The Apron Again

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

a stray dog that took it up and then dropped it randomly having found it too unwieldy to cart around.

Or a Giant Rat.

[Steven Russell]

The world is not yet ready for the giant rat theory.

[Chava]

Fecal matter could attract any animal to sniff around it and blood certainly would. It's entirely possible that a dog might have picked up the cloth, dragged it around a little, then let it drop because it was too unwieldy or because there was a nice juicy heap of rubbish further along that might better reward inspection.

The cloth doesn't appear to have been chewed, but a dog could have picked it up, carted it around and then dropped it without necessarily chewing it. I have had a number of dogs in my life and they like a bit of fresh blood! Any one of them would certainly have gone after something like that and I think most dogs would.

You see, we spend our time wandering whether the Ripper wrote that graffito and why. Whether he dropped it on Goulston Street on purpose and why. Whether he had an accomplice with him who took the cloth and placed it there etc etc etc. And we never consider the possibility that the cloth could have appeared at that entrance randomly. That the killer took the cloth for whatever reason, got rid of it very quickly, and then a dog picked it up and dropped it further along the road. We're looking at this stuff from the point of view of a killer who always has a good well-thought-out reason for everything he does. And in this event, as in other Ripper events, we're not taking into account the fact that some decisions he made were probably completely random and happened because of the nature of the situation he was in, and that other events may have nothing whatsoever to do with the Ripper at all. And I think that hurts us when we look at the case.

For example, the fire in MJK's room featured burned clothing and papers. It turns out some of that clothing belonged to Maria Hervey. We seem to assume--as the police seemed to assume--that the stuff in the hearth was burned by the killer. Maybe to provide better light, maybe to hide something he wanted hidden. But supposing MJK had had a fight with Hervey earlier that evening and wanted to get back at her so she burned her clothing. Hervey doesn't want to mention the fight because MJK is now dead. So the fire is a red herring and doesn't get us anywhere, but we spend a lot of time looking at it and what was burnt and who burned it.

Eddowes and MJK are the two murders where the Ripper seems to do things apart from the victim. With Eddowes it's the apron piece. With MJK it's the fire. I'm not saying he wasn't responsible for everything. But I am saying we can't always assume he's responsible for everything. Sometimes a piece of cloth lying on the ground outside a Jewish tenement is just a piece of cloth lying on the ground outside a Jewish tenement. Its final location might have nothing whatsoever to to with where it started out.

[DVV]

The world is not yet ready for the giant rat theory.

Fully agreed.

[DVV]

Argh!!! (any use of "simple truth" is a red flag)

Just the ironical equivalent of "most probably", Jon.

[Wickerman]

Just the ironical equivalent of "most probably", Jon.

Hi Dave.
I take the view that Jews were thick skinned, they've be downtrodden for centuries so whats another piece of idiotic scribble. Would they care?, I think not, I think they would be above all that.
Incidently, I meant to put a few smiley's on that, it came across a little too blunt, sorry.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon, no problem at all

I take the view that Jews were thick skinned, they've be downtrodden for centuries so whats another piece of idiotic scribble. Would they care?, I think not, I think they would be above all that.

Hummm....you sure ?

[Chava]

Well I'm a Jew David, and I agree with Wickerman. There had been a huge amount of real nastiness in those people's lives so a scribble on a doorway probably wouldn't make enough of a difference for them to be bothered.

That's if they could even read it. The people in the tenement were immigrant Jews from Eastern Europe. Their first language was Yiddish--which is written in Hebrew characters. Their second would probably have been Polish (most Polish Jews went to London whereas most Russian Jews went north to Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle). Their kids would have been able to read it, but the kids were probably asleep in their little beds at this point.

[Trevor Marriott]

I note on page 157 of The A-Z there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote

"and that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying"

Perhaps one of the authors would be so kind as to clarify and explain this.

As it stands it suggests that in fact following her release from Bishopsgate Police station she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square, a journey which could have taken her along Goulston Street.

[Stewart P Evans]

Prostitution

I note on page 157 of The A-Z there is an interesting sentence regarding the movements of Eddowes prior to her death and I quote
"and that shortly before she died she was probably seen talking to a strange man at a dark corner in a direction leading away from the lodging house where she was staying"
Perhaps one of the authors would be so kind as to clarify and explain this.
As it stands it suggests that in fact following her release from Bishopsgate Police station she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square, a journey which could have taken her along Goulston Street.

