Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

writing on the wall

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Hi Jeff,

    Excellent post, as we have come to expect from you.

    I always find it a little curious that when Robinson took Kathy to Bishopsgate Police-station and she was asked her name she replied "Nothing". I wonder if she may have given the same reply in response to someone in the crowd of persons outside No. 29 High-street, Aldgate, or related her story to her future assailant after her release. It would attach a completely different meaning to "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" than that which is normally applied, and confirm the assailant as the author of the GSG. Probably nothing (), but intriguing never the less.

    Best regards, George
    “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”
    If money can't buy happiness, explain motorcycles, malt whisky and pipe tobacco.
    Everybody lies - Greg House MD

    Comment


    • Please see replies set out below

      Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
      Hi Trevor,

      Please correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems that in your theory Kathy is wearing an apron when she is incarcerated. Sometime after that she realises that she has commenced her menstrual cycle and cuts up the apron she was wearing to obtain a sanitary napkin. When she is released she heads in the opposite direction to that of her home and of Goulston St, so presumably the start of her cycle was after that departure. She deposits the portion of the apron at Goulston St and then walks to Mitre Square....[End of correctable assumptions]

      The sugestion that she was wearing an apron when arrested comes from the officer who arrested her, but his evidence that he gave at the inquest to that effect is questionable as he gave that evidence 7 days later, and as almost every woman at the time wore white aprons there is nothing to show why 7 days later he recalled specifically her wearing an apron. Again playing devils advocate for those who readily accept that police officers testimony. I pointed out that theoretically as she was in possession of a knife she could have cut the apron herself. But I dont believe this to be that case

      Collard testified: in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets and I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress.

      You have clearly confused yourself and not read Collards inquest testimony fully or completlely misunderstood the content the way you have written it is misleading to readers. The Buttons and other items were found at the scene.

      His reference to the apron was as a result of what took place later at the mortuary when the body was stripped it was not found beside the body at the crime scene, and the term he uses "apperently wearing" is open to interpretation and discussion.


      On the autopsy report, all these items are grouped together under the heading of possessions:
      • 1 piece of old white apron with repair
      • Several buttons and a thimble
      • Mustard tin containing two pawn tickets,
      Also in the list of possessions is
      • 12 pieces white rag, some slightly bloodstained
      So the items found near, but not on, the body are listed together as possessions.

      I dont know what report you are referring to but Collards official list of clothing and possessions does not include the items found at the crime scene

      My question to you is...Why would Kathy cut up the apron she was wearing for the purpose of a sanitary napkin when she had 12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained that she could have used for the purpose?

      As per my previous reply on this topic, I dont believe she cut up the apron, the two pieces of apron referred to one being the mortuary piece and the other the GS piece I beleive had been cut previoulsy from an old white apron and she was in poossession of two of the pieces that had come form that old apron.

      We know that the two pieces matched up, but there is no evidence to show that when matched they made up a full apron

      As to the 12 pieces referred to eddowes was described as being a hawker we do not know the quality of these 12 piece it is quite possible that she had them in her possession to sell in which case if they were of good quality she would not want to use them as sanitary devices


      It seems obvious to me that the apron was cut by the Ripper early in his attack on Eddowes. He took half with him and dropped the other half next to her body. YMMV.

      Well you are obvioulsy wrong on that point

      Cheers, George

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Parisi North Humber View Post
        Have to say Trevor that even bleeding ever so slightly (I.e. last day of menstuation) as you propose would have shown externally without any sanitary protection, but if your propositition is the amount of blood on the GS apron piece was menstrual then it is not likely to be the end of that part of a womans cycle. I dont wish to be too graphic so I shall leave it that the blood on the apron was unlikely to be from last moments of menstruation. These are only my thoughts from Dr Brown's statement, her possesion list, my own experience as a woman and the timing of events etc. I'm still trying to find MJK's non existent knife so I have bigger fish (and potatoes) to fry lol.

        Helen x
        You cannot compare the menstruation process in modern day women to the Victorian street women, their lives, health and the way they existed are totally differnet. That is why the consulatnat gynecologist stated that instead of having full on periods the blood fllow would be much less more in the way of spotting.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
          Hi all,

          I've gone through the Eddowes Inquest files found on the site, and have extracted all references to her apron. Generally, the apron comes up either by people testifying she was wearing one, or with regards to the discovery of the portion in Goulston-Street.

          I've bolded and underlined who is giving testimony, and generally give the opening bit too, to make it easier to find things if you wish to read the full testimony under the official documents. I've inserted a few comments between (** and **) markers at some points where I know the wording as given in this paper differs from wording found in other papers, or where something occurred to me that I thought worth mentioning (your opinion may vary on that, of course).

          The following witnesses all give testimony that Kate was wearing an apron on the day she was murdered. Some state that the apron produced (with a piece missing) appeared to be the same one she had been wearing. Daniel Halse, while he doesn't directly say he saw her wearing an apron, does appear to indicate he noticed there was a missing piece while at the mortuary before having heard of the piece found in Goulston-street. To me, making such an observation without knowing about the GS piece suggests the apron was being worn by Eddowes (a cut up item in her possession would not garner such attention). However, it could be argued that he may have noticed it at the time by happenstance, and the significance became apparent once he heard of the piece found. As his testimony is suggestive, I've included him on the list, but I accept that he should be viewed as "possibly indicating she was wearing an apron" and not as him actually saying she was.

          That means we have the following 6 (or 5 if you exclude Halse) witnesses testifying that Eddowes was wearing an apron, and some indicating that the apron she was wearing is the one that was shown to have a piece cut from it.

          Frederick William Wilkinson
          Inspector Collard
          Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown
          City-constable Lewis Robinson

          Constable George Henry Hutt,
          Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police


          Testimonies at the Eddowes’ inquest:
          Day 1, Thursday, October 4, 1888
          (The Daily Telegraph, Friday, October 5, 1888, Page 3)
          Frederick William Wilkinson deposed: I am deputy of the lodging-house at Flower and Dean-street. I have known the deceased and Kelly during the last seven years. …I believe on Saturday morning Kate was wearing an apron. Nothing unusual struck me about her dress. …

          But his testimony doesnt prove that at the time she was murdered she was wearing an apron

          Inspector Collard, of the City Police, said: At five minutes before two o'clock on Sunday morning last I received information at Bishopsgate-street Police-station that a woman had been murdered in Mitre-square. …
          [Coroner] Was there any money about her? - No; no money whatever was found. A piece of cloth was found in Goulston-street, corresponding with the apron worn by the deceased. (** In other papers this is reported as …corresponding with the apron apparently worn by the deceased. **; or words to that effect, the key being the word apparently)

          Apparently is a key word is a key word and therefore creates a doubt he visited the crime scene surely he should have noticed if she was wearing and apron or not and been able to give a definitive statement.

          Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown was then called, and deposed: I am surgeon to the City of London Police. …
          [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. (**again, I believe this may be phrased differently in some papers **)

          This is incorrcet his signed inquest testimony states "I fitted the piece of apron which had a string attached" note one string you cannot tie an apron with just one string

          Day 2, Thursday, October 11, 1888
          (The Daily Telegraph, October 12, 1888, Page 2)
          City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased. …
          The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.
          Constable George Henry Hutt, 968, City Police: I am gaoler at Bishopsgate station. On the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, at a quarter to ten o'clock, I took over our prisoners, among them the deceased. I visited her several times until five minutes to one on Sunday morning. …
          [Coroner] In your opinion is that the apron the deceased was wearing? - To the best of my belief it is.

          These officers gave their testimony 7 days after the event I have to ask how come they were able to remember after that length of time bearing in mind almost ever woman in London wore a white apron and they were not able to describe anything about her apron that made it stick in their minds -UNSAFE EVIDENCE.

          On the subject of officers testimony I have to mention the fact that there is no inquesty testimony from Sgt Byfield who was the station sgt and who would have booked her into custody and also released her I would have expect him to have given some form of a statement after all she would have been standing in front of him when being booked in and standing in front of him when released.


          Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. …
          I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. (** This implies that Halse saw Eddowes at the mortuary and noticed the missing piece of her apron before being aware that a portion was later found in Goulston Street. That in turn suggests that the apron was something she was wearing, as otherwise it would be unremarkable, although this series of inferences are not unquestionable **). … - Jeff
          He is not totally incorrect because we know that the mortuary piece had a piece missing which was matched to the GS piece but there is no evidence that the two pieces ever made up full apron that is corroborated by how Dr Brown later matched the two pieces and the descriptions of the two pieces, and the fact that Collard uses the term apparently.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk





          Comment


          • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
            Hi Jeff,

            Excellent post, as we have come to expect from you.

            I always find it a little curious that when Robinson took Kathy to Bishopsgate Police-station and she was asked her name she replied "Nothing". I wonder if she may have given the same reply in response to someone in the crowd of persons outside No. 29 High-street, Aldgate, or related her story to her future assailant after her release. It would attach a completely different meaning to "The Jews are not the men that will be blamed for nothing" than that which is normally applied, and confirm the assailant as the author of the GSG. Probably nothing (), but intriguing never the less.

            Best regards, George
            Hi George,

            I think this way too! Obviously this could easily be a coincidence, but it is very intriguing nonetheless. Probably impossible to investigate further, unfortunately.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              He is not totally incorrect because we know that the mortuary piece had a piece missing which was matched to the GS piece but there is no evidence that the two pieces ever made up full apron that is corroborated by how Dr Brown later matched the two pieces and the descriptions of the two pieces, and the fact that Collard uses the term apparently.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk




              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mark J D View Post

                Squire, if he'd wanted the thing to disappear, he could have thrown it down into one of those cellar recesses, down into the shadows and (very likely) all the other rubbish down there...

                The apron piece was left in the entrance-way precisely because it was meant to be found.

