embroiderer of stories he seems to have lost the precise thread of the actual events as the years went by, and I at least wouldn't base any argument whatsoever on his basin of bloodstained water.
Martin Fido |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 01:12 am | | Hey All:
Need a little help, please.
Does anybody know where the list of Eddowes' apparel and possessions is officially compiled in 1888 documents?
The reason I ask is that the apron is listed as a possession here on the Casebook's file on Eddowes and other sources imply it as a possession by listing her clothing first then pipes, tin box, spoon, table knife(!!), along with miscellaneous articles of clothing like the one red mitten.
It's apparent from the inquest testimony that City-Constable Robinson recognized Eddowes' apron as the one worn by the woman he arrested earlier that night.
Dr. Brown mentions in his report: "My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."
But Brown's statement is ambiguous as to whether he found Eddowes body with her wearing the apron or it being another of her possessions. He repeats a truncated version of this in his inquest testimony, but now the apron is definitely attached to Eddowes' body: "[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - {Brown..my insert} Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."
How observant is Brown, though, or how reliable is his 'recollection' when he makes these two statements about whether any blood was found at the murder scene:
From his report: "There was a quantity of clotted blood on the pavement on the left side of the neck round the shoulder and upper part of arm, and fluid blood-coloured serum which had flowed under the neck to the right shoulder, the pavement sloping in that direction."
From his inquest testimony (his deposition portion): "There were no stains of blood on the bricks or pavement around."
Eddowes was wearing the apron when arrested but that doesn't necessarily mean she kept it on during her confinement or had it on when she walked to her death. Did the murderer empty her "pockets" as is implied in Swanson ltter to the HO dated Nov. 6, 1888: "...beside the body were found some pawn tickets in a tin box..."? Could the apron piece -- listed as a possession (distinct from the clothes she was wearing at time of death) here on the Casebook and impled elsewhere -- have been understandably been misinterpreted as being worn if it was found on or near her clothes? The similar case of the "one red mitten" foound and listed as a possession not being an appropriate comparison because the mitten has to fit around the hand -- not lying on the hand or near the hand -- to be interpeted as 'worn'?
Is there any way to be sure about this besides 985 people replying, "Trust me, Yaz!"?
While you're at it, how do you all interpret the description "apron piece" in the catalog of items found on or around(?) Eddowes' body? Does this description encompass the part found on Eddowes AND the part found in Goulston Street -- meaning the apron was never a full apron even before her death? Or does it describe strictly what was found on her body -- implying that the apron had been cut after death? Contemporary reports describe it as being pretty ratty.
I've also read the following on the Casebook, describing 1888-era photographs of typical aprons: "Any contemporary photographs showing East end women of the period clearly show that the type of apron was large, with a bib from the waist to the neck, with the bulk of it extending from the waist down to the ankles.
"This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back [I'd like you to note this business of the apron almost meeting at the back]. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36" and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion." [And don't ask me how these measurements could be determined and generalized from a few photographs...compared the known height of a lamp post next to which stands the typical East End woman? What about the waist though?]
How would this 'typical apron' description fit in with Lawende's reported testimony (from the same Swanson letter quoted above -- thanks to Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner's "Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion" for the letter and the comments in brackets): "Mr. Lewin [sic - Lawende]...coul[d] not identify the body mutilated as it was, but to the best of his belief the clothing of the deceased, which was black was similar to that worn by the woman whom he had seen."
Eddowes' apron is consistently described as white. If it almost met around the back, why so emphatic about her clothing being black (none of Eddowes' clothing was black...but it was dark, he was far away, maybe he didn't really see Eddowes, etc etc).
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 05:26 am | | Okay Yaz:
1. The list of CE's clothing and possessions is with the coroner's papers in the Corporation of London Archives at the Guildhall. Nearest underground station, St Paul's. Open to the public.
2. I don't see the ambiguity you do in Brown's statements about the apron. Once CE had been stripped for autopsy, the apron formerly around her body would become an object 'in Dr Brown's possession'.
3. I don't see the problem you do about Brown's observation of blood. He distinguishes between the pooled blood emanating directly from the wounds and any other marks/scuffs on the surrounding pavement - and he did't see any.
4. Are you assuming that 'pockets' means apron pockets? They were separate sponge-bag like things that the women wore round their waists among their petticoats.
