The Apron Again

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,

Catherine Eddowes turned left out of Bishopsgate Police Station, so it is very unlikely she was heading towards Flower and Dean Street. She was more than likely heading back towards Aldgate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that she went to Goulston Street after leaving Bishopsgate Street.

Rob
Rob

Rob
Thank you for your comments however nothing can be certain dont forget there was a fourty minute window a lot of ground can be covered in that time. Dont forget as per your map there were many shortcuts she could have taken during that fourty minutes to get to the various locations.

I wonder if she had turned and gone the other way would everyone be suggesting she was going home

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor, thank you for the thoughtful reply, and for reminding me that 9 minutes is the time frame the accepted evidence gives us.

It seems there are two possibilities IF and I mean IF 9 minutes was not long enough for the killer to have murdered Eddowes, extracted the organs, and cut her face up. Those scenarios are:

1) The killer operated within the allotted 9 minutes, and therefore was not responsible for the taking of the organs.

2) The killer was responsible for everything, including the taking of the organs, which would require moving the timeline back to allow for longer than 9 minutes.

Between the two, I would be forced to go with number 2, for a few reasons. The first would be that the wounds inflicted on the body are completely consistent with a person wishing to extract organs. The most damning evidence for option 1 is that he extracted and removed a part of the intestine, and placed it out of his way...but to what purpose if he wasn't going to extract an organ, such as a kidney? The post mortem also does not reveal the use of two different knives, and what are the odds of a killer and an unrelated organ stealer using the same knives? In short, everything about the forensics in this case point to one person as responsible for the murder, the organ extraction, and the cutting of the apron.

I've never believed that the apron was taken to conceal the organs, as the apron half was far larger than necessary, and I would imagine the man had pockets. Nor do I see someone wishing to clean his hands and knife bothering to cut cloth to do so when the mere act of handling and cutting the apron would have done half the work. He could simply wipe off and run. The only practical purpose for the apron was to point to the graffiti, which in fact, it did.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
One thing you have overlooked is that if the killer didnt remove the organs then the 9 minute window is irrelevant because the killer would have only needed a matter of minutes to walk into the square kill and mutilate Eddowes.

If he wanted the organs as you suggest why would he mutilate the abdomen in such a way that removing the organs would be much more difficult.

and how did he know the apron piece was going to be found and besides the graffiti has nothing to do with the murder or the apron piece.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Tom.

"The most damning evidence for option 1 is that he extracted and removed a part of the intestine, and placed it out of his way...but to what purpose if he wasn't going to extract an organ, such as a kidney?"

That's a very good point, and I can think of only one fair reply. Suppose he wished to bring the intestines out to emulate the Chapman killing? Perhaps he thought he were cutting loose the intestines from their surroundings and misjudged? This would be consonant with my theorising that this is an amateur.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn
You should be aware that to remove a uterus there is no need to remove the intestines. Also when the abdominal wall is breached in many case the int stimes recoil outwards

[Rob Clack]

I wonder if she had turned and gone the other way would everyone be suggesting she was going home

I don't think we would be discussing her at all then.

Rob

[lynn cates]

ideas?

Hello Trevor. Thanks. Perhaps the assailant was unaware of that fact?

Any idea why the intestine was cut?

Cheers.
LC

[Chava]

OK, please put down the entrenched positions for a second and listen to yourselves. If this was a real investigation and we were all real coppers we would be screwed from the get-go and our perp would be skipping merrily down the road to forever free. Because we're all assuming too much and we're not looking at the obvious explanations.

- We have no proof whatsoever that the graffito was written by the murderer. We know that the local super thought it was inflammatory and ordered it rubbed out. But we don't know that the Ripper wrote it. If you look at that map a few pages back you will see Jewish references all over the place. There were Jewish schools, synagogues, yeshivas. The Jews lived all over that section of London. It's not even slightly surprising that there would be anti-semitic graffiti everywhere in that area all the time so why are we ascribing this piece of crap to the Ripper?

- Well, because of the undeniably-Ripper-related piece of cloth. That came from the victim. So many of us are assuming that it's linked to the graffito and that both are linked to the Ripper intending to blame someone in the Goulston Street tenements.

OK, where does this get us? So far no one seems to consider it possible that the Ripper lived in the tenements and accidentally dropped that piece of cloth on his way back home. That idea simply hasn't surfaced. But as a Jew I will tell you that it's just as possible that a Jew living in Goulston Street killed those women that it's possible that an evil-genius killer took a detour from his route home to leave incriminating evidence to point away from himself.

I'll say this: I don't have a theory because I have no entrenched position. I do think we should consider the possibility of that rag having been picked up by some animal third party and dropped, because it's not impossible that it happened. There were plenty of stray dogs around there and a whole lot of rats. I do think it's possible that Eddowes may have used that bit of apron to clean herself up a bit. (Wasn't it stitched to the rest of the apron in a repair? In which case it would have been easy to rip off through the stiches.) I do think it's possible that the killer took the material for whatever purpose--although I'll stick to my guns here and say he took it before he started work because otherwise I can't explain why he tossed her skirts forward again to get at it given that when he pulled her clothes back, that apron would have been lying on the bottom of the pile next to the ground. I do think it's possible that the rag was left in order to incriminate the inhabitants of Goulston. But if it was, it was a dismal failure because I have seen no record that the cops spent a lot of time taking the tenants of Goulston Street apart.

So here's (yet) another question: why didn't they do just that? Why didn't they believe that the rag was dropped by the killer on his way into his home? I imagine it was because of the graffito. And here we are on the merry-go-round again. The graffito was done by the killer because the cloth was dropped by the graffito so the graffito was done by the killer on his way to somewhere else. It's circular thinking at its worst and it will get us nowhere. That graffito is the reddest of red herrings. But the cloth isn't. We know the cloth belongs with the Eddowes murder. However there's no suggestion that the killer did anything like this at any of the other murders and he certainly would have been able to do something with stuff from the MJK killing if he'd wanted to do so.

