GSG Conclusion

[Herlock Sholmes]

i am not suggesting anything Herlock,and neither am I rejecting all of what Trevor proposes.If a situation exists that has more than one possble outcome,then all possibilities should be considered,and only rejected if an impossibility is established.
Lets take a couple of examples.How much of Eddowes clothing would have been visible.She was wearing a jacket as an outer garment,and that would have obscured,for the most part,what was worn underneath.So how could a person,no matter how close,refer with accuracy,what was beneath the jacket.So when PC Robinson,asks at the inquest to see a full apron,how does he know that the two pieces shown,made up a full apron,when he had not previously seen all of the apron he alledges she was wearing when arressted.It was a nonsensible request
Now secondly.When Eddowes departed the police station,she was not escorted to the door.She herself closed the door behind her,thereby preventig the officers present at the police station from observing which way she turned.So the suggestion by Trevor that she headed in a particular direction is a possibility.

I can’t see how a jacket, covering the top half of her body, could have obscured an apron, worn at the bottom half Harry? The fact is that two Police Officers were both certain that she was wearing an apron. If they weren’t certain they could have said so like Sergeant Byfield. Proving that Eddowes was wearing an apron didn’t benefit the Police if it wasn’t true so they had no reason to state that she was wearing one if they weren’t sure. To be honest Harry, I’d say that Hutt and Robinson are about as strong as witnesses get in this case.

On your second point Harry, you’re right that we have no way of knowing which direction she took after leaving the station but, according to the theory, she would have had around 30 minutes to have walked back to her lodgings and then turned round to walk back to Mitre Square to be seen by Lawende and co. It’s certainly not impossible but we can only attempt to judge how likely it would have been? No one mentioned seeing her at her lodgings in an area where she was known. Trevor suggested that the guy on the door might have been asleep. Again, not impossible, but we need a few bits of bad luck for investigators to make this a possibility. Then we have to say that it looks more than a little illogical - like most of her class she’d have carried everything that she owned of value (not much) on her so it’s difficult to suggest that she went back to get something (what could have been that important?) So why go back there only to pretty much turn straight back and walk to an area which, as far as we know, she had no connection to. We would have thought that her priority would have been somewhere to sleep.

When we add these to the rest of the evidence then we get a fairly clear picture of what happened. There really can be no doubt that the apron piece got to Goulston Street via the killer and that it was part of an apron that Eddowes was wearing when she was killed.

[Herlock Sholmes]

A question Joshua.who closed the door?,and when?

Clearly not Eddowes then Harry. It must have been Hutt himself. And if he did then it would have been just after she left. He would hardly have told her to close the door, see that she hadn’t, then seen her walk toward Houndsitch and not closed it himself.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apart from that, DW, what sticks out, too, is what Jeff Hamm said on another thread: if Eddowes was supposed to have used the apron piece as a sanitary device and discarded it in Goulston Street some time before she was murdered, why wasn't she wearing a 'new' one when she was killed/found? And why was there faecal matter on the apron piece but no faeces found in the entranceway to the Goulston Street building (while faecal matter was found on the crime scene)?

This was an excellent point by Jeff. The fact that she didn’t replace the cloth kicks the theory into touch imo.

[Doctored Whatsit]

Apart from that, DW, what sticks out, too, is what Jeff Hamm said on another thread: if Eddowes was supposed to have used the apron piece as a sanitary device and discarded it in Goulston Street some time before she was murdered, why wasn't she wearing a 'new' one when she was killed/found? And why was there faecal matter on the apron piece but no faeces found in the entranceway to the Goulston Street building (while faecal matter was found on the crime scene)?

Agreed. And also that the doctors, looking for evidence of sexual activity, didn't notice any signs of menstruation.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I can’t see how a jacket, covering the top half of her body, could have obscured an apron, worn at the bottom half Harry? The fact is that two Police Officers were both certain that she was wearing an apron. If they weren’t certain they could have said so like Sergeant Byfield. Proving that Eddowes was wearing an apron didn’t benefit the Police if it wasn’t true so they had no reason to state that she was wearing one if they weren’t sure. To be honest Harry, I’d say that Hutt and Robinson are about as strong as witnesses get in this case.

On your second point Harry, you’re right that we have no way of knowing which direction she took after leaving the station but, according to the theory, she would have had around 30 minutes to have walked back to her lodgings and then turned round to walk back to Mitre Square to be seen by Lawende and co. It’s certainly not impossible but we can only attempt to judge how likely it would have been? No one mentioned seeing her at her lodgings in an area where she was known. Trevor suggested that the guy on the door might have been asleep. Again, not impossible, but we need a few bits of bad luck for investigators to make this a possibility. Then we have to say that it looks more than a little illogical - like most of her class she’d have carried everything that she owned of value (not much) on her so it’s difficult to suggest that she went back to get something (what could have been that important?) So why go back there only to pretty much turn straight back and walk to an area which, as far as we know, she had no connection to. We would have thought that her priority would have been somewhere to sleep.

When we add these to the rest of the evidence then we get a fairly clear picture of what happened. There really can be no doubt that the apron piece got to Goulston Street via the killer and that it was part of an apron that Eddowes was wearing when she was killed.