Trevor, I take that as simply meaning that as she was seen by Lawende & co. apparently soliciting with a man at the entrance to Church Passage (which is 'in a direction leading away from her lodging house'), it was a fact suggestive that she was engaging in prostitution. I don't see that it in any way shows that 'she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square', for which I know of no evidence whatsoever.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I take that as simply meaning that as she was seen by Lawende & co. apparently soliciting with a man at the entrance to Church Passage (which is 'in a direction leading away from her lodging house'), it was a fact suggestive that she was engaging in prostitution. I don't see that it in any way shows that 'she did in fact make her way back towards Flower and Dean Street and her lodgings before making her way across to Mitre Square', for which I know of no evidence whatsoever.

Stewart
Thank you for your reply but you have to admit its not very clear and besides she had ample time to make her way back to Flower and Dean Street in the first instance which you would have expected her to do.

The wording suggests that she was in fact nearer to Flower and Dean Street than Mitre Square. The authors do mention the Lawnede sighting on page 154 so why a need to duplicate it.

I accept she had no money and was soliciting but what was to stop her doing that en route back to Flower and Dean Street. Then suddenly a change of mind and takes herself off back towards the city.

I am simply looking at the possibilty that Eddowes could have been in the area of Goulston Street after her release and before her murder. If that be the case then clearly the apron piece issues are not as clear cut as some would suggest.

[Stewart P Evans]

Clear enough...

Stewart
Thank you for your reply but you have to admit its not very clear and besides she had ample time to make her way back to Flower and Dean Street in the first instance which you would have expected her to do.
The wording suggests that she was in fact nearer to Flower and Dean Street than Mitre Square. The authors do mention the Lawnede sighting on page 154 so why a need to duplicate it.
I accept she had no money and was soliciting but what was to stop her doing that en route back to Flower and Dean Street. Then suddenly a change of mind and takes herself off back towards the city.
I am simply looking at the possibilty that Eddowes could have been in the area of Goulston Street after her release and before her murder. If that be the case then clearly the apron piece issues are not as clear cut as some would suggest.

I think that it is clear enough if you read the whole sentence in context, which is to give facts suggestive of the fact that she prostituted herself, as 'none claimed to know that she' did. Thus the fact that she was probably seen by Lawende & co. apparently soliciting a client at Church passage is indicative of the fact that she prostituted herself.

Whether or not she had time to go back to Flower and Dean Street she turned left towards Houndsditch when she was released from Bishopsgate Police Station at 1 o'clock by PC Hutt. There was no other sighting of her after that until Lawende & co's presumed sighting at Church Passage at about 1.35 am. Her activities between turning left out of the front door of the police station, into Bishopsgate Street, and her probably being seen in Duke Street (at Church Passage) are totally unknown. So the idea that she may have gone to Goulston Street first is sheer speculation.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that it is clear enough if you read the whole sentence in context, which is to give facts suggestive of the fact that she prostituted herself, as 'none claimed to know that she' did. Thus the fact that she was probably seen by Lawende & co. apparently soliciting a client at Church passage is indicative of the fact that she prostituted herself.

Whether or not she had time to go back to Flower and Dean Street she turned left towards Houndsditch when she was released from Bishopsgate Police Station at 1 o'clock by PC Hutt. There was no other sighting of her after that until Lawende & co's presumed sighting at Church Passage at about 1.35 am. Her activities between turning left out of the front door of the police station, into Bishopsgate Street, and her probably being seen in Duke Street (at Church Passage) are totally unknown. So the idea that she may have gone to Goulston Street first is sheer speculation.

I agree its sheers speculation but in the whole scheme of the events of that night it should not be dismisssed outright. But I didnt say she went to Goulston Street first, I merely suggested she could have passed along it either en route to Flower and dean Street or on the way back.

From my experience most people when released from the police station cant wait to get home.

After all its no more speculative to suggest that than the theory that the killer deposited it. After all she obvioulsy went somewhere and for some purpose in the lost 40 minutes, she obvioulsy didnt succeed in prostituting herself before she met her killer otherwise she would have taken the money and gone home,

This mystery is full of wild speculative un corroborated theories.

Perhaps you could ask the authors for a little more clarity in their next joint venture

[lynn cates]

no quickie

Hello Trevor.

"From my experience most people when released from the police station cant wait to get home."

Precisely my point! No stopping off for a quick one under pain of a full bladder.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Hello Trevor.

"From my experience most people when released from the police station cant wait to get home."

Precisely my point! No stopping off for a quick one under pain of a full bladder.

Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

But one could simply piss first, stop off for a quick one, and then rush home as quickly as possible..

(I feel sure that I'm missing the point....)