The Apron

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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 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.

[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

[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

[mariab]

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.

Yep, good instincts here at work.

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Trevor,

Your scenario leaves a few pointers against the killer having taken the organs with him, I'd agree.
Carrying the organs away provides an after the fact logistical problem, namely IF the killer supposedly did so, wrapped in a piece of apron..he then dumps this piece of apron..so how did he then carry the organs on his person? They would still have been bloodied, I'd imagine. So this killer is supposedly taking yet another risk by walking around with human organs on his person, unwrapped in the aftermath of two murders, and now in Met Police territoty, with policemen swarming all over the area going in and out of lodging houses.

Also, why in heavens name would the killer only dispose of the rag and still have more distance to go to his ultimate destination? Why just discard the rag? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense to me. This killer is supposed to be so blasted clever he has outfoxed all and sundry.. yet suddenly is supposed to lose this guile after he has brilliantly butchered a woman in double quick time by slotting in his debauchery carefully in between a policeman's beat time. Perhaps he just lost his rag---hahaha!

kindly

Phil

[ChrisGeorge]

Also, why in heavens name would the killer dispose of the rag and still have more distance to go to his ultimate destination? Why just discard the rag? It doesn't really make an awful lot of sense to me.

A lot about these murders don't make a lot of sense, Phil, when you really think about it.

Chris

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Yes, I totally agree..which is why I for one, and some others, look to possibilities that are not the "sensible, easier" answers. Because for me, the sensible and easy solutions always end up getting us boxed in.

It may seem the "wrong way" of looking at this, but I honestly feel that a different approach may give better plausibilities, given the ones that we have been presented with for so long actually get us nowhere.

Of course it isn't "sensible" that Halse, for example, was complicit in the disposal of the rag/apron/apron piece etc. Of course it isn't. Unless there is a specific reason, no policeman would do it. But I still raise the point that cannot be denied. We have to take the timed evidence given at the inquest as true from both Halse and Long. They were both in the same street at the same time. Halse entered from Wentworth Street. So it is a must that if they were both there, either Halse was walking towards Long who carried a lamp, and facing him, he MUST have seen him and his light...or, Halse was behind Long walking the same way, which means he must have seen him in the distance waving his lamp, and as we have been told of no other person in the street, no horse and cart, the street must have been quiet. We have not been told that Long was wearing rubber soled boots, so the familiar measured click of a policeman's walk would also have been heard in the dead of night. That is logical. The time of both being in the same street at the same time is revealing. Long didn't see the rag when he walked the street on his beat including the 2.20 reference, yet did see it at 2.55. Now either he missed it the first time, or it wasn't there. The ONLY person known to have been in the street after 2.20 was Halse, who came directly from Mitre Square, and the murder, via Wentworth Street and him stopping unknown persons and questioning them there.

All I know is that Halse is the only person to have been at Goulston Street, Mitre Square, the mortuary, at the key times and he who knew the beats of the policemen, and it was he who "discovered" the apron piece missing at the mortuary from an amazing pile of clothes and belongings. He just happened to be 30 secs from the murder site standing on a corner chatting to Marriott and Outram when the alarm was raised, and it was he who sent these two in the directions they went.

Now it doesn't make Halse complicit. But it does raise eyebrows when all put together..because the "sensible" answers just do not fit.. we have tried them, again and again and again. I raise this possibility. Means and opportunity is there- Motive is another story.. but it is there that I look at the time testimony that is strange, and also the befuddled manner of John Kelly and the lodging house deputy's statements that were bungled up. Why didn't the police try to confirm Kelly's statement of being told that Eddowes was locked up? Why is the statement wrong in terms of time? Even an hour out would be strange, and how in heavens name did an old lady know that Eddowes was Kelly's woman? And how did the old lady know where to go to give Kelly the message? In order to do this she must have been known to Kelly, must have been known to Eddowes (to recognise her) and must have known of Kelly's exact whereabouts to convey the message. Yet YE OLDE police did not follow up this vital witness who is the essence of Kelly's statement?

No, a lot doesn't make sense. It cannot surely all be down to incompetance. As Simon Wood has shown, the pre murder story given by Kelly does not stand up to scrutiny, the Kelly and the Lodging House keepr's stories do not either, yet the police see nothing wrong at all in it.

