The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

Q & A

Hello Simon. Excellent question. Tentative answer?

Cheers.
LC

[Chava]

It's not unlikely Ruby. On the contrary, it's highly likely. I'm old enough to remember what streets used to be like in the good old bad old days. When it was still considered reasonable to just drop your rubbish right in the street. The level of refuse was very high indeed. In the Scotswood Road area of Newcastle, before they pulled down all the back-to-backs and put up all those lovely, badly-built, dangerous high-rises in the 1960s, the streets teemed with all kinds of refuse--old meat bones, horrid bits of cloth which found their way outside from the clothing factories in the area, empty tin cans with jaggy edges. Old bits of metal rusted out down there along with spoiled fruit and cigarette ends. It was a highly horrible place to see, and I only went down there with my mother to see my aunts who owned some of those clothing factories. I'll never forget what that was like, picking delicately through the garbage in my little private school uniform while being told off by my mother not to listen to all the highly-coloured language which the women down there used to call their kids on off the street. And I suspect that Whitechapel in the 1880s was much worse. There would have been a lot of stray dogs down there who would have made a beeline for a nice bloodied-up bit of cloth. And there would have been men walking through who just kicked the nastiness out of their way when they went through.

And we cannot assume that this did not happen to the piece of apron.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Guys I'm going back to what I posted a lot of pages ago.

We have no evidence to show that the killer placed that cloth in the location where it was found.

It could have been picked up by an animal and then dropped. It could have been kicked to one side out of the way of someone walking in the street. You cannot rule out the existence of a disinterested 3rd party moving that cloth from its original location. As well, you have no evidence to show that the writer of the graffito was also the person who put that cloth down close to it.

All that is true , Chava, but equally, highly unlikely.

[Chava]

Guys I'm going back to what I posted a lot of pages ago.

We have no evidence to show that the killer placed that cloth in the location where it was found.

It could have been picked up by an animal and then dropped. It could have been kicked to one side out of the way of someone walking in the street. You cannot rule out the existence of a disinterested 3rd party moving that cloth from its original location. As well, you have no evidence to show that the writer of the graffito was also the person who put that cloth down close to it.

And because of this it seems to me that we are wasting our time--and I say this as the starter of more than one 'apron' thread. To me, the importance of the apron is why he took it and what he used it for. He was specifically after the apron--there was a lot of other material closer to hand after he'd done his work but he went for that. So that, to me, is the more fruitful direction for inquiry.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby,

Are you asking Trevor to experiment with half an apron piece an a female on her menstrual cycle?

Hmmmm

And post it on 'You Tube', Monty.