piece of apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Want to cite the official report from which you gleamed this info?

Plus, also want to explain to the public why times are rounded off?

Monty

If you think this info is incorrect then feel free to enlighten us.

[Wickerman]

As I said yesterday you have to look at the witnesses and their testimony they were only asked about the apron at the inquest days after the event. What suddenly made them remember she was wearing an apron I have to ask.

Who said they 'suddenly remembered'?

Anyone cross examining those witnesses would have had a field day. Take a close look at the evidence they gave. Hoe can you specifically identify an apron from a piece when all apron were mostly white.

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.

I also notice that Sgt Byfield who booked her in when she was brought to the station and released her makes no mention of the apron. Now that is strange guess the other officers were just trying to be helpful !

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!

This is the problem with this case for 125 years the so called evidence has not been fully tested and people have readily accepted what has been said without question.

I think we know where the problem lies Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

[Coroner] Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron?

[PC Hutt]- I did. I have seen the apron produced by the last witness, and to the best of my belief that is the one she was wearing when she left the station.

The Daily News.
[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing?
[Const. Hutt] To the best of my belief it is.

The Daily Telegraph.

He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.

The Times.

I have seen the apron produced, and to the best of my belief it is the one she was wearing when she left the station.
Morning Advertiser.

Pretty clear, to most with a good command of the English language, that PC Hutt saw Eddowes wearing an apron as she left Bishopsgate Station.

As I said yesterday you have to look at the witnesses and their testimony they were only asked about the apron at the inquest days after the event. What suddenly made them remember she was wearing an apron I have to ask.

Anyone cross examining those witnesses would have had a field day. Take a close look at the evidence they gave. Hoe can you specifically identify an apron from a piece when all apron were mostly white.

I also notice that Sgt Byfield who booked her in when she was brought to the station and released her makes no mention of the apron. Now that is strange guess the other officers were just trying to be helpful !

This is the problem with this case for 125 years the so called evidence has not been fully tested and people have readily accepted what has been said without question.

[Monty]

Of course i have them wrong if you say so after all you are another self proclaimed expert.

Its a question of who was present when the body was stripped not who said she was wearing and apron who didnt witness that fact

Body removed from crime scene 2.55am
Body arrived at the mortuary 3.15am
Body stripped and clothing listed
Persons present: Dr Brown, Dr Sequeria, Mr. Davis mortuary keeper, Inspector Collard, Dc Halse.

Oh dear no mention of Mr Williamson

Want to cite the official report from which you gleamed this info?

Plus, also want to explain to the public why times are rounded off?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Black and white vs your interpretation.

You need to re-read the testimony, as you have the course of events wrong.

Monty

Of course i have them wrong if you say so after all you are another self proclaimed expert.

Its a question of who was present when the body was stripped not who said she was wearing and apron who didnt witness that fact

Body removed from crime scene 2.55am
Body arrived at the mortuary 3.15am
Body stripped and clothing listed
Persons present: Dr Brown, Dr Sequeria, Mr. Davis mortuary keeper, Inspector Collard, Dc Halse.

Oh dear no mention of Mr Williamson

[Wickerman]

[Coroner] Did you notice whether she was wearing an apron?
[PC Hutt]- I did. I have seen the apron produced by the last witness, and to the best of my belief that is the one she was wearing when she left the station.
The Daily News.

[Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing?
[Const. Hutt] To the best of my belief it is.
The Daily Telegraph.

He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.
The Times.

I have seen the apron produced, and to the best of my belief it is the one she was wearing when she left the station.
Morning Advertiser.

Pretty clear, to most with a good command of the English language, that PC Hutt saw Eddowes wearing an apron as she left Bishopsgate Station.

[Abby Normal]

What does he do after dropping the apron piece off?

He goes home, Abby.

Look, what I am suggesting is a functioning line of behaviour on account of Charles Lechmere, if he was the killer. And if he was, it would seem he killed en route to work (something I know you are having trouble with, but there you are). And much as nothing was taken away from Nichols - as far as we know! - we do know that Chapman lost parts of her reproduction organs. If he killed her on his way to work, then it stands to reason that Pickfords was where he took the innards. They may have served as some sort of trophies to him, for all we know.
Trophies are things that serialists save and bring out occasionally to re-experience their killings. If a killer lives alone, he will reasonably keep his trophies in his home, close to him and readily accesible.

But if a killer lives with a family...? Then Iīd submit that the risk of having the goods found may prompt such a killer to find a safe place away from that family to store his trophies.

Likewise, if a killer lives with a family, he would arguably not want to come home bloodied.

Solution? Find somewhere to clean up BEFORE you go home.

You will see what Iīm getting at now, Abby. I am suggesting that IF he took the innards as trophies - and we donīt know that - then he took them to Pickfords, where he had some safe place to store them, and where he could clean up unnoticed. I donīt think he would have brought the innards with him to Doveton Street after work.

This is why I find a functioning and consistent timeline and pattern of movement in the Stride/Eddowes deeds:

He kills Stride, but is disturbed.
He leaves Berner Street and heads - along his old work route - towards the West, finding Eddowes in the vicinity of Mitre Square.
He kills her, and cuts her uterus and kidney out.
He produces a makeshift textile bag from her apron, to carry the parts in.
He wraps the bag up, setting of smears of blood and fecal matter from his hands in the process. He may also have wiped his hands on the apron piece before turning it into an organ carrier.
He shoves the parcel into his pocket, where blood from the organs seep into the cloth, making it wet with blood on a portion of the surface, as per Long.
He sets off to Pickfords, where he has already stored Chapmanīs uterus in a safe place, and adds his new trophies to the collection.
He washes up, and leaves Pickfords, taking the rag with him, intent on discarding it somewhere along the road, far away from both Pickfords and Doveton Street.
He chooses Goulston Street to do this, since there are deeply recessed doorways, allowing him to slip out of the view of any people on the street, dropping the rag on the floor.
He makes his way home to Doveton Street, arriving there early in the morning, with the rest of the family fast aspleep. In the morning, he will tell them about how he has visited his mother on Cable Street, something that she will be able to confirm, should the need arise.

This would explain why Long did not see the rag at 2.20 - because Lechmere had not yet passed Goulston Street at that stage. He would have had perhaps 500-600 yards from Mitre Square to Broad Street, so he may have spent 5-10 minutes getting there, perhaps taking us to around 1.55 at his arrival to Pickfords. Letīs say he spent fifteen-twenty minutes there, stowing away the innards and cleaning himself up reasonably, which would take us to around 2.15. Then he sets off for Goulston Street, another ten minute trek, arriving there in 2.25, five minutes after Longīs first check.

These are just approximations, of course, but you will get the general idea, I trust. And in the end, he may well have gone straight from Mitre Square and home, Long simply missing the rag on his first visit to Goulston Street. Itīs a world of possibilities. But if Lechmere normally killed en route to work, a useful guess is that he would have stored any trophies and cleaned up at Pickfords.

All the best,
Fisherman

Thanks fish
The reasons, timings etc you propose all seem logical. Except the storing of organs at his place of work. Way to risky. And the smell?

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.

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.

Now if there was somewhere else he could use.

What about his mothers place? Have you ever entertained that idea?

[Monty]

As i said earlier experts have been proved wrong and that twice Mr Evans has been proved wrong on major issues surrounding this case.

Black and white vs your interpretation.

You need to re-read the testimony, as you have the course of events wrong.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Harsh but necessary.

Thank you for laying it out as it is Stewart. Some seem to get a little ahead of themselves when claiming they have proved a point.

Monty

As i said earlier experts have been proved wrong and that twice Mr Evans has been proved wrong on major issues surrounding this case.

[Trevor Marriott]

Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Detective Department, wrote a detailed report on the Eddowes murder on 27 October 1888 (HO 144/221/A49301C) in which he included details of Eddowes' apron.

In this report (folio 165) McWilliam stated clearly that he attended the Golden Lane mortuary where he witnessed the comparison of the two pieces of apron, that found in Goulston Street and that worn by Eddowes. He stated (inter alia), "...compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded." (emphasis mine)

Therefore we have this fact in black and white in a police report. The sketch made in Mitre Square is not clear enough to specifically identify the apron as the clothing was pulled aside.

[ATTACH]15486[/ATTACH]

Thats hearsay McWilliams was not present when the body was stripped and the clothes documented.

The two pieces could not have been matched until much later in the day because Dr Phillips had the GS piece and he had not arrived at the mortuary before 5am

Thers is no dispute that the two pieces were matched

Nice try ! but thats not wortt the paper its written on

[Trevor Marriott]

I know you have an agenda to adhere to but please just sit back and and think about this for a moment:

The killer needed to access the sternum
Because of all the layers clothing and things tied around her waist he could only push the clothing up as far as her waist. Therefore, he cut through all the bunched up clothing aroudn her waist so that he could access the sternum.
The blood on some of the clothing would be from the fact she had her throat cut and was disembowelled.

Now, anyone, what is flawed with this ?

If the clothes are pulled up around her waist how can you explain the long cuts in the various items of clothing all different lengths and breadths

She was wearing a bodice how did he get that up to be able to access the sternum,as has been suggested when the cuts to the bodice are shown at the bottom of the bodice.

Ask any female who wears a bodice they wil rel you how tight it is worn

i don't have an agenda I am simply looking to prove of disprove the facts we have been asked to rely on and so far there is more to disprove than prove.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

"So you can't provide another example of murdered women of a particular type being found like this? No worries, Lynn. I knew you couldn't."

Are you talking about Polly? Annie? If you weren't so quick to do your playground goading, perhaps you could make sense.

Playground goading? I respond with the same respect I am given.
Anyway, I am 12 years old.
If you`re goiing to get all college professor with me, could you at least please use the quote function?

[Monty]

Harsh but necessary.

Thank you for laying it out as it is Stewart. Some seem to get a little ahead of themselves when claiming they have proved a point.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Foster's Sketch of Eddowes in Mitre Square

Here is the sketch of Catherine Eddowes' body, as found in Mitre Square, drawn by Frederick William Foster, the City surveyor.

[Stewart P Evans]

Apron

...
The answer is she wasn't wearing an apron but in possession of two old white pieces of apron.
The Mitre Sq sketch shows no apron being worn

Inspector James McWilliam, head of the City Detective Department, wrote a detailed report on the Eddowes murder on 27 October 1888 (HO 144/221/A49301C) in which he included details of Eddowes' apron.

In this report (folio 165) McWilliam stated clearly that he attended the Golden Lane mortuary where he witnessed the comparison of the two pieces of apron, that found in Goulston Street and that worn by Eddowes. He stated (inter alia), "...compared with a piece the deceased was wearing & it exactly corresponded." (emphasis mine)

Therefore we have this fact in black and white in a police report. The sketch made in Mitre Square is not clear enough to specifically identify the apron as the clothing was pulled aside.