Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

writing on the wall

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

  • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
    If he went out that night with the intent to kill and to take his victim's organs, unless he wanted a nasty, funky pocket it is not inconceivable that he took precautions such as a rag or old newspaper in his pocket. So the apron might not have been used for transporting organs.

    The organs were obviously important to him. So what happened to them? He could have risked taking them all the way home or possibly hiding them somewhere with the intent of retrieving them the next day. The same with the apron. Discard it and go back for it the next day to keep as a trophy. A reasonable assumption that the apron would still be there.

    Just thinking out loud - could the apron have been used to mark where he hid the organs nearby?

    c.d.
    uhh no
    "Is all that we see or seem
    but a dream within a dream?"

    -Edgar Allan Poe


    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

    -Frederick G. Abberline

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      uhh no
      Fair enough. I just run 'em up the flagpole. You decide if you want to salute.

      c.d.

      Comment


      • Hi Trevor,

        You have suggested several times that we don't know the quality of the rags in Eddowes' possession, and that if they were of good quality she might have intended to sell them. Please, what exactly is the difference in saleable value between an average rag and a high quality rag? Do you have any evidence that hawkers successfully sold rags? In all honesty, it sounds quite ridiculous, but strange things happened in 1888, and I will try to keep an open mind on the subject despite overwhelming doubts.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

          But if he was disturbed he would not have had the time to cut piece of apron because of how he had arranged her clothes. They were up above her waist making the apron if she had been wearing one the most difficult item of clothing to locate.

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
          I am sure it was possible to do. I think he must have heard PC Harveys footsteps- possibly looked up and saw his figure in the distance. It ties in with what we know and the statements given by respective witnesses whilst also answering the question why did he take the piece of apron?

          1:33-1:35am- Lawende, Levy and Hyam pass Church Passage and see a man with Catherine Eddowes.

          1:35-1:37am- Eddowes and her killer enter Mitre Square where a blitz attack occurs. Over the course of the next five minutes the killer mutilated Catherine Eddowes. Dr. Brown feels the mutilations should have taken at least five minutes.

          1:40- 1:42am- PC Harvey enters Church Passage and walks to the bottom of the passage looking into the Square. The killer hearing the footsteps and maybe even seeing Harvey cuts off a piece of apron with the intention of cleaning his knife and possibly hands.

          1:44am- Eddowes body is found. The killer is on the way to Goulston Street probably via Whitechapel High Street.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post
            Hi Trevor,
            ...... Do you have any evidence that hawkers successfully sold rags? In all honesty, it sounds quite ridiculous, but strange things happened in 1888, and I will try to keep an open mind on the subject despite overwhelming doubts.
            I don't hold support for Trevor's theory in any way, but to specifically address your question, the answer is, yes.

            There's a chapter entitled; Of the Street-Buyers of Rags, Broken Metal, Bottles, Glass, and Bones, page 163, in Henry Mayhew's, London Labour and the London Poor. The work was originally published in 1850-60, but it still reflects the poorer parts of London in the 1880's, change being slow in those times.

            Regards, Jon S.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Ok so if he dropped the apron piece what happened to the organs which he is alleged to have taken away in it ? let me answer my own question the description of the GS apron piece is not consietent with organs being wrapped in it.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
              Quite possibly he took them home, returned to the street with the rag intending to mislead the police by dropping somewhere unrelated to him or his abode.
              Which is likely why the piece of apron was not in Goulston St. at 2:20, or even 1:50. Whether he intended to pitch the rag in Goulston St., or that was premature due to him seeing a constable approach, is anyone guess.
              He may have intended to plant it somewhere else.
              It's a subject that is widely open to interpretation.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                I don't hold support for Trevor's theory in any way, but to specifically address your question, the answer is, yes.

                There's a chapter entitled; Of the Street-Buyers of Rags, Broken Metal, Bottles, Glass, and Bones, page 163, in Henry Mayhew's, London Labour and the London Poor. The work was originally published in 1850-60, but it still reflects the poorer parts of London in the 1880's, change being slow in those times.
                Hi Jon,

                I think we are perhaps in the right area, but not quite dealing with the same issue. Weren't the street buyers a little like modern rag and bone men, collecting things in bulk that they could receive relatively nominal payments for later? Trevor is suggesting that Eddowes could sell rags as a hawker, directly to the public. That surely is different.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doctored Whatsit View Post

                  Hi Jon,

                  I think we are perhaps in the right area, but not quite dealing with the same issue. Weren't the street buyers a little like modern rag and bone men, collecting things in bulk that they could receive relatively nominal payments for later? Trevor is suggesting that Eddowes could sell rags as a hawker, directly to the public. That surely is different.
                  The book does say the 'street cleaners' who picked up rags, bone, rope, even dog dung, would sell it on, but specifically rags were used in the manufacture of paper. So paper mills would buy rags, it doesn't say anything about selling back directly to the public.

