The Apron Again

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
You can't have it both ways.

If she used the apron in the jail because her possessions were taken away from her, then she had no way to cut the apron. Remember, it was cut, not torn? Any knife or scissors would have been taken from her, too.

But didnt it match up to a previous repair so it could have been torn and besides remember her clothes were drawn up meaning the outer garment i.e the apron would have been the closet to her body making it hard for the killer to access it to cut it.

If, AFTER HER RELEASE, she used the toilet and used the apron to wipe herself -- that was after jail, then her possessions had been returned to her and she DID have the other rags in her possession at the time.

The last bit is gibberish.

Bit like your reply

About another of your replies in which you did not understand someone's focus on the healthy, uncut bladder.

very simple.

IF Eddowes used the apron piece to wipe up after toileting, then the rag would most likely have had urine as well as fecal matter and perhaps blood.

The lack of mention of urine on the apron piece is important.

I wish some of your people when replying to posts would read the post correctly before posting a reply.

I am not suggesting that she used the rag after toileting. I am sugegsting that she alreday had the rag in place and then went in the archaway for a pee and as it had become wet and soiled discarded it.

So answer me why would the police have bothered checking the piece to see if the wetness was urine. They didnt come to any conclusion as to why it had been removed so to check for urine is a triviality in the scheme of things.

As is the lack of mention of excrement being in the doorway or area. A police officer conscientious enough to have discovered the rag and the writing on the wall, would have noticed and reported the pile of dung.

See above answer.

If the killer had used the apron piece to clean a knife or wipe his hands, the apron would have blood and fecal matter, but NO urine because the bladder was intact.

and that is the importance of the intact bladder.

Well what does having an intact bladder have to do with whether she went for a pee prior to her death.

Perhaps the authorities at the time never mentioned how they thought the apron was used, because they had no better idea then than any of us do today.

[B]Well someone came up with these ideas in the last 123 years and it wasnt anyone conncted to the investigation. So why shouldnt someone challenge these theories becasue they clearly dont stand up to close scrutiny/B]

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Evem moder day surgeons adopting a cut and thrust approach would have difficulty in effecting the removals in this time. Look at how long Phillips said it would take him to effect a removal at the Chapman inquest.

Another point i keep mentioning which seems to fall on the deaf ears of some is if the motive was to murder and mutilate these women which clearly it was then are we expected to believe that after carrying out this frenzied attack our killer suddnely calms down composes himslef and effects these removal with some anatomical precsion.

If the other motive were to harvest organs then why would he inflict such abdominal wounds on the vistims thereby makimg it difficult to remove the organs and the liklihood that the mutilations would damage them.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

[ATTACH]13101[/ATTACH]

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

Rob

Rob
I was refering to Fosters map if the killer could have taken either of those routes to Goulston Street then Eddowes could have reversed these routes back to Mitre Square. Of course she could have made her way from Bishopsgate PS to Flower and Dean Street and then in any one of a number of directions back to Mire Square via Goulston Street

Clearly your map shows it would have been easy to take short cuts from Flower and dean St across to Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;199078]Rob,

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

Well at least I do venture out you should try that now and again did you know that houses now have carpets in them with elctricity and central heating. But that will all be new to you

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.

You really amaze me yet again showing you naievety and ignorance you should try engaging yor brain before you rush to reply to my posts.

You mention the public convenience in Miter Square if she was making her way from Flowere and Dean St and wanted to go for a pee would she have waited til she got there after all do we know that is where she was intending to go. I doubdt she herslef knew she was just wandering obvioulsy looking for business.

The apron piece was wet we know that but it was never examined and ascertained what that wetness was. that is a fact. It was undercover so i doubt we can blame the weather. So you have to conside all possibilties not just those that suit your theory.


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.....

The scene of the crime has nothing to do with the wetness of the apron piece if she was using it prior to her death and deposited before she got to Mitre Square.

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.

