PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Carol]

Hi Carol
Well its nice to think you are prepared to look at all options some on here don't want to even do that.

I don't have an agenda with this I simply seek to try to find out the truth, and in trying to get to that point. If you add the fact that the mortuary lists don't mention her wearing one, with the position of the clothing when the body was found make a compelling case to suggest she wasn't wearing one and the killer couldn't have cut it or tore it as has been suggested. And that as you have seen on here is a big kick in the teeth to those who suggest the killer carried away the organs in it. And of course if he didnt then we have to ask were the organs removed at the crime scene ?

Even with her clothes up around her waist and the killer had gone to all those lengths to cut or tear a piece from it. The rest of the apron would have still been tied around her waist by the strings and when the body was stripped they would have had to undo those string to remove what was left and it would have been noted in that way.

Don`t sit on the fence to long though you might get splinters

Hi Trevor,

There's a lot to think about, isn't there!

I guess I'll have to put my winter bloomers on early this year as knowing me I'll still be sitting on the fence come Christmas. (My husband will tell you that I'm not known for making quick decisions - much to his exasperation at times!).

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I agree - if we can accept that the mortuary list of what Eddowes was wearing is correct. I guess at the moment I'm sitting on the proverbial wall and haven't decided which side to jump!

I keep coming up with 'fors and againsts' for this mysterious apron. I, too, had thought about what you have written above as a 'for' for the wearing of the apron theory and an 'against' for the mortuary list.

Carol

Hi Carol
Well its nice to think you are prepared to look at all options some on here don't want to even do that.

I don't have an agenda with this I simply seek to try to find out the truth, and in trying to get to that point. If you add the fact that the mortuary lists don't mention her wearing one, with the position of the clothing when the body was found make a compelling case to suggest she wasn't wearing one and the killer couldn't have cut it or tore it as has been suggested. And that as you have seen on here is a big kick in the teeth to those who suggest the killer carried away the organs in it. And of course if he didnt then we have to ask were the organs removed at the crime scene ?

Even with her clothes up around her waist and the killer had gone to all those lengths to cut or tear a piece from it. The rest of the apron would have still been tied around her waist by the strings and when the body was stripped they would have had to undo those string to remove what was left and it would have been noted in that way.

Don`t sit on the fence to long though you might get splinters

[Carol]

Hi Carol
If that were the case then it would have still been fixed to the body at the back with the two strings and it would have been clearly visible when the body was stripped

Hi Trevor,

Yes, I agree - if we can accept that the mortuary list of what Eddowes was wearing is correct. I guess at the moment I'm sitting on the proverbial wall and haven't decided which side to jump!

I keep coming up with 'fors and againsts' for this mysterious apron. What I had previously posted registered a 'for' for the wearing of the apron theory and an 'against' for the mortuary list.

Carol

[Wickerman]

Hi Mike.

Brown said that her dress was thrown up and that there was no blood on the front of her clothes.

Not forgetting the actual lack of stab wounds in the torso...

The only stab wound, a superficial wound, was noted in her genital area, a shallow wound 1 inch deep. But this is not what Trevor is referring to.

Which is why I am wondering what clothing is being referred to here...

[Trevor Marriott]

Just so we are on the same page, can you clarify which clothing she wore that bore stab wounds?

From mortuary list 2

First thing to note which corroborates what Dr Brown says about the lack of blood on the front of her clothes this make that statement clearer for the benefit of you and another poster !

“Black Cloth Jacket- imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.

“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 before you come back saying these are cuts and not stab wounds. She would have to have been stabbed for the knife to have been drawn down and across. The PM report also highlights stabs and cuts to the inside of the abdomen.

[Trevor Marriott]

Brown said that her dress was thrown up and that there was no blood on the front of her clothes. That would indicate that Eddowes wasn't stabbed through her clothing. The simple story would be that the threadbare apron was torn away and the rest of the clothing lifted up. Why would about half of an apron be torn away? Because it was separate from the rest, much like a bonnet and would have been easily gotten rid of. Upon finishing his "job" the killer would have had a decent-sized piece of cloth to wipe his hands or knife with. Why not use the dress to wipe with? The dress was pushed up presumably and the apron piece was more easily reached and may have even been in his hand or in front of his lap for all we know. It doesn't really matter as we can't know these details. What we can and do know is that a piece of apron was taken away. Any doubts about that border on the absurd in my opinion.

