piece of apron

[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.

[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

[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?

[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.

[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

[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]

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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

[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

[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!

[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.

[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.