5. I note the possibility that the list's 'piece of apron' might refer to the main piece of apron on her body, which is not otherwise listed in her clothes, rather than the piece carried across to Goulston Street. I see no likelihood whatever of its having been lying separate from the body, as nothing of the kind appears in the drawings of the body in situ. What is the implied importance of this detail, anyway?
6. CE's apron was originally white. It was so dirty, however, that it appeared black at first (and Walter Dew so described it).
And as in 5 above, what is all this in aid of?
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 06:44 am | | Yaz,
just a comment and a query, I've looked at the possessions of Catharine Eddowes in the AtoZ.
I notice the list mentions a mitten, but doesn't say it's colour. The list also mentions "12 pieces of white cloth, some slightly bloodstained". Would I be right in thinking that these pieces of cloth would be poor Kate's home-made sanitary towels? As I am a bit old-fashioned, I apologise to the ladies for bringing this up, but nobody seems to want to know about these pieces of cloth.
Walter Dew described Kates apron as "so dirty that at first glance it seemed black". So I would think that Lawende could have thought she wore dark clothing, the apron could have been so dirty it didn't stand out. Walter Dew also stated later, when Mary was killed, that SHE always wore a spotlessly white apron, and never wore a hat, which leads me to believe that though Kate and Mary could have been friends or aqaintances, there was no comparision between them. Kate was just a stone poor vagrant, Mary Kelly was a prostitute! Kelly was 25yrs old, and attractive, so we are led to believe, perhaps the reason she rejected Barnett's request to come back to Millers Court was because she could see more opportunity with Barnett out of the way, and herself being young and attractive, with a room of her own--well! It seemed to be working too, Just before she died, she was seen with a young man with peculiar eyes, a man with a carroty mustache, and the well-dressed Jewish looking gent. I bet she would have been making more than 4d a go, for a room with a bed, and any money she had made that previous evening, the Ripper took away with him when he left. It would have been some slight compensation for all the money he had WASTED on her!!
Regards, Rick
P.S. George Morris, I think, stated," the sight was awful, the womans whole body was outlined with blood on the pavement. Brown couldn't have missed that, unless it was a case of,--as I've said before,-- "playing down". |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 07:57 am | | Rick,
I've always assumed that the 12 pieces of rag were indeed CE's makeshift sanitary towels. Another of the fascinating pieces of social history spun off from Ripper studies.
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 08:35 am | | Hey Martin and Warwick:
Warwick, your thesis seems reasonable to me IF we can conclusively rule out that the blood stains didn't originate from the wounds made during the mutilation.
Martin:
I suspect you're a bit (and then some?) irked with me for asking these questions. But I've only asked these questions for my own better understanding; no nefarious motives in my mind.
I'm trying to distinguish what we really can know (e.g., contemporary reports and opinions) versus any interpretations we make based on surviving records. And thanks for tip on the location and the admission policy of a place several thousand miles away from where I live. I'd gladly go there if I wasn't afraid of getting my feet wet when I walk up to the eastern American seaboard and then turn kinda sudden like and walk upon the waters of the Atlantic (currently my only affordable means of long-distance travel).
What started me off, as I said, was the list presented on the Casebook when you first access Eddowes' Vistim page. The headings read: "Wearing at the time of her murder:" and "Possessions." I was wondering if anybody in 1888 listed ALL of Eddowes' belongs (clothing and non-clothing) under such categories. The apron piece and "1 RED [my emphasis] mitten" are listed under Possessions.
I also can't see the logic in the apron, or anything else, being listed as a Possession with the implicit/explicit understanding that the list-maker meant all the items in "Dr. Brown's possession." Everything, including Eddowes' body, was "in Dr. Brown's possession" once the body was removed from the site for its autoposy.
You got me on the pockets because I truly didn't see any reference to where/how Eddowes was carrying all this stuff. But, if the sponge-bag thing (believe me, I know nothing of ladies fashion...then or now...so I'm not quibbling over its name) is the recepticle in which she carried those items, why isn't it listed among her possessions -- or did the murderer steal whatever carrying device Eddowes may have possessed?
We must agree to disagree on Dr. Brown's statement about any amount of blood found near the body when he first saw it. To me, he is clearly talking about blood from the body, not other marks or scuffs etc. Therefore, his report and deposition contradict each other.
