piece of apron

[lynn cates]

other

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"might you indulge me further and make your opinion on how the apron got to Goulston Street known?"

Someone OTHER than the killer took it there.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

I know you are of the opinion the organs were not removed by the murderer. But be so kind as to induldge me for a moment. If the murderer DID take the organs away, what did he do with them whilst he travelled?

Well I cant answer that simply because if the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene as I suggest, then he could not have taken the organs away.

None of the descriptions given of the GS apron piece match the pic of my apron piece which without a doubt re creates the scenario of that night as you and others suggest. Its a uterus taken form a live donor during a routine hysterectomy so that's exactly how it would have been had it been taken by the killer and wrapped in the apron piece.

All in all I think that's good corroboration to suggest the apron piece was not used to take away the organs.

[Bridewell]

1. The ripper hid in the area/close to the area between Mitre Square and GS. That there was some safehouse/hideout available.
2. Returned to the area within the 1hour+ to leave the apron there.
Seemingly unlikely and illogical given the police presence at risk levels.
3. It was planted by a third party. Enter the many conspiracy theories...
4. The apron was in the archway of the Wentworth dwellings much earlier than it was found and was overlooked during that time.

No.4 is by far the most likely IMHO.

[Cogidubnus]

Ditto Colin!

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Division

Go back and read the various descriptions of the apron piece no where does it say "heavily bloodstained" in one it does mention stained but if it had been heavily bloodstained as you suggest it would have been mentioned as such.

Even better: Go back and compare the exact wording of the descriptions of both sections of the apron.

Dr Brown:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

List of Eddowes' clothes and possessions:
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

Where there is significant blood staining on her other items it's mentioned in the description, yet there is no such mention with regard to the apron.

I have the impression that there was little or no blood staining on the portion of apron which remained with the body, yet sufficient to be worthy of comment on the Goulston Street section. It seems (to me) reasonable to conclude that the blood and faecal matter got onto the Goulston St section after the apron was divided. I therefore have difficulty in drawing any conclusion other than that the Goulston Street section was taken away by the killer.

[DVV]

Issenschmid's dog was depressed and blew his nose in Kate's apron on his way back to the Victoria Home.
It isn't worth a thread.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"might you indulge me further and make your opinion on how the apron got to Goulston Street known?"

Someone OTHER than the killer took it there.

Cheers.
LC

Obviously. I'm struggling to NOT start the joke off. Who do you think took the apron to Goulston Street? Thanks ahead of time Sherlock.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Trevor.

Well I cant answer that simply because if the killer did not remove the organs at the crime scene as I suggest, then he could not have taken the organs away.

None of the descriptions given of the GS apron piece match the pic of my apron piece which without a doubt re creates the scenario of that night as you and others suggest. Its a uterus taken form a live donor during a routine hysterectomy so that's exactly how it would have been had it been taken by the killer and wrapped in the apron piece.

All in all I think that's good corroboration to suggest the apron piece was not used to take away the organs.

Okay. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to talking with you more in the future. Keep hanging around. The pic was helpful. I had been wondering about that myself. Nice to see some, how you say, leg work still being done. For clarity's sake, I am being sincere.

[Wickerman]

Obviously. I'm struggling to NOT start the joke off. Who do you think took the apron to Goulston Street? Thanks ahead of time Sherlock.

The killer, on his way to find No. 3, in Henage Court.

[Fisherman]

Worked on a Sunday huh?

Monty

No - went to his working place on a Sunday, Monty. He had been employed by Pickfords for a stiff twenty years, so he may well have been trusted with a set of keys - or, alternatively, he may have found other means to gain access to the localities during these twenty years.

Even if he HAD worked Sundays, I don´t think he would have started work at two o clock in the night ...

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks. Now, if he had his own storage for the organs and then wrapped the apron around that, might that explain the blood etc of the apron? A spot wet with blood. The portion of the apron at the bottom of the first thing the organs were put into. Whatcha think? Ludicrous?

