piece of apron

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hutt's Evidence

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

[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]

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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Just as I thought...

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Stewart P Evans]

Worry

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

Phil, are you feeling okay? I do worry about you sometimes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Hearsay

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

By now anyone with any idea of historical evidence should be aware that Eddowes was wearing the apron, a section of which was cut off by the murderer.

When you say it was hearsay as McWilliam (not McWilliams) wasn't present when the body was stripped, this is surely irrelevant and smoke and mirrors on your part. Others who were present would have told McWilliam that Eddowes was wearing the apron, it was an important point and the pieces were produced at the inquest as exhibits. Of course, hearsay evidence is admissible before a coroner's court, but McWilliam wrote it in his report for the information of the Home Secretary and the fact that it was hearsay (in that others told McWilliam) is irrelevant.

[Monty]

"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."

Are you 'kin serious Phil?

Have you read Trevors posts? And you really cannot pass judgement either.

The issue is Stewart, that Trevor has a theory on the apron which requires it not to be on Eddowes at time of death. So, to make the facts fit the theory, they are twisted or omitted.

Of course, you are fully aware of all this.

Shame Trevor and his lap dog aren't.

Monty

[Stewart P Evans]

Despair

I despair, it must be time to take a break...

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

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

Well, itīs a rather obvious thought for somebody who favours the scenario with Lechmere perhaps keeping the innards as trophies at Pickfords.

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.

Thatīs fine, Abby - but it all boils down to your take on things. And it predisposes that we can work from the assumption that Lechmere had no private space at Pickfords.

Both things may be wrong.

He may only have wanted and needed the knowledge that he had these parts. Taking a quick peak may have done the trick for him.

Conversely, he must have been a trusted employee after twenty years of working for Pickfords. He may have had access to a space where he could have had privacy. He may have had keys to the premises. He may have been some sort of foreman, arriving early and in splendid isolation.

There are so many parameters that we do not know. If he was just another carman with no privacy avaliable, then the idea that he stored trophies at Pickfords is rather a useless one. If it was the other way around - different story.

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?

She gives another impression altogether, marrying three times (twice bigamously!), changing jobs, caring for one of his kids etcetera. And her lodgings would have been a bit off. No, my money is on him having it all along his working route; killing grounds, washing facilities and stash.

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?

147 Cable Street, Abby - well out of his route to work. Itīs - interestingly - a very small stretch east-southeast to where the Pinchin Street torso was found.

I'm intrigued by this idea.

Be my guest - but forgive me for not joining you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Lets stick to the issues you raised. Mcwilliam could only have compiled that report on what he was told not on what he saw for himself he did not see the apron on the body.

Of course there was no mention because when the body was stripped all they found as described was one piece of old white apron in her possessions. The GS piece had not been found at that time

Had she been wearing an apron it would have been described as an apron and would have been listed amongst her clothing. It was not till the Gs piece had been found that someone jumped to the conclusion that it must have been cut from the mortuary piece which at some point in the past it probablyhad but not by the killer.

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.

With this inquest anyone could have produced a washing up cloth and the officer would say what he said just to be "helpful"

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.

So how many time have courts of juries not believed the testimony of police officers. Just because you are a police officer you are not beyond having what you say not believed. As i said in an earlier post the officers evidence has never been tested. I have highlighted a number or issues with it as to where it is questionable which you seem to not want to agree with.

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.

Well al the other facts tend to show she wasn't but hey don't lets consider other relevant facts lets stick with the old theories because we have made a lot of money out of them over the years. To change ones view now would be a disaster and would tend to rock the old pedestal a bit

As to inventing fantasies you have been guilty of inventing at least one major one.


The thing that makes me laugh with you and some others on here is that when i post something you cherry pick the bits you think you can argue about and the other relevant an important facts never get a mention I wonder why that is ?

To quote you from the other day I cannot be bother to continue to argue over the same issues time and time again.