Well if he were that experienced he would have know the difference between wiping hands and wiping a knife the results of each are different. Again the decscription of the apron piece is not consistent with either. That why I did tests to show the difference to prove or disprove these theories.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

And my army of orange ooooompa marriotts as you call them are winning the war. Every day the ranks are increasing with defectors from your side soon you wil be the only one left and you will be sad and lonely or have you reached that stage already.

[lynn cates]

not very likely

Hello Velma. The sad truth is, I find NONE of the scenarios likely.

New scenario time?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

quandary

Hello Tom.

"Clearly, the killer did not go directly to Goulston Street upon leaving Mitre Square (re PC Long's evidence)."

Completely agree.

"He simply went nearby to a safe house, cleaned up, deposited the organs, grabbed some chalk, and hit the streets again safe."

Well, this depends upon no fewer than 5 assumptions. None of them, however, are contradictory. But there is quite a contrast with the first 2 canonical slayings.

"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."

I would agree if there were a safe house and the apron were deposited there. But is was not.

"This explains the time lapse, distance, his comfort in writing the graffiti without discovery (no blood on him), . . ."

But if he were discovered and searched, surely he would be found with a bloody apron piece? Would that not be enough to send him to the gallows?

"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."

Well, I cannot speak for you, but if I were the perpetrator, here would be the sequence.

1. I have killed Kate.

2. I mutilate her face.

3. I begin abdominal mutilations.

4. I inadvertently cut through a bit of the entrails and contaminate my hands.

5. I grimace in disgust.

6. I place the cut portion on the ground.

7. I cut a piece of apron for hand wiping.

8. I walk away quickly--likely through St. James passage.

9. I discard when finished.

Now, if this is not egregiously wrong, I'd be wiping whilst I walk. I estimate no more than 30 seconds.

So, estimate the time an adult male can walk quickly in 30 seconds, draw a line from Mitre sq through St. James, and there SHOULD be the apron piece. (Note: if Roslyn D'Onston is the suspect, retard the rate slightly for his limp--recall he was shot in the leg as a young man. [heh-heh])

But it is not there.

Hence, my quandary.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

tempus fugit

Hello (again) Tom.

"The biggest problem I have with the accepted wisdom is the length of the time the killer spent 'working' on Kate."

Yes, I find that problematic too.

"I'm not at all satisfied that 5 or 7 minutes would have done the trick"

Agreed. Of course, I say that even having read Gareth's excellent dissertation no fewer than 3 times.

I think the timeline depends chiefly on Lawende's having seen "Kate's assailant and Kate." Not sure that he did.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

separate questions

Hello Velma.

"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."

I think that all depends on the condition of the garment. A more difficult question would concern whether she would continue to wear the piece.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

needed: medical experts

Hello (yet again) Tom. Your post #172 makes eminent sense. The cut throat and a few abdominal mutilations--7 minutes, sure. But the facial ones--in particular, 2 attempts on the nose--seem a bit much.

I share your sentiments in wishing more medical experts would weigh in here. Perhaps then we could make sense of these enigmas in double quick time.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Gbp

Hello Jon.

"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."

Perhaps, but recall that Dr. GB Phillips made precisely this distinction vis-a-vis Annie Chapman. On the whole, the British doctors were well up on all the desiderata of the case.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sticky wicket

Hello Phil. Hmmm, points to ponder. Obviously a sticky wicket.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;199085]

Rob,

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

Well at least I do venture out you should try that now and again did you know that houses now have carpets in them with elctricity and central heating. But that will all be new to you

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.

You really amaze me yet again showing you naievety and ignorance you should try engaging yor brain before you rush to reply to my posts.

You mention the public convenience in Miter Square if she was making her way from Flowere and Dean St and wanted to go for a pee would she have waited til she got there after all do we know that is where she was intending to go. I doubdt she herslef knew she was just wandering obvioulsy looking for business.

The apron piece was wet we know that but it was never examined and ascertained what that wetness was. that is a fact. It was undercover so i doubt we can blame the weather. So you have to conside all possibilties not just those that suit your theory.


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.....

The scene of the crime has nothing to do with the wetness of the apron piece if she was using it prior to her death and deposited before she got to Mitre Square.