                Bests,

                Mark D.
                I don't think we can say that for certain though. As Wickerman points out above his aim may have been off, he could have been running or could have seen someone approaching and made a split second decision. Probably not thinking straight after the events of the night.
                Best Regards,

                Tristan

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  From looking at the picture and I stand to be corrected that the railings show in the pic were there to prevent anyone falling into the cellar areas below. In which case playing devils advocate, why didnt the killer simply discard the apron piece over the railings,? or in fact if it is accpted that the killer did not write the graffiti why wait so long before discarading the apron piece when there were plenty of places en route from Mitre Square?

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  So many reasons. Aim, intention? Or maybe in the dark it was not obvious there was a big drop beyond the railings. I dont think any of us are in a situation where we can second guess what is going on in the mind of such a person. Let alone what was going on in the street at the time. All it could take is someone to walk past giving him a look up and down. He could have been past by someone panics, drops the organs down a drain or alleyway and then chucks the apron piece into a door way. Thinking by chucking the two away seperately the less the chance (all be it remote) of them being linked. On these kind of streets I think the chances of offal remaining in one place with out being taken by a scavenger, for a long time are pretty slim.

                  This is total speculation on my part. But after seeing the contempory pics, I think it is at least a possiblity.
                  Best Regards,

                  Tristan

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    The 1889 Police Code (in effect in 1888), page 28, under Beats, includes three requirements.
                    The third requirement is divided into seven (a - g) rules, the sentence ends with..."the following rules may be advantageously borne in mind by constables on the beat":-

                    "(g) To see that doors, windows, gratings, cellar-flaps, fan-lights, and places through which a thief might enter, or obtain access, are not left open".

                    It's my view that if PC Long was doing his job right he could not possibly have missed the rag had it been there at 2:20 (or 1:50 for that matter), he would have had to pretty much step over it to try the door.
                    Nothing to say (apart from him) that he didn't that first time around? Imagine it came out that he did in fact just ignore it, not going to look too good on him is it?
                    Best Regards,

                    Tristan

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Losmandris View Post


                      So many reasons. Aim, intention? Or maybe in the dark it was not obvious there was a big drop beyond the railings. I dont think any of us are in a situation where we can second guess what is going on in the mind of such a person. Let alone what was going on in the street at the time. All it could take is someone to walk past giving him a look up and down. He could have been past by someone panics, drops the organs down a drain or alleyway and then chucks the apron piece into a door way. Thinking by chucking the two away seperately the less the chance (all be it remote) of them being linked. On these kind of streets I think the chances of offal remaining in one place with out being taken by a scavenger, for a long time are pretty slim.

                      This is total speculation on my part. But after seeing the contempory pics, I think it is at least a possiblity.
                      But the description of the apron piece is not consistent with freshly removed organs being carried away in, it so for that reason I rule out organs being carried away in it

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        Please see replies set out below



                        Is there any evidence that in 1888 impoverished Eastenders would spend their hard earned pennies to buy rags? If they did so, would Eddowes have earned enough money from the sales to buy another apron to replace the one she allegedly used as a sanitary towel instead of one of her rags?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          But I say again, why wait so long, every minute spent carrying his knife and the apron piece was a potential minute leading to his capture.

                          But if that had been the case what happened to the organs? Again I am playing devils advocate in an effort to show posters how unlikey some of the explantions are that have been put forward by posters to explain away the negatives surrounding the apron piece and the alleged removal of the organs.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          The killer was obviously focused on putting distance between himself and the crime scene. My hypothesis is that PC Harvey disturbed him when he walked down Church Passage. The Ripper cut the piece of apron away and left via the exit to the south. I imagine he went along Whitechapel Road before discarding the apron in a quiet spot out of sight. First though he wipes his knife and maybe his hands. The main thing for him would be to get as far from the scene as quickly as possible. It would be conceivable he felt capture was closing in as he might have believed PC Harvey was on the verge of finding Eddowes. His discarding of the apron is done in haste as he is just glad to get clear of the murder scene and get cleaned without suspicion. How he managed to escape from Mitre Square will always remain a mystery to me. Not inexplicable but he was very very lucky.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                            Is there any evidence that in 1888 impoverished Eastenders would spend their hard earned pennies to buy rags? If they did so, would Eddowes have earned enough money from the sales to buy another apron to replace the one she allegedly used as a sanitary towel instead of one of her rags?
                            One of the most ridiculous theories I have ever come across to be honest.

                            Comment


                            • Where was the apron between 1.44am and 2.55am?
                              My name is Dave. You cannot reach me through Debs email account

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by harry View Post
                                You are correct Trevor.The entrance to the cellar,in some houses of that era,was outside.As it was terraced housing,and most abbuted the pavement,t was easier to access by delivery people.
                                But that's not a 'cellar' though Harry, and yes I know in many large victorian houses there was an outside entrance to the rooms below ground, but in that case people were working there.
                                A 'cellar' has a function, it's purpose is more along the lines of storage, if people live or work down there it's not a 'cellar'.
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X