Goulstan Street Graffito.

[harry]

Did Long find the piece of apron in Goulstan Street? What was important enough(To Long) about the piece of apron that Long should ignore regulations and remove it from what he believed might be a crime scene.He could find no evidence of a crime,and by his own admission had not at that time heard of Stride's killing.Was there no other option than to leave his patrol,and take the cloth to the police station?

[Herlock Sholmes]

You keep thinking that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I will. So will everyone else on Planet Earth

[Herlock Sholmes]

Originally posted by erobitha View Post
I haven’t actually read your book at all. But there are many authors on these forums whose books I have not read either. For the purpose of debate on a forum, you simply cannot just say “read my book it’s all in there”. If you have a theory you are happy to stand over then it should be open to debate. I have debated with many on here who have not agreed with my theory and are ever likely to - unless I can provide absolute hard evidence. I’m ever unlikely to agree with yours on the same basis. That’s fine.

Out of interest what knowledge does a modern day gynaecologist have with regards to period hygiene of the late Victorian period? You have to demonstrate that ‘street women’ as you call them did in fact engage in such practice. There is no evidence I can see of this.

Then you need to prove she was not menopausal - as you described her health was not the greatest which I would suspect would make her more a likely candidate to start menopause earlier than the average Victorian woman, which was around the age of 40.

Like all theories there are always some elements of possibility of truth. It’s possible what you think is true but I find it difficult to give this theory anymore credence than the others as the hard evidence is as equally lacking.

Trevor

I have gone over the same issues time and time again over the past few years on here, as we are now into 2021 I feel I dont have to keep going over them again and again. I am not suggesting that my theory is correct but it is one that shoulndt be dimissed outright as it has been by some, who are so immersed in the old accepted theories that they dont bother to full evaluate resecrah that might just change their perception of the case

Im afraid this is a typical response Trevor. You can never accept that people have looked at the same evidence as you but have honestly interpreted it differently. You have to imply that posters are simply disagreeing with you for the sake of clinging to your often mentioned ‘old accepted ideas.’ All ideas can and should be re-examined and if something new arises we can challenge them but we shouldn’t assume something sinister purely because of errors or discrepancies which often occur. It’s obviously good to look at new angles but in my opinion what often happens is that some are so desperate to be either ‘the one that discovered ‘x’ or to be the ‘original thinker’ compared to the other stuck-in-the-mud ‘traditionalists’ that they see mysteries where none exist based on the flimsiest of evidence. I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again - if you deliberately set out to find mystery, discrepancy and conspiracy then you’re almost certain to find it. It may be considered ‘boring’ but the watchword should be ‘caution.’ I’d say ‘extreme caution.’

[Trevor Marriott]

But he did remove organs. There’s no doubt about it.

You keep thinking that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I haven’t actually read your book at all. But there are many authors on these forums whose books I have not read either. For the purpose of debate on a forum, you simply cannot just say “read my book it’s all in there”. If you have a theory you are happy to stand over then it should be open to debate. I have debated with many on here who have not agreed with my theory and are ever likely to - unless I can provide absolute hard evidence. I’m ever unlikely to agree with yours on the same basis. That’s fine.

Out of interest what knowledge does a modern day gynaecologist have with regards to period hygiene of the late Victorian period? You have to demonstrate that ‘street women’ as you call them did in fact engage in such practice. There is no evidence I can see of this.

Then you need to prove she was not menopausal - as you described her health was not the greatest which I would suspect would make her more a likely candidate to start menopause earlier than the average Victorian woman, which was around the age of 40.

Like all theories there are always some elements of possibility of truth. It’s possible what you think is true but I find it difficult to give this theory anymore credence than the others as the hard evidence is as equally lacking.

I have gone over the same issues time and time again over the past few years on here, as we are now into 2021 I feel I dont have to keep going over them again and again. I am not suggesting that my theory is correct but it is one that shoulndt be dimissed outright as it has been by some, who are so immersed in the old accepted theories that they dont bother to full evaluate resecrah that might just change their perception of the case

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[TheCuriousCat]

You still seem confused !!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, that is why I said "I'm still completely confused by your assertion..."

I fail to see why if the killer wanted a piece of material he did not cut or tear a piece from another item of clothing that was more accessible than an apron that with the clothes up above the victims waist would have made acess to the apron more difficult, and remeber speed and time was of the utmost importance.