Anyone know who was living in Goulston Street at that time? I wouldn't mind checking that out--which the police clearly didn't attempt to do. Because the Ripper was nothing if not direct and straightforward. I don't get the impression that he over-thought his murders. And neither should we. The obvious--therefore ignored--possibility is that he used it for some purpose and then either discarded it or accidentally lost it on his way back home. Possibly right into the Goulston Street tenement.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks. Perhaps the assailant was unaware of that fact?

Any idea why the intestine was cut?

Cheers.
LC

No doubt in the frenzied and ferocious attack.

You have to ask if the killer would then suddenly be able to compose himself sufficiently to be able to extract those organs with what has been described.

Dr Sequeria stated that he from what he saw at the crime scene and thre state of the body he didnt think the killer had any design on the organs.

Yet 12 hours later they are missing remove with some anatomical knowledge

[lynn cates]

resident

Hello Chava. I think Tom Wescott has a lad from the buildings that he has researched. Why not chat him up? Nathan something or other.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. I see, when the knife was originally wielded.

Thanks.

Wonder if the knife went that deep?

Oh. perhaps as part of the long north/south cut?

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

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 don't agree with this, Curious.

You can only value an option by comparison with other options.

She had pawned a pair of boots with Kelly. She had the pawn ticket.

So, which is of more value:

1) An apron; possibly dirty.

2) Getting a client, and it follows the money, to retrieve the boots or get a drink.

I imagine that the boots or a drink were of more value than an apron, to Eddowes.

[Hunter]

The same Dr Brown who described the apron piece as being spotted with blood (emphasis on spotted) big diffrenece to bloodstained and if you wipe a bloodstained knife you dont get spots you get a smearing or a stain where the knife is drawn across.

Gordon Brown only said that the piece remaining with the victim was spotted. He clearly stated that the piece retrieved in the archway was smeared as if by hand or knife.

Not that presenting the actual evidence as it was presented matters here anymore, except for the few who peruse these boards for information. ...And there is a better way for them to do that.

Good luck folks. I've got a deer to field dress in the dark and I can do it in 5 minutes... kidney, uterus and all.

[Trevor Marriott]

Gordon Brown only said that the piece remaining with the victim was spotted. He clearly stated that the piece retrieved in the archway was smeared as if by hand or knife.

Not that presenting the actual evidence as it was presented matters here anymore, except for the few who peruse these boards for information. ...And there is a better way for them to do that.

Good luck folks. I've got a deer to field dress in the dark and I can do it in 5 minutes... kidney, uterus and all.

Hunter

You are another who is clearly confrontational and have the facts distorted

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?

Brown - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Mind you dont cut your fingers or even your throat

[Phil Carter]

thanks

Hello Chava,

Thank you for some sensible comments in your last post,

One stands out.. Graffiti-Red herring.
My take is that in an area teeming with Jews in abode as GS was, the comment is merely a shout- ""whatever we do we will be blamed anyway" or by an anti-jew saying " look at the Jews, its them who cause the trouble"
Nothìng to do with a kiiler writing it.
Whoever dumped the apron piece MAY have known of the existance of the writing. We just dont know. The transportation of the rag will always be speculative so plausiailities should be considered. i agree. The killer of Catherine Eddowes is unknown by name, race, creed or profession, could have been anyone. It includes a Jew. And a Doctor. And a surgeon, and a butcher. As long as medical knowledge is included. Sort of rules out Kosminsky, Druitt and Ostrog though.
I come back to Sequiera's words. Dead 15mins only. 1.45. He would know how fresh a corpse was. But lets give him a 30% chance of extension. Thats ca. 5mins. either 1.40 or 1.50. Time to ask about Watkins, Morris and Harvey. They ALL maintain exact times.
Conclusion? Something is very wrong.

Best wishes

Phil

[curious]

I think you wil find it is possible to tear a piece off and if i am not mistaken the two pieces were matched and identified via a repair is that not significant

Trevor,
You can not tear through hems and waistbands without some sharp object to get started.

Besides, there is a statement in "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour" by Jon Smyth "We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse: 'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."

A CLEAN CUT, Trevor.

Add that to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown's description of a PATCHED apron:

"My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding" -

If a piece of material is patched and you attempt to tear the main piece, the stitches holding the patch will break from one or the other and the patch will be on one piece only.

A CUT is necessary to divide the patch on the same lines as the "tear" of the main cloth. (It seems to me that Brown is saying that the edges, or seams, of the patch lined up, therefore it HAD to have been cut, not torn.)

Trevor, what did Eddowes possess that she could CUT with?

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Chava,

One resident of the building where the apron was found is Berner Street Club member, Israel Sunshine, who was arrested along with Louis Diemshitz in 1889 for beating some cop butt when they raided the house. Aside from this, there are numerous connections between the club and Goulston Street in general, though nothing stands out that would cause me to claim any of these connections had to do with either murder or the killer's choice to drop the apron there.

Trevor,

Of course one would not need to remove intestine to get to a uterus, but what about the kidney? And let's suppose Eddowes' killer was not a medical man, wouldn't opening up the abdomen be the most logical choice to get at a kidney? For that matter, wouldn't that be the most logical choice for a medical man as well?

I've heard Lynn's theory, but I'm curious as to what extent you feel the Mitre Square killer went in the injuries to Eddowes. Do you feel he did everything except extract the organs (i.e. opening her up, marking her face, etc.), and do you think it's possible that he extracted one of the organs but not the other?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott