Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Herlock Sholmes]

No, you are wrong, I challenge the accuracy of the old accepted theories which in my opinion are unsafe to totally rely on, and I have put forward other plausible alternatives which again may be unsafe to rely on but the fact is that there are other alternatives to be considered and not dismissed outright in favour of the unsafe accepted theories and having regard to the old accepted theories I fail to see why researchers are so keen to prop up these

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

But don’t you think that these theories have been challenged numerous times over the years Trevor? it’s not as if they’ve just been suggested and then immediately accepted by everyone. We all disagree on numerous aspects of the case from how many victims there were to whether the GSH was written by the killer to which witnesses might or might not be trustworthy to what time certain victims died. You write as if there’s some kind of Whitechapel Murders script that all ripperologists swear some kind of oath to. To suggest that some are in some way ‘attached’ to old theories is a fallacy. Individuals look at the available evidence and interpret it, assess theories (new and old) then form their own opinions. You continually imply that everyone simply picks a theory that they like and then without thinking defend it at all costs. I don’t think there are any ‘accepted’ theories.

[JeffHamm]

Oh I adore experts. Proper ones, who ... you know, actually have a clue what they are talking about.

From Obstetrics: the Science and the Art, by Charles Meigs, 1852:

“For the most part, as soon as the menses are perceived to begin to flow, the woman applies a T-bandage, consisting of a napkin.... (cut out all the intervening discussion of the mechanics of application to focus on the important part)...

Many female patients have assured me they never use less than a dozen napkins upon each catamenial occasion— and fifteen, and even twenty such changes are not very rare in the history of healthy menstruations. An ounce to a napkin is, perhaps, not an excessive computation.”



And as for whether I carry around 12 sanitary devices in my bag when I am menstruating, if I were homeless, I probably would. Where do you think Catherine Eddowes would be keeping hers? In her spare closet?

Do give my very best to your gyno pal, who clearly doesn't know their facts from their vaginal canal.

Thanks Ally.

A wonderful source find. A while back, when discussing Trevor's "apron as a sanitary napkin", he suggested the piece of material was affixed front and back to her dress by pins. I thought this rather unlikely myself, and moreover no pins were found either in her cloths or in the apron piece found in Goulston Street. At that time the discussion headed in the direction of how the cloth would normally be folded and so forth, and the source you found indicates it was "...folded like a cravat..." (which I admit leaves me none the wiser, but I now intend on looking up how cravats were folded). Also in the source you provided there is indeed no mention of pins whatsoever. There is, however, mention of how "...the ends are secured to a string or riband tied around the body above the hips; ...".

This would require two pieces of string to be attached to the cloth as it is tied as a waistband. That too does not correspond to the description of the piece found in Goulston Street.

Anyway, if anyone else is interested in reading medical knowledge from the day, the information Ally has found is in the opening pages of Chapter VI (pages 136/7).

- Jeff

[Ally]

Thanks Ally.


.... At that time the discussion headed in the direction of how the cloth would normally be folded and so forth, and the source you found indicates it was "...folded like a cravat..." (which I admit leaves me none the wiser, but I now intend on looking up how cravats were folded). Also in the source you provided there is indeed no mention of pins whatsoever. There is, however, mention of how "...the ends are secured to a string or riband tied around the body above the hips; ...".

This would require two pieces of string to be attached to the cloth as it is tied as a waistband. That too does not correspond to the description of the piece found in Goulston Street.

- Jeff

You are most welcome. If I had known the actual mechanics were of interest to anyone I would have left all the other bits in. I have an interest in historical dress and the recreation of it and there's a lot of interesting content out there about "How did they do, x, y, z back in the day?". I've watched/read loads of useless trivia on how women did everything from dye and wash their hair (with accompanying formulas and geez it's a wonder everyone didn't die from vanity) to the sadly badly misunderstood publicity around corsetry that was not at all what people think it was. Unfortunately there is very little detail to be found as to the exact mechanics since women's matters were not to be discussed in polite company and very few doctors or journals discussed exactly how one did it. A couple of historical dress enthusiasts who I watch have attempted "recreations" based on the available literature, but of course, this is primarily speculative, due to the lack of available literature, and most coming from medical books like the sourced one, but not from actual women discussing the methods. A lot of popular misconceptions out there, though I have to admit I am still baffled how anyone could actually claim that a woman would not require 12 sanitary napkins over the course of the month. Even with modern fluid retention methods, that's still....bogglingly stupid.

[JeffHamm]

Fifth, that he decided to carry away organs that he had removed from the body and used the apron piece to carry them in.