No one, it seems, but Dew remarks on the dirtiness of the white apron. Does he mention any clue as to the possibility the apron became so dirty it "appeared black" because of its contact with the ground and with the blood/fluids from Eddowes' mutilations? Or was it a less than scrupulous attention to detail in Constables Robinson (the arresting officer) and Hutt (her jailer/gaoler) who fail to remark on the extradodinary dirtiness of the white apron? The distinction would be important in reconciling Lawende's statement (leading to questions about whether he actually saw Eddowes that night) and one person's observations on the condition of color/dirtiness of the apron against all the other police descriptions of the garment. Also, if the official police catalog/list is ambiguous as to whether the apron piece was a garment worn by Eddowes or simply carried by her applies here.
Again, the records I've read about Eddowes, her clothing and possessions, seem to be a mix of fairly detailed description with some obvious ambiguities. This is especially clear when we consider descriptions of the size, shape, color, and state of the Goulston apron piece. How much raw, unambiguous data do we possess to form what level of certainty we might believe (and ask others to believe) when we reinterpret the raw data in modern descriptions of the items and the scene. I'm wondering if some ambiguity could also apply to the apron -- worn during arrest, seen by her jailer, apparently not seen -- or unnoticed -- by Lawende (if he saw Eddowes and/or the Casebook description of the way these aprons were worn is correct and invaraiable), seen again in situ after her body is discovered. Whether Eddowes was wearing the apron at the time of her death MAY be confused if the murderer emptied her container of possessions -- one of which MIGHT be the apron piece -- left the apron piece somewhere on or near her body, and the police/doctors making the understandable but PERHAPS unwarranted 'conclusion' that she MUST have been wearing it when killed. I compared the apron to the mitten to illustrate how even a careful description of the body and its effects, in situ, could not possibly mistake whether or not the mitten was worn by Eddowes at her death. A mitten fits differently on the body than any other outer garments.
The degree of certainty is what I'm trying to establish. Case in point: Warwick is correct that the A-Z does not mention the color of the mitten, but the Casebook's list DOES. Martin may have overlooked that objection in his post, or maybe he too thinks (knows?) the mitten was red as does whoever compiled the list for the Casebook. It would be nice to know what official document refers to this mitten (as well as all the rest) and whether it mentions its color...not just that some unspecified police document provides a list of items. Same goes for if the items were catologed officially by Eddowes' apparel at time of death and what was in her possession (i.e., apparently not worn by Eddowes at time of death).
Thanks,
Yaz |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 09:38 am | | Yaz,
I see what you are getting at now. Kate is listed as WEARING so and so, and so and so, count into that list, one large white handkerchief, one white cotton pocket handkerchief,--count those as WORN, the list of clothing ends with,-one pair Brown ribbed stockings, feet mended with white.
Then the list of her possessions begins with the 12 pieces of white rag, way down the list of possessions comes,--- one piece of OLD White Apron. So maybe she wasn't wearing the apron at the time of her death. Her list of clothing doesn't mention an apron, her list of possessions does mention a piece of one.
Three pockets are mentioned Yaz, 2 unbleached calico pockets, and one bluestripe bed ticking pocket complete with strings and waist band, they were still with her, and I think they would have been classed as worn.
Rick
Martin, thankyou.
Alegria, ok |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 10:15 am | | Hey Warwick:
Yep. You see my point exactly. All I'm trying to do is clear up what to me, and now maybe you as well, is ambiguous. I was attempting to characterize some of the POSSIBLE ramifications of selecting one list over another, or one 1888 observation over another...hence, the example of introducing or strengthening a doubt about the Lawende identification of Eddowes that night based on what MAY be either wrong data or the least satisfactory interpretation of (sometimes conflicting) testimony.
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 11:46 am | | Yaz -
I never think your questions are mere troublemaking, and always assume you are genuinely looking for information. Otherwise I shouldn't bother to answer them!
But I'm really not sure what conclusions you think might be drawn from (say) establishing that Brown did or did not have a larger or smaller piece of apron: did or did not distinguish between blood trodden into the pavement apart fro the body - which he didn't observe - and the pool/s of blood in which the body lay. The mittens are not the only mysterious difference between the list in the Guildhall and the lists given in the press. There is also the question of a pair of spectacles. All these things seem to me quite adequately explained by human inaccuracy and incompetence without being utilised as 'clues' or 'evidence'.