Mike

Any old excuses other than accept the most plausible based on the facts and the evidence !
And some of you profess to be knowledgable and intelligent !

[The Good Michael]

Brown said that her dress was thrown up and that there was no blood on the front of her clothes. That would indicate that Eddowes wasn't stabbed through her clothing. The simple story would be that the threadbare apron was torn away and the rest of the clothing lifted up. Why would about half of an apron be torn away? Because it was separate from the rest, much like a bonnet and would have been easily gotten rid of. Upon finishing his "job" the killer would have had a decent-sized piece of cloth to wipe his hands or knife with. Why not use the dress to wipe with? The dress was pushed up presumably and the apron piece was more easily reached and may have even been in his hand or in front of his lap for all we know. It doesn't really matter as we can't know these details. What we can and do know is that a piece of apron was taken away. Any doubts about that border on the absurd in my opinion.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi everyone,

I've been wondering this myself. I have one thought. Eddowes, knowing that the only way she could get some money to pay for a bed for the night was to prostitute herself, realised that her apron was filthy and took it off and tied it around her waist UNDER the rest of her clothes. She apparently was a clean woman under normal circumstances. Then the apron would have been lying there ON TOP of the other clothing and consequently would have been very easily available to the murderer.

Carol

Hi Carol
If that were the case then it would have still been fixed to the body at the back with the two strings and it would have been clearly visible when the body was stripped

[Wickerman]

Lets look at the sequence of events from yours and others perspective. Eddowes is wearing her apron. The killer stabs here through her outer clothing several times and then lifts all her clothes up above her waist...

Just so we are on the same page, can you clarify which clothing she wore that bore stab wounds?

[Michael W Richards]

"Luck" was his middle name.
Regardless of the time he chose to leave, he still had to leave, and there were only three exits.
Watkins patrolling Mitre-street, Harvey patrolling Duke-street, and two night watchmen on duty at the fire-station in St. James Place.

Options:
1 - The killer left via Mitre-street, before Watkins turned into Mitre-street.
2 - The killer left via Duke-street, before Harvey turned into Duke-street.
3 - The killer left via St. James Place, while the two watchmen were somehow distracted?

There is also a remote possibility that the killer waited in one of the many abandoned buildings in the square, dressed as a uniformed cop, and when the square began to fill with other coppers, he just came out and blended in and left. Before the buildings were searched.

Interestingly that bit of speculation might also address why the apron section was not seen in Goulston until almost 3am.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Let me ask you a question what time do you suggest Eddowes and the killer entered the square?

Roughly the time window is between 1:32 - 1:42.

If Watkins entered the square via Mitre-street, as claimed, about 1:30, then for him to circumnavigate the square, and exit the same way we must allow perhaps 2 minutes max.? (so exit at 1:32 - arguably).

If Harvey reached the end of Church Passage, as claimed, by at least 18 minutes to 2:00 (1:42), then we have roughly 10 minutes of uninterrupted time in Mitre-square.

I suspect the body was already in place by the time Harvey reached the end of Church Passage (at 1:42), he just couldn't see it through the darkness.

Eddowes & her killer could have entered the square via Church Passage within a minute or so of Watkins leaving. PC Harvey would have been coming up Duke-street from Aldgate at that time.

They could also have entered via Mitre-street shortly after Watkins exited the square on his beat proceeding northward.

Also, James Blenkingsop admitted to seeing people pass him (around 1:30), on his duty in St. James Place:
"I have seen some people pass."
The police would doubtless have asked him if he could identify Eddowes clothes. The fact he was not summonsed to the Inquest likely indicates that he couldn't.
So, we don't know who these "people" were.

Even though the stated times are generally deemed unreliable, at least in this case we can appreciate a time window of roughly 8-10 minutes for this crime to occur.
As medical opinion suggests 5 minutes as the minimum necessary, then there is no justification to claim the killer was interrupted.
Likewise then, although the couple seen by Lawende "could" have been Eddowes & Co., (based on the stated times not being accurate), it is not certain and there is no need to assume no alternatives exist, they do.

[Carol]

Now if she were wearing an apron, then the apron when all the clothes were lifted up would have been nearest to her body and furthest away from the killers access to it by reason of all the other clothes which would have been covering it. So why if the killer wanted a piece of cloth to take away the organs in, wipe his hands or his knife etc, did he not cut or tear a piece of any of the other items of clothing which were much easily accessible to him?