Have you ever cut cloth? Clothing specifically? Here is the quick and dirty: Skirts form either a tube or a cone all the way around the body. It is easiest to cut fabric along the grain. Cutting on the bias is much harder and likely to create a ragged cut. So grabbing a hem of a dress and trying to chop a hunk off will be a lot harder than either cutting all the way around the bottom, and getting it out from under her legs, or making 3 cuts to remove a square of fabric.

An apron, especially one fastened with on piece of string, forms either a square or a semi-circle, and a piece can easily be removed with one, or at most two cuts. Also, some fabrics lend themselves to being towels better than others. Cotton being really absorbent, for instance. Like an apron.

In other words, given your instincts on the subject, it's a good thing you are a writer and not a murderer.

There are four possible scenarios as far as the apron piece is concerned to consider

There is no dispute that the apron piece found in GS matched a piece found at the mortuary. A question that cannot be answered is when the two pieces were matched did they make up a full apron, or were they just two pieces in her possession that had at some time been part of a full apron? The fact that no apron was shown on the list of clothes she was wearing support this theory. If she had have been wearing it as some suggest I would have expected it to have been recorded as "one old white apron with piece missing" not "one old piece of white apron"

Trevor, what exactly makes you an expert on what Dr. Brown would have written? Are you psychic? I agree he might have. Maybe he even should have. But how could you possibly know what he would have done? Personally, I wouldn't write it up the way you suggest. But then again I would have said " the upper portion" or "left half" or some much more descriptive phrase. Do you honestly think you and Dr. Brown are in such close mental agreement that he could never confuse or perplex you in his use of words?

But yes. It might not have been a full apron. I believe this point has been conceded half-a-dozen times now.

The second is if she wasnt wearing an apron at the time of her murder but had been in posession of the two pieces could the killer have taken one of these pieces to wipe his hands or his knife on? Well he could have but it would not have taken him that length of time to do so before discarding it.

If it took him all that long. It's possible it just wasn't noticed earlier.

Thirdly if the killer didnt take away the apron piece or cut a piece how did it get to GS, Did Dc Halse remove it from the crime scene and plant it in the archway? Did he then meet up with the Pc and tell him about the murder and ask him to check the doorways etc, knowing that if he did he would find the apron piece?

Clearly, Eddowes or the muderer are the two most likely suspects for The Case of the Partial or Complete Apron

Or did Eddowes herself deposit it after being released from the police station on her way back to Flower and Dean Street before deciding against going to her lodgings? Could she have turned a trick and gone under the archway and used one of the two pieces of apron to clean herself up and then gone back to the city? The apron piece was smeared/spotted with blood, was wet, and had traces of faecal matter upon it all on one side of the apron piece consietent with it being folded and used as sanitary device which of course history tells us was the method used by victorian street women when menstruating.

She had twelve small squares of fabric with her and she used a large portion of apron? Not very economical of her. I'd be more tempted to believe the killer decided to relieve himself at that spot and wasn't carrying his own supply of sanitary products.

Those who belived that she was wearing an apron seek to rely on dare I say it unsafe evidence, The lodging house supervisor who stated when she left 14 hours before her murder she was wearing an apron, how was he abe to recall wheteher or not she was wearing an apron when the vast marjority of women in London wore white aprons was there anything about the apron that stuck in his mind.

I'd be willing to swear in a court of law that when I saw my building manager yesterday, she was wearing pants, shoes, a shirt, and a mask. Nothing about them particularly stood out, and yet I would have noticed if they were absent.

But, sure he might have been wrong. What significance do you attach to all of this? Are there really people arguing that 100% it had to be the killer who had brought the fabric to GS?

I mean...sure, if it wasn't him, then it means there is nothing positively linking him to Goulstan or to suggest he set off in that direction. That's...about all that changes.

The same applies to the police officer who arrested her for being drunk who then stands up at the inquest and is handed a piece of apron and who blatanly states that it was from the apron that he had seen her wearing. One white apron is the same as another unless there are identifying features which there was not in this case.

It was patched. If they noticed the patch they could have identified it. Also...no actually, not all aprons are the same.

By the time the inquest took place the apron piece became important because the police were using it to try to show the movement of the killer so they had to make a positive link between the GS piece and the mortuary piece to link it to the victim and the killer. To many witnesses were being overly helpful.