All are more plausible than Trevor's theory.

Hi Fiver,

My problem with that idea is that the doctor's at the time describe the staining as looking like he wiped his hands and/or knife on the cloth, and make no mention of anything that looks to correspond to a stain left through transporting of organs. There is the description of one corner being wet, and in one of the papers that is phrased as "wet with blood", but this sounds more like it absorbed blood from the wounds rather than indications of something being wrapped in the cloth (which, when unfolded, would leave a scattered patterns of large blood patterns based upon how the folded material touched the organ. I suppose, though, one could find a way, such as wrap the organs starting with a corner, etc., so I can't dismiss the idea entirely. It's just I think the doctor's would have noted it if any of the blood stains looked like they may have been due to organ transportation.

Obviously I could be wrong, and if I am, then I think it would make little sense for JtR to dispose of the apron while leaving the scene, and it would point to him having come back out again after making it home and he now wants to get rid of it. That idea is not without consideration, of course, given the timing of PC Long's discovery. On the other hand, as is often discussed, PC Long was doing this beat for the first time that night, so he may not have been as familiar as he otherwise would be with all the doorways and locations to check, and a piece of cloth tossed into a stairwell could therefore go unnoticed. Indeed, Trever's whole theory requires that the piece of apron was there not that long after 1, which means Trevor is claiming by implication that PC Long would have missed it on every round until he finds it at 2:55. PC Long testifies he had last passed that location at 2:20, suggesting it takes him approximately 35 minutes to complete a beat, which would suggest he previously passed at around 1:45 (when Trevor's theory also requires the cloth to be there, but the JtR drops it as he leaves does not as he has presumably just exited Mitre Square a few minutes ago, and therefore may not have reached Goulston Street). And it would suggest the round before that would be around 1:10, which I think could go either way depending upon how long Eddowes would require to get from the police station to Goulston Street (which, despite Constable Hutt's testimony that she headed towards Houndsditch, Trever suggests she went towards Flower and Dean, the most plausible route being in the opposite direction). But, looking at the maps, if she went down Houndsditch and then crossed over to Goulston, that looks like it would take around 8-9 minutes, but that is so close to the estimated patrol time of 1:10 that it really is just a 50/50 call on whether or not PC Long would have to miss the apron on that round as well (in the Eddowes' left it theory). If she went to Flower and Dean, though, despite all evidence to contrary, that journey would take between 11 and 12 minutes, which is also close enough to our expected patrol time that we're still dealing with a 50/50 call.

So, given the rough times of PC Long's testimony (where he says the apron was not there at 2:20), we can look at three theories, the JtR returns theory (where he goes somewhere and comes back to drop off the apron, which I think the apron as an organ wrapper theory sort of has to go with), the JtR fleeing theory (where he drops it after leaving Mitre Square, using it only to wipe his hands and/or knife, and not for organ transport), and Trevor's Sanitary napkin theory, where Eddowes herself discards the cloth there. I will place a Y for "Yes" if the theory requires the apron being at Goulston Street during the various patrols. I'll put a Y? if it could be, but the timing is close enough that we can't be sure. And an X for times when the apron should not be there. The asterisk just indicates the time of apron discovery.

.....................JtR...............Eddowes
..........Returns.....Fleeing ....Sanitary Napkin
2:55*.....Y..............Y................Y
2:20.......X.............Y................Y
1:45.......X.............Y?..............Y
1:10.......X.............X...............Y?


I've put a Y? at 1:45 simply because the times are estimates, and at a walking speed Goulston Street is around 6 minutes from the crime scene, so one could argue it is possible for JtR to have gone by ahead of PC Long's 1:45 patrol (given the patrol times are estimates). I'm not ascribing to that idea, only including it because the times are close enough that such a margin of error must be considered.

All theories can account for the apron being discovered at 2:55, so that at least is good for everyone. So I'm going to focus on the times the apron was not discovered, and if the theory requires it was at Goulston Street at that time, then the theory requires it was overlooked by PC Long.

First, the JtR returns idea does not require PC Long to have overlooked the apron on any occasion, and it corresponds to his testimony that the apron was not there during his 2:20 patrol. In that sense, with respect to the discovery of the apron, it is the most consistent with the testimony. All other accounts must argue that PC Long was mistaken when he asserted that the apron was not there at 2:20 (as both fleeing and napkin theories require it to have been there at 2:20).

The JtR fleeing idea does require PC Long to have missed it at 2:20, and one could argue he also missed it at 1:45 when it was just dropped (but that last one is contentious).

