The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

no cling formula

Hello Velma.

"You all have fertile brains and imaginations, why not come up with something that makes sense instead of clinging so tightly to something that doesn't?"

I'm not clinging here. No theory put forward until now fully makes sense. The standard view--that the apron is cut by Kate's assailant--suffers from the time/distance flaw.

Nothing adds up, cut it how you will (sorry!).

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma.

"You all have fertile brains and imaginations, why not come up with something that makes sense instead of clinging so tightly to something that doesn't?"

I'm not clinging here. No theory put forward until now fully makes sense. The standard view--that the apron is cut by Kate's assailant--suffers from the time/distance flaw.

Nothing adds up, cut it how you will (sorry!).

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,
Interesting how differently minds work isn't it?

Mine finds it less likely Kate would cut her own clothing off herself and continue wearing part of it far less likely than that the apron was cut off her by someone else . . . probably after she was killed.

Good "talking" with you,

V

[Tom_Wescott]

I'm not clinging here. No theory put forward until now fully makes sense. The standard view--that the apron is cut by Kate's assailant--suffers from the time/distance flaw.

But there's no flaw, Lynn. Clearly, the killer did not go directly to Goulston Street upon leaving Mitre Square (re PC Long's evidence). He simply went nearby to a safe house, cleaned up, deposited the organs, grabbed some chalk, and hit the streets again safe. I say safe because he did not anticipate problems with any police who might stop him, so no danger of the discovery of the apron. This explains the time lapse, distance, his comfort in writing the graffiti without discovery (no blood on him), and the sudden appearance of the apron/graffiti. Extremely simple, and it doesn't require the minimalist's challenging of PC Long's testimony or the cryptoRipperologist's imaginative but wildly speculative explanations in order to make the pieces fit. The killer did what you or I would do, which is bail as quickly as possible to a safe spot and safely emerge cleaned up.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

The biggest problem

The biggest problem I have with the accepted wisdom is the length of the time the killer spent 'working' on Kate. I'm not at all satisfied that 5 or 7 minutes would have done the trick

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

Curious, what's that philosophy in continental Europe? Structuralism where history, or an event, can only ever be explained within its context.

I imagine there are few women these days who would do such a thing, although street walkers may; but what about the destitute in 1888? I mean, people slung shite out the windows in those days.

It's only 40 years ago that my Grandad used to eat lumps of fat cooked a frying pan. He grew up with it when he was a lad, with times being hard and the like, and so the taste stuck. Had the stuff dripping down his chin. Doubt there are many people eating lumps of fat these days. Times change.



This is an altogether better point.

I'd agree, and it's supported by the various pieces of cloth she had squirelled away in her possesion - why not just use one of those?

Hi, Fleetwood Mac,
You're right, it's about the times and the context, and I can not really go there on any level, except perhaps, and that is a very big perhaps, sisterhood

You ask: "what about the destitute in 1888? "

do you really believe a woman would destroy a garment she was wearing in such a manner? Especially when she had so many other choices. A destitute woman who might never be able to replace that garment.

No, you said you didn't.

I'm glad we agree on the salient point.

curious

[curious]

The biggest problem I have with the accepted wisdom is the length of the time the killer spent 'working' on Kate. I'm not at all satisfied that 5 or 7 minutes would have done the trick

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How do you see getting around that, Tom?

[Tom_Wescott]

Not sure, but I'm open to suggestions. I have never been satisfied with such a low estimate of time, but I was reminded of this recently when watching Trevor's documentary where two experts reviewed the evidence and one said it was medically impossible and the other intimated it was extremely unlikely. I know Trevor bashing is the order of the day, and that to show any level of interest with anything associated with his name could get you labeled a crank, but unless anyone has found reason to discredit his experts, I think what they say should be given some discussion and thought. More expert opinion would certainly be nice as well.

If more medical experts chimed in on this and came to some general consensus on how long it would have taken the killer in Mitre Square, then we'll be close to getting some answers. However, if the medical evidence conflicts with that of PC Watkins, then we'll have to conclude either that the medical community is wrong, or that Watkins was quite off in his timings.

Let me say that this would not be the same as suggesting PC Long was off in his evidence, as in that case, there's absolutely no evidence to conclude he had been mistaken or that he lied, whereas if hard science determines Watkins' evidence is in error, the Mitre Square timeline will have to be rewritten.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Surgeon's tend to view surgical practices from the perspective of "do no harm", steady & slow.
This "cut-n-thrust" in the dark is perhaps beyond most modern surgeons ability to truely appreciate.

I had learned that rapid surgical techniques were first adopted out of necessity during the American Civil War. The British surgeon of the time would have been both horrified & out of his depth trying to replicate such practices.

Regards, Jon S.

[Supe]

Jon,

Good point. And something else for some to bear in mind is that five minutes is a much longer perios of time than we might reckon intuitively. Those who doubt that might benefit from sitting quietly for five minutes while a companion keeps silent track on a watch. It often seems an eternity.

Don.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick and Don,

Well, I would hope to solicit the advice of medicos who weren't complete idiots. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

More to do with different levels of experience than idiocy Tom.

[Phil Carter]

time

Hello Tom.

You said that if the timing was scrutinized by a greater number of medica experts and the concencus was indeed that the injuries could not be done in the alloted time, the whole time frame evidence would have to be scrapped.

Now although I am in total agreement with you about this, it should be pointed out that the effect is far greater, for example:-

1. If the time used is extended, and the extra time be added to the start of the time period, doing it after would compromise evidence given by another before the arrival of the medical men. (Gerge Morris, who stated " At a quarter to two Watkins knocked at my door" .

