PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Jon Guy]

Lets look at it another way if we accept that she was wearing an apron when she left the police station who is to say that at some point thereafter she removed it and for whatever reason cut it into several pieces. One of those pieces she could have deposited herself in GS and the other was still in her possession when she was murdered.

Okay Trev, so Eddowes has been sitting in a police cell for nearly four hours where they would have catered for any essential needs, yet on release she walks to Goulston Street, destroys the apron she is wearing to clean herself in a doorway and then walks back into the City.

[Jon Guy]

If you theory is to be believed why did he not simply make one long cut cutting all the garments in one go thereby making an complete opening of the garments he could have done that with one sweep of the knife if he had have done that we wouldn't have different length of cuts in different directions. All of these cuts in my opinion goes to show the ferocity of the attack.

What bolsters my theory is that apparently all the clothing with a waistband that Eddowes was wearing was cut through.

[Jon Guy]

Well we know he couldn't have fitted the GS piece to the mortuary piece whilst the MP was still on the body because of the timings .

Brown would have seen the apron on the body at Mitre Sq, and again at the mortuary.
He is obviously referring to the fact, as everyone keeps pointing out, that she had been wearing the apron when first discovered.

Halse also noted at the mortuary that a portion of the apron she was wearing was missing (this was before he knew of the of the rag in Goulston St)

and you know you cant tie and apron around your body with only one string.
.

With our without strings the apron would have stayed in situ on the body due to gravity.

[Jon Guy]

if you were the killer at the crime scene and you had blood all over your hands and on the knife you held in your hand what would you do ?

Options
1. Wipe your hands or the knife on the clothes of the victim

2. If you did cut the apron piece for either or both of the above suggestions
and left the crime scene with the piece how long would it take you to
accomplish either or both tasks- less that a minute I would
suggest

3. Once you had accomplished either or both tasks what would you then do
with the apron piece- get rid as quick as possible as it would be
incriminating evidence

4. You would not want to carry it or the knife for that matter all the way to
GS before disposing of it

Well the killer seems to have gone for option 4, which is probably why he got away with it.

Whoever would have chosen to stay close by the body, or somewhere in Mitre Sq cleaning up, ran the very real risk of been caught, literally red handed by one of the policemen on the beat whose arrival would have been imminent

The further away from Mitre Sq he was, the least likely he was to be approached and searched.

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay Trev, so Eddowes has been sitting in a police cell for nearly four hours where they would have catered for any essential needs, yet on release she walks to Goulston Street, destroys the apron she is wearing to clean herself in a doorway and then walks back into the City.

I am going to reply to your post in great detail, and I will make it clear that I do not intend to enter into any further discussion on this issue again. You and others can either accept it or reject it.

Firstly you have to accept that if you negate the original theories about the apron piece. There has to be another explanation. We know the apron piece as GS was connected to the victim, but was it connected to the murder?

To put the record straight I suggested two alternatives both consistent with her not wearing an apron but simply being in possession of two old pieces of the same apron which when matched did not even amount to a full apron.

The first being that she when arrested she could have been wearing one of the old pieces as a sanitary device. The description of the apron is consistent of that piece being between her legs, when going through the menstrual cycle. Spotted with blood, fecal matter on it and wet.

It is a known fact that when drunks are left in police cells they fall asleep and become incontinent. The wetness of the apron could be as a result of that. Women in victorian times when menstruating wore cloths and rags which were either stuffed in their underclothes or more often than not affixed by pins to undergarments such as a chemise

Eddowes had in her property such pins. She was also wearing a mans vest and a chemise to which a cloth cloth could easily be affixed to either.

Some researchers seem to want to suggest that because she had 12 pieces of cloth in her possession she could have used one of those. Of course we don't know why she had them, and we don't even know what sizes these were. So to suggest that is pure conjecture and a simply a weak explanation to negate the apron piece being used for such a purpose. They didn't use cloths or rags in the same way women of today use tampons.

Eddowes used to do some Hawking. so how do we know that the 12 pieces of cloth were not in her possession for the purpose of her trying to make money by selling them for some purpose.