                  Trevor is suggesting something that we cannot confirm or contest, I seem to have missed that particular argument. Aprons, the type worn over clothing were typically made out of calico, a hard wearing material not the type of material anyone would choose to have next to the skin, especially in tender places, it was coarse to the touch.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                    The book does say the 'street cleaners' who picked up rags, bone, rope, even dog dung, would sell it on, but specifically rags were used in the manufacture of paper. So paper mills would buy rags, it doesn't say anything about selling back directly to the public.

                    Trevor is suggesting something that we cannot confirm or contest, I seem to have missed that particular argument. Aprons, the type worn over clothing were typically made out of calico, a hard wearing material not the type of material anyone would choose to have next to the skin, especially in tender places, it was coarse to the touch.
                    I have to put the record straight that aprons were also made out of linen which is much softer on the skin

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      I have to put the record straight that aprons were also made out of linen which is much softer on the skin

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Now come on Trevor, you know what kind of apron we are talking about...



                      and it isn't this...

                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Lets look at the suggestion that the last thing the killer did,was to cut the apron. As Trevor has pointed out the apron was rolled or bunched up around the upper part of the body,and it would need for the clothing to be unrolled or unbunched to access the apron.
                        Would the killer, after cutting ,bother to the reroll or rebunch the clothing as found.I do not think so, I am with Trevor on this point.
                        Rags,as sanitary towels,were a common sight in my younger days.One could find them discarded in public places any day of the week.Alternately one could observe lines of washing of rags in back gardens.They would be used,washed,and reused,and even shared if there were several females in a family.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by harry View Post
                          Lets look at the suggestion that the last thing the killer did,was to cut the apron. As Trevor has pointed out the apron was rolled or bunched up around the upper part of the body,and it would need for the clothing to be unrolled or unbunched to access the apron.
                          Would the killer, after cutting ,bother to the reroll or rebunch the clothing as found.I do not think so, I am with Trevor on this point.
                          Rags,as sanitary towels,were a common sight in my younger days.One could find them discarded in public places any day of the week.Alternately one could observe lines of washing of rags in back gardens.They would be used,washed,and reused,and even shared if there were several females in a family.
                          Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
                          Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

                          Where's the problem with that?

                          For some reason Trevor seems to think cutting off the apron was an afterthought, well, supposing it wasn't?
                          He needed something to carry the organs in, he knew that before he began, this night he had a shopping list.....
                          Last edited by Wickerman; 07-06-2022, 02:59 AM.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
                            Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

                            Where's the problem with that?
                            Hi Jon,

                            The only problem that I see sits typing at Trevor's keyboard. When I suggested the same thing I was informed, without explanation, that I was obviously wrong. With that solution there would then be no need for the apron to be rolled up in the other clothing and Collard's evidence might have to be considered correct.

                            Best regards, George
                            Last edited by GBinOz; 07-06-2022, 06:34 AM.
                            “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.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                              Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
                              Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

                              Where's the problem with that?

                              For some reason Trevor seems to think cutting off the apron was an afterthought, well, supposing it wasn't?
                              He needed something to carry the organs in, he knew that before he began, this night he had a shopping list.....
                              But if that be the case why do we not see signs of that occurring with any of the other victims having chunks of their clothing being cut or any aprons they were wearing having chunks taken out of them to take away organs

                              On another point if what you say, if the taking of the organs was that premeditated as you suggest would you not have thought that the killer would have taken something with him to take away the organs in?

                              But may I remind you again that the description of the apron piece is not consistent with freshly cut organs taken out of a human body and wrapped in it

                              The more this topic is discussed the more evidence there is to suggest the killer did not remove these organs from Eddowes or any of the other victims.

                              On that note I have noticed that when discussing this topic and the topic of Druitt not one of the senior officers referred to makes any mention of the killer taking organs, Now I find that strange bearing in mind something of this nature in a series of murders would have been most unusual and I would have expected it to have been documented by one of them. So I have to wonder why? did they know that the killer did not take them but for obvious reasons kept if from the general public because I would suggest that if it hade been made public that organs were being taken for financial gain from mortuaries I would suspect that the press would have had a field day.

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • The problem as I see it Jon,is supposing it was an afterthought. Suposing as one poster believes,cutting the apron didn't happen. I believe his mind would have been concentrated on the death and mutilation of the body,and needs such as carrying body parts and cleaning hands etc,a forethought that had been catered for before even setting out to find a victim, but each to his/her own supposition.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X