The Apron

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Chri
But I suspect that many may have other ideas as to who cut it and for what purpose.

The point is that in effcet none of any of the scenarios can be proved byt of course by reasonable logic and other supporting evidenve in support of the diffrent scenarios a clearer pic will emerge.

My pic is complete as far as the sceneario that the killer did not remove the
organs. and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece.
Nor did he cut it for any other purpose. The graffiti is absolutly nothing to do with the apron piece or the murder.

For those that still subscribe to the old scenario so be it everyone is entitled tio their opinions but sadly they cannot substantiate their opinions and cant see the wood for the trees.

Hi Trevor

You are correct that it is opinion as to who cut the apron piece and for what reason.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that someone other than the killer cut the apron piece and deposited it streets away, say if the killer had an accomplice. Although it seems more likely that it was a lone killer. Two men or a bunch of men doing the killings together would have been more likely to have been noticed.

Eddowes' left kidney and uterus were missing -- that's a fact, not opinion.

Best regards

Chris

[Monty]

Good grief,

Thank God you came along Trevor. Before it was all bollocks.....now its multicoloured bollocks.

Honestly, this field sinks into the mire with every post you place.

Your theory on Eddowes apron is full of either misinformation or lies, I'm not sure which as your grasp of the case facts seem to fall below base level. Plus your take for a good laugh, which you have provided plenty, I'm not sure if you are pulling our chain or being serious.

The evidence does not specifcally point to the organs being removed with surgial skill. Sequeria states there was enough light to see by. Eddowes was wearing an apron. Long found the piece, oh I could gone on but Christmas will soon be here and I've my shopping to do.

I've said it once and I'll say it again, Phil Sugden is a genius. His ability to walk away from bullshit is admirable.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I should have said more correctly, "After her corpse was discovered by P.C. Watkins in Mitre Square it was found that around half of her apron had been cut away."

You are correct that Watkins did not remark on the state of the apron, which would not have been obvious at first with her clothes drawn up for the killer to perform the abdominal mutilations.

I don't know if the piece of apron was used by the killer to carry organs or wipe his hands. That's all speculation. But no one ever denied the piece of apron matched the remainder of the apron on Eddowes' corpse.

Your question, "So the question I keep returning to is who cut the apron, what time it was cut where it was cut and for what purpose" is a legitimate one -- although the consensus at the time appears to have been that the killer cut it, for whatever reason.


Best regards

Chris

Hi Chri
But I suspect that many may have other ideas as to who cut it and for what purpose.

The point is that in effcet none of any of the scenarios can be proved byt of course by reasonable logic and other supporting evidenve in support of the diffrent scenarios a clearer pic will emerge.

My pic is complete as far as the sceneario that the killer did not remove the
organs. and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece.
Nor did he cut it for any other purpose. The graffiti is absolutly nothing to do with the apron piece or the murder.

For those that still subscribe to the old scenario so be it everyone is entitled tio their opinions but sadly they cannot substantiate their opinions and cant see the wood for the trees.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Trevor

I should have said more correctly, "After her corpse was discovered by P.C. Watkins in Mitre Square it was found that around half of her apron had been cut away."

You are correct that Watkins did not remark on the state of the apron, which would not have been obvious at first with her clothes drawn up for the killer to perform the abdominal mutilations.

I don't know if the piece of apron was used by the killer to carry organs or wipe his hands. That's all speculation. But no one ever denied the piece of apron matched the remainder of the apron on Eddowes' corpse.

Your question, "So the question I keep returning to is who cut the apron, what time it was cut where it was cut and for what purpose" is a legitimate one -- although the consensus at the time appears to have been that the killer cut it, for whatever reason.


Best regards

Chris

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Chris

Hi Trevor

Could you tell us why this scenario does not stand up to scrutiny? You are using that phrase as if it were so but it's not clear to me why it should not stand up to "close scrutiny."

Eddowes was wearing one of the large aprons that stretched from waist to ankles that the women of the East End regularly wore. Evidently she was wearing that apron when she was in the lock-up at Bishopsgate Police Station and was released by P.C. George Hutt. Hutt does not say that she only was wearing half an apron, as you are implying, and nor does anyone else who saw her while she was alive.

Well I guess again it comes down to the size of the apron she was apparently wearing. I say apparently because Insp Collard uses that term in his witness testimony.

If it were one like in the pic I posted it wouldnt be a very big piece. The descrition of how it was found is not consistent with it being used to carry away organs or for wiping hands or a knife. I already pointed out the difficulty in the killer being able to cut a perfect half from an apron which was drawn up with all the other clothes in almost total darkness. And the killer not being in a position to remove these organs under the same conditions. If any of these stand up thdn the original theory is sunk in the water.

So the question I keep returning to is who cut the apron, what time it was cut where it was cut and for what purpose .

When her corpse was discovered by P.C. Watkins in Mitre Square it was found that around half of her apron had been cut away. That piece of apron was later discovered smeared with blood and fecal matter several streets to the east in a doorway to Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. We are told the piece of apron matches the piece that was missing from Eddowes' apron.

This is not correct Pc watkins did not notice the apron cut it was good old Dc Halse who brought it to everyones attention at the mortuary.
What's so mysterious about this? Why doesn't it stand up to scrutiny?