No one saw Eddowes following her release from the police station so we don't know where she went or if she met anyone. But again we shouldn't dismiss the fact that she could have decided to make her way home and when she got near for whatever reason decided otherwise.

If that be the case she could have been in GS herself after all its a stones throw from Flower and dean St where he was lodging. If that were the case. She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and get rid of her wet and soiled sanitary device (the apron piece)

Alternatively even if she had not been using it as a sanitary device, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron, she might have met a client and gone under the archway with that client to engage in some form of sexual activity and afterwards used one of the pieces of old apron to wipe herself down discarding it afterwards.

Make no mistake the apron piece was screwed up and not clearly visible, to me that says discarded

Forgot the third it was planted !

[Jon Guy]

I am going to reply to your post in great detail, and I will make it clear that I do not intend to enter into any further discussion on this issue again. You and others can either accept it or reject it.

Firstly you have to accept that if you negate the original theories about the apron piece. There has to be another explanation. We know the apron piece as GS was connected to the victim, but was it connected to the murder?

To put the record straight I suggested two alternatives both consistent with her not wearing an apron but simply being in possession of two old pieces of the same apron which when matched did not even amount to a full apron.

The first being that she when arrested she could have been wearing one of the old pieces as a sanitary device. The description of the apron is consistent of that piece being between her legs, when going through the menstrual cycle. Spotted with blood, fecal matter on it and wet.

It is a known fact that when drunks are left in police cells they fall asleep and become incontinent. The wetness of the apron could be as a result of that. Women in victorian times when menstruating wore cloths and rags which were either stuffed in their underclothes or more often than not affixed by pins to undergarments such as a chemise

Eddowes had in her property such pins. She was also wearing a mans vest and a chemise to which a cloth cloth could easily be affixed to either.

Some researchers seem to want to suggest that because she had 12 pieces of cloth in her possession she could have used one of those. Of course we don't know why she had them, and we don't even know what sizes these were. So to suggest that is pure conjecture and a simply a weak explanation to negate the apron piece being used for such a purpose. They didn't use cloths or rags in the same way women of today use tampons.

Eddowes used to do some Hawking. so how do we know that the 12 pieces of cloth were not in her possession for the purpose of her trying to make money by selling them for some purpose.

No one saw Eddowes following her release from the police station so we don't know where she went or if she met anyone. But again we shouldn't dismiss the fact that she could have decided to make her way home and when she got near for whatever reason decided otherwise.

If that be the case she could have been in GS herself after all its a stones throw from Flower and dean St where he was lodging. If that were the case. She could have gone under the archway to go to the toilet and get rid of her wet and soiled sanitary device (the apron piece)

Alternatively even if she had not been using it as a sanitary device, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron, she might have met a client and gone under the archway with that client to engage in some form of sexual activity and afterwards used one of the pieces of old apron to wipe herself down discarding it afterwards.

Make no mistake the apron piece was screwed up and not clearly visible, to me that says discarded

Thanks for the detailed reply, Trevor.
You make some good points. In the past, I have also noted that the 12 pcs of rag could have had something to do with her hawking, if not also to sell to fellow female lodgers.
The only sticking point is that many witnesses refer to the apron that she was wearing, and also why her possessions weren`t just listed as 13 pcs of rag.
Why 12pcs of rag and one apron with repairs.

[Garry Wroe]

Whoever would have chosen to stay close by the body, or somewhere in Mitre Sq cleaning up, ran the very real risk of been caught, literally red handed by one of the policemen on the beat whose arrival would have been imminent

But he did stay long enough to inflict several delicate cuts to and about Eddowes' eyelids, Jon. Besides which, wiping his hands and knife on the victim's clothing would have taken but a few seconds.

