have been made out by the witnesses as soon as practicable after the event, when matters would have still been fresh in their minds. These reports would have been referred to by the witnesses at the subsequent inquest.
Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was we t.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood.”
As far as his statement is concerned and the subsequent press reports there are several differences. All state that the apron piece had bloodstains on it. One suggests that a corner was wet with blood, and another simply states that one portion was wet.
Dr. Brown’s official statement: “I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had evidently been sewn 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 found in Goulston Street.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”
Dr. Brown in his official statement states that the apron piece was found with some blood on it and faecal matter. In the newspaper reports he states that it was spotted with blood, and smeared with blood on one side.
Several questions arise. When was the apron piece removed and by whom, and for what reasons? And how long had it been at the location where it was found? The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped. Regardless of whether he had deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it. If the apron piece had been cut or torn by the killer why did he not retain it and send it to the press with the half kidney and the letter later sent to the press purporting to be from the killer. This would be very strong evidence in support of the letter being from the killer and the fact that he had removed the organs.
I must also ask why the killer would have cut off a piece of the apron. If it was for the reasons that have been suggested, there is no evidence of a similar act in any of the other murders. If it was to clean his knife with, he could have done that at the scene with one swift wipe across her clothing. If it was to clean his hands with, he could have done that at the scene without cutting off or tearing and taking away a piece of apron. Even if he did cut or tear it off, surely he would have discarded it long before reaching Goulston Street. He would not have wanted to be seen walking down the road in possession of incriminating evidence wiping his bloodstained hands, or a knife. Besides, the killer may have worn gloves and not needed to clean his hands.
So now another important question must now be asked. Was she or wasn’t she wearing an apron at the time of her murder? In Victorian times the women wore two different types of aprons, the first being the type mainly now worn in this day and age, which goes around the waist and is tied at the back with two strings. The other version was a full apron, which started around the neck and in length went down in equal distance to the full-length dresses women of that era wore.
However, Eddowes may well have not been wearing an apron, but simply during the time leading up to her murder been in possession of two separate pieces of old apron, which had originally come from
Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was we t.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood.”
As far as his statement is concerned and the subsequent press reports there are several differences. All state that the apron piece had bloodstains on it. One suggests that a corner was wet with blood, and another simply states that one portion was wet.
Dr. Brown’s official statement: “I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had evidently been sewn 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 found in Goulston Street.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”
Dr. Brown in his official statement states that the apron piece was found with some blood on it and faecal matter. In the newspaper reports he states that it was spotted with blood, and smeared with blood on one side.
Several questions arise. When was the apron piece removed and by whom, and for what reasons? And how long had it been at the location where it was found? The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped. Regardless of whether he had deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it. If the apron piece had been cut or torn by the killer why did he not retain it and send it to the press with the half kidney and the letter later sent to the press purporting to be from the killer. This would be very strong evidence in support of the letter being from the killer and the fact that he had removed the organs.
I must also ask why the killer would have cut off a piece of the apron. If it was for the reasons that have been suggested, there is no evidence of a similar act in any of the other murders. If it was to clean his knife with, he could have done that at the scene with one swift wipe across her clothing. If it was to clean his hands with, he could have done that at the scene without cutting off or tearing and taking away a piece of apron. Even if he did cut or tear it off, surely he would have discarded it long before reaching Goulston Street. He would not have wanted to be seen walking down the road in possession of incriminating evidence wiping his bloodstained hands, or a knife. Besides, the killer may have worn gloves and not needed to clean his hands.
So now another important question must now be asked. Was she or wasn’t she wearing an apron at the time of her murder? In Victorian times the women wore two different types of aprons, the first being the type mainly now worn in this day and age, which goes around the waist and is tied at the back with two strings. The other version was a full apron, which started around the neck and in length went down in equal distance to the full-length dresses women of that era wore.
However, Eddowes may well have not been wearing an apron, but simply during the time leading up to her murder been in possession of two separate pieces of old apron, which had originally come from
Similar Books
