writing on the wall

[milchmanuk]

Hi Trever, so are your saying that Catherine wasn't wearing her apron but was carrying a single bisected apron in her possesions that JTR took from her belongings used and then dumped?

Helen x

i think he is saying she dumped the apron on her evening walks.

[milchmanuk]

Photoshop, you mean?

obviously / but it does highlights the observations with the rag on the floor. also.the p.c. Long could not of missed it if he shined his bull lamp in there.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trever, so are your saying that Catherine wasn't wearing her apron but was carrying a single bisected apron in her possesions that JTR took from her belongings used and then dumped?

Helen x

Hi Helen

It is my belief that the Eddowes was not in possession of any apron wearing one or otherwise, and that she was simply in possession of 2 old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had been cut from a full apron, and that the killer did not deposit the apron piece and that the piece found in GS had been desposited it by Eddowes herself between her leaving the PS and her murder.

No one saw her after leaving the PS and she had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of her lodgings which were a stones throw away from GS which you would expect to be a natural course of conduct having spent many hours in a police cell. I therefore believe she had been using the apron as a sanitary device which had become soiled, the description of the apron piece fits with that scenario i.e blood spotting/blood smearing and feaecal matter found on one side only, and wet. and if I am correct she then could have gone under the archway to relive herself, found the apron piece was soiled and that she did not need to replace it and simply deposited the soiled apron piece.

However there are many on here who do not subscribe to this theory however it is for each individual to assess and evaluate the facts and form their own indvidual opinions.

There is no evidence to show the killer wrote the graffiti. It has no connection to any of the murders. This part of the mystery has more red herrings than Billingsgate Fish Market.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[milchmanuk]

Hi Helen

It is my belief that the Eddowes was not in possession of any apron wearing one or otherwise, and that she was simply in possession of 2 old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had been cut from a full apron, and that the killer did not deposit the apron piece and that the piece found in GS had been desposited it by Eddowes herself between her leaving the PS and her murder.

No one saw her after leaving the PS and she had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of her lodgings which were a stones throw away from GS which you would expect to be a natural course of conduct having spent many hours in a police cell. I therefore believe she had been using the apron as a sanitary device which had become soiled, the description of the apron piece fits with that scenario i.e blood spotting/blood smearing and feaecal matter found on one side only, and wet. and if I am correct she then could have gone under the archway to relive herself, found the apron piece was soiled and that she did not need to replace it and simply deposited the soiled apron piece.

However there are many on here who do not subscribe to this theory however it is for each individual to assess and evaluate the facts and form their own indvidual opinions.

There is no evidence to show the killer wrote the graffiti. It has no connection to any of the murders. This part of the mystery has more red herrings than Billingsgate Fish Market.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

hi i like your explanation of the apron.
mine thinking was more derogatory of Jacks nature .
also i was thinking with his mental illness he was not sure people recognized him as he wanted and felt he wanted to make himself public. he might or not been able to read newspapers.

[Parisi North Humber]

I would have thought that the medicos would have mentioned at some point if she was menstruating, perhaps it was and I've missed it, however Dr Brown did state that "no secretions of any kind were found on her thighs". If Catherine was bleeding at Goulston street she would have continued (even if only lightly) on the walk to Mitre Square and if she hadn't replaced her sanitary protection then menstrual blood would have been smeared on her inner thighs.
however you are correct Trevor that each must assess and evaluate the facts for themselves. I also think it's possible that she was carrying rather than wearing the apron, it is indeed a shame we do not know if she was wearing an apron or not when she left the police station.

Helen x

[milchmanuk]

hence MJK other the top for recognition while indulging in his fantasy

[Aethelwulf]

Hi Helen

It is my belief that the Eddowes was not in possession of any apron wearing one or otherwise, and that she was simply in possession of 2 old pieces of apron which at some time in the past had been cut from a full apron, and that the killer did not deposit the apron piece and that the piece found in GS had been desposited it by Eddowes herself between her leaving the PS and her murder.

No one saw her after leaving the PS and she had the time and the opportunity to go back in the direction of her lodgings which were a stones throw away from GS which you would expect to be a natural course of conduct having spent many hours in a police cell. I therefore believe she had been using the apron as a sanitary device which had become soiled, the description of the apron piece fits with that scenario i.e blood spotting/blood smearing and feaecal matter found on one side only, and wet. and if I am correct she then could have gone under the archway to relive herself, found the apron piece was soiled and that she did not need to replace it and simply deposited the soiled apron piece.

