Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goulstan Street Graffito.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

    I apologize, but I don't have my reference books with me, but my recollection is that the apron piece had a corner that was described as heavily saturated in blood, which would happen if pieces were placed on the corner, then the apron rolled around it (similar to how the centre of the cloth above is heavily saturated because the organ was placed there and parts further from the centre are just spotted and smeared a bit).

    That being said, if the partial uterus and kidney were wrapped in the apron piece, it seems to me unlikely JtR would unwrap them while en route to where ever he was going. While it also seems unlikely to me he would then venture out again with a piece of bloody cloth, that seems less unlikely than unwrapping while travelling. However, if he used the apron only to clean his hands and knife, and tossed it when finished, then the en route idea makes more sense (with the corner having been saturated at the original scene). Since there's nothing to suggest he needed anything from other scenes where he took organs (Chapman's uterus and some bits of belly, Kelly's heart), I see no reason to suggest he needed the apron to carry organs this time.

    Of course, anything is possible, but the "apron to clean his hands" due to him rupturing her bowel, still strikes me as the most plausible. Sadly, we don't have any image depicting the nature, placement, or shape of the stains, information that would greatly help us move beyond speculating based upon our own prior beliefs and fooling ourselves into thinking we have uncovered evidence (myself included here of course).

    - Jeff
    Not wet with blood!

    Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, and one portion was wet.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      If she wasnt physically wearing an apron at the time of her murder then the killer could not have a cut a pice from that apron its not rocket science, consider the fact that she may have not been wearing an apron but simply been in posssession of two old pieces of white apron prior to her arrest.

      The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

      However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.
      However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

      Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
      “Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
      “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.”

      Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

      Again with the police officers, there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

      Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he says he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have known whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?

      Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

      Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

      His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter, and he makes no mention of Dc Halse being present.

      Dc Halse states he accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”


      Was he present when the body was stripped or did he only see the body after it had been stripped?

      In this statement, Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

      Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
      Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing

      The question must be as to what made Dc Halse make specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55 am and then the officer finding it conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15 am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all, I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later? Because when the body was stripped and he was present, no one at the mortuary would have been aware of the Goulston Street piece having been found.


      On a final note had she been wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece he would have had great difficulty because her clothes were up above her waist and if she had been wearing an apron that would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to take hold of and cut because it would have been the furthest item of clothing away from the killer, other clothing would have been more accessible and easier to cut.

      So those who belive that she was wearing an apron, and that the killer cut a piece to either take the organs away or to wipe his hands and knife may want to re think that belief.

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      What are you inferring from all this Trevor? The cloth found in Goulston Street matched the apron found with Eddowes body. She was either wearing the apron or she had it on her person in some way. The fact that he cut a piece suggests that she was wearing it. There are discrepancies which occur all over the case. Human error.

      If you can come up with a sensible alternative (apart from it being planted in Goulston Street of course) then I’m all ears.
      Regards

      Sir Herlock Sholmes



      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

      Comment


      • #63
        Collard:

        . [Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased
        So he said she was wearing an apron.


        PC Robinson:

        . her? - No. The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.
        So did he.

        PC Hutt:

        . Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.
        And him.

        ........

        And on your response to Jeff in post #61


        Long:

        . [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

          What are you inferring from all this Trevor? The cloth found in Goulston Street matched the apron found with Eddowes body. She was either wearing the apron or she had it on her person in some way. The fact that he cut a piece suggests that she was wearing it. There are discrepancies which occur all over the case. Human error.

          If you can come up with a sensible alternative (apart from it being planted in Goulston Street of course) then I’m all ears.
          There you go again cherry picking your replies yet again

          You need to go back and re read post 62

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            If she wasnt physically wearing an apron at the time of her murder then the killer could not have a cut a pice from that apron its not rocket science, consider the fact that she may have not been wearing an apron but simply been in posssession of two old pieces of white apron prior to her arrest.
            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.

            The official statement of Dr Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.
            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.

            However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right-hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with a piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.

            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.)

            However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.

            Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
            “Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston- street?
            “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.”

            Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15 am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it, later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20 am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.

            Again with the police officers, there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”

            Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he says he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have known whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?
            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.


            Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”

            Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”

            His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter, and he makes no mention of Dc Halse being present.

            Dc Halse states he accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”

            Was he present when the body was stripped or did he only see the body after it had been stripped?

            In this statement, Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.

            Dc Halse quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
            Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing

            The question must be as to what made Dc Halse make specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55 am and then the officer finding it conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15 am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all, I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later? Because when the body was stripped and he was present, no one at the mortuary would have been aware of the Goulston Street piece having been found.

            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.

            On a final note had she been wearing an apron and the killer cut a piece he would have had great difficulty because her clothes were up above her waist and if she had been wearing an apron that would have been the most difficult of all her clothing to take hold of and cut because it would have been the furthest item of clothing away from the killer, other clothing would have been more accessible and easier to cut.
            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.


            So those who belive that she was wearing an apron, and that the killer cut a piece to either take the organs away or to wipe his hands and knife may want to re think that belief.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk



            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?
            Last edited by TheCuriousCat; 01-01-2021, 01:31 AM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by etenguy View Post

              Hi TCC

              The message seems ambiguous to us, but may not have been to its intended audience (of course if we could see the message we might find it was not as ambiguous as reported - whether written by the ripper or not.

              Finding the message does seem a bit hit or miss, so if written by the ripper, leaving it where he knew two policemen regularly passed and would be on heightened alert might have raised the likelihood. As to other messages, it is possible he had left messages not found or that he had written to the police but it was not recognised as genuine. Using artefacts from the murder scene to single out the messages as genuine may have been his thinking (both the apron piece and the kidney if the Lusk letter is genuine).




              I'm not sure that having a photograph of the GSG would have helped with catching the killer either. But it would have been one potential piece of evidence in an otherwise empty evidence box. At least if it could have properly been examined, it could have been discounted or may have provided some useful data. Alas, it is a moot point since Warren ensured the evidence was destroyed and I find his destruction of potential evidence difficult to understand. I am not convinced by the excuse he gave for erasing the writing.
              Fair point that something has more evidentiary power than nothing.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by TheCuriousCat View Post

                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

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk




                Comment


                • #68
                  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:
                  "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                  - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    There you go again cherry picking your replies yet again

                    You need to go back and re read post 62

                    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.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes



                    "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                    ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      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

                      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.
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes



                      "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                      ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by erobitha View Post
                        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.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                          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.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            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.
                            "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                            - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              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.
                              Regards

                              Sir Herlock Sholmes



                              "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                              ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X