But who knows, you may produce something spectacular.
Sorry to have guided you across the Atlantic. I never go scurrying back to profiles to find out more about posters.
Martin |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 12:26 pm | | Hey Martin:
I DO worry that my simple brain leads me to annoy, irk, offend others.
Good point about what, if any, conclusions I would draw if any or all these discrepencies were cleared up. (And I wasn't trying to make a complete list of all of my perceived ambiguities...wait til we get to the Goulston Street door...if we ever do!)
My answer is a firm, "None!" Because of either real or apparent discrepencies in the raw data we now possess, I'd be reluctant to conclude anything.
Perhaps it is my nature, but I feel that we can ask enough questions, view the data from all of its angles, and draw some 'conclusions' solely on which piece of data is more likely to fit rather than another. This is true, IMHO, even if the conclusion is that human error forbids us to come to ANY decision. We certainly can't seriously propose theories/re-creations that use a piece of ambiguous data as if there exists no ambiguity. (Errr, or can we...do we?) All's well in our private little worlds but Hell's Bells ring if we're reminded of the uncertainty or, worse, some 'heretic' proposes another view of the ambiguous data that opposes our own!
A lot of bad feelings can be avoided if we just admit uncertainty in our data; then work to try to clear the uncertainty; and then propose whatever conclusions you want based on a better common understanding of the data.
Also, being fairly new in things-JtR, I may be idealistic enough to think we can work within the KNOWN [strong emphasis on this word] human inaccuracies and incompetence to reach that better common understanding.
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 07:46 pm | | Yaz
The fact that Eddowes was wearing what remained of an apron was only realized as she lay in the mortuary. It was dark (black) with dirt and was (probably) ruffled up in her clothing, not apparent at the murder site, only once they brought her inside the mortuary.
And, incidently, the reference to pictures of women wearing aprons was to indicate how well some of them covered the body. Actual measurements were taking from an actual apron of the style of that period, not from the pictures.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 10:24 pm | | Hey Jon:
I noticed who wrote the intriguing dissertation on the apron piece and Goulston Street called "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour." Hope all is well with you.
Do you know if these aprons that we see in old photos were used differently than the aprons our moms and grandmas wore (I've never met any female -- or, not to be sexist, male -- who still uses an apron)?
What I'm trying to say is this: Can we assume that women in the late 19th century London went about their business amongst shops, churches, on the streets, etc. wearing these aprons? Or were they only worn, as we moderns expect, while performing some chores at home or at a job site?
You probably see where I'm going with this questioning. Admittedly, Eddowes' was either eccentric in her fashion sensibility or was forced by necessity to make some odd choices: a man's vest, a man's shoes. She was also drunk at the time of her arrest and jailing; her wearing an apron at that time possibly being another sign of her mental state, I wonder? But, once sober, she realized wearing an apron on a public street was unfashionable, tacky, or whatever term you wanna use, and removed it, post-haste?
Dr. Brown, I believe, makes two statements about the apron that seem ambiguous to me, but I can find no testimony that anyone asked themselves whether the apron could be described as being worn by Eddowes when the body was discovered or whether it became tangled up in her clothes IF the murderer went through her pockets before starting the mutilations and simply tossed the apron on top of her other clothes before lifting them up to expose Eddowes' body. It just is assumed -- maybe rightly so; I'm just asking -- that the apron was worn; as it's assumed the mitten was not being worn (the murderer did not expose her hand, for whatever reason).
Some of the arguments in the dissertation seem based on that rather large apron. Were there relatively few or no variant sizes of aprons in use at that time?
I have a line on some reference materials about Victorian "daily life" that may help with some of these questions.
Walter Dew sayin' an apron was so dirty it looked black (or any variant) will not change a white apron into a black (or even a dark) one.
Every other contemporary statement -- even Dew's, indirectly (and is he being hyperbolic or literal about his lonely sense of blackness in the apron?) -- never varies...a white apron...visibly, unmistakably white.
So if Eddowes wore this white apron at the time of her death, and the apron is large enough to almost meet in back and reached as low as her ankles, and Lawende "observed a man and woman together at the corner of Church-passage, Duke-street, leading to Mitre-square" (implied during the inquest that Lawende saw Eddowes and her murderer), and Lawende did not notice the white/off-white/dirty-white apron, what can we say?