2. If it is time added earlier, then PC James Harvey's evidence is questioned. He stated " At 20 to 2 I went down Duke St and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square. I saw no one. I heard no cry or noise...I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 mins to 2.
In addition to Watkins, whn both passed through Mitre Square at 1.30 and "about" 1.44.

3. Lawende stated " we left there (Imperial Club) at 5 mins past half past one"
he said he SAW Eddowes.

4. Sequiera stated that Eddowes had not been dead more than 15mins when he examined her at around 2 o'clock. (He was called on at 5 to 2)

5.Brown arrived at 2.18 am. He stated that the perpetrator would have taken at least 5 mins. "the body had been there only a few mins" then " Certainly within 30-40mins"
That makes his estimated t.o.d. at between 1.38 and 1.48.

If the time used to kill Eddowes is increased, and added BEFORE 1,44, Sequiera is wrong, if added After 1,44, then Sequiera is wrong, Watkins is wrong and Morris ir wrong, if BEFORE, Harvey must have in all likelyhood have seen or heard something at 1,41 or 1,42, otherwise we are talking missing the murder by seconds, not mins,
that places both Watkins and Harvey very near the scene of the crime when it was comitted. .

Thats not crank talk either. So if it took more than 5mins- there are far more reaching effects that involve ALL THE TIMES given.. and the statements.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Oh and Tom- if Sequiera is right that the body was only 15mins dead when HE arrived at about 2am, and Brown is right that death was caused by the first injury and that it would take at least 5 mins, then put those two expert medical statements together and it means the killer left the body at about 1,50am...

Even Browns outside estimate of t.o.d. At 1.48 would mean Watkins and Morris would have been on the spot when the murder occured.

Best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Well clearly the map made at the time shows two routes she could have taken which would have taken her along Goulston Street that without any shortcuts she may have known. The same two routes it is sugegsted he kiler took.

The fact is that it cannot be proved or disproved that she was in Goulston Street as some time before he death yet so many are willing to point blankly reject it.

Come on guys take the blinkers off.

I don't know what map you've been looking at Trevor, but here's an 1891 map showing the quickest routes to Flower and Dean Street (green line) and Mitre Square (blue line) from Bishopsgate Police Station. When the apron was found is the red dot.



If your referring to Fosters drawing, than that shows two possible routes the killer could have taken from Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

Rob

[Monty]

Rob,

Any chance you could provide Trevor with a map from his privvy to his lounge? he gets lost easily.

Speaking of privvies.

Werent public conveniences only accessabe by payment hence the term "Spend a Penny" besides i am sure thse type of women were used to going anywhere they could. I doubt they would scour the streets at that time of the morning looking for a proper toilet

No all. In the affluent West End yes, however in the squalor of the East End, the majority of public urinal (for both men and women) were free, this due to fear of epidemic diseases. These urinal were mostly akin to the pissiores of France, built on ground in ornate cast iron predominantly by a manufacturer from Glasgow.

Now this from the Weekly Herald 5th October 1888.

THE MITRE SQUARE CRIME.

Mitre Square is a sort of huge yard about 120 feet square, and there are three entrances to it, the principal being from Mitre Street; which is broad enough to accomodate two vehicles abreast. There is also a short, covered court, about 20 yards long, leading into St. James's Place, another square, popularly known as the "Orange Market," in the centre of which is a public convenience, a street fire station consisting simply of a waggon on wheels, and also a permanent street fire station in course of erection.

This public convenience was later replaced by a fancy underground structure in the early 20th century.

So Eddowes trod all the way to Gouldston Street to relieve herself when there was a toilet just a 30 second walk from Mitre Square and, after looking at Robs map, far closer that the Wentworth Dwellings.

It is a fact not misleading at all

No, its neither a fact nor non misleading. Its purely an interpration, your own interpretation.....neither fact or non misleading.

The piece was wet we dont know if it was wet from urine of from any other use. Why would they bother checking for urine by the time it had got back to the mortuary it would no doubt have started to dry out

So we do not know now? Thought this was fact, the condition of the apron leads to the conclusion it was urinated on?

You now saying this isnt so? But....But.....but you said fact.

What is your point about the bladder it matters not whether her bladder was intact it not does that stop her from going to the toilet 40 minutes before he was killed.

Who is the seasoned Murder Squad detective here? I mentioned that the bladder wasnt intact to point out that the apron could not have been soaked in urine at the scene. Its an arguement in favour of you theory. This despite me wearing blinkers huh? Geeze, you throw em a bone and they.....

Its no more illogical than the suggestion that the killer made his way back to Whitechapel Via Goulston Street when he could have gone in other directions

If he lived that way, and looking at the evidence from the previous murders it does hint at that, then its highly logical.

What really stuffs you and the other serious students and you have no answer to it is the fact that no police officer ever suggested the apron piece was used for carrying away the organs,for wiping bloody hands or for cleaning a knife. In fact they never ever suggested anyhting (sic) now doesnt that tell you and the other serious students something.

Ah, I see why you are so desperate with your theory. No Trevor, I do not think the killer used the apron piece to carry or wrap up the organs.

Brown suggested that the apron was used to wipe the knife/hands as he said that. Being a Divisional Surgeon, of many years experience I add, I think he would be able to tell the difference between wiping smears and regular markings. Also being a Divisional Surgeon he is representing the force.

It tells me Brown was far better placed to make a judgement, having see the apron piece, than you, I or your little army of orange Ooompa - Marriotts ever will be.

The rest of your post is a rant and irrelevant.

Monty