Hi everyone,

I've been wondering this myself. I have one thought. Eddowes, knowing that the only way she could get some money to pay for a bed for the night was to prostitute herself, realised that her apron was filthy and took it off and tied it around her waist UNDER the rest of her clothes. She apparently was a clean woman under normal circumstances. Then the apron would have been lying there ON TOP of the other clothing and consequently would have been very easily available to the murderer.

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

"Luck" was his middle name.
Regardless of the time he chose to leave, he still had to leave, and there were only three exits.
Watkins patrolling Mitre-street, Harvey patrolling Duke-street, and two night watchmen on duty at the fire-station in St. James Place.

Options:
1 - The killer left via Mitre-street, before Watkins turned into Mitre-street.
2 - The killer left via Duke-street, before Harvey turned into Duke-street.
3 - The killer left via St. James Place, while the two watchmen were somehow distracted?

Yes but any of those scenarios eats into the valuable 5 minute time window which leaves him even less time to carry out all he is supposed to have done.

Let me ask you a question what time do you suggest Eddowes and the killer entered the square?

I also forgot to mention another important aspect regarding the removal of the organs and the apron piece and for this I will play devils advocate.

You for one subscribe to the killer cutting or tearing a piece of her apron for any of the four theories organ removal, hand wiping. knife wiping, he cut himself

Now unless the killer was premeditated in his actions and cut or tore a piece of the apron before he carried out any of the mutilations or organ removal. How can you explain away as to how he was able to cut or tear a piece off the apron thereafter?

Lets look at the sequence of events from yours and others perspective. Eddowes is wearing her apron. The killer stabs here through her outer clothing several times and then lifts all her clothes up above her waist, this is how the body was found. I refer back to the mortuary piece which did not have any cuts of any description.

Now if she were wearing an apron, then the apron when all the clothes were lifted up would have been nearest to her body and furthest away from the killers access to it by reason of all the other clothes which would have been covering it. So why if the killer wanted a piece of cloth to take away the organs in, wipe his hands or his knife etc, did he not cut or tear a piece of any of the other items of clothing which were much easily accessible to him?

Now please don't say he did it beforehand because to say that would suggest forward planning to take the organs, because that falls flat by reason of him wildly stabbing the abdomen thereby damaging any organs he might have been seeking to harvest.

Wiping his hands or knife has been discussed many times and the general consensus on this is that the killer could have done either at the crime scene, But if he were disturbed he would not have had tine to do any of the four, which then leads us back to other explanations previously discussed

[Wickerman]

That's what you keep inferring but how does it appear to.You are suggesting the killer did all he is supposed to have fo done and quickly left when Harvey came along how convenient props up your theory very nicely doesn't it !

If he had left having done all of that as you suggest wasn't he lucky in not picking and exit route where he would have met an oncoming police officer ?

"Luck" was his middle name.
Regardless of the time he chose to leave, he still had to leave, and there were only three exits.
Watkins patrolling Mitre-street, Harvey patrolling Duke-street, and two night watchmen on duty at the fire-station in St. James Place.

Options:
1 - The killer left via Mitre-street, before Watkins turned into Mitre-street.
2 - The killer left via Duke-street, before Harvey turned into Duke-street.
3 - The killer left via St. James Place, while the two watchmen were somehow distracted?

[Trevor Marriott]

My comment to which you responded was in relation to the first pic offered by Monty, you attached the second pic.

That said, who pasted the X in white?
I only ask because just to the right, and within the passage we can just make out the figure of a person - presumably intended to indicate the location of PC Harvey.




With the exception of one too many 'probably', I agree.

The distance from that corner lamp, across the square to the body, was a little more than 72 ft.
But isn't it immaterial, had the killer heard footsteps coming towards him (an echo down the passage), he would have fled immediately, wouldn't he?
Long before the silhouette of a person came into view. He wasn't to know the person was not intending to walk across the square.

The fact the killer appears to have sufficient time to 'toy
' with the body, indicates he was not pushed for time, or if interrupted at all, it was only in the 'toying' phase. The significant mutilations being already concluded.

That's what you keep inferring but how does it appear to.You are suggesting the killer did all he is supposed to have fo done and quickly left when Harvey came along how convenient props up your theory very nicely doesn't it !

If he had left having done all of that as you suggest wasn't he lucky in not picking and exit route where he would have met an oncoming police officer ?