writing on the wall

[Wickerman]

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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Wickerman]

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.

[Sunny Delight]

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.

https://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.

[Doctored Whatsit]

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.

[c.d.]

uhh no

Fair enough. I just run 'em up the flagpole. You decide if you want to salute.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

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

[c.d.]

Well I did say I was simply thinking out loud. I did not claim it to be an ascertained fact. And I don't see any desperation in it. To my mind, it follows a chain of reasoning. He wants the organs but does not want to be stopped with them. So he hides them with the intent of retrieving them later. It's dark, it might have been in a neighborhood he was not familiar with and where all the dwellings look the same. So he needs a marker to remember the location. Not the greatest of theories I admit but not so "desperate" as some I have read. Cough...Cough....menstruation.

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Oh come on these explantions are becoming farcical now, talk about desperation

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Reply just for you !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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]

No one has suggested anything of the sort stop distorting what i have posted

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 So the evidence of police who were there is questionable after 7 days but the contradictory speculation of an armchair detective after 125 years is unimpeachable?

Yes it is questionable for the reasons stated and I presume you are referring to yourslef as an armchair detective because that how I view you

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. I don't find cut and paste confusing at all. https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_eddowes.html

You need to read Collards signed inquest testimony there is no mention of the items found at the crime scene being listed among her possessions.

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. I suspect it is you that is confused on this point.

No no confusion on my part feel free to post where it says the apron piece was found outside the body at the crime scene

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 Again, cut and paste:https://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

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 I'm sure the bloodstained pieces would have fetched a goodly sum.

You have completly lost me on this issue

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 It is very difficult to discuss possibilities with someone who is so obdurate.

I find it difficult to discuss options with an armchair detective who has no knowledge of how to assess and evlauate evidence and time and time again misrepresents what has been posted.

Cheers, George

[c.d.]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are correct, Trevor but you are also trying to assign rational thought and behavior to someone who just cut a woman's throat and ripped out her internal organs. But if he wanted the apron as a trophy, even though he knew carrying it on his person was risky, we have no way of knowing how that conflict played out in his mind and why he dropped the apron at a particular location.

c.d.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

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 So the evidence of police who were there is questionable after 7 days but the contradictory speculation of an armchair detective after 125 years is unimpeachable?

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. I don't find cut and paste confusing at all. https://www.casebook.org/official_do...t_eddowes.html

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. I suspect it is you that is confused on this point.

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 Again, cut and paste:https://www.casebook.org/victims/eddowes.html

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 I'm sure the bloodstained pieces would have fetched a goodly sum.

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 It is very difficult to discuss possibilities with someone who is so obdurate.

Cheers, George

[Doctored Whatsit]

an old apron would be easily acquired especially if it was only part of an apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Possibly so, maybe bought very cheaply, maybe she hoped to get something thrown away, but the question was - is there evidence that in 1888 impoverished Eastenders would spend their hard earned pennies to buy rags?