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.

Well if he were that experienced he would have know the difference between wiping hands and wiping a knife the results of each are different. Again the decscription of the apron piece is not consistent with either. That why I did tests to show the difference to prove or disprove these theories.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

And my army of orange ooooompa marriotts as you call them are winning the war. Every day the ranks are increasing with defectors from your side soon you wil be the only one left and you will be sad and lonely or have you reached that stage already.

Is that what this is Trevor? A war? That's Sad mate, real sad. I hope you get the help you need.

Your tests are meaningless as you do not have the original apron piece. You have nothing to compare your finds against. All you have is your own interpretation of written testimony. This written testimony corresponds with the idea a knife was wiped upon it. This simple fact remains and cannot be hidden behind false bravado or bold font type sets.

Your number consists of the naïve and those whose attention is attracted easily.....oooh, shiney things.

Those who have studied the case intensely know better.

Monty

[curious]

Hello Velma.

"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."

I think that all depends on the condition of the garment. A more difficult question would concern whether she would continue to wear the piece.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn,
To me, it appears there is one major question: Did Kate possess any means with which to cut the apron?

She had in her possession a white handled table knife. I don't know Victorian tableware, but table knives with which I have experience would have a blunt tip and not be sharp enough to cut material.

Without Kate having in her possession some way to cut the material, none of the rest of this discussion has any validity at all.

THEN, there is the question of how fast a bladder fills up.

Dr. Brown said that "The bladder was healthy and uninjured, and contained three or four ounces of water. "

How fast does the bladder fill up?

BUT, the real question is: Did Kate have any way to cut her apron?

[curious]

[

The apron piece was wet we know that but it was never examined and ascertained what that wetness was. that is a fact. It was undercover so i doubt we can blame the weather. So you have to conside all possibilties not just those that suit your theory.


[/B]

Police Constable Alfred Long, 254A. stated that " one corner of which was wet with blood."

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;199099][QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;199085]

Is that what this is Trevor? A war? That's Sad mate, real sad. I hope you get the help you need.

Your tests are meaningless as you do not have the original apron piece. You have nothing to compare your finds against. All you have is your own interpretation of written testimony. This written testimony corresponds with the idea a knife was wiped upon it. This simple fact remains and cannot be hidden behind false bravado or bold font type sets.

The test are very relevant the results speak volumes they clearly show how a white piece of cloth would look having been wiped with a blood stained knife. They cleary show how a cloth would like if bloodied hands were wiped on it. Those result are in direct contrast to how the apron piece was described so you cant get any better than that.

As i said before Brown should have been able to distinguish between wiping a knife and wiping hands. My test results clearly show the difference.

Why would the killer want to cut a piece of the apron to wipe his hands when he could have done it on her clothes at the scene and the same for the knife.

He could have wiped his hands and the knife down his trousers or coat had he needed to do that quickly. Blood stainds would not show up on dark clothing so he had no worries about being stopped and checked if he he had done that

Why did he walk all that way before depositing it. All Serious questions none of which your answers and beleifs are plausible

Your number consists of the naïve and those whose attention is attracted easily.....oooh, shiney things.

Those who have studied the case intensely know better.

The trouble with you and those alike you have sat so long with the orginal theories fixated in your minds that no matter what is said written or put before you will not change and that is sad.

You keep on beleiveing what you want if it makes you happy but please refrain from all the abuse and sarcastic comments you throw at others who seek to offer fresh and new theories. As far as i am concerned I dont give a toss you can abuse me till the cows come home water off a ducks back to me

But I do feel sorry for others that have genuinley come on here with good intent and left very quickly as a result of your poision tongue.

Someone just said to me that Casebook now revolves around the same posters who do nothing but sit an argue and bicker continuolsy amongst themselves over the same topics over and over again. And they are right I wish I had a pound for every time i have discussed this same topic on here. It is getting boring and repetetive.

Its a good job that the public out there in the big wide world apply common sense when they read up and study all aspects of this case.