piece of apron

[Stewart P Evans]

Re-Inventing History

Yes his inquest testimony given 5 days after the murder and then only when questioned on the topic.
I wonder if you can remember if you wife was wearing a dress or a skirt or trousers 5 days ago ? and if so what colour.
nearly the whole female population of London wore white aprons why should these fine men suddenly remember Eddowes wearing an apron. I wonder how many other women they had locked up that night wearing white aprons.
And as for one officer being shown the apron piece and being able to say it was from the said apron beggars belief.

Right, let's see if I understand this.

Inspector McWilliam, in his report to the Home Office, got it wrong when he said that Eddowes was wearing the apron. He was present when the comparison was made with the piece found in Goulston Street at which time no mention was made by anyone present that Eddowes wasn't wearing the apron but was actually carrying two pieces. Have I got that right?

Hutt an experienced City police officer was present at the inquest and gave evidence that he believed the apron produced in the court was the same as the one Eddowes was wearing on her release from Bishopsgate Street Police Station.

Both men were experienced police officers but we have to believe that their statements are wrong and that some latter day theory is correct. I have given evidence in court hundreds of times and when some item (like the apron) is produced which appears to be the same as one you have seen at another time you use the word 'believe' it to be the same, as Hutt correctly did, and not pronounce unequivocally that it was the same.

Suffice to say that Eddowes was wearing an apron that night, a reading of the written record should make this obvious to anyone. But why rely on the written record that we have? Let's indulge in semantics, invent alternative scenarios that fly in the face of the evidence, re-invent history and indulge in our own fantasies.

[Phil Carter]

Just as I thought, some regard this all as some sort of ego battle.

Hello Stewart,

"Ego battle". Definition.

A battle of egos is a phrase used metaphorically to describe competitions that are based on pride and often entail prodigious and arrogant demonstrations of prowess. A type of dueling similar to a p*ssing contest, ego battles are often seen as an arrogant way to determine who is the "bigger man" (as far as being superior right in an argument) by a competitive methodology that is not especially productive. The idiom is usually used figuratively and often refer to forms of ego-driven battling in a pejorative manner.

Many thanks to Wikipedia.

I may be wrong in re-printing this so cannot be included in wanting to gain anything from it's reproduction in terms of being right or clever.

LOL haha.. etc etc etc..



Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Here's Hutt's evidence in black and white, and signed by him.

[ATTACH]15488[/ATTACH]

Yes his inquest testimony given 5 days after the murder and then only when questioned on the topic.

I wonder if you can remember if you wife was wearing a dress or a skirt or trousers 5 days ago ? and if so what colour.

nearly the whole female population of London wore white aprons why should these fine men suddenly remember Eddowes wearing an apron. I wonder how many other women they had locked up that night wearing white aprons.

And as for one officer being shown the apron piece and being able to say it was from the said apron beggars belief.

[Jon Guy]

I have been picked up on a point regarding the sketch I posted of Eddowes' body in Mitre Square. It was pointed out to me that the sketch was done by Dr. F. Gordon Brown and not Foster. Just to straighten this one out, the drawing reproduced was made by Foster 'from a sketch made on the spot' by Dr. Gordon Brown. The plans and drawings produced (and which survive) were all made on a large sheet by Foster for the inquest. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

Thanks for clarification, Stewart.
I am no longer confused .. with regard to the Foster sketch of the body in situ.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just as I thought...

Just as I thought, some regard this all as some sort of ego battle.

[Stewart P Evans]

Picked Up

I have been picked up on a point regarding the sketch I posted of Eddowes' body in Mitre Square. It was pointed out to me that the sketch was done by Dr. F. Gordon Brown and not Foster. Just to straighten this one out, the drawing reproduced was made by Foster 'from a sketch made on the spot' by Dr. Gordon Brown. The plans and drawings produced (and which survive) were all made on a large sheet by Foster for the inquest. Sorry if I caused any confusion.

[Phil Carter]

A fair point - however, reading Don's ideas about Timothy Donovan and seeing him speak about them too, I cannot recall him at any time using phrases like "you've all been mislead for 50 years", "you all need a reality check", "rose tinted spectacles" or any accusations of a cabal trying to run him down.

He came up with an idea and put it out there, but did not seem to be slapping others around the face with it. And if I understand rightly, all mention of Timothy Donovan as a Ripper suspect has been removed from the new edition of his book.

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it!

Hello John,

Yes, it was a fair point...thank you... but do come along now John... "it ain't what you do it's the way that you do it???"

Hang on old chap... how many editions and reprints has the Rumbelow book had since 1975? And only now, in 2013, is the Donovan theory taken out? "the way that you do it?"


But John, seriously, this has nothing whatsoever to do with Trevor Marriott's theories.. it has to do with some people attacking his personality when presenting those theories. That is totally different.

We aren't all a la Rumbelow, Evans, etc. We all express ourselves differently.
I have told Trevor personally and privately and on here that I don't agree with all he says, but I don't have the inclination to charge around attacking him at every opportunity either. That is what seemingly happens. I happen to have a good rapport with him because I have the ability to be open enough to consider the realms of possibility. I will not, and cannot, regard something with a pre-concieved viewpoint just because I have been told that some expert has told the world that is how it is.

"Mr. Churchill, you are a wolf in sheep's clothing..."

"Better than a sheep, in sheep's clothing"... apparently about Clement Atlee. (A sheep follows other sheep....)

"A modest man, who has much to be modest about" (take your pick John...haha)

-Both on Clement Atlee

"He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened" (again, take your pick.. diferent strokes for different folks)

-On Stanley Baldwin

See the comparisons?


We are all different. We have to accept that personalities are that way.. as long as it doesn't get vindictive and nasty, personal and humiliating.




Phil

[Stewart P Evans]

Hutt's Evidence

Here's Hutt's evidence in black and white, and signed by him.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Trevor
I have some questions for you. Totally sincere.

Who killed Tabram and the c5?

How did he kill them and what injuries did he inflict?

Where did the bodily mutilations/removal of organs take place and by whom?

What was the motivation for the last question above?

Hi Trevor
I am a relative newb and try to keep an open mind,and would like to know your ideas in a nutshell. Could you please answer my questions above. I really would like to know your ideas.

[Trevor Marriott]

A fair point - however, reading Don's ideas about Timothy Donovan and seeing him speak about them too, I cannot recall him at any time using phrases like "you've all been mislead for 50 years", "you all need a reality check", "rose tinted spectacles" or any accusations of a cabal trying to run him down.

He came up with an idea and put it out there, but did not seem to be slapping others around the face with it. And if I understand rightly, all mention of Timothy Donovan as a Ripper suspect has been removed from the new edition of his book.

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it!

No with some people its a case of no matter what you do, or how you do it it, they still cannot or will not comprehend.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:
The reasons, timings etc you propose all seem logical. Except the storing of organs at his place of work. Way to risky.

But how can we tell? We donīt know the circumstances, do we? It could just as easily have offered a very safe place to hide trophies.

And the smell?

A closed jar would take care of that problem. For example.

One would think that between work and home as a place to keep his trophies, his home would be by far the safer place. He would have much more control over the situation at home IMHO. But both would not be ideal obviously and very risky.

Hmm. But if he killed en route to work, he would only need to transport the organs a very short route, instead of first taking them to Pickfords and then back home. Where he could bump into people all the time. I much favour his workplace, particularly if he had a place of his own to tend to. Nobody else would do the cleaning and looking after for him there. Plus the events surrounding the apron piece seem to speak of his using Pickfordīs, as outlined above.

You know that I am somewhat sympathetic to lech as a suspect, but I see the killing on the way to work and or the storage of organs their or at his home for that matter somewhat hard to believe.

That all depends on the surrounding circumstances, something we nothing much about. If he had some sort of locker and key on work, and an amount of privacy, then what could be better? He would have a safe place, and he would have proximity to the trophies all day long.

Now if there was somewhere else he could use.
What about his mothers place? Have you ever entertained that idea?

No, I have not. I donīt think itīs necessary.

All the best,
Fisherman

Hi fish
Thanks!
I like the jar idea. Very much.

However, we know from history that organ/trophy taking serial killers is that they like to do things with said trophies once they have taken them- to relive there fantasies. They would need a private place to do this. At work, lech may be able to store them safely re your jar idea, but realistically what could he do with them safely and not be caught? I imagine that the ripper liked to play with his trophies, heighten his sexual fantasies through fondling them, engaging in "solitary vices", perhaps even engage in cannibalism. His place of work obviously would not be a good place for this and his home with his wife/family only perhaps a slightly better place.


That's why I brought up his mothers place. We also know that many serial killers who are trophy takers lived with/used their parents place for these purposes. If lechs mother was old, easily manipulated, senile etc. perhaps and it was an ideal place to use as his bolt hole?maybe she had shed he could access?