Since we cannot be sure about the apparition of that apron piece, it is hard to say whether it tallied with organ-carrying or not. As has been pointed out, it is reported in one instance that a "portion" of the apron was wet, while another source tells us that a "corner" of it was wet with blood. It is also said that there was blood and fecal matter on the apron piece.

In a sense, it´s doing things backwards to say that it all seems to tally with an escape by Lechmere via Pickfords, carrying the organs there in the apron piece, since we cannot know that this is what happened. But the scarcity of information, coupled with the varying judgements about that apron piece allows for such an interpretation, that´s what I am saying.

I favour Lechmere as the killer, Long proposed a dumping of the apron after 2.20, there was fecal matter and blood on it, and a part of the apron was said to be wet with blood more than an hour after the blood would have been put on it (if it was Eddowes blood, that is, and that seems a safe bet). We can conclude that it was no small amount of blood, thus, since that would have dried up more.

So I am suggesting that the killer may have procured the apron piece, put the innards in it, wrapped it up with hands wet with blood and fecal matter and brought it along with him to Pickfords, where he had a place to keep his trophies. He then washed up, and left Pickfords, heading for Doveton Street, taking the rag with him and discarding it on a safe distance from both home and work. As he carried the parcel to Pickfords, the innards leaked blood on a part of the apron piece surface, and that was the area spoken about by Long as being wet with blood. The other marks of blood and fecal matter came about as he wrapped the package around the innards and/or when he wiped is hands on it.

Like I say, this is of course just a working proposition, and it is anybody´s prerogative to say that it is formed to fit with the Lechmere theory (how´s that for foreseeing the future...?). Fair enough - but I find it interesting that the elements are all in place to form such a suggestion.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Even better: Go back and compare the exact wording of the descriptions of both sections of the apron.

Dr Brown:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

List of Eddowes' clothes and possessions:
"1 Piece of old White Apron".

Where there is significant blood staining on her other items it's mentioned in the description, yet there is no such mention with regard to the apron.

I have the impression that there was little or no blood staining on the portion of apron which remained with the body, yet sufficient to be worthy of comment on the Goulston Street section. It seems (to me) reasonable to conclude that the blood and faecal matter got onto the Goulston St section after the apron was divided. I therefore have difficulty in drawing any conclusion other than that the Goulston Street section was taken away by the killer.

These issues have been discussed several times in the past on vsrious threads and I don't intend to go over them all again save to day that by sheer reason of the fact that the "old piece of white apron" was listed on her possessions shows she was not wearing an apron when she was murdered

Look at the list of clothing she was wearing it was
removed and listed as it was on the body if she had have been wearing an apron I would have expected it to be listed as
"One white apron with piece missing"

Likewise having regard to the position of the cuts made by the stabbing had she been wearing an apron then the piece left with the body should have like the other items of clothing showed signs of similar cuts

I seem to recall the gs piece was described as being a corner piece with a string attached now that must have either been the top left it top right, again it doesn't add up to the killer cutting a piece off, especially as the clothes were drawn up and therefore any apron she might have been wearing would have then been closet to her skin and the most difficult piece of clothing for the killer to be able to cut

[Trevor Marriott]

Okay. Thanks for your time. Looking forward to talking with you more in the future. Keep hanging around. The pic was helpful. I had been wondering about that myself. Nice to see some, how you say, leg work still being done. For clarity's sake, I am being sincere.

Thank you for your comment its nice to know that there are people like yourself that are prepared to look at this in a different light.

Conversely there are too many who have their heads buried in the sand who don't want to accept that what we have been asked to beleive all these years may not have been correct .

[Monty]

Why Christer?

Makes no sense whatsoever.


Witness statements, by numerous people, are clear.

Edddowes was wearing an apron.

Monty

[lynn cates]

evidence

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"I'm struggling to NOT start the joke off. Who do you think took the apron to Goulston Street?'

Ah, evidence is required for that. Sorry.

Cheers.
LC