I would suggest that the notion of the killer being surprised by the arrival of a beat policeman neglects the fact that the vast majority of uniformed policemen wore heavy leather-soled boots, the sound from which announced an officer's approach long before his eventual appearance at any given street location. George Morris referred specifically to this under press interview. He, like Fanny Mortimer and others, stated that he could hear the sound of the beat policeman's boots every fifteen minutes or so, and this from within the warehouse in which he was stationed. With this in mind, I think it likely that the killer went about his business whilst listening for any hint of danger. If he did hear the sound of boot on pavement he'd have been be long gone by the time the officer appeared on the scene. Hence the unlikelihood of the killer being caught red-handed.

[Jon Guy]

But he did stay long enough to inflict several delicate cuts to and about Eddowes' eyelids, Jon. Besides which, wiping his hands and knife on the victim's clothing would have taken but a few seconds.
.

But, the facial mutilations were inflicted first, Garry (or just after the throat cut) so by the time he had done "his thing" to the abdomen he may have been acutely aware that he had outdone his stay in the Square.

I would suggest that the notion of the killer being surprised by the arrival of a beat policeman neglects the fact that the vast majority of uniformed policemen wore heavy leather-soled boots, the sound from which announced an officer's approach long before his eventual appearance at any given street location. George Morris referred specifically to this under press interview. He, like Fanny Mortimer and others, stated that he could hear the sound of the beat policeman's boots every fifteen minutes or so, and this from within the warehouse in which he was stationed. With this in mind, I think it likely that the killer went about his business whilst listening for any hint of danger. If he did hear the sound of boot on pavement he'd have been be long gone by the time the officer appeared on the scene. Hence the unlikelihood of the killer being caught red-handed.

Indeed, it may have been these footsteps that caused the killer to whip off a piece of cloth and leave the scene immediately.

If the rag wasn`t to quickly clean his hands (in case he was stopped), perhaps it had been cut before he had removed the organs and he was already plopping the organs on it as he worked?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Trevor.
You make some good points. In the past, I have also noted that the 12 pcs of rag could have had something to do with her hawking, if not also to sell to fellow female lodgers.
The only sticking point is that many witnesses refer to the apron that she was wearing, and also why her possessions weren`t just listed as 13 pcs of rag.
Why 12pcs of rag and one apron with repairs.

I would suggest that the 12 pieces were differnt in size to the larger piece of old white apron probably much smaller after all she only had with her a couple of tick bags.


As I have said before the only witnesses who actuall say she was wearing an apron are the police officers snd that part of their evidence is very questionable for the reasons previously discussed.

The other witnesses only infer that she was and their testimony is conflicting as has been highlighted

[Trevor Marriott]

But, the facial mutilations were inflicted first, Garry (or just after the throat cut) so by the time he had done "his thing" to the abdomen he may have been acutely aware that he had outdone his stay in the Square.




Indeed, it may have been these footsteps that caused the killer to whip off a piece of cloth and leave the scene immediately.

If the rag wasn`t to quickly clean his hands (in case he was stopped), perhaps it had been cut before he had removed the organs and he was already plopping the organs on it as he worked?

I have physically proved the organs could not have been taken away in the GS piece

[Debra A]

I have physically proved the organs could not have been taken away in the GS piece

Trevor, how do you picture the apron repair in relation to the two halves?

[Michael W Richards]

But he did stay long enough to inflict several delicate cuts to and about Eddowes' eyelids, Jon. Besides which, wiping his hands and knife on the victim's clothing would have taken but a few seconds.

I would suggest that the notion of the killer being surprised by the arrival of a beat policeman neglects the fact that the vast majority of uniformed policemen wore heavy leather-soled boots, the sound from which announced an officer's approach long before his eventual appearance at any given street location. George Morris referred specifically to this under press interview. He, like Fanny Mortimer and others, stated that he could hear the sound of the beat policeman's boots every fifteen minutes or so, and this from within the warehouse in which he was stationed. With this in mind, I think it likely that the killer went about his business whilst listening for any hint of danger. If he did hear the sound of boot on pavement he'd have been be long gone by the time the officer appeared on the scene. Hence the unlikelihood of the killer being caught red-handed.

Hi Gary,

I believe that some of the points you raise above could provide us with a puzzling factoid about this murder....assuming that the killer chose the venue in this instance, why would he choose a venue that had Morris in the actual square, Pearce who could look out his bedroom window onto the scene, 2 patrol policemen who enter the square multiple times per hour per man, and 3 detectives searching nearby alleys. This has to be either the most dangerous situation for the killer if he is unaware of all those police within screaming distance, or..... the most secure. Within a geographic blanket of active and retired policemen.

Depends on how you see this murder.....a random act that happened because Kate just happened to turn left out of Bishopsgate, or something that was orchestrated to get Kate alone in that square with someone.

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, how do you picture the apron repair in relation to the two halves?

Hi Debs

It would appear that the repair was on the GS piece.

He fitted it to the mortuary piece and stated the seams of the borders corresponded. So to me that means the side of the piece and that to me interprets to the bottom left or bottom right to the corresponding mortuary piece.

[Wickerman]

To you maybe because you want it to be so. If he meant that why didn't see say that after all he was a well educated man was he not?

Oh dear Trevor, you make the easiest of tasks seem so difficult.

Look, lets put the Daily Telegraph quote first:

Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.


Then, the Daily News:

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

Then, lets hear from Insp. Collard:

I produce a portion of the apron which Deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress


Historical analysis is most productive when you collate ALL the sources. "We" should not cherry pick our favourite source at the expense of all the others. NONE of the sources are complete, and they all carry errors.

To receive the best, most accurate overall view of what was said it is important to collate all the sources together, the picture then becomes self evident.

...cant tie and apron around your body with only one string.

Forget this "one string" Trevor, there were two strings.

Here's another example of a missing "s".
Annie Phillips talks about her "Father and 2 Brothers", yet Detective John Mitchell said he "made every enquiry to find the Father and Brother of last witness".

Stewart, when transcribing Mitchells words wrote "Brothers" because that is what was meant, but if you check the original writing the word has no "s" on the end, it reads "Brother".

Mistakes happen Trevor, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Trevor Marriott]

Oh dear Trevor, you make the easiest of tasks seem so difficult.

Look, lets put the Daily Telegraph quote first:

Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.


Then, the Daily News:

Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

Then, lets hear from Insp. Collard:

I produce a portion of the apron which Deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress


Historical analysis is most productive when you collate ALL the sources. "We" should not cherry pick our favourite source at the expense of all the others. NONE of the sources are complete, and they all carry errors.

To receive the best, most accurate overall view of what was said it is important to collate all the sources together, the picture then becomes self evident.




Forget this "one string" Trevor, there were two strings.

Here's another example of a missing "s".
Annie Phillips talks about her "Father and 2 Brothers", yet Detective John Mitchell said he "made every enquiry to find the Father and Brother of last witness".

Stewart, when transcribing Mitchells words wrote "Brothers" because that is what was meant, but if you check the original writing the word has no "s" on the end, it reads "Brother".

Mistakes happen Trevor, you're barking up the wrong tree.

You are the one doing the cherry picking i am the one pointing out the inconsistencies and saying it is unsafe to rely on the newspaper reports. I said in an earlier post today that the only people who say they saw her wearing an apron were the police officers. Their evidence does not stand up to close scrutiny either as I have previously pointed out.

All the other reports are so ambiguous that again they are unsafe to rely on. Of all the witnesses that saw the body from when it was in situ to the post mortem not one categorically says she was wearing an apron. No matter how you choose to interpret the reports--- not one!

All the newspapers carry error and inconsistencies and you keep using them to prop up your belief.

How can you forget the one string when it is there in black and white. If the apron had two string it would have still been tied to the body and when they stripped the body they would have seen it and noted it as such. They didnt because it wasn't tied to the body

Who gives a dam about any other missing s`s are they relevant to this --no they are not

You say I am barking up the wrong tree well let me say as far as I am concerned it is you that is barking mad. You are totally obsessed in the old theory yet for the past 48 hours now it has been shot down in flames before your eyes and the truth is you cant accept it and you keep coming back with the most ridiculous suggestions and the missing s`s takes the biscuit