Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Goulstan Street Graffito.

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    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.
    Last edited by TheCuriousCat; 01-01-2021, 01:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      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.
      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

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

        But he did remove organs. There’s no doubt about it.
        You keep thinking that !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • #79


          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.’
          Regards

          Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

          ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

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

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            I will. So will everyone else on Planet Earth
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

            ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

            Comment


            • #81
              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?

              Comment


              • #82
                I should have written,Eddowes murder.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by harry View Post
                  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?
                  Maybe he had a fetish for street women’s used sanitary towels?
                  "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                  - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    What I find more intriguing is the fact, that the rag/apron was noticed in the first place....unless you were looking for it.
                    As I understand it, it was inside the doorway which was dark at dead of night.
                    blood on a rag in the dark doesnt stand out as red, only dark.
                    And so a PC would only at best just glimpse a rag.....nothing out of the ordinary in probably a litter infested part of the East end....certainly nothing suspicious.

                    Regards

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                      What I find more intriguing is the fact, that the rag/apron was noticed in the first place....unless you were looking for it.
                      As I understand it, it was inside the doorway which was dark at dead of night.
                      blood on a rag in the dark doesnt stand out as red, only dark.
                      And so a PC would only at best just glimpse a rag.....nothing out of the ordinary in probably a litter infested part of the East end....certainly nothing suspicious.

                      Regards
                      Hi Spyglass

                      My (admittedly limited) understanding is that rags were valuable and a scarce commodity in late Victorian times. They were used to produce both paper and currency and there had been a shortage. Therefore, I don't think rags discarded in the street would be an ordinary sight. In fact, it might stand out as unusual which is perhaps why Long could say with some confidence the apron piece was not there earlier that morning and also why it caught his attention.

                      Perhaps someone with greater understanding of the times might confirm or correct my understanding.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        I think it’s possible that the cloth might have been there when Long first passed. Firstly, as Spyglass has said, dark night, even darker doorway. And second, mightn’t it simply have been the case that he was less vigilant than he claimed to have been?
                        Regards

                        Sir Herlock Sholmes



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

                        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                          What I find more intriguing is the fact, that the rag/apron was noticed in the first place....unless you were looking for it.
                          PC Long's own testimony answers that question - "it was not there the previous time around (2:20 am)". So it is not the presence of the rag, but the sudden appearance of the rag.

                          As I understand it, it was inside the doorway which was dark at dead of night.
                          It isn't too clear where the rag was, but according to Warren it was at the foot of the entrance to the building, so easily visible to anyone passing on the street.

                          Alternately, we know from a constable's beat responsibilities, it was part of his duty to try any doors at street level that opened onto the street - to see if they had been locked securely. Just inside the entrance was a stairwell door that he may have been required to see if it was secure. He doesn't mention stepping inside the entry, but he doesn't have to, the coroner will be aware of a constable's duties.

                          blood on a rag in the dark doesnt stand out as red, only dark.
                          And so a PC would only at best just glimpse a rag.....nothing out of the ordinary in probably a litter infested part of the East end....certainly nothing suspicious.
                          There was a streetlamp on the footpath (sidewalk) close by the entrance, so the entrance was not in darkness only the inside vestibule (as they likely referred to it).
                          Last edited by Wickerman; 01-03-2021, 12:26 AM.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            HI,
                            Correct me if I'm wrong ( I often am ) but wasnt the statements of Long and Halse written two weeks later after the event?
                            And were they not so similar to possibly assume they were copied from each other or even told what to write ?

                            Regards

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by spyglass View Post
                              HI,
                              Correct me if I'm wrong ( I often am ) but wasnt the statements of Long and Halse written two weeks later after the event?
                              And were they not so similar to possibly assume they were copied from each other or even told what to write ?

                              Regards
                              It was actually 5 weeks later, just before MJK’s murder, the met filed their ‘official’ report to the Home Office. All statements are all nice and neatly aligned this time.
                              "When the legend becomes fact... print the legend"
                              - The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
                                I think it’s possible that the cloth might have been there when Long first passed. Firstly, as Spyglass has said, dark night, even darker doorway. And second, mightn’t it simply have been the case that he was less vigilant than he claimed to have been?
                                "It was not there". Nothing vague about that answer to a direct question. Not, I might have missed it....like for example Eagle claims about a body lying there when he returns at 12:40, not could be sure, not I dont think so,...all of which could avoid him appearing seemingly inattentive.

                                He was sure. If you arent, then thats another matter.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X