Best regards

Chris George

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Mac.

"Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

A very astute observation Lynn

[Malcolm X]

So, basically it comes back to wanting to claim credit for his work.

Except he didn't claim credit for his work through a piece of apron.

Apron or no apron, it was assumed this was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer, it didn't need an apron in the street to make the point.

Unless, of course, you're coming back to the writing, which is just a garbled piece of scrawl that everyone is still arguing about what it means, and whether or not it has anything to do with the murder. As said, considering it doesn't mention the murder then the theory needs some mental acrobatics to arrive at your conclusion.

Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched.

unless it was dropped earlier and not noticed, but if not then you just have to accept that it and the graffiti was done later on.... well what, because it was still done by JTR

[ChrisGeorge]

I am merely looking at alternative scenarios to that which has been readily accepted for over 123 years. Because no matter how you look at it that as i have said before does not come up to close scrutiny.

So I wil ask again why would Edowwes have 12 pieces of rag and where did she get them from to have been able to cut them up in the first place, and of course they were apron coloured white

Hi Trevor

Could you tell us why this scenario does not stand up to scrutiny? You are using that phrase as if it were so but it's not clear to me why it should not stand up to "close scrutiny."

Eddowes was wearing one of the large aprons that stretched from waist to ankles that the women of the East End regularly wore. Evidently she was wearing that apron when she was in the lock-up at Bishopsgate Police Station and was released by P.C. George Hutt. Hutt does not say that she only was wearing half an apron, as you are implying, and nor does anyone else who saw her while she was alive.

When her corpse was discovered by P.C. Watkins in Mitre Square it was found that around half of her apron had been cut away. That piece of apron was later discovered smeared with blood and fecal matter several streets to the east in a doorway to Wentworth Model Dwellings in Goulston Street. We are told the piece of apron matches the piece that was missing from Eddowes' apron.

What's so mysterious about this? Why doesn't it stand up to scrutiny?

Best regards

Chris George

[Phil H]

I believe that ALL styles of apron would have had "strings".

Even a large apron with a bib (no doubt with a halter round the neck, would have had strings at the waist to tie behind).

I don't think that the style of apron often worn during the war (1939-45) which was like a coat and wrapped round to tie or fasten in front (much favoured by "char ladies" in my youth) had yet been invented.

Apron strings were such a feature that they did, of course, become part of a familiar saying, about men "not having cut their apron strings".

Phil

[Monty]

We all make mistakes just glad i dont put my foot in it as many times as you

Do you reckon Trev?

Yet another mistake.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Mac.

"Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

I was trying to work out last night the level of police numbers involved in this search.

I think Inspector Collard said something like he directed police in all directions of Spitalfields, but then there weren't many at the scene, and there's no reference to drafting in police officers from the station. I think he adds something like several men were stopped and searched.

I had assumed that the area would have been crawling with police, but was it?

Any ideas?

Has anyone tried to work out just how many police were involved in this search?

It appears that only Detective Halse (once) and PC Long (twice) passed through Goulston Street, which would suggest that actually Jack could quite easily have evaded the police's grasp in that area.

But, then why wait til between 2.20 and 2.55?

If the police search was limited, as witness testimony suggests, and Jack dropped the apron between 2.20 and 2.55, then that suggests Jack was in a place where he simply couldn't raise his head above the parapet until the police had done their thing (what? 30 minutes to 45 minutes from 2.05?); and in the context of a limited police search, it would seem that it is a decent shout that he was in hiding very, very close to Mitre Square.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Mac.

"Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched."

Bingo!

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

he ripped off part of the apron instead, because this will match like a Jigsaw, to the apron remaining on her body, but a piece of cloth from her pocket can belong to anyone....even if it is covered in blood, from a severe nosebleed etc

with the apron piece no.....there is no mistake

So, basically it comes back to wanting to claim credit for his work.

Except he didn't claim credit for his work through a piece of apron.

Apron or no apron, it was assumed this was the work of the Whitechapel Murderer, it didn't need an apron in the street to make the point.

Unless, of course, you're coming back to the writing, which is just a garbled piece of scrawl that everyone is still arguing about what it means, and whether or not it has anything to do with the murder. As said, considering it doesn't mention the murder then the theory needs some mental acrobatics to arrive at your conclusion.

Interestingly though, if it is assumed that the apron was dropped between 2.20 and 2.55 then it suggests he was within the reach of the police search, in hiding, before dropping the apron; or it was someone who could be confident he would not be stopped and searched.

[Jon Guy]

So I wil ask again why would Edowwes have 12 pieces of rag

Possibly, because she did some hawking.

and where did she get them from to have been able to cut them up in the first place

From someone who supplied bits and bobs to hawkers.

[Malcolm X]

Fair comment, Hunter, I'm struggling to counter that with anything sensible.

It does beg a related question: why didn't Jack take some of this cloth to wipe the knife or wrap the organs? Seems it was common knowledge that women walked round with this stuff on their belonging. Particularly as it seems her pockets were rifled.

he ripped off part of the apron instead, because this will match like a Jigsaw, to the apron remaining on her body, but a piece of cloth from her pocket can belong to anyone....even if it is covered in blood, from a severe nosebleed etc

with the apron piece no.....there is no mistake