I was too late to edit but, as per the quote posted by Joshua in post #522 it looks like Hutt did know which way she’d gone.

[Sunny Delight]

Bit off topic but I always found it incredible that when Eddowes said she would get a 'hiding' when she got home the Policeman tells her that it serves her right. And he tells the Inquest this and no one bats an eyelid. That alone gives a window into the thinking towards women in general at that time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Bit off topic but I always found it incredible that when Eddowes said she would get a 'hiding' when she got home the Policeman tells her that it serves her right. And he tells the Inquest this and no one bats an eyelid. That alone gives a window into the thinking towards women in general at that time.

A sad reflection of the time Sunny. If a woman took a beating in those days the only question arising would have been “I wonder what she’d done wrong for her husband to have done that?”

[Sunny Delight]

A sad reflection of the time Sunny. If a woman took a beating in those days the only question arising would have been “I wonder what she’d done wrong for her husband to have done that?”

Yes it certainly seems that way. It got me thinking of the investigation into the Ripper murders- I wonder how much of it was subject to misogyny. I think it is Fisherman on here who advocates Charles Cross as the Ripper and that PC Mizen had been fooled by Cross into thinking there was a Policeman already at the scene of Polly Nichols murder. It seems to me that going by the standards of the day the PC probably thought to himself- some drunk woman lying in the street is of no great concern to me. If she is drunk let her lie there it serves her right. Of course I could be completely wrong and Mizen was much more thoughtful but I do wonder about the social standard of the day a lot.

[harry]

Some jackets,Herlock,came well below the knee.If it was calico,and as black and dirty as Dew describes it,what was showing beneath the jacket might well have presented a difficulty in identification,and being as the arresting officers seemed to be directing all their efforts on subdueing Eddowes and getting her to the police station,there would seem little chance of more than a brief check of clothing,even if the officers thought a check neccessary.
Here's something that might draw some comment.Brown states his attention was drawn to the apron.What does he mean.It appears an ambiguous statement.Does he mean he saw the pieces and became interested,or does it mean someone drew his attention to the pieces? At that time the pieces would have been police evidence,under control and in possession of police.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Some jackets,Herlock,came well below the knee.If it was calico,and as black and dirty as Dew describes it,what was showing beneath the jacket might well have presented a difficulty in identification,and being as the arresting officers seemed to be directing all their efforts on subdueing Eddowes and getting her to the police station,there would seem little chance of more than a brief check of clothing,even if the officers thought a check neccessary.
Here's something that might draw some comment.Brown states his attention was drawn to the apron.What does he mean.It appears an ambiguous statement.Does he mean he saw the pieces and became interested,or does it mean someone drew his attention to the pieces? At that time the pieces would have been police evidence,under control and in possession of police.

The problem though Harry is that Hutt and Robinson both say that she was wearing an apron. Robinson arrested her and so walked with her from Aldgate High Street to Bishopsgate Station. She was lying on the floor (presumably face up) when arrested. Why would either of them say that she was wearing an apron if she wasn’t? Neither they, or the Police in general, would have benefitted in any way from perpetuating false information.

On your point about Brown:

“My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin-“ It means that his attention was drawn to the corner of the apron where the blood spots were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes it certainly seems that way. It got me thinking of the investigation into the Ripper murders- I wonder how much of it was subject to misogyny. I think it is Fisherman on here who advocates Charles Cross as the Ripper and that PC Mizen had been fooled by Cross into thinking there was a Policeman already at the scene of Polly Nichols murder. It seems to me that going by the standards of the day the PC probably thought to himself- some drunk woman lying in the street is of no great concern to me. If she is drunk let her lie there it serves her right. Of course I could be completely wrong and Mizen was much more thoughtful but I do wonder about the social standard of the day a lot.

And people sleeping rough would have been an even more regular sight than it sadly is today SD. I can’t recall specifically where I’ve read it but I believe that Constable’s were advised/told not to get involved in ‘domestics.’ It’s sad to think how many woman must have been regularly and brutally beaten by husbands who pretty much knew that they could get away with it. A man couldn’t even be charged with raping his wife in those days (something that persisted until at least the 50’s/60’s as far as I’m aware.) Then they had gangs preying on prostitutes. I wonder how many man hours were applied to investigating that particular issue. Not a lot I’m guessing. It’s says something when you can say that those poor women would have had better lives had they been born in Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban!

[caz]

A man couldn’t even be charged with raping his wife in those days (something that persisted until at least the 50’s/60’s as far as I’m aware.)

It wasn't illegal here in the wonderful UK until the early 1990s, Herlock.

Love,

Caz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

It wasn't illegal here in the wonderful UK until the early 1990s, Herlock.

Love,

Caz
X

Really? I was surprise the at the 60’s but the 90’s! I’ve been watching an excellent 3 part documentary on Ruth Ellis and it was mentioned on there. I know that progress can be slow but that’s more than a little worrying. Please tell me that witch burning is illegal now Caz?

[caz]

Please tell me that witch burning is illegal now Caz?

If you don't hear from me in a while, Herlock, call the fire brigade first and the cops second...

Love,

Witchycaz
X

[Herlock Sholmes]

If you don't hear from me in a while, Herlock, call the fire brigade first and the cops second...

Love,

Witchycaz
X