PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[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

[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
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,

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

Hi Carol

Well as long as you arrive to what you believe to be the right one at the end. It doesn't matter how long it takes. Look at how long the old accepted theories have been relied on without question

[Monty]

Indeed Carol,

Some have studied the case for over 60 years, and taken their time to reach their conclusions whereas other, like Trevor, are Johnny come lately's, and rush into ill researched and ill informed conclusions which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief.

Luckly there are reasoned and responsible reseachers and authors to counter the latter.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed Carol,

Some have studied the case for over 60 years, and taken their time to reach their conclusions whereas other, like Trevor, are Johnny come lately's, and rush into ill researched and ill informed conclusions which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief.

Luckly there are reasoned and responsible reseachers and authors to counter the latter.

Monty

Yes but many without any real sense of reasoning, or the ability to apply logic to the research. I think it commonly called being blinkered.

Perhaps they should spend more time re investigating the case in more detail as I have. Instead of simply accepting what has gone before. Because those few you refer to are in the minority now. The public are wising up now to the fact that there are other plausible alternatives to some parts of this mystery and good evidence to support the new alternatives.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

never been a more truer saying

[Wickerman]

If that were the case then it would have still been fixed to the body at the back with the two strings....

It was still attached with two strings.
Do you seriously think the doctors are going to look for the knot underneath her body and fiddle with it to untie the blood soaked apron?
They could hardly turn her over could they!
More likely they just snipped the string at one side to get it off and out of the way.

Therefore, any third party looking at this portion of an apron will naturally see one string still attached to the apron.

[Debra A]

Yes but many without any real sense of reasoning, or the ability to apply logic to the research. I think it commonly called being blinkered.

True, I remember two examples-William McGrath and Harriett Buswell research as related to Special Branch wasn't it?

[Varqm]

"which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief"
Monty

But who decides these two. So now you and others who think like you, are saying
you have such a total, excellent sense/grip of life/reality/this case and it's
possibilities,that you know more about what could have happened and not?
Please. Don't be silly. Such nonsense.

whatever happened to..
veni vedi veci..
instead ...(a one ton rock falls in front)
The materials are way too scant, there are several possibilities,
we cannot conclude with any degree of certainty.
People can still create reasonable doubt.

[GUT]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

never been a more truer saying

So now it's Trevor Gandhi!

[Monty]

"which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief"
Monty

But who decides these two. So now you and others who think like you, are saying
you have such a total, excellent sense/grip of life/reality/this case and it's
possibilities,that you know more about what could have happened and not?
Please. Don't be silly. Such nonsense.

whatever happened to..
veni vedi veci..
instead ...(a one ton rock falls in front)
The materials are way too scant, there are several possibilities,
we cannot conclude with any degree of certainty.
People can still create reasonable doubt.

Not at all Varmq,

I do not know your status however I know mine, and I know when evidence is being stretched to fit a theory.

Indeed, 'materials' are far too scant, yet Trevor not only forms theories on this material, but claims them as truths. And therees the rub.

Now you may be happy with this low level of integrity, however I am not. I believe we have a responsibility to state fact it as it is, not as we percieve it.

Monty

[Monty]

True, I remember two examples-William McGrath and Harriett Buswell research as related to Special Branch wasn't it?

Indeed Debs,

Goose and Gander.

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

But did you not wonder why no one from 1888 or therefater ever thought of it ?

Well, Trev, Hutchinson's Astrakhan story went unchallenged until I subjected it to scrutiny in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays very few take Hutchinson at face value. But if you are suggesting that we should reject the notion that the killer wrapped Eddowes' body parts in the apron remnant purely on the basis that no-one proposed it at the time, then we must surely apply the same logic to your own argument and dispel the contention that the victims' body parts were taken away by someone other than the murderer.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Trev, Hutchinson's Astrakhan story went unchallenged until I subjected it to scrutiny in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays very few take Hutchinson at face value. But if you are suggesting that we should reject the notion that the killer wrapped Eddowes' body parts in the apron remnant purely on the basis that no-one proposed it at the time, then we must surely apply the same logic to your own argument and dispel the contention that the victims' body parts were taken away by someone other than the murderer.

Hi Garry

I am not basing my arguments on that fact alone but on a combination of facts that put together would suggest that the organs were not taken away in the piece, along with the facts that suggest she wasn't wearing an apron.

So if she wasn't wearing apron the killer could not have cut it or tore it in any event and therefore could not have taken the organs away.

Just as a matter of interest why do you think the police did not consider the fact that the apron piece was used to take the organs away in ?

[Trevor Marriott]

It was still attached with two strings.
Do you seriously think the doctors are going to look for the knot underneath her body and fiddle with it to untie the blood soaked apron?
They could hardly turn her over could they!
More likely they just snipped the string at one side to get it off and out of the way.

Well if they did that then it would have been noticeable and listed as an item she was wearing. They prepared two separate lists of clothing shew was wearing were thy that incompetent that they missed the apron of both occasions. Besides they would have had to lift the body up to removes the other items of clothing. They would also have had to turn the body to see if there were any marks cuts etc to the back

Therefore, any third party looking at this portion of an apron will naturally see one string still attached to the apron.

Then it would have been listed as one white apron with piece missing.

Stop hanging onto a myth that has crumbled