1) Maybe Eddowes wasn't wearing her apron at that time, so there is little or no possibility the murderer cut it accidently during his mutilations of Eddowes' body, and the rest of the events are as we currently understand them?
2) Maybe the man and woman Lawende saw were not Eddowes and her murderer, so any scenario that has Lawende later identifying JtR is impossible...not because he wasn't asked to identify such a man, but because the man could not have been with Eddowes and thus cannot be linked to her murder?
3) Maybe everyone except Walter Dew is wrong; the apron was dark enough to be indistinguishable from her dark clothing; a large piece could have been accidently cut during the mutilations and left in Goulston Street, and our current understanding of the rest of the events that night is still correct in all its details?
4) Maybe Eddowes was wearing a white apron that was nowhere near as large and noticable as the aprons we see in old Victorian photographs; and all can still be well with our current understanding of events that night in all its details?
5) Maybe the apron was as small as described in #4, above, and so was too small to have been cut by accident or to leave a relatively large sample of it in Goulston Street?
PC Long's eagle eyes can even detect "wet," "recent stains" of blood on the apron piece, presumably identical in its Dew-perceived color or its dirty-black state with the apron found during the autopsy...not an easy thing to do if the apron was "black" or "dark." The following exchange during the inquest tells us what drew old eagle-eye to the doorway:
"[Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
He doesn't notice the lighter chalk marks on the darker brick walls; but he does notice a dark blood stain (blood is indisputably dark and gets darker as it rapidly dries) on a supposedly black or near-black piece of apron! Eagle-eyes, indeed.
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 19 April 2001 - 11:31 pm | | Hello Yaz
All your questions are perfectly valid, there are many ways to view the evidence. I for one do not completely accept that Lawende's 'man' was Jack, with his victim, its only a possibility and if we put some weight into the Orange market incident, that of a man asking after "a man and a woman who went into the square", then the Church Passage incident may not have been Jack & Eddowes at all.
Apron's?, yes there were several types, basically associated with one's calling in life, a scullery maid, house maid, kitchen maid, butcher, brewery, many trades and servants had a variety of apron's to choose from. The lower classes quite often wore an apron as day-wear over their clothes. I remember this being a fact well into the IInd world war period in back street London, women still wore aprons and curlers with hair net all day long.
Victorian apron's for the servant classes were designed to do their job, that is, cover their clothes as completely as possible. Apron's were not a fashion accessory, a short apron would have been a contradiction in terms of use.
There are many street scene's of Victorian London showing females of the lower classes wearing apron's in the streets. But, like I said, all your questions are valid, but lets assume her apron was white & short and she was not wearing it......where does that leave us?, considering the alternative at least gets us moving in a certain direction without contradicting the known evidence and also without having to invent scenario's to explain annomalies.
Regards, Jon
Oh, incidently, Major Smith tells us the piece of apron found in Goulston St. was folded, not screwed up like it was cast aside, but if folded might lead us to believe it was 'placed' there.....possibly. |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 12:39 am | | Hey Jon:
First, I'm not out to prove you wrong. I want to see if the description of the apron in your dissertation can come as close as we can get it to being a "fact" -- i.e., Eddowes wore a long white, but very dirty, apron that pretty much covered the lower half of her body.
Some, most, or all of my questions could be disregarding if we all decided that your description of the apron is accepted as the 'correct' description of Eddowes' apron.
At this early stage, I think your idea holds a lot of promise for being determinable as a 'fact.'
But...
Nothing is quite that simple. And the size or style of Eddowes' apron seems a small, inconsequential matter...unless you consider the consequences.
Is there someone out there who uses Lawende in their formulation of a case where their suspect is JtR? (I think there is but I honestly don't remember who thinks this, who are their suspects, etc.)
If Jon's description of the apron is considered correct, people who need Lawende are forced to do a soft-shoe shuffle (or should I say, a soft-Dew shuffle...sorry, bad pun) to keep Lawende as a witness to anything of importance regarding Eddowes' death and the solution to the JtR series of murders.
The apron can POSSIBLY become as decisive a factor in arguing for/against suspects X, Y or Z as distance would be if someone said Theodore Roosevelt is JtR. We'd all say "No, you dope!" because, while Teddy's initials are embedded in the initialism 'JtR', he was hundreds/thousands of miles away when a murder was committed.