However there are many on here who do not subscribe to this theory however it is for each individual to assess and evaluate the facts and form their own indvidual opinions.

There is no evidence to show the killer wrote the graffiti. It has no connection to any of the murders. This part of the mystery has more red herrings than Billingsgate Fish Market.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

We find another attendee for the party

[milchmanuk]

hence MJK other the top for recognition while indulging in his fantasy

Jack is cutting clothing and victims alike exploring his fantasy,
perhaps taking body parts home to further this morbid fascination in private,
perhaps he was in love with someone he could not have, even if it was on his shoulder.

[Trevor Marriott]

I would have thought that the medicos would have mentioned at some point if she was menstruating, perhaps it was and I've missed it, however Dr Brown did state that "no secretions of any kind were found on her thighs". If Catherine was bleeding at Goulston street she would have continued (even if only lightly) on the walk to Mitre Square and if she hadn't replaced her sanitary protection then menstrual blood would have been smeared on her inner thighs.
however you are correct Trevor that each must assess and evaluate the facts for themselves. I also think it's possible that she was carrying rather than wearing the apron, it is indeed a shame we do not know if she was wearing an apron or not when she left the police station.

Helen x

If she had have been bleeding ever so slighty which the description of the apron piece tends to support there should have been no external traces of blood after all that is the purpose of any sanitary device to absorb the blood the body is secreting. A consulstant gynecologist confirms that blood spotting is consistent with the menstrual process and would be more attributable to women who were malnourished.

As to the doctors not noticing whether or not she was menstruating I would suggest that any blood found on any parts of the body would have been attributed to the throat cutting and the abdominal mutilations. I doubt that they would have been looking for signs of menstruation and besides if she felt that process had finished when she deposited the piece and felt there was no need to replace it with the other piece she had in her possession.

If you look at the list of her clothing and personal possessions you will see that an one piece of white apron is recorded among her possessions and there is no entry amongst her clothes that shows an apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

If you look at the list of her clothing and personal possessions you will see that an one piece of white apron is recorded among her possessions and there is no entry amongst her clothes that shows an apron

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

With all due respect, I disagree. I think the evidence shows that she was wearing the apron that night and it was not shown amongst her clothing because half of it was at Goulston St and the other half was lying BESIDE her body.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

With all due respect, I disagree. I think the evidence shows that she was wearing the apron that night and it was not shown amongst her clothing because half of it was at Goulston St and the other half was lying BESIDE her body.

Cheers, George

I think you need to check your facts

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

I think you need to check your facts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

No, I checked my facts on the other thread where this was discussed interminably, and am happy they pass scrutiny.

Cheers, George

[Trevor Marriott]

No, I checked my facts on the other thread where this was discussed interminably, and am happy they pass scrutiny.

Cheers, George

Well let me point out something you clearly have been misled or you have mis-interpreted about and that is there is no evidence that an apron piece was found beside the body.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Losmandris]

But it works the other way too Trevor.
Right next to the entry was an open pit, surrounded by iron railings.
The railings can be seen here.


We had the same in our first house. As you can see in the photo the lower window at ground level is bricked up, so was ours. But my point here is that the pit is something like 4-5 ft deep, and likely collects whatever rubbish blows around. The organs may have been down in that pit, we have no mention of the police searching it. At the time the police theory seems to have been that the rag was only used to wipe his hands, so no police bothered to look for spilled organs.

If, the killer was carrying the organs in the piece of apron, as I always believed, and threw the bundle at the doorway as he ran passed, they may have spilled out as the bundle hit the wall/archway and ended up down in that hole.
It was not planted, it wasn't intentional, the bundle was thrown away into the doorway, in desperation as he may have seen an officer coming up the street. The fact there was some graffiti close by was irrelevant.

After looking at the pictures and some of the reports as to where the apron was found. The way I see it is that he runs or strolls past the entrance and flings the apron into it, attempting to chuck as far in as possible for it not to be see. I think Long misses it on his first sweep pass as it is actually in the entrance. I dont think the graffiti is written by the killer.

[Trevor Marriott]

After looking at the pictures and some of the reports as to where the apron was found. The way I see it is that he runs or strolls past the entrance and flings the apron into it, attempting to chuck as far in as possible for it not to be see. I think Long misses it on his first sweep pass as it is actually in the entrance. I dont think the graffiti is written by the killer.

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?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk