The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

ideas?

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

Any idea why the intestine was cut?

Cheers.
LC

[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

[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

[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]

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

[lynn cates]

coincidence

Hello Tom.

"I'm sure you mean Le Grand. But whether or not he was the Ripper, I think it would be a long shot to state that he had never committed murder."

Fair enough. Perhaps, "Never committed a murder of this sort"?

I don't recall naming Halse. I did, however, remark that he was on the very spot where the apron would later appear. But, as Debs frequently reminds me, coincidences do happen.

Incidentally, did you see the last post on my Hurlbert thread? Now THAT'S a coincidence!

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Could it point to someone who was without conscience and who would do a ghastly, grisly deed for money?

I'm sure you mean Le Grand. But whether or not he was the Ripper, I think it would be a long shot to state that he had never committed murder. Whoever killed Eddowes, whether it was Le Grand, Jack the Ripper, or John Bennett, it was not someone who was a novice to murder. If I were going to hire someone to commit such a crime, I would NOT hire a novice.

And yes, in the past you have suggested on here that Halse was somehow complicit in the apron affair.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

time

Hello Phil. Thanks. Out of curiosity, how many minutes off are we talking about here? What could be the easiest repair of the story/ies?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pointers

Hello Tom.

"I'm stating that the confidence displayed in attempting such a crime and the ease at which he went about such ghastly business points at someone to whom murder was not at all new."

Could it point to someone who was without conscience and who would do a ghastly, grisly deed for money?

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

All quiet on the Western Front

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

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

Yes, the point being that the Sequiera testimony is crucial, he was there first of the Doctors. He gave a precise time of death. Brown did not, after having arrived 18 mins later, giving a 10min window.

So just where one adds the time is crucial. If before Sequiera's 1.45, then Watkins time is simply either wrong or made up, likewise Morris, because their statements of 1,44 and 1.45 put them BOTH at the scene of the crime if the muilations took at least 5 mins ( quote Brown) and it also points the spotlight on Harvey's testimony at 1.41 or 1.42.

It is all quiet on the Western Front on these points until one DOES focus on police testimony and take it one step further and mention possible police complicity. Now it becomes "conspiratorial" to bring in police testimony as false. Or worse a lie.

No, for some the police could not possibly be anything but "doing the best they could" etc etc. Well, we all know that if those 3 ( Watkins, Harvey and ex-policeman Morris) WERE telling falsies, then Halse transporting the apron piece is suddenly VERY possible.

it won't tell us who murdered Catherine Eddowes (or Beddowes). Or why. But it is a collection of given statements that show that the Mitre Square testimony has holes in it from start to finish.
Cue the police apologists. Cue the blind who CANNOT see that the truth can be not so palatable.
After all, it is understandable to realise after many years of believing all one is told, that the unthinkable is a plausible answer. Totally understandable.

Best wishes

Phil

[lynn cates]

another try

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

[Tom_Wescott]

I have to disagree here. So sorry. The lad who did Kate didn't know what he was about. His technique was amateurish (vide GBP's assessment at inquest). And he cut her clothing. And the number of cuts to the throat were different. And the direction of the cuts were different. Worst of all, he didn't understand how to cut off a nose and had to do a second take.

I'm not suggesting that Kate's killer had performed a hundred surgeries in the dark, or was adept at cutting off noses. I'm stating that the confidence displayed in attempting such a crime and the ease at which he went about such ghastly business points at someone to whom murder was not at all new. The taking of a life and the cutting open of a corpse were barriers already overcome. By the standards of practicing surgeon, this was no doubt sloppy work, but by the standards of a wanted criminal attempting a shocking murder mutilation in the open court of a city that never sleeps, I don't know that this murders has ever been equaled in the Western world.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[lynn cates]

second party

Hello Tom. Sorry for not being clear. I did not claim Halse as the culprit. I am merely referring obliquely to a second party.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

temerity

Hello Tom.

"There's no way that Eddowes was anyone's first time kill."

I have to disagree here. So sorry. The lad who did Kate didn't know what he was about. His technique was amateurish (vide GBP's assessment at inquest). And he cut her clothing. And the number of cuts to the throat were different. And the direction of the cuts were different. Worst of all, he didn't understand how to cut off a nose and had to do a second take.

"And unless we assume the killer was overtaken by sudden, dramatic urges to kill,"

Right. I make NO such assumption. We agree here.

"we're left with the reality that he left his home knowing what he wanted to do, and would have prepared for it."

I agree again. Killing Kate Eddowes, and doing so in a certain manner--I think--was uppermost in his mind.

"After all, he didn't want to be caught."

Concedo.

"Regarding the spot in Goulston Street, he had the vantage point of hearing anyone approach from either direction, so the chance of him being discovered in the midst of writing the graffiti was slim to none. And if he were, it was hardly damning him for any murder."

That's true--provided the apron piece is not discovered.

"After all, the police were not allowed to search anyone who could prove themselves respectable, so again I say the killer would have no fear of this if his person was not bloodied."

Perhaps. But again, I might lack the temerity to walk about with a piece of evidence on my person.

Cheers.
LC