Yes, we finally agree on something. If the Ripper didn't bring it to Goulstan, then nothing links him to Goulstan. However, whether the other piece was actually on Catherine is still utterly irrelevant to whether the killer moved the fabric there.

I note that Sgt Byfield makes no mention of her wearing an apron if anyone would have noticed I would sugegst it would have been him, after all he processed her at the police station follwoing her arrest, that process would involve documenting her property. He was also the officer who released her and would have given her property back to her

None of the people who say they saw it on her can be trusted, but the people who didn't mention it are clearly to be trusted. Yes, I find I get the right answer a lot too when I only credit the evidence that agrees with my point of view.

So everything considered the apron and the apron piece are both shrouded in mystery and is not so clear cut (no pun intended) as some would have us believe

Like, for instance, why you seem to believe the killer can't remove fabric from a crime scene unless it is the closest piece of fabric to him, or she is actually wearing it.

[Ms Diddles]

These are street women we are talking about not someone from an normal household,

I am guided by a modern day consultant gynecologist whose opinions on this issue can be read in my book "Jack the Ripper The real truth" which it seems many have not bothered to read in full. In short he states that a woman of her age and life style may not have heavy periods So the decsription of the apron piece is consistent with it being used for such a purpose and being between her legs. As to the wetness some argue that it was wet with blood. I argue that if she had been wearing it whilst in custody being drunk and falling asleep might result in incontinency hence the wetness and the need to dispose of it as being soiled.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Is it not the case that among the items listed as being found in the possession of Eddowes when she was killed, there were a number of rags and pieces of material?

Surely it would have been more probable that Kate would have utilised one of these if caught short, rather than slicing up a perfectly good apron?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I am simply mentioning all the facts relative to all the various scenarios but there is sufficient to cast a major doubt.

And of course not forgetting that if the killer did not remove the organs then that weakens that part of the mystery. and eliminates some of the suggestions made as to why the killer would have cut or torn her apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But he did remove organs. There’s no doubt about it.

[erobitha]

These are street women we are talking about not someone from an normal household,

I am guided by a modern day consultant gynecologist whose opinions on this issue can be read in my book "Jack the Ripper The real truth" which it seems many have not bothered to read in full. In short he states that a woman of her age and life style may not have heavy periods So the decsription of the apron piece is consistent with it being used for such a purpose and being between her legs. As to the wetness some argue that it was wet with blood. I argue that if she had been wearing it whilst in custody being drunk and falling asleep might result in incontinency hence the wetness and the need to dispose of it as being soiled.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I haven’t actually read your book at all. But there are many authors on these forums whose books I have not read either. For the purpose of debate on a forum, you simply cannot just say “read my book it’s all in there”. If you have a theory you are happy to stand over then it should be open to debate. I have debated with many on here who have not agreed with my theory and are ever likely to - unless I can provide absolute hard evidence. I’m ever unlikely to agree with yours on the same basis. That’s fine.

Out of interest what knowledge does a modern day gynaecologist have with regards to period hygiene of the late Victorian period? You have to demonstrate that ‘street women’ as you call them did in fact engage in such practice. There is no evidence I can see of this.

Then you need to prove she was not menopausal - as you described her health was not the greatest which I would suspect would make her more a likely candidate to start menopause earlier than the average Victorian woman, which was around the age of 40.

Like all theories there are always some elements of possibility of truth. It’s possible what you think is true but I find it difficult to give this theory anymore credence than the others as the hard evidence is as equally lacking.

[Trevor Marriott]

I know that I regularly mention the fact of your use of the word ‘unsafe’ but to balance things up I’ll mention something that I regularly bang on about. Conspiracy Theory Thinking. I think that you are reading too much into simple discrepancies in wording. Too many leaps of faith. Enough people said that she was wearing an apron and as most women did and that one was found then it’s a fairly safe bet that she was wearing one. It’s also entirely possible/plausible that the apron came away from her body either when she was lifted onto the gurney or when she was placed onto the mortuary slab (due to the killers knife.) Im sorry but you’re trying to introduce a ‘revelation’ in the form of Halse planting the cloth but there’s simply no basis for it. It’s the missing organs all over again. Keep looking for conspiracies and you’ll keep finding them.

