Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

Then at what point did he purportedly cut or tear the piece of apron ? Because as soon as the clothes were pulled up the apron is the least accessible piece of clothing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

This is a suggestion.

http://forum.casebook.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=17865&stc=1&d=1480081844

Never the twine shall meet

[Wickerman]

Thanks mate.
Doubt there was a bib.
No mention of one at the watch house.
Not in the sketch done at Mitre Square immediately after Eddowes was discovered.

The typical woman's apron of the period included a bib. Period photo's of the time also show this.

[Michael W Richards]

Then at what point did he purportedly cut or tear the piece of apron ? Because as soon as the clothes were pulled up the apron is the least accessible piece of clothing.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I believe that its possible that the string secured both the neck and the waist, so in order for him to raise the skirts, he would have cut and torn the apron first. That would suggest that he decided to use the apron section, rather than he cut the apron for some predetermined purpose. Which supports what Ive felt was the case with the section taken....it was used to carry the organs. Which means he didn't come prepared to do that with either some container or hanky, or perhaps he used the hanky to clean his hands. Which suggests to me that he had no experience dealing with the transporting of excised organs on his person.

Which would be unlike Annie Chapmans killer.

[DJA]

The typical woman's apron of the period included a bib. Period photo's of the time also show this.

There are pictures of both from that period.
If we exclude servants and nurses aprons,the vast majority are without bibs.

http://images.amcnetworks.com/bbcamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/STOP7-dorset-street.jpg

http://spitalfieldslife.com/2011/01/29/the-dosshouses-of-spitalfields/

[jerryd]

There are pictures of both from that period.
If we exclude servants and nurses aprons,the vast majority are without bibs.

http://images.amcnetworks.com/bbcamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/STOP7-dorset-street.jpg

http://spitalfieldslife.com/2011/01/...-spitalfields/

Dr Brown at the inquest.

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Dr Brown is the person that sketched "Eddowes in situ" (the sketch some credit to F.W. Foster). If he said at the inquest there was an apron still attached by strings to the body, it had to be an upper portion because we know the lower portion was found in Goulston Street. The sketch shows no apron in the stomach area where the lower portion would cover. The white area about the breast in the sketch may be the apron or it may have been covered up by the clothes being thrown up.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

A rhetorical question for you.

Inspector Collard, Eddowes’ inquest, Day One—

"It [the body] was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary-keeper, in the presence of the two doctors [Sequeira and Brown] and myself . . . I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, Eddowes Inquest, Day One—

“The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard.”

DC Daniel Halse, Eddowes’ inquest, Day Two—

“[I] accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing.”

That's five people present when Halse spotted the apron had a piece missing—Davis, Sequeira, Brown, Collard, and Halse.

At this time the apron piece was at Leman Street police station.

By the time the piece of apron found its way to Golden Lane mortuary, Eddowes' body had been stripped and an inventory made of her clothing and possessions.

At what point was it possible for Dr. Brown to match the apron piece to the rest of the apron, "which was still attached by the strings to the body"?

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

A rhetorical question for you.

Inspector Collard, Eddowes’ inquest, Day One—

"It [the body] was then taken to the mortuary and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary-keeper, in the presence of the two doctors [Sequeira and Brown] and myself . . . I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress."

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, Eddowes Inquest, Day One—

“The clothes were carefully taken off the body, as described by Inspector Collard.”

DC Daniel Halse, Eddowes’ inquest, Day Two—

“[I] accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing.”

That's five people present when Halse spotted the apron had a piece missing—Davis, Sequeira, Brown, Collard, and Halse.

At this time the apron piece was at Leman Street police station.

By the time the piece of apron found its way to Golden Lane mortuary, Eddowes' body had been stripped and an inventory made of her clothing and possessions.

At what point was it possible for Dr. Brown to match the apron piece to the rest of the apron, "which was still attached by the strings to the body"?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

I would say after it was removed by Collard.

I think Dr Brown was saying that the portion in GS matched the portion that was attached by strings to the body. In other words, he knew she was wearing a portion (the upper) at one time because he saw it on her in Mitre Square.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jerry,

Was, as in 'had been'?

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

Was, as in 'had been'?

Regards,

Simon

As in, he knew a portion was attached by strings to the body in Mitre Square. The portion found in GS matched that portion. To me it sounds like he was making a point that at one time she had the other portion attached to her.

[Pierre]

Pierre

The old accepted theory is that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder, and that it was the killer who cut or tore a piece, depositing that piece in Goulston Street.

That theory may not be as watertight as some believe it to be. The GS and the mortuary pieces have always been described as pieces. There is no mention of anyone matching those two pieces to make a full apron. In fact we know that one of the pieces had a string attached, but there is no mention of the second piece having a string attached.

So an important question is if she was wearing an apron what happened to the piece of the apron with the second string attached. You cant tie an apron with just one string. If there had been a string on the second piece, I would have expected it to have been mentioned in the process of identification.

So it is not unreasonable to suggest that she in fact was not wearing an apron, and at some time prior to her death she was in possession of two old pieces of an apron which at some point in time had come from a full apron, one of which found its way to GS either by the killer taking it, or she deposited it herself.

The flaws in the evidence which points to her wearing an apron have been highlighted many times on here, thus making the old accpted theory less than watertight.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

you are speaking a lot about the apron but you do not discuss the fact that it was an apron. Why not?

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=jerryd;401593]

As in, he knew a portion was attached by strings to the body in Mitre Square. The portion found in GS matched that portion. To me it sounds like he was making a point that at one time she had the other portion attached to her.

Hi Jerry,

That is correct. He did make a point.

Remember everyone that this was a serial killer. It was not the ordinary daily life of the victim that happened each time a murder happened. The events were extraordinary.

Therefore, it is not the everyday ordinary life that explains the murders. It is the extraordinary items and events at the murder sites.

But for lack of sources and understanding of the sources people have always overintepreted the significance of the ordinary life of the victims. It is not the issue. The issue is the significance of the extraordinary.

Regards, Pierre

[Wickerman]

Hello Simon.

By the time the piece of apron found its way to Golden Lane mortuary,

What 'time' was this?

Eddowes' body had been stripped and an inventory made of her clothing and possessions.

What 'time' was the inventory made?

[jerryd]

Hello Simon.


What 'time' was this?



What 'time' was the inventory made?

One more question to add. When did Dr. Brown arrive at Golden Lane? He performed the post- mortem 12 hours later. Did he see Catherine minus her clothing between Mitre Square and the post-mortem exam or did he go home after the find in Mitre Square and return to the mortuary later to examine the body? If he didn't go straight to the mortuary from Mitre Square, that explains his comment about the apron on the body because he never saw her other than with clothing on before his post-mortem exam on her.

[Wickerman]

One more question to add. When did Dr. Brown arrive at Golden Lane? He performed the post- mortem 12 hours later. Did he see Catherine minus her clothing between Mitre Square and the post-mortem exam or did he go home after the find in Mitre Square and return to the mortuary later to examine the body? If he didn't go straight to the mortuary from Mitre Square, that explains his comment about the apron on the body because he never saw her other than with clothing on before his post-mortem exam on her.

Very likely the body was taken to the mortuary and the doctor returned home.
A City constable (or two?) stood guard over night at the mortuary until the doctor returns the next morning. I think....there's an account in the press to that effect somewhere?