That's why I have stopped looking at the simple, sensible answers to the Mitre Square murder, pre-murder and after the facts scenario a long long time ago.


kindly


Phil


kindly


Phil

[curious]

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,
Like you, I enjoy exploring alternative scenarios to most everything with these confusing murders. I think brainstorming and throwing out all sorts of ideas is the only way anything new will ever come to light -- baring discovery of long-hidden records.

So, exploration is a very good thing.

On the other hand, some of the possibilities I have explored and rummaged around in my head, I have discarded because they simply don't work. Before I arrive at that conclusion, as I am contemplating ideas, I do enjoy hearing other people's reasoning.

That being said, while you continue to like your apron/rag idea, I believe it does not stand up to scrutiny.

Eddowes appears to have been as much of a pack rat as someone in her position could be.

We have no way of knowing how long Eddowes had had those 12 pieces of white cloth in her possession or how many different larger items they came from. She likely washed and reused her menstrual rags and could have had them for a long time.

The night she was killed, her apron was functional and she was wearing it. Too much evidence says that.

Period.

She did not cut it up into all those pieces, then wear part of the apron.

That makes no sense.

She had even patched her apron and the patch pieces fit. That indicates to me that the material was very worn and therefore easy for a sharp knife to rip through. I am envisioning the killer sticking his knife in the apron just belong the waistband, then yanking downward to the hem (which should have been harder to cut). EDITED -- Oops, now I have a half memory that the found piece also had a string, as though he ripped through waist band and all -- meaning it would have been impossible for her to have worn the apron.

Besides, once the apron piece was found and the police began the examination of it and the meaning of the apron beneath the graffito, someone would have noted that the 12 pieces fit together like a jigsaw puzzle (if puzzles had been invented by then). They knew that the found piece and the piece on the body were an exact fit (meaning that 12 other pieces had NOT been cut from it).

Other than the color there is not a single mention of any similarity of the 12 pieces of white material and the apron. White cloth is considered better against the skin because of the ingredients in dyed material, which is why Eddowes kept them for her periods.

Eddowes had accumulated her possessions, including her 12 pieces of white rags, over a period of time.

So, as much as I admire people who look at new angles and seek new information, it is my opinion that when the idea does not work, it should be turned loose and you turn your mind to other scenarios that might bear fruit.

This idea seems a complete non-starter to me.

[Monty]

"But I still raise the point that cannot be denied. We have to take the timed evidence given at the inquest as true from both Halse and Long. They were both in the same street at the same time. Halse entered from Wentworth Street. So it is a must that if they were both there, either Halse was walking towards Long who carried a lamp, and facing him, he MUST have seen him and his light...or, Halse was behind Long walking the same way, which means he must have seen him in the distance waving his lamp, and as we have been told of no other person in the street, no horse and cart, the street must have been quiet. We have not been told that Long was wearing rubber soled boots, so the familiar measured click of a policeman's walk would also have been heard in the dead of night. That is logical. The time of both being in the same street at the same time is revealing."

Inquest testimony of Constable Alfred Long, 254 A, Metropolitan police: - passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock.

Note the use of the word 'about'.

Inquest testimony of Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square.

Here Halse is exact. He noted the time. Later he stated: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then.

As he had the wherewithall to note the specific time earlier one can assume he was savvy with his time keeping. As someone who has seen Halses record I must say this is in keeping with that very good record.

However, Halse stated that : I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two....

There we have this word 'about' again.

All the above indicates approximation. Something Phil is either desperate to ignore or not accept.

Also, Phil has not mentioned the stop search. Completely ignoring a major point, one that throws his scenario into doubt.

Finally I'd like to point out the use of Bullseye Lamps. Lamps had a shutter which shut out light. This so PCs could move about with stealth and not draw attention to themselves. Long almost certainly would not have moved down Goulston St with the lamp shutter open. As an owner of such a lamp, and who has conducted experiments with them (some at the 07 and 09 confs would have seen) I can say the light given would not have been noted if the lamp is closed.

I put it to Phil, with utmost respect and calm, that he knows little of what he is passing comment upon.

Monty

[curious]

Also, Phil has not mentioned the stop search. Completely ignoring a major point, one that throws his scenario into doubt.

Monty

Hi, Monty,
Please tell me about the stop search.

Thanks,

curious