And that's just one repercussion I can think of if the formerly insignificant style of apron that Eddowes wore becomes accepted as you describe. Maybe there are others.
Unpleasant consequences for our personal theories shouldn't matter in deciding if we've got conclusive (or damn near it) facts. Right?
If or when it becomes accepted as 'fact' or 'truth,' it will be interesting to see what discussions arise from this piece of data about a currently inconsequential, irrelevant, insignificant apron.
What might have seemed self-evident -- Eddowes wore an apron when she died...yeah, so what? -- might become suddenly less self-evident if an eyewitness identification of the murderer falls because of it.
I can imagine people wouldn't think the one question about whether Eddowes was wearing the apron or carrying it is quite so trivial as it might have seemed before the Fall, so to speak.
Yaz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 02:54 pm | | Hey All:
So we're ready to move on from this accursed, inconsequential apron, right? Nooooope.
In researching the various available aprons from that time, we may find a great variety in size/shape/length -- but the variety is definitely finite. The only thing that increases the variety to infinity is if Eddowes' designed and/or created her own apron -- either from scrath or from constantly patching one of the known varieties of aprons.
We may also find that all aprons were basically the same concerning the key features of Eddowes' apron:
1) all of them had a bib and reached down to the wearer's ankles;
2) all of them had material that wrapped almost completely around their lower bodies;
3) all of them were tied in the back by strings cut from the whole cloth/sewed to the edges of the apron from separate material; or even looped through material at the waistline(?) like a draw string or cinch.
But, with what we know right now, can we set some parameters around the size and at least one detail about the apron piece taken from Eddowes' apron to Goulston Street?
On the size of the apron piece:
1) Almost everybody refers to it simply as a 'piece' of apron. That's not specific -- large piece, small piece? In the dissertation, Jon provides the following information:
"This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back. Taking a measure from the waist down, we have 30-36" and to wrap around at the back at ankle level, would be something like 36" wide. This lower section (from the waist, down) of apron was in the order of 9 square feet of material, not including the bib portion.
"So, how big was this portion of apron found in Goulston Street?
"We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse:
"'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut...'"
- (Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)
"Also, Sir Henry Smith, though heavily critisized for being inaccurate in some statements, was at least known to be present for this report:
"'By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'."
- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)
P.C. Long had found 'about half of it' or, if we allow for a little error in judgement on the high side we have 5-6 square feet, and if we allow for error on the low side, something in the order of 3-4 square feet. That is a sizable piece of cloth."
However, there's some confusion about who is saying Long found "half of the apron.' PC Long's deposition at the inquest says this: "I found a portion of a white apron (produced)." So, unless Jon has a source not noted in the dissertation, Long never said he found 'about half of it [the apron].' To our knowledge, Long never saw the piece attached to Eddowes' body to which the previous two men refer when they mention half of it being gone. A nit? Let me go on before you decide.
So two men among the 1888 contemporaries who mention the apron found on Eddowes give us, at best, a highest parameter of 'half' the apron as missing, and that it was cut 'cleanly.'
Enter Dr. Brown with another detail about both pieces of apron.
In his report on the autopsy, Brown says: "My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."
From this we can also say that the apron found on Eddowes had a string or strings (presumably the apron strings to tie the garment around the wearer; not any hanging threads etc.).
In his inquest testimony, Brown reinforces this diea: "[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings [note the plural -Yaz] to the body."
From Brown's statements about the string being found on the portion attached to Eddowes we can be confident that the Goulston Street piece did NOT have any (pardon the pun) strings attached. Correct?
And no one, to my knowledge claims that there was any more than two pieces to this apron.
Add this all up and what can we say MUST be true about the Goulston Street portion of the apron:
1) It can be no MORE than half of the total apron.
2) It cannot have any or all of the apron strings attached to it since those were found on the body.
3) There cannot be more than two pieces.
4) It was cleanly cut.
Jon's dissertation makes the assumption, or draws the conclusion, that the Goulston Street apron piece was cut from the lower half of the apron -- hence, his projection that the apron piece must have been relatively large.
I disagree here. Based on the contemporary statements, I say the Goulston Street apron piece was the upper half. Why, since none of the evidence presented so far precludes it being the lower half?
It must be the upper half, first, because no one noticed the apron at the death scene. It was only found when Brown "carefully" removed Eddowes' clothes. Mention is made of the wounds inflicted on the upper portion of Eddowes' body, her abdomen, down to her right leg. Brown's report includes a description of how he found the body in Mitre Square. He states that "There was no blood on the front of the clothes." He also states: "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter."
We know that he looked at the front of her clothes (why he didn't notice the apron can either be seen in the same light as Bond's later not seeing the two straps of Kelly's chemise, therefore, mistakenly describing her as nude or...). We know he looked at the upper half of her body to describe the position of the intestines. No apron is mentioned.
One last piece of evidence is the (to me, murky...at least as it appears on page 4 of the Eddowes' "Victims" section on the Casebook) contemporary drawing of Eddowes' body "in situ." Again, no apron visible; the artist obviously did not see the apron to draw it into his picture or call attention to it at the crime scene; and the lower half of Eddowes' clothing is illustrated as slit/cut down the middle of the front, pushed off to both sides, and some of it lies beneath the body. Easy to see that the apron would go unnoticed by the cuts, positioning of the cloths and body, and by the fact that the lower part of the apron would look no different than the skirts unless they lifted the body, stripped the clothes, and located the portion of the apron that did not quite meet and was tied at the back.
The upper portion of the apron is noticably absent and certainly should have been noticed based on the events at the crime scene I've described.
Faecal material found on the Goulston Street portion MAY say something about when the piece was cut -- but I wouldn't push that argument, or one that says the faecal matter is further evidence that the Goulston piece is the upper part of the apron...such an argument presumes too much.
So, do we agree that the Goulston Street apron piece is the upper portion of the apron? And, IF we can determine the exact type of apron, and also be lucky to find the typical dimensions, we'd have a very close approximation of the size as well as the description of the Goulston Street apron piece?
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 06:20 pm | | Sorry Yaz.
Please consider a few things first....
The type of apron that was available to these classes of people quite often had a bib portion, but by no means was that always the case.
Also, some people even today, and when I was in butchering (1970's) would wear the apron with the bib portion folded down behind the waistband, so you only ever saw the apron covering you from the waist down.
Some people, especially men would hate that bib portion, and there are pictures of Victorian women wearing an apron only from the waist down, which may be a bib-less apron or the bib was folded down as described.
So, in your argument you are assuming:...
1) Eddowes apron actually had a bib portion, which it may not have.
2) That if her apron did even have this bib portion, that she wore it in place as was intended, which, once again, she may not have.
3) That if the piece found in Goulston St. was part of the bib, then, for some reason they never mentioned the tie strings that go around the neck.
Rumbelow's hardback edition has several photo's of women in the Eastend wearing a large apron from the waist down.
Now, having said that, I would ask you to please not imply that I have put words in P.C. Long's mouth. I was quite specific about the two witnesses (Halse, Smith) that are available who commented on the size of the portion that was missing. If you notice the sentence structure following, and refering to P.C. Long, I was summing up what Long found 'about half of it', as was stated by the previous two witnesses, I was not quoting Long as I knew he made no comment about the size of this portion. So, I would appreciate you not making an argument where one does not exist.
In summation, you are presuming that something was found at Goulston street, which is not even known to have been worn by Eddowes, an upper bib portion is only mentioned by me, and no-one else, the official testimony does not support your conclusions.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David M. Radka
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 06:27 pm | | Out, out, damned parts! What we need is the whole!
David |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:02 pm | | Hey Jon:
Sorry to see you're upset.
Yaz
P.S., Hello again, David. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 20 April 2001 - 08:34 pm | | Hello all,
This is some interesting discussion! Personally, I think it most likely that the Ripper never cut any portion away from Eddowes at all. She was a cloth pack rat, with pieces of her cloths lying out next her when found. Jack simply picked one of these up, probably the larger one. That makes a lot more sense than him cutting the piece off, although that certainly is possible.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jon
Saturday, 21 April 2001 - 12:34 am | | Nay Yaz, your too nice a guy to ever upset anyone. I just prefer to make sure any argument is based on what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, and what existed, not what you think existed.
Have a great weekend.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 01:37 am | | Because I think some important issues arise based on the ambiguous references to Eddowes' apron in the 1888 records, I ask your indulgence to consider the following:
1) Does anybody find it strange that during the inquest, Constables Robinson and Hutt were asked to identify Eddowes by her apron alone; but Lawende mentions that he was shown Eddowes' clothes with no specific mention of the apron? And he was not shown the apron at the inquest as were Robinson and Hutt.
2) I've attempted to show how ambiguous are the references to this apron in Brown's report, the list of Eddowes' possessions, etc. I'll now ask you all see how this ambiguity continues to this day.
I've pointed out the distinguishing aspects of this apron as described in Jon's dissertation (seek it out on the Casebook; as well as the itemized list on Eddowes' Victim page; and the Eddowes' inquest from the Daily Telegraph listed under Catherine Eddowes's Inquest page) -- and I'll quote again from his dissertation:
"Any contemporary photographs showing East end women of the period clearly show that the type of apron was large, with a bib from the waist to the neck, [emphasis mine] with the bulk of it extending from the waist down to the ankles.
"This type of apron was wrapped around the body, from the waist to the ankles, almost meeting at the back."
I pointed out through questions whether Jon was sure that the version of the apron he offered in his own dissertation had a high probability of being the one Eddowes' wore, and if such an assertion could be tested. It was possible that the apron was different than as he described but he did not feel any need to amend his dissertation to avoid confusion over this questionable bib. No strong disagreement until I reached the point of what happened to this hypothetical bib; no comments about inaccuracies in quoting from the dissertation or the evidence. Not even strong disagreement that Lawende couldn't have seen Eddowes because the white apron would have been seen, even with her back turned.
But since Jon provides us an image of an apron with the bib (it is immaterial -- pardon the pun -- if Eddowes' wore the bib up or down or wrapped around her head like a turban), where did the bib go in his dissertation? It is never mentioned again.
If we cannot assume that the apron Jon described in his own dissertation is the same or similar to the one Eddowes' might have worn, as Jon now asserts I cannot, where in the report or the testimony is the clear description that the apron attached to Eddowes' body was identified as an apron piece before Dr. Phillips brings in the other piece from Goulston street? Why aren't there two apron pieces in the itemized list: one at least falling in the grouping of Eddowes' clothing, the other (the Goulston piece) falling into the grouping of her possessions (where such a description can be found)?
Are you confused yet? Are you perhaps taking this apron -- or whatever conception you have as to its shape, size, color, or importance (or non-importance) -- for granted...basically giving up and saying "It was an apron...she wore it...some of it was found in Goulston Street...so what...move on!"
Here's why I think you should care:
Due to the continuous ambiguity of this apron throughout the surviving record, it is possible to consider either of the following to be true:
1) The coroner, Mr. Crawford (described as "City solicitor, appearing on behalf of the Corporation, as responsible for the police"), and the police deliberately deceived the inquest jury, the 1888 public, and everyone down to today because:
a) they did not ask Lawende about the apron during his testimony;
b) nor is it clear that the apron (or whatever pieces of it) could be reasonably included in the descriptive word "clothing" which was what Lawende said he was shown -- at a police station, not at the inquest;
c) nor is it clear, if you care to assume the apron was included in the "clothing" Lawende was shown, that anyone told him that the piece(s) were an apron, identified by Robinson and Hutt, and was worn as the outermost layer of her clothing,
d) and that they purposely avoided asking these apron-related questions of Lawende or showing him the apron as they showed it to Robinson and Hutt knowing that, if he was shown the apron or had its significance described, he would have to say the woman he saw was not Eddowes; therefore, he did not see the murderer.
-- OR --
2) The coroner, Mr. Crawford, the police, and the jury were all so uncertain or ambiguous in how they perceived this damned stupid apron, it never occurred to any of them that the apron might have made Lawende's testimony irrelevant...and rendered any description of the man he saw not only irrelevant but possibly misleading for all parties involved. They treated it as if Eddowes' was both wearing the apron and not wearing the apron, as the circumstances of their investigation seemed to demand.
Are you so certain you know all you need to know about this insignificant apron, that you can ignore the possibility of either deliberate or unconscious (self-) deception on the part of the coroner, Mr. Crawford, and especially the police?
Doesn't the possibility of any kind of deception make you nervous about the reliability of everything else we've read from the records left behind by these men?
How can anyone claim they know or just think that any given person is JtR if there is the slightest doubt that the 1888 investigators either deliberately caused confusion over evidence for at least one, possibly very significant, witness or, worse, that they might never have realized such a significant confusion reasonably existed at all?
Yaz |
|
|
|
|
