cop the ripper? (a revived thread)

[Monty]

Eddowes was wearing whilst at Bishopsgate nick Simon.

Monty

[Supe]

Trev,

What if Pc Long wanted to gain some recognition with his superiors in this murder. Could he have gone to the mortuary and cut it from the apron piece and then said he had found it at Goulston St. ?

But then wouldn't he have had to contend with all the attendants and students seeking to excise her womb and kidney? Must have been quite a line waiting to get at her.

Don.

[mattwill]

Wow, this is weird. I've been thinking about this for a couple of days now. That is the Ripper possibly being a cop, or at least the killer of Emma Smith.

I'm not sure what they carried back then, possibly a variant on the nightstick, but could it have been the unknown object inserted into Smith's "parts"?

If so, then as some people think on these boards, she would have a reason to lie about her attack being three thugs and not the sick individual who really did it. just a thought, I don't ascribe totally to it.

[Monty]

Trevor,

I am calm.

Suggest you read the testimonies of Brown, Collard and Long.

My question would be why?

If Long did murder her why didnt he take the apron then?

If he didnt why in the first place?

However, the testimonies kinda put that theory to bed.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;119071]Trevor,

I am calm.

Suggest you read the testimonies of Brown, Collard and Long.

I have read the testimonies and i would suggest you read my post and you would have seen that at no time have i suggested Long was the killer

My question would be why?

The answer to this is also in my post
If Long did murder her why didnt he take the apron then?

Answer as above
If he didnt why in the first place?

However, the testimonies kinda put that theory to bed.

No they dont please try to engage your brain before replying next time

[Monty]

Trevor,

Try to be calm eh?

I wont point out the obvious flaw in your idea. This out of fear of having my head bitten off.

Besides, youre the murder cop....Im sure you can figure it.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

There are perhaps major flaws if you dont point them out i am sure someone else will. i have merely offered it up as another explanation in relation to the apron piece, because i do not beleive it got there via the killer. If that be the case there has to another explanation seeing as some choose not to consider the sanitary towel theory.

On this point I should mention that when giving Ripper talks I always make a point of asking the audience to volunteer explantions in relation to the apron piece. You would be surprised that without prompting the sanitary towel issue is regularly put forward. I would also say that always by females in the audience. So all you hardliners out there take note the idea is not as crazy as you would have as all beleive.

No one has yet answered the following questions what beat was Pc Long on and where did it take him ?

Distance between Mitre Square and Golden Lane mortuary.?

Distance between Goulston st and Golden Square mortuary ?

Any takers ?

[Rob Clack]

I'd say it was roughly half an hour walk from Goulston Street to the City Mortuary and probably a couple of minutes less from Mitre Square to the City Mortuary. I don't remember Long's beat of hand but it wouldn't have been any nearer to the City Mortuary than one block to the west.
I also think it is highly unlikely that Catherine Eddowes body would have been left outside the Mortuary.



Rob

[DVV]

On this point I should mention that when giving Ripper talks I always make a point of asking the audience to volunteer explantions in relation to the apron piece. You would be surprised that without prompting the sanitary towel issue is regularly put forward. I would also say that always by females in the audience. So all you hardliners out there take note the idea is not as crazy as you would have as all beleive.

Hi Trevor,

with all due respect, I'm afraid it is.
I like your book but must say I can't believe my eyes whenever I re-read page 165...
Btw, menstruation blood can hardly be confused with blood oozing from a wound. It's something different.

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

with all due respect, I'm afraid it is.
I like your book but must say I can't believe my eyes whenever I re-read page 165...
Btw, menstruation blood can hardly be confused with blood oozing from a wound. It's something different.

Amitiés,
David

David

The decsription of the apron piece when found is consistent with my theory. page 165 is totally accurate. The apron piece was spottted with blood, consistent with the menstruation process. Traces of faecal matter consistent with an un-hygenic prostitute having it between her legs, wet could be consistent with a drunken prostitute pissing herself when under the influence. These are facts in life and still are today but how many women out there will admit to any of the aforementioned occurring at some time either separatley or all together, albeit not having a piece of cloth between their legs but. I bet many pairs of knickers have finished up in a bin or discarded before they get home.

I know its hard for a man to accept this theory but men when pissed do wet their pants and sometime even more,

There is no mention in this context anywhere of oozing blood in connection with the apron piece, and i have no idea where you have got the open wound reference from.

In the light of my investigation casting a serious doubt about the the link between the killer and the apron piece I firmly stand by all I have writtten as being a plausible explanation for how the apron piece came to be in Goulston St. However I know i cannot prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. But for those who pour scorn and ridicule this then they are blinkered in their perception of The ripper mystery.

"The truth is still out there"

[Phil Carter]

I bet many pairs of knickers have finished up in a bin or discarded before they get home.

All,

Which raises a point I would CERTAINLY like to see discussed.

I would find it AMAZING that any woman would only have ONE pair of undergarments. However poor they were. Exactly because of menstruation.

How many pairs of undergarments did MJK own? How many were found amongst her belongings? In her "home"?

best wishes

Phil

[The Grave Maurice]

Is it likely that a malnourished 45-year-old would still be menstruating?
(This thread seems to be drifting off topic and I apologise for my part in that.)

[Phil Carter]

GM,

I will open up a thread about this on General...

best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

To clarify one of my points, knickers in the bin refers to modern day women.

and staying with modern day women what would a woman do if she was on a trai from London to manchester and started to mentsruate and did have any sanitary items.

Simpe she would go into the toilet and stuff tissues etc inside her knickers to avoid soiling her clothing.

Same scenario could have applied to Eddowes

[DVV]

Hi Trevor,

once again, all I'm saying is with all due respect.
I like the way you expose your views - "experts will disagree, but...etc". It's direct, frank, I sincerely appreciate that.

But the fact that the case is unsolved does not prompt me to accept any kind of theories. I'm not a desperado, not yet, at least...
Your apron theory is beyond me, sincerely.

Once again, menstruation blood is something different... And as The Grave Maurice said, Kate was 45, and it was in 1888....

Since your theory "revolves around matters of personal feminine hygiene" (p 164), you should give a little thought to our objections...

Amitiés,
David