The Sanitary Napkin idea requires PC Long to have missed the apron at both 1:45 and 2:20, and there could be an argument that he also missed it at 1:10, but again, that last one is also contentious.

If we set aside the two contentious times, then Trevor's theory requires that PC Long missed the apron on two previous patrols (1:45 and 2:20). The JtR dropped it while leaving the scene requires that PC Long missed the apron on one previous patrol (2:20), while the JtR returns theory does not require PC Long to have missed the apron at all (as he testifies), but it does require accepting that JtR remains in the vicinity, possibly in a residence for some of that, which means he comes back out; alternatively one is suggesting he hangs around somewhere before deciding to get rid of the apron.

Most debate the two JtR options, and where one stands tends to reflect the weighing of the probability that PC Long missed the apron at 2:20 compared to probability of JtR coming back out to get rid of the apron after making it home. I think most people would consider the idea that he hung around in the street with a piece of bloody apron for that amount of time too improbable to really consider as viable.

Trevor's theory suffers from the problem that to work, he has to argue that PC Long had a high probability of overlooking the apron at all times prior to 2:55, but if that's the case, the JtR fleeing option is simply increased as well. The "Returns" idea doesn't need to consider probabilities at all as the apron is not even there to be missed, while if PC Long has a high probability of overlooking it (via Trevor's theory) then he can't argue that probability is any less if JtR dropped it while fleeing. And one overlooking is always more probable than two, so his theory requires accepting something that must be the lowest probability of the three. Mind you, if one argues that probability of overlooking is 90%, then the calculated probabilities for 1 overlooking is 90% and for two it is 81% (so both reasonably high), but if one thinks it is a 50% chance, then we're looking at 50% vs 25%; still not out of the question in either case, but starting to look worse. And if we include the "contentious" times as "half an overlook" (so fleeing is 1.5 overlooks, and Sanitary Napkin is 2.5 overlooks), then at 90% overlook chance gives us 85% and 77% (fleeing vs napkin) while a 50% overlook gives us 35% and 18%).

None of those probabilities are so low that one would say the idea is ruled out, but all of them weigh the evidence in a way that places Trevor's theory in 3rd place.

I can't do anything similar for the "JtR Returns" theory, because while the probability of "0 overlooks" is 1 (if it's not there it can't be overlooked), but we would have to decide the probability of JtR coming back out to discard the apron once having made it to a safe location. Just like we discard the idea that he just hung around for about an hour, carrying a bloody piece of apron, as being so improbable that we need not consider it, we have to consider how likely that "coming back outside" behaviour is. For example, if we think that sort of behaviour has a 70% chance of being accurate, then the Return Theory ends up in 3rd place if apron overlooking is 90% (as the others end up with 90% and 81% weightings), but Return would be in first place if apron overlooking has a 50% chance (70 vs 50 vs 25). But if we think that returning sort of behaviour is less likely, say 20% chance, then it is in third place until we include the contentious times at the 50% apron overlooking probability, in which case it sneaks into 2nd (just).

In the end, though, the JtR fleeing vs napkin end up in that order of preference given that the napkin theory always requires more overlooks than the fleeing theory. Evaluation of the Return theory comes down to a subjective notion as to the "reasonableness" of JtR escaping and then coming back outside to discard of the apron (which in my view the "organ wrapper" theory seems to ascribe to, unless there are versions where he wraps the organs and then unwraps them at Goulston Street while fleeing - but that to me seems very improbable).

Hmmmm, that went on a lot longer than I intended when I started.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

No, you are wrong, I challenge the accuracy of the old accepted theories which in my opinion are unsafe to totally rely on, and I have put forward other plausible alternatives which again may be unsafe to rely on but the fact is that there are other alternatives to be considered and not dismissed outright in favour of the unsafe accepted theories and having regard to the old accepted theories I fail to see why researchers are so keen to prop up these

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Sound to much like Donald Rumsfelds "known unknowns" speech.

[JeffHamm]

You are most welcome. If I had known the actual mechanics were of interest to anyone I would have left all the other bits in. I have an interest in historical dress and the recreation of it and there's a lot of interesting content out there about "How did they do, x, y, z back in the day?". I've watched/read loads of useless trivia on how women did everything from dye and wash their hair (with accompanying formulas and geez it's a wonder everyone didn't die from vanity) to the sadly badly misunderstood publicity around corsetry that was not at all what people think it was. Unfortunately there is very little detail to be found as to the exact mechanics since women's matters were not to be discussed in polite company and very few doctors or journals discussed exactly how one did it. A couple of historical dress enthusiasts who I watch have attempted "recreations" based on the available literature, but of course, this is primarily speculative, due to the lack of available literature, and most coming from medical books like the sourced one, but not from actual women discussing the methods. A lot of popular misconceptions out there, though I have to admit I am still baffled how anyone could actually claim that a woman would not require 12 sanitary napkins over the course of the month. Even with modern fluid retention methods, that's still....bogglingly stupid.

