The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood,

What a name Israel Sunshine! Wish I was called that.

We like to accommodate fellow posters, so: Hello Mr. Sunshine, how are you Israel?

Don.

That's very kind of you, Supe.

Pretty good now that I have a more interesting name than my former anglo-saxon tag.

Can I return the favour in any way?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Tom,

I will concede this: any theory put forward on this demands a fair bit of explanation and a touch of imagination.

[lynn cates]

Hear, O Israel

Hello Don.

"Hello Mr. Sunshine, how are you Israel?"

Such humour! For Shema. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

say the apron/ graffiti was dropped at 2.20 am, and the graffiti refers back to Dutfields..... now lets just accept this for the moment.

why was it discovered at this late hour, well, other than nobody noticed it..... maybe JACK returned to Dutfields and watched and waited amongst the crowd, eventually he realised that he couldn't dump it there and simply returned to Ghoulston st..

he was hoping that by roughly 2.10 am, that the police and everyone else would have cleared off by now, i think it's highly likely that he returned to his original murder scene, still frustrated and determined to leave the graffiti/apron there.

he waited some time and eventually he simply said.... ``oh sod it, this is a waste of time, the police are still here``.

he's got the apron stuffed down his trousers or up his shirt somewhere, isn't he worried about the police stopping and searching him...... no i doubt it, i sense that this killer is too brash, arrogant and devil may care, plus he's not the type that you dare confront.

his attitude is, that is if the letters are from him, that the police are totally useless and will never catch him.

why he thought that Dutfields would be quiet, only a few hours after Stride was killed is beyond me, i think that he realised it wouldn't be, but it's worth hanging around just in case. i very much doubt that he laid low and then ventured out to dump the apron when it was quieter, it was either not noticed or he returned to Dutfields.

if i was JTR, I would have returned to Dutfields and waited.

.

[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 Chris

You hit the nail on the head "at the time" now 123 years later we are able to assess and evaluate things in much more detail

And you last para is what clearly doesnt stand up to close scrutiny

[Trevor Marriott]

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

The evidence does and my team of medical experts confirm that both in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.

The others didnt agree with Dr Sequiera.

The only bollocks being posted is by you in posts where you constanty refuse to accept or even consider new material and go out of your way to insult and belittle anyone who does.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

I totally agree with you Chris however it is not fact that the killer removed them.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Lets get this straight I am not out on a limb I am merely putting forward obseravtions and questions surrounding this whole scenario because there are so many ambiguities which have been overlooked and not discussed previoulsy surrounding this apron scenario.

[Monty]

The evidence does and my team of medical experts confirm that both in the case of Chapman and Eddowes.

The others didnt agree with Dr Sequiera.

The only bollocks being posted is by you in posts where you constanty refuse to accept or even consider new material and go out of your way to insult and belittle anyone who does.

Sequeria is a contemporary witness, at the scene. Now unless you have invented a time machine (and a man of your genius surely must have by now) I find it fanciful that your 'experts' have experience of working on that spot at that time with that light.

I have considered your new material and, like many others, came to the same conclusion. Only I say it.

As for belittling, I am merey following your lead. You constant sniping at experienced researchers, historian and Ripperologists is rife throughout this site.

Unlike others, I won't tolerate such behaviour and will respond in kind. If you can't play by the standards you set then take a seat on the bench. Or, alternately, change your aggressive and abusive tact and see how I react.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Sequeria is a contemporary witness, at the scene. Now unless you have invented a time machine (and a man of your genius surely must have by now) I find it fanciful that your 'experts' have experience of working on that spot at that time with that light.

I have considered your new material and, like many others, came to the same conclusion. Only I say it.

As for belittling, I am merey following your lead. You constant sniping at experienced researchers, historian and Ripperologists is rife throughout this site.

Unlike others, I won't tolerate such behaviour and will respond in kind. If you can't play by the standards you set then take a seat on the bench. Or, alternately, change your aggressive and abusive tact and see how I react.

Monty

Quote from Sequeira

Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
Where he states sufficient light to perptrate the deed he was referring to the acutual murder and mutilation and not any organ removal. As I stated previous Bagster Phillips beleived the removal of the organs showed some sign of medical precision. My experts also say the same you dont have to be at the crime scene. Besides none of the doctors at the crime examimed the bodies to see if any organs had been removed.

In the light of the removal of Chapmans murder they made a mistake by not doing so. Experts know how to remove organs and the degrees of difficulty involved. What medical expertise do you have to challenge that.

Or are you one of these who cant bear the thought of a major part of this mystery going down the pan.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Trevor,

Hasle gave an EXACT time of "passing the spot where the apron was later placed" as 2.20, and as there wasn't as far as I am aware, a clock near him in Goulston Street, therefore had he a pocket watch on his person? Otherwise how could the man give an exact time? Later in his statement he says he was in Goulston Street at about 2.20, which would indicate because of his earlier comment with exact timing, he entered the street a minute or two before in order to be at the exact spot in the street at 2.20? Seems logical to me.

Also, I would like your comment on the possibility that the lamp used by Long. By my reckoning, if Long, as stated, says that when he previously passed the spot on his beat, he didnt see the apron piece, would it not be logical that in order to see anything there in that recess or not, he would need the lamp on? As he made the statement that nothing was actually seen there on his first visit, it indicates he actually looked and noted and remembered NOT seeing anything. In order to come to this conclusion, as a certainty, he would have to have "seen" nothing was there. In order to see in this dark recess to find nothing or anything, would he have needed to use his lamp? For if he used the lamp at 2.55am, and DID see something, can we assume he used the lamp at 2.20 not certainly ascertain "nothing" was there previously? Seems logical to me?

For it has been suggested that Long would have closed the shutters on his lamp, and used his lamp for stealth reasons. Personally I find it more logical in a dark street in the dead of night for a person to use it to illuminate dark recesses?

kindly

Phil

[Monty]

Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
Where he states sufficient light to perptrate the deed he was referring to the acutual murder and mutilation and not any organ removal. As I stated previous Bagster Phillips beleived the removal of the organs showed some sign of medical precision. My experts also say the same you dont have to be at the crime scene. Besides none of the doctors at the crime examimed the bodies to see if any organs had been removed.

In the light of the removal of Chapmans murder they made a mistake by not doing so. Experts know how to remove organs and the degrees of difficulty involved. What medical expertise do you have to challenge that.

Or are you one of these who cant bear the thought of a major part of this mystery going down the pan.

No Trevor, he was referring to the deed. The whole act. If he was stating a specific part of the act he would have said so.

He doesn't.

There was enough light at the Chapman scene, was her womb removed in Hanbury st?

You know, as well as I, that a Doctors duty at the scene of crime was to decide if life was exstinct. Its at the post mortem where. A full examination is conducted.

I have as much medical knowledge of organ extraction as you seem to have on Policing and procedure. Yours 'Experts (one being a Gyneacologist)' opinion flies in the face of those who were at scene and were equally expert.

I honestly commend you for reviewing the evidence, however you have jumped to a conclusion which holds no logic, no reason.

Those at Golden Lane Mortuary would have understood the magnitude of this murder, do you honestly believe they would tamper with the body? Do you reckon this would have been allowed?

Monty

[Monty]

Hello Trevor,

Hasle gave an EXACT time of "passing the spot where the apron was later placed" as 2.20, and as there wasn't as far as I am aware, a clock near him in Goulston Street, therefore had he a pocket watch on his person? Otherwise how could the man give an exact time? Later in his statement he says he was in Goulston Street at about 2.20, which would indicate because of his earlier comment with exact timing, he entered the street a minute or two before in order to be at the exact spot in the street at 2.20? Seems logical to me.

Also, I would like your comment on the possibility that the lamp used by Long. By my reckoning, if Long, as stated, says that when he previously passed the spot on his beat, he didnt see the apron piece, would it not be logical that in order to see anything there in that recess or not, he would need the lamp on? As he made the statement that nothing was actually seen there on his first visit, it indicates he actually looked and noted and remembered NOT seeing anything. In order to come to this conclusion, as a certainty, he would have to have "seen" nothing was there. In order to see in this dark recess to find nothing or anything, would he have needed to use his lamp? For if he used the lamp at 2.55am, and DID see something, can we assume he used the lamp at 2.20 not certainly ascertain "nothing" was there previously? Seems logical to me?

For it has been suggested that Long would have closed the shutters on his lamp, and used his lamp for stealth reasons. Personally I find it more logical in a dark street in the dead of night for a person to use it to illuminate dark recesses?

kindly

Phil

You make a very valid point here Phil, one I concede.

However I will throw in to the equation a few points.

1) We have only Longs statement he did look into the dwelling entrance at 2.20am. His duty is to the Queens Highways and Byways. Meaning he is not permitted to enter private dwellings unless invited or if he feels a crime had taken place or was about to.

2) Long stated he know about a murder at 2.55am. Meaning he was unaware at 2.20am. Therefore as he was unaware of a crime he had no reason to check the entrances. So no need to check at that time.

However, in his statement, he does indeed state he checked inside the entrance at 2.20am. I agree that to do this effectively, his shutter had to be open. So logic would state it was open as he checked the dwellings.

3) This doesn't mean he kept it open all along Goulston St.

4) Halse, if he took the quickest route back to Mitre Sq, would only had been in Goulston st for seconds.

So, to sum up, if Long is to be believed, you are quite correct in stating his lamp would be open. However, there's nothing to state it was indeed open or open for the rest of his beat.

Again, your point is valid and duly noted.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

No Trevor, he was referring to the deed. The whole act. If he was stating a specific part of the act he would have said so.

He doesn't.

There was enough light at the Chapman scene, was her womb removed in Hanbury st?

You know, as well as I, that a Doctors duty at the scene of crime was to decide if life was exstinct. Its at the post mortem where. A full examination is conducted.

I have as much medical knowledge of organ extraction as you seem to have on Policing and procedure. Yours 'Experts (one being a Gyneacologist)' opinion flies in the face of those who were at scene and were equally expert.

I honestly commend you for reviewing the evidence, however you have jumped to a conclusion which holds no logic, no reason.

Those at Golden Lane Mortuary would have understood the magnitude of this murder, do you honestly believe they would tamper with the body? Do you reckon this would have been allowed?

Monty

I disagee and one pic is worth a thousands words if you have seen all of the pics from the experts then you wil clearly see the degree of difficulty involved you will clearly see that the abdomen would be filled with blood. You you will have read how slippery these organs can be thats why surgeons etc now wear gloves.

You cannot be ceratin that Chapman death was at thet ime which has been suggested therefore

And when were ate talking experts we are talking about top experts a consultant gynecologist, a senior pathologist and enviscerator all who ate removing these type of organs on a daily basis.

But it is fact that every day first thing there would be a number of medical personell seeking to obtain organs. The bodies would not need much tampering with the abdomens were alreaday opened up. Thats where the evidence of medical precison came in by someone removing them at the mortuary who was in the medical profession.

Why should they at Golden Lane Mortuary understood the magnitude it was the first one the city had, They couldnt have been that concerned it took them nearly 10 hours or so before they carried out the post mortem. A lot could have happened in that time.

[Trevor Marriott]

You make a very valid point here Phil, one I concede.

However I will throw in to the equation a few points.

1) We have only Longs statement he did look into the dwelling entrance at 2.20am. His duty is to the Queens Highways and Byways. Meaning he is not permitted to enter private dwellings unless invited or if he feels a crime had taken place or was about to.

2) Long stated he know about a murder at 2.55am. Meaning he was unaware at 2.20am. Therefore as he was unaware of a crime he had no reason to check the entrances. So no need to check at that time.

However, in his statement, he does indeed state he checked inside the entrance at 2.20am. I agree that to do this effectively, his shutter had to be open. So logic would state it was open as he checked the dwellings.

3) This doesn't mean he kept it open all along Goulston St.

4) Halse, if he took the quickest route back to Mitre Sq, would only had been in Goulston st for seconds.

So, to sum up, if Long is to be believed, you are quite correct in stating his lamp would be open. However, there's nothing to state it was indeed open or open for the rest of his beat.

Again, your point is valid and duly noted.

Monty

Two police officers in the same street almost at the same time and they dont see each other or hear each other and both are looking listening and searching. Both almost fall into the archway at almost the same time and neither suposedly see ther apron piece.

And why did Halse decide to go dwn Gouldton Street that was out of City territory in fact why did he go into Wentorth St that was also out of his territory