I am simply mentioning all the facts relative to all the various scenarios but there is sufficient to cast a major doubt.

And of course not forgetting that if the killer did not remove the organs then that weakens that part of the mystery. and eliminates some of the suggestions made as to why the killer would have cut or torn her apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I see Trev’s Sanitary Towel theory is getting another tour of duty.

Where is your evidence to suggest women carried around rags to handle their time of the month in the manner you suggest? Would be keen to review the research. This is what I found and it suggests a more customised solution than a single layer of apron rag. Also Eddowes was in her 40’s and most likely menopausal by Victorian standards.

“For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin, called the guard, folded like a cravat, which is pressed against the genitalia, while the ends are secured to a string or riband tied around the body above the hips; but I have seen some, not a few women, who assured me they had never used any other precaution than that of putting on a thicker petticoat for fear of the exposure of their condition. Such persons must be very slightly hemorrhagic, since the want of a guard-napkin would otherwise be sure to expose their condition by stains of blood upon their feet or stockings. Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”

From A Manual of Bandaging: Adapted for Self-instruction, by Charles Henri Leonard, published 1876:

These are street women we are talking about not someone from an normal household,

I am guided by a modern day consultant gynecologist whose opinions on this issue can be read in my book "Jack the Ripper The real truth" which it seems many have not bothered to read in full. In short he states that a woman of her age and life style may not have heavy periods So the decsription of the apron piece is consistent with it being used for such a purpose and being between her legs. As to the wetness some argue that it was wet with blood. I argue that if she had been wearing it whilst in custody being drunk and falling asleep might result in incontinency hence the wetness and the need to dispose of it as being soiled.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

You still seem confused !!!!!!!!!!!

I fail to see why if the killer wanted a piece of material he did not cut or tear a piece from another item of clothing that was more accessible than an apron that with the clothes up above the victims waist would have made acess to the apron more difficult, and remeber speed and time was of the utmost importance.

By stating this Trevor you appear to be suggesting that you know exactly how her clothes were at the time of her death. Yes her skirts were raised but surely it’s possible that her apron hung slightly to one side of her body allowing easy access for the killer. We can’t show or prove that cutting the apron was a particularly difficult operation. You’re in effect saying ‘if it was so difficult to cut her apron why didn’t he cut another part of her clothing?’ But it’s a moot point because we can’t say that it was difficult.

There are four possible scenarios as far as the apron piece is concerned to consider

There is no dispute that the apron piece found in GS matched a piece found at the mortuary. A question that cannot be answered is when the two pieces were matched did they make up a full apron, or were they just two pieces in her possession that had at some time been part of a full apron? The fact that no apron was shown on the list of clothes she was wearing support this theory. If she had have been wearing it as some suggest I would have expected it to have been recorded as "one old white apron with piece missing" not "one old piece of white apron"

I understand what you’re saying but this is another example of the difficulties of how things were recorded. Isn’t a simple possible explanation that the apron simple came away from her body by the time that it got to the mortuary or even just as they first lifted the body?

The second is if she wasnt wearing an apron at the time of her murder but had been in posession of the two pieces could the killer have taken one of these pieces to wipe his hands or his knife on? Well he could have but it would not have taken him that length of time to do so before discarding it.

We can question how long it took him to discard it whether she was wearing it or not. Also, we don’t know that he took such a long time as the possibility exists that Long missed it first time around.

Thirdly if the killer didnt take away the apron piece or cut a piece how did it get to GS, Did Dc Halse remove it from the crime scene and plant it in the archway? Did he then meet up with the Pc and tell him about the murder and ask him to check the doorways etc, knowing that if he did he would find the apron piece?

Or was it picked up and then dropped by a passing Yak? Come on Trevor why would he do that?

Or did Eddowes herself deposit it after being released from the police station on her way back to Flower and Dean Street before deciding against going to her lodgings? Could she have turned a trick and gone under the archway and used one of the two pieces of apron to clean herself up and then gone back to the city? The apron piece was smeared/spotted with blood, was wet, and had traces of faecal matter upon it all on one side of the apron piece consietent with it being folded and used as sanitary device which of course history tells us was the method used by victorian street women when menstruating.

Id say that it’s not impossible though, as you’ve said, it requires a u-turn by Eddowes.