Hi Ally,

Yes, so much of the common knowledge, particularly with regards to woman's lives, has been lost due to some topics being "not fit for polite company", so it is always good to find sources like the above, even if they are one step removed from the actual descriptions given by the women themselves.

I'm assuming his use of cravat is in reference to a triangular bandage (and not the necktie), as that apparently was referred to as a cravat bandage in the past. If so, the folding is just to form a triangle (so presumably starting with a square and fold along a diagonal), and then fold the point to the midsection of the long edge, and sometimes to fold that in half again. That would provide a number of layers for absorbance, and result in an appropriate shape for use as well.

- Jeff

[Linotte]

I am not suggesting as a fact that she cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing, as stated previously the evidence to show she was wearing an apron is unsafe but even if it is accepted that she was wearing an apron when arrested she could have torn a piece from her apron while she was in custody to use as a sanitary device. She could not have used any of the 12 pieces of rag in her possession because the police would have taken all her property off her before putting her in the cell.

She could have gone to the lodging house and not been able to get in and not able to wake the lodging housekeeper she had the time to make her way to that location if she had gone straight to the Mitre Square location she might have been seen hanging around Mitre Square or Duke Street, after all, there were police in and around that location

many other alternatives to the old accepted theory

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I’m confused. Wouldn’t the police have returned her property to her prior to letting her leave the holding cell? Why would they keep her stuff?

And when someone uses a knife like that, it can get slippery with blood. Are we sure he just didn’t cut himself and just use a bit of the apron as a temporary bandage?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Ally,

Yes, so much of the common knowledge, particularly with regards to woman's lives, has been lost due to some topics being "not fit for polite company", so it is always good to find sources like the above, even if they are one step removed from the actual descriptions given by the women themselves.

I'm assuming his use of cravat is in reference to a triangular bandage (and not the necktie), as that apparently was referred to as a cravat bandage in the past. If so, the folding is just to form a triangle (so presumably starting with a square and fold along a diagonal), and then fold the point to the midsection of the long edge, and sometimes to fold that in half again. That would provide a number of layers for absorbance, and result in an appropriate shape for use as well.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff

Eddowes was not wearing any drawers and had pins in her possessions, which had she been using a piece of old white apron as a sanitary device would have been used to attach the said device by using pins to the "mans white vest" she was wearing. The cravat method previously described I would suggest could only have been used if the woman was wearing drawers/kickers these would have been needed to hold the cravat in place.

Dr Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”

Blood spotting is a part of the menstrual process

Smears of blood are also consistent with it being used as a sanitary device so although the doctor in this report states that it could have been caused by a hand or knife being wiped on it equally a female going through the latter stages of the menstrual process could create the same effect and as my unpaid consultant gynaecologist reliably informs me the menstrual process could be drastically limited dependant on the lifestyle of the person and as Eddowes was not living the life of luxury this might have applied to her.

If the killer had blood on both his hands which he would have had if he did what was suggested to Eddowes and he then cut a piece of apron to wipe his knife or his hands I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides on the apron piece bearing in mind if he removed the organs from a blood-filled abdomen he would without a doubt have had blood on both hands

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

I’m confused. Wouldn’t the police have returned her property to her prior to letting her leave the holding cell? Why would they keep her stuff?

And when someone uses a knife like that, it can get slippery with blood. Are we sure he just didn’t cut himself and just use a bit of the apron as a temporary bandage?

The police would have returned her property on leaving custody

You are right a knife can get slippery and I would expect to see a lot of blood on both hands of the killer if he put his hands into a blood-filled abdomen and took hold of organs and remove them.

This suggestion of him cutting himself cannot be dismissed however if the killer's hands were both covered in blood when he cut a piece of the apron I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides of the GS piece because he would have to have used one of his bloody hands to wrap the apron piece around the cut.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

Little,in the use of sanitary napkins,had changed by the 1930's.To the common or working class, such napkins were universally known as 'Rags'She has the rags on' being a common term.A common sght in back gardens was a line of washed and drying 'Rags'.
How many were needed by an individual? Obviously one would not suffice,two not really enough for changes,three possible but a struggle to manage,but from four onwards,being as they were washed and reused,quite enough.Pinned on?Quite possible.
Who put the piece of apron near the writing.A guess on the possibility,is the person that claimed to have found it there,P.C.Long.

