piece of apron

[Monty]

The first time I came across anyone who seriously suggested Liz stride and Mary Kelly were not victims of jack the ripper was in Stewart Evans book I think that was about 1995 .No I don't have any investigatory experience I'm just a simple soul who reads books about jack the ripper(to many in my wifes opionion) and who has happened to have met the very likeable and entertaining Mike Barrett.Forgot to mention been interested in case all my life been reading about it for over 30 years

Many thanks for replying Pinkmoon,

Its appreciated.

Monty

[Jon Guy]

The ones which are decsribed on her clothing and tend to show that she was stabbed at least 4 time through her outter clothing before the killer lifted them up.

“Chintz Skirt”-three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice- Black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat- White waist band cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very old green Alpaca Skirt-Jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very old ragged blue skirt- Red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

Now if she had been wearing an apron tied round her waist and it still been in place when the body was stripped i would have expected that piece to have shown signs of being cut through having regards to the wounds which were inflicted mid line and across and downwards and be described in such a way.

Even the GS piece showed no signs of cuts so how did the killer manage to stab her 4 times around the mid line of the abdomen and downwards and not cause any cuts jagged or otherwise to it ?

The mortuary piece was in her property and listed as that. It was decsribed as an old white apron piece. Not as you might expect old white apron with jagged cuts etc.

Dr Brown describes the mortuary piece

“My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached”

The GS piece matched the mortuary piece so that had to be the bottom left or right. As a corner piece with one string attached how do you tie an apron with just one string and keep it in place?

The answer is she wasn't wearing an apron but in possession of two old white pieces of apron.

The Mitre Sq sketch shows no apron being worn

Thank you.

Yes, I believe we`ve discussed this before, those cuts you highlight were made when the killer was cutting through the clothing around her waist, or pushed up around her waist.
That is why there are no corresponding wounds on the body.

I can see what could be an apron in the Mitre Sq sketch. It`s white and running down her right side.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thank you.

Yes, I believe we`ve discussed this before, those cuts you highlight were made when the killer was cutting through the clothing around her waist, or pushed up around her waist.
That is why there are no corresponding wounds on the body.

I can see what could be an apron in the Mitre Sq sketch. It`s white and running down her right side.

Why would the killer take time to do all of that and for what purpose ?

How do you explain a jagged cut10ins downwards or a cuts going across. and those cuts seeping blood?

We did discuss this before and your explanation was just as flawed then

Everyone sees what they want to see

[Fisherman]

Not a thing. It's funny cause before I had ever heard of him suggested as a suspect I was always like, who the hell is that guy? To be fair I AM suspicious of everyone and incredibly paranoid. Crossmere? Don't trust him. Schwartz? Don't trust him either. I don't trust any of them. No pictures of Abberline? Don't trust him. Don't blame him either. People can do voodoo with your picture. Maybe Abberline was paranoid too. I think I like him. Still don't trust him.

You´d make an unnerving copper, I´ll say that for you ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

read first

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"So you can't provide another example of murdered women of a particular type being found like this? No worries, Lynn. I knew you couldn't."

Are you talking about Polly? Annie? If you weren't so quick to do your playground goading, perhaps you could make sense.

"I know. That's my point"

Then it's not much of a point. To stab ANY area, access must be gained. If one wishes to stab in the genital region, legs are better opened. But what has that to do with posing?

"There are many similarities running through the majority of the Whitechapel Murder victims linking them together."

And many dissimilarities placing them apart. Look what Mac and Sir Robert did with Alice and Frances.

"The only two victims you lump together (because your favoured suspect was detained at the time of the following murders) . . ."

False. You put the horse before the cart.

"Ah, Lynn's favourite tactic of quoting out of context when he can't answer."

I was pointing out your mistake in placing body parts for possessions. Try reading a post BEFORE "responding."

Your favourite tactic is to argue ad hominem

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Why would the killer take time to do all of that and for what purpose ?

How do you explain a jagged cut10ins downwards or a cuts going across. and those cuts seeping blood?

We did discuss this before and your explanation was just as flawed then

Everyone sees what they want to see

I know you have an agenda to adhere to but please just sit back and and think about this for a moment:

The killer needed to access the sternum
Because of all the layers clothing and things tied around her waist he could only push the clothing up as far as her waist. Therefore, he cut through all the bunched up clothing aroudn her waist so that he could access the sternum.
The blood on some of the clothing would be from the fact she had her throat cut and was disembowelled.

Now, anyone, what is flawed with this ?

[lynn cates]

heavy

Hello (again) Jon. Thanks.

"If I used the adjective heavy it was because it was the word used in the contemporary weather reports, and Lawende said at the inquest it was raining."

What reports? The one with a quarter inch? Lawende never said "heavy."

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

The experiments are far from flawed they are only flawed with those who like you wont or dont want to accept new theories. At least i have gone to great lengths to prove mine what lengths have you gone to with yours.

Take the recent discussion on the apron piece its been painful to sit here and watch certain posters keep coming out with all manner of suggestions appertaining to this, all trying to protect their own views when clearly their views are now questionable and are the ones that are flawed and all trying to shoot another down who goes against them.

I will back mine against any of yours any day

I had a conversation with another researcher just recently and he hit the nail on the head by saying that as soon as anyone outside a certain group comes out with anything that goes against the thinking of that small minority then the knives are soon out.

New issues should be openly discussed but some fear that just in case they turn out to be true.

Can I give you some advice if I were you I would stick to the uniform and lamps and police manuals because it seems your ability to assess and evaluate evidence is visibly impaired.

As you failed to re-create the exact circumstances and enviroment surrounding Eddowes murder then these experiments of yours are indeed flawed. The failure on your part to recognise that is clear and understandable, as you have a theory to support and a book/tour to sell.

As it happens I agree with you regarding the use of the apron as a carrying tool. It is clear to me it was not. However I disagree with you that she was not wearing an apron at the time of death. Witness statements, provided by numerous people, support she was wearing an apron.

You do not know the order of events re the removal of the apron piece, which could have occured post mutilation, thus eliminating and stab holes. Also, the drawing of Eddowes in situ is not clear and I, for one, can see the apron. However Im not certain as it could also be part of the grey petticoat. It is not something you can state with certainty.

As outlined above, your views are merely interpretations of the evidence. There is nothing which proves that your opinion is correct. You are doing the very same thing you accuse others of doing. So to berate them for that is out and out hypocrisy in its basic sense.

Now I truly do not care who you would back. The fact that the majority, and all serious and long standing students of the case (including noted Police Officers Donald Rumbelow and Stewart Evans to name but two) all hold the same opinion as I highlights that your theories hold no weight.

You have a habit of presenting false evidence (such as the 1911 Police Code for example, thats what sticking to Police manuals brings, a knowledge that you do not know what the hell you are talking about on such matters) to support your claims and omit information likewise. And despite the fact that you have been found out when presenting false evidence, you continue to present that false evidence as if it doesnt matter.

Now you can chat to your cronies all you wish. My experience is that if new evidence and ideas are presented they are immediately put under rigourous scrutiny. And righly so. The fact your ideas have been put under that same scrutiny and found to be suspect manifests in the deluded fantasy that it is the work of a mystical cabal (of which you have yet to provide evidence of its existance) and forces which wish to suppress the 'truth' you claim to provide. Though why the 'cabal' would wish to supress such things is beyond me.

Can I give you some advice? Dont go beyond your limits. Stick to entertaining old dears on cruises and drunk students in half filled theatres.

That way you wont make yourself look like a complete pratt, as you are now.

Monty

[pinkmoon]

A bit harsh to say the least

[Stewart P Evans]

Apron

...
The answer is she wasn't wearing an apron but in possession of two old white pieces of apron.
The Mitre Sq sketch shows no apron being worn

Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Detective Department, wrote a detailed report on the Eddowes murder on 27 October 1888 (HO 144/221/A49301C) in which he included details of Eddowes' apron.

In this report (folio 165) McWilliam stated clearly that he attended the Golden Lane mortuary where he witnessed the comparison of the two pieces of apron, that found in Goulston Street and that worn by Eddowes. He stated (inter alia), "...compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded." (emphasis mine)

Therefore we have this fact in black and white in a police report. The sketch made in Mitre Square is not clear enough to specifically identify the apron as the clothing was pulled aside.

[Stewart P Evans]

Foster's Sketch of Eddowes in Mitre Square

Here is the sketch of Catherine Eddowes' body, as found in Mitre Square, drawn by Frederick William Foster, the City surveyor.

[Monty]

Harsh but necessary.

Thank you for laying it out as it is Stewart. Some seem to get a little ahead of themselves when claiming they have proved a point.

Monty

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

"So you can't provide another example of murdered women of a particular type being found like this? No worries, Lynn. I knew you couldn't."

Are you talking about Polly? Annie? If you weren't so quick to do your playground goading, perhaps you could make sense.

Playground goading? I respond with the same respect I am given.
Anyway, I am 12 years old.
If you`re goiing to get all college professor with me, could you at least please use the quote function?

[Trevor Marriott]

I know you have an agenda to adhere to but please just sit back and and think about this for a moment:

The killer needed to access the sternum
Because of all the layers clothing and things tied around her waist he could only push the clothing up as far as her waist. Therefore, he cut through all the bunched up clothing aroudn her waist so that he could access the sternum.
The blood on some of the clothing would be from the fact she had her throat cut and was disembowelled.

Now, anyone, what is flawed with this ?

If the clothes are pulled up around her waist how can you explain the long cuts in the various items of clothing all different lengths and breadths

She was wearing a bodice how did he get that up to be able to access the sternum,as has been suggested when the cuts to the bodice are shown at the bottom of the bodice.

Ask any female who wears a bodice they wil rel you how tight it is worn

i don't have an agenda I am simply looking to prove of disprove the facts we have been asked to rely on and so far there is more to disprove than prove.

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Detective Department, wrote a detailed report on the Eddowes murder on 27 October 1888 (HO 144/221/A49301C) in which he included details of Eddowes' apron.

In this report (folio 165) McWilliam stated clearly that he attended the Golden Lane mortuary where he witnessed the comparison of the two pieces of apron, that found in Goulston Street and that worn by Eddowes. He stated (inter alia), "...compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded." (emphasis mine)

Therefore we have this fact in black and white in a police report. The sketch made in Mitre Square is not clear enough to specifically identify the apron as the clothing was pulled aside.

[ATTACH]15486[/ATTACH]

Thats hearsay McWilliams was not present when the body was stripped and the clothes documented.

The two pieces could not have been matched until much later in the day because Dr Phillips had the GS piece and he had not arrived at the mortuary before 5am

Thers is no dispute that the two pieces were matched

Nice try ! but thats not wortt the paper its written on