I know you said it is not necessary, but perhaps it is. It would go along way for me at least. I don't know her proximity to his work, home like you do, so maybe it would be a good exercise for you to work out if it seems feasale that he used his mothers place as a bolt hole. I know you have already put forth the idea that he was leaving his mothers place prior to the double event so it's no stretch to imagine its where he could have returned after kills.

I could imagine a scenario in which he killed on his way to work, stopped off at his mothers to store his trophies, continued on to work, to later return to his mothers place after work, to have fun with his trophies , before continuing home.


What do think? Did she live within close enough to his work and home to make this a possibility?

I'm intrigued by this idea.

[John Bennett]

Ahh, experts. I suppose you will be regarding Mr. Donald Rumbelow as an expert? (Not wrong on that account I hope?)

In which case Mr. Donald Rumbelow has quite a few ideas and theories that are not anywhere near any other expert in the field, and their views. Timothy Donovan, lodging house keeper, being the proposed killer, for example.

A fair point - however, reading Don's ideas about Timothy Donovan and seeing him speak about them too, I cannot recall him at any time using phrases like "you've all been mislead for 50 years", "you all need a reality check", "rose tinted spectacles" or any accusations of a cabal trying to run him down.

He came up with an idea and put it out there, but did not seem to be slapping others around the face with it. And if I understand rightly, all mention of Timothy Donovan as a Ripper suspect has been removed from the new edition of his book.

It ain't what you do it's the way that you do it!

[Phil Carter]

My 'old theory' is supported by every expert in the field, of which you are no way near close.

Monty

Ahh, experts. I suppose you will be regarding Mr. Donald Rumbelow as an expert? (Not wrong on that account I hope?)

In which case Mr. Donald Rumbelow has quite a few ideas and theories that are not anywhere near any other expert in the field, and their views. Timothy Donovan, lodging house keeper, being the proposed killer, for example.

We may all stand upon the shoulders of those who have contributed to a greater extent in the field than many of us can ever hope to realise, but that doesn't mean by any way or road that we should follow their methodology nor interpretation with blind faith.

Others have original ideas. They might not be in keeping with the long held beliefs that can apparently be held dear decade after decade, but they are ideas and interpretations that cannot simply be put down ad hoc on every occasion just because X or Y or Z from the distant past says it isn't so.

Believe what you wish of course, but until you too can come up with some original thoughts that cause people to actually think differently, it would be unwise to attack those trying to carve a way through a tangled mess of mis-information, lies and missing words. Some of the shoulders we are supposed to stand on were little more than con-artists posing as serious historical authors. Donald McCormick, a prime example, included. So let others work that tack.

Otherwise it looks suspiciously like you are defending the faith for no other reason than to keep it going in the face of a different tack being shown.

Dear old Charles Darwin came up against people with the same problem.

"We know because it has always been that way"..."The experts have told us"



Phil

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:
The reasons, timings etc you propose all seem logical. Except the storing of organs at his place of work. Way to risky.

But how can we tell? We donīt know the circumstances, do we? It could just as easily have offered a very safe place to hide trophies.

And the smell?

A closed jar would take care of that problem. For example.

One would think that between work and home as a place to keep his trophies, his home would be by far the safer place. He would have much more control over the situation at home IMHO. But both would not be ideal obviously and very risky.

Hmm. But if he killed en route to work, he would only need to transport the organs a very short route, instead of first taking them to Pickfords and then back home. Where he could bump into people all the time. I much favour his workplace, particularly if he had a place of his own to tend to. Nobody else would do the cleaning and looking after for him there. Plus the events surrounding the apron piece seem to speak of his using Pickfordīs, as outlined above.

You know that I am somewhat sympathetic to lech as a suspect, but I see the killing on the way to work and or the storage of organs their or at his home for that matter somewhat hard to believe.

That all depends on the surrounding circumstances, something we nothing much about. If he had some sort of locker and key on work, and an amount of privacy, then what could be better? He would have a safe place, and he would have proximity to the trophies all day long.

Now if there was somewhere else he could use.
What about his mothers place? Have you ever entertained that idea?

No, I have not. I donīt think itīs necessary.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Who said they 'suddenly remembered'?



Ok, many apron's looked the same, but you are suggesting she was not wearing one - when clearly she was seen wearing an apron, regardless which apron it was.
Make up your mind Trevor, was she wearing another apron, just not the 'bloody' one, or was she not wearing one at all?

The answer to both these questions is in the testimony.



Why is it strange? - PC Robinson said she was wearing an apron when he picked her up, to take her in to Bishopsgate.
He didn't say she lost it on route!



I think we know where the problem lies Trevor.

Yes I do to anoraks wearing tinted glasses