[Ally]

The cravat method previously described I would suggest could only have been used if the woman was wearing drawers/kickers these would have been needed to hold the cravat in place.

Raise your hand if you think Trevor is correct. Shockingly, he is not. Showing once again his absolute lack of knowledge about any subject on which he speaks. Woman's drawers in the 19th century were crotchless and loosefitting. They would not have aided at all in holding the cravat in place.

Smears of blood are also consistent with it being used as a sanitary device so although the doctor in this report states that it could have been caused by a hand or knife being wiped on it equally a female going through the latter stages of the menstrual process could create the same effect and as my unpaid consultant gynaecologist reliably informs me the menstrual process could be drastically limited dependant on the lifestyle of the person and as Eddowes was not living the life of luxury this might have applied to her.

And it might not have applied to her. You don't know. What you do know, is that there's no way she would have cut up a rag to use when she had 12 sanitary rags in her possession. You know it, you just refuse to admit it, because you want to be seen as an original thinker. It's quite amazing how often one's intent and ones effect differ in such a dramatic fashion.

[Linotte]

The police would have returned her property on leaving custody

You are right a knife can get slippery and I would expect to see a lot of blood on both hands of the killer if he put his hands into a blood-filled abdomen and took hold of organs and remove them.

This suggestion of him cutting himself cannot be dismissed however if the killer's hands were both covered in blood when he cut a piece of the apron I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides of the GS piece because he would have to have used one of his bloody hands to wrap the apron piece around the cut.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

what if he only cut himself on one hand, tho?

[Trevor Marriott]

Raise your hand if you think Trevor is correct. Shockingly, he is not. Showing once again his absolute lack of knowledge about any subject on which he speaks. Woman's drawers in the 19th century were crotchless. They would not have aided at all in holding the cravat in place.

Eddowes was not wearing any drawers

And it might not have applied to her. You don't know. What you do know, is that there's no way she would have cut up a rag to use when she had 12 sanitary rags in her possession. You know it, you just refuse to admit it, because you want to be seen, original thinker. It's quite amazing how often one's intent and ones effect differ in such a dramatic fashion.

and you don't know what she did, and furthemore you don't know what the rags were made out of they could have been cut from an old white apron and she could have had 13 pieces of rags and the 13th was the one she was using which she could have discarded in GS.

She was wearing a mans vest to and with the pins she had in her possession she could have affixed a sanitary device to the vest

It's not rocket science and the fact of the matter is that the description of the GS piece is consistent with that piece being used as a sanitary device

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

what if he only cut himself on one hand, tho?

But he would still need his uncut hand to cut the apron piece and both hands to affix the bandage he could not have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece if both his hands were bloodied when cutting the apron and besides if he had cut himself there were other items of clothing more accessible to him than the apron. The clothes were drawn up above her waist, which would put any apron she might have been wearing the furthest item of clothing away from him leaving other items of clothing for him to cut more accessible

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Ally]

and you don't know what she did, and furthemore you don't know what the rags were made out of they could have been cut from an old white apron and she could have had 13 pieces of rags and the 13th was the one she was using which she could have discarded in GS.

The sheer lack of facts you have about the case is staggering. First you don't realize that Catherine Eddowes, was homeless. Bouncing from lodging house to lodging house based on earning enough for a bed, is not being housed. Now you don't know that the coroner matched the cloth found in Goulston street with the apron, that had a piece cut from it. Your concerted effort to continuously display your ignorance about the most basic facts about that case you are arguing... is staggering in it's lack of intelligence. "I know nothing about the actual facts of this case, but I'm going to vehemently argue my point anyway!" Because facts don't matter if they conflict with your devoutly held beliefs. Are you sure you don't think Cross is the Ripper?

She was wearing a mans vest to and with the pins she had in her possession she could have affixed a sanitary device to the vest

How she affixed her sanitary devices is irrelevant. What's relevant is, you are 100 percent wrong about how many sanitary rags a woman would need. You are also 100 percent wrong about a woman ripping up an apron to use as sanitary device, when she has 12 alternates in her possession.

It's not rocket science and the fact of the matter is that the description of the GS piece is consistent with that piece being used as a sanitary device

No, it's not.