Those who belived that she was wearing an apron seek to rely on dare I say it unsafe evidence, The lodging house supervisor who stated when she left 14 hours before her murder she was wearing an apron, how was he abe to recall wheteher or not she was wearing an apron when the vast marjority of women in London wore white aprons was there anything about the apron that stuck in his mind.

Perhaps then it would have stuck in his mind if she hadn’t been wearing one as was her habit. I think your creating mystery here.

The same applies to the police officer who arrested her for being drunk who then stands up at the inquest and is handed a piece of apron and who blatanly states that it was from the apron that he had seen her wearing. One white apron is the same as another unless there are identifying features which there was not in this case.

He said that she was wearing a white apron and he believed it was the same one that was produced in evidence. The important point of course is that she was wearing an apron. This should pretty much end debate. If he’d have been asked how he could distinguish one white apron from another the he’d have been stumped of course. All he could have said was that it looked the same.

By the time the inquest took place the apron piece became important because the police were using it to try to show the movement of the killer so they had to make a positive link between the GS piece and the mortuary piece to link it to the victim and the killer. To many witnesses were being overly helpful.

An exaggeration of course. What value to the Police was false information?

I note that Sgt Byfield makes no mention of her wearing an apron if anyone would have noticed I would sugegst it would have been him, after all he processed her at the police station follwoing her arrest, that process would involve documenting her property. He was also the officer who released her and would have given her property back to her

Its a very short excerpt though Trevor.

So everything considered the apron and the apron piece are both shrouded in mystery and is not so clear cut (no pun intended) as some would have us believe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I know that I regularly mention the fact of your use of the word ‘unsafe’ but to balance things up I’ll mention something that I regularly bang on about. Conspiracy Theory Thinking. I think that you are reading too much into simple discrepancies in wording. Too many leaps of faith. Enough people said that she was wearing an apron and as most women did and that one was found then it’s a fairly safe bet that she was wearing one. It’s also entirely possible/plausible that the apron came away from her body either when she was lifted onto the gurney or when she was placed onto the mortuary slab (due to the killers knife.) Im sorry but you’re trying to introduce a ‘revelation’ in the form of Halse planting the cloth but there’s simply no basis for it. It’s the missing organs all over again. Keep looking for conspiracies and you’ll keep finding them.

[Herlock Sholmes]

There you go again cherry picking your replies yet again

You need to go back and re read post 62

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m not cherrypicking Trevor. You posted some quotes and so did I. If they differ how do we know which is true? We know that errors in reporting and recording occur. It appears to be stated by enough people though that the Goulston Street cloth was from Eddowes apron and that she was wearing it. To be honest I fail to see the importance of this.

[erobitha]

I see Trev’s Sanitary Towel theory is getting another tour of duty.

Where is your evidence to suggest women carried around rags to handle their time of the month in the manner you suggest? Would be keen to review the research. This is what I found and it suggests a more customised solution than a single layer of apron rag. Also Eddowes was in her 40’s and most likely menopausal by Victorian standards.

“For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin, called the guard, folded like a cravat, which is pressed against the genitalia, while the ends are secured to a string or riband tied around the body above the hips; but I have seen some, not a few women, who assured me they had never used any other precaution than that of putting on a thicker petticoat for fear of the exposure of their condition. Such persons must be very slightly hemorrhagic, since the want of a guard-napkin would otherwise be sure to expose their condition by stains of blood upon their feet or stockings. Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”

From A Manual of Bandaging: Adapted for Self-instruction, by Charles Henri Leonard, published 1876:

[Trevor Marriott]

Physics seems to work differently in my world than it does in yours. I agree that we have no way of knowing if the apron was on her body at the time of the attack, but I'm still completely confused by your assertion that a killer couldn't cut a piece from the cloth unless she was wearing it. There are hundreds of fabric stores with long bolts of fabric that people cut pieces from that have never been on a human body at any time. When you cut paper, do you... put it on first?? How is that even possible? Really don't know why you think a person can't cut fabric that isn't being worn in half.

Also, if she just had two pieces of fabric, then it is even easier, the killer could have just taken one.

Maybe it will become more clear when I read the rest of your post more carefully.



Or...the string went around the neck, and he used the word corner to describe a narrower top portion of the apron. Dr. Brown doesn't seem like an expert in describing women's apparel. This is an instance where a photo would have been highly useful.

But yeah, got it. She wasn't wearing it.




Or... he cut off the string near the sheet and then cut the apron in half. Or... you're right and it wasn't a full apron. Or Dr. Brown's style of description is very different than yours. (People in these reports almost never describe things the way I would. I mean, if I were describing a crime scene, I would use compass directions, they clearly didn't.)



Maybe he wasn't that concerned about whether people would feel the need to debate whether she was wearing an apron 132 years after the fact, and didn't feel like it was a point that he had to satisfy history upon.

Congrats, you've managed to go from convincing me that she wasn't wearing the apon, to being back to her possibly having worn the apron, and convinced me that you and I have now paid more attention to this apron than the entire Metropolitan and City Police Forces combined over the entire investigation.
...and I'm still not entirely sure what the point you are trying to make is.


I think the only thing that they really cared about was whether the piece of the apron found in Goulstan was associated with the murder. It's the only thing that seems relevant to me. Really not sure why it matters if she was wearing it or not.


I've taken bras off women one-handed, in the dark, behind their backs, while inebriated, without taking their shirts off (for the record:this was fully consensual. Given the context of the conversation, seemed important to mention that.) I think the killer could fairly easily remove an apron with a knife. An apron (if she was wearing it) was the only item of clothing she was wearing that the killer could entirely remove with a single knife stroke.

Why? Because he couldn't have taken a piece of fabric unless it was the easiest to cut off her body? I'm more confused now about why you think that than before when I started reading. You really need to explain why you think that the killer could only remove fabric that she had been wearing. Why couldn't he take something out of her hand?

You still seem confused !!!!!!!!!!!

I fail to see why if the killer wanted a piece of material he did not cut or tear a piece from another item of clothing that was more accessible than an apron that with the clothes up above the victims waist would have made acess to the apron more difficult, and remeber speed and time was of the utmost importance.

There are four possible scenarios as far as the apron piece is concerned to consider

There is no dispute that the apron piece found in GS matched a piece found at the mortuary. A question that cannot be answered is when the two pieces were matched did they make up a full apron, or were they just two pieces in her possession that had at some time been part of a full apron? The fact that no apron was shown on the list of clothes she was wearing support this theory. If she had have been wearing it as some suggest I would have expected it to have been recorded as "one old white apron with piece missing" not "one old piece of white apron"

The second is if she wasnt wearing an apron at the time of her murder but had been in posession of the two pieces could the killer have taken one of these pieces to wipe his hands or his knife on? Well he could have but it would not have taken him that length of time to do so before discarding it.

Thirdly if the killer didnt take away the apron piece or cut a piece how did it get to GS, Did Dc Halse remove it from the crime scene and plant it in the archway? Did he then meet up with the Pc and tell him about the murder and ask him to check the doorways etc, knowing that if he did he would find the apron piece?

Or did Eddowes herself deposit it after being released from the police station on her way back to Flower and Dean Street before deciding against going to her lodgings? Could she have turned a trick and gone under the archway and used one of the two pieces of apron to clean herself up and then gone back to the city? The apron piece was smeared/spotted with blood, was wet, and had traces of faecal matter upon it all on one side of the apron piece consietent with it being folded and used as sanitary device which of course history tells us was the method used by victorian street women when menstruating.

Those who belived that she was wearing an apron seek to rely on dare I say it unsafe evidence, The lodging house supervisor who stated when she left 14 hours before her murder she was wearing an apron, how was he abe to recall wheteher or not she was wearing an apron when the vast marjority of women in London wore white aprons was there anything about the apron that stuck in his mind.

The same applies to the police officer who arrested her for being drunk who then stands up at the inquest and is handed a piece of apron and who blatanly states that it was from the apron that he had seen her wearing. One white apron is the same as another unless there are identifying features which there was not in this case.

By the time the inquest took place the apron piece became important because the police were using it to try to show the movement of the killer so they had to make a positive link between the GS piece and the mortuary piece to link it to the victim and the killer. To many witnesses were being overly helpful.

I note that Sgt Byfield makes no mention of her wearing an apron if anyone would have noticed I would sugegst it would have been him, after all he processed her at the police station follwoing her arrest, that process would involve documenting her property. He was also the officer who released her and would have given her property back to her

So everything considered the apron and the apron piece are both shrouded in mystery and is not so clear cut (no pun intended) as some would have us believe

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk