The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

under pressure

Hello Phil. Yes, plausible.

My urinary reflections pertain more to Kate's priorities upon release from gaol. I suggest that she was "under pressure" to tend to concerns other than solicitation.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

beat generation

Hello Neil. And this may raise the further issue about beats that night--am I correct to assume that some beats had been reassigned?

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Hi Lynn,

The City Police reversed their beats that night. There's no record the Met did. And there is no record of a re-assignment however, Long was new to his beat, with him being from A Division.

Monty

[curious]

hello Lxnn,


a thin piece of apron would suffice to wipe oneself after urinating would it not? Hence the residue of faecal matter. If she happened to be at the very start or end of her menstrual cycle then the blood spots are feasably explained- no?

Best wishes

Phil

Fellas,
As a woman, I find it impossible to imagine a woman doing what you are suggesting here.

If caught out in an emergency, perhaps Eddowes (or any other woman) would most likely tear (not cut. Did she even have a means to cut?) a small portion of an undergarment and apply it as your theory apparently demands.

The apparent size of the apron piece argues against your theory.

I can not imagine any woman removing a very large piece of her outermost garment, then leaving the remainder tied to her front. Think about it. This makes no sense.

I don't understand the reason for grasping so fixedly to this notion.

I can not believe a woman would cut half of a garment she is wearing, then continue wearing it as her uppermost piece of clothing. This just does NOT track.

Whatever theory you're developing based on this line of thinking is, IMHO, not likely to be anywhere near the truth.

curious

[Supe]

Curious,

Thank you for your comments. Previously, other women like Jane Coram and "Archaic" have said much the same thing about the implausibility of the theory, but certain males persist in advancing it.

Moreover, even had an emergency arisen, Kate had ample resources upon her person including "12 pieces of white rag" that would likely have sufficed.

Don.

[Rob Clack]

Knives on tables? How about made up photos (MJK 3) Not to mention a senior policemen parading an album of victims photographs taken from the archives and pqesented in an album that nobody has ever seen before, asking the question why a photo album only contained 7 photos and what else has been nicked and by whom along the way.

What a load of nonsense. I'm all for thinking out of the box, but you really should start of by getting your facts right first.
It's rubbish like this that does more harm then good.

Rob

[Carol]

Hi everyone,

I've just been reading through the posts of the last week (better late than never). I'm tired out now. Even more things to think about.

I'd just like to say that the ordinary working-class female, even up to fairly recent times, did NOT wipe herself after only going to pee. At least, in England. Also, it was common practice with prostitutes, (perhaps even for some other women) in those times to go to a quiet place, place her legs wide apart, and go to pee standing up.

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

Curious,

Thank you for your comments. Previously, other women like Jane Coram and "Archaic" have said much the same thing about the implausibility of the theory, but certain males persist in advancing it.

Moreover, even had an emergency arisen, Kate had ample resources upon her person including "12 pieces of white rag" that would likely have sufficed.

Don.

The content of this thread has been taken all out of context in my opinion.

I personally do beleive Eddowes deposited it when she used the Archway to go to the toilet Following her release either en route back to Flower and dean Street or en route back to Mitre Square..

She wouldnt have had to have been taken short she simply could have felt the need to go to the toilet. she could have had it whilst in cutsody, bearing in mind all her propery was taken from her. So she couldnt have used any of the 12 pieces of cloth.

I believe she had been using it as a sanitary device and had torn it off herself. I seem to recall that the apron piece when compared matched up via a repair so it would be easy to tear a pice off that had been the subject of a repair.

It was found screwed up in a place where it was ideal for someone to use as a toilet.

As stated before the decsription of the apron piece is consistent with it being between here legs and not being used fo any of the other previous purposes.

And on that point it should be noted that at no time did the police ever suggest it had been used for any of the orginal theories so that must say something even to those on here who cant see the wood from the trees and wihtout question accept the old theories.

[curious]

Curious,

Thank you for your comments. Previously, other women like Jane Coram and "Archaic" have said much the same thing about the implausibility of the theory, but certain males persist in advancing it.

Moreover, even had an emergency arisen, Kate had ample resources upon her person including "12 pieces of white rag" that would likely have sufficed.

Don.

Thank you, Don. I'm glad to be included in such good company as Jane Coram and "Archaic"

[lynn cates]

new to me

Hello Neil. Thanks. OK, then--new to his beat.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

customary

Hello Velma.

"As a woman, I find it impossible to imagine a woman doing what you are suggesting here."

Umm, well, different groups have different customs.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=curious;199006]Thank you, Don. I'm glad to be included in such good company as Jane Coram and "Archaic"

I'm with you girls !

[Hunter]

The content of this thread has been taken all out of context in my opinion.

The context of evidence and its proper evaluation has been removed of content.

[Monty]

What a load of nonsense. I'm all for thinking out of the box, but you really should start of by getting your facts right first.
It's rubbish like this that does more harm then good.

Rob

The thing is Rob, its not really thinking outside the box. Its groundless accusation with no supporting fact, just interpretation.

Trevors theory above. There are numerous reasons for the aprons appearance. Trevor ignores Browns testimony, a man who actually saw the apron, in favour of his alledged experts. He also ignores the fact that NO reports of excrement found in the stairwell was made.

Now, you and I, us fence sitting afraid to question the accepted facts pair of insignificants, know that there were convieniences near to Goulston Street and Mitre Square. And with that in mind, its pretty certain Eddowes (as someone who frequented the area) knew that also.

You and I are also aware of toilet facilities in Bishopsgate nick, seeing as we do boring old fashioned research. I bet you a fiver Trevor and his crew either had no idea or just simply didn't consider such a thing.

What we do is dull, isn't flashy nor will it solve the case. However its the work us fence sitters do that others build their research on, just as we have on the back of other minimalists.

I commend Trevor because he has gotten off his arse and done something. However his close minded conclusions, forced on all who listen, and taken as gospel by the guilible (which is an irony in itself as its they who accuse us of following blindly) are ill considered. There's no alternative in his mind.

Yet his accuses us of not daring to step 'out of the box'

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Velma.

"As a woman, I find it impossible to imagine a woman doing what you are suggesting here."

Umm, well, different groups have different customs.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn, Velma.

Exactly Lynn,
Desperate times call for desperate measures.

Additionally, who says the apron piece was cut by the killer? Why could not Eddowes herself have cut the piece off at an unknown time previously? It is pure assumption that the killer did it. There is no proof that the killer of Eddowes cut any piece of apron.

Velma, I am not putting any theory together, just looking at alternatives. The only thing I PERSONALLY sure of is that the double murding man we are told of responsible for the demise Stride and Eddowes is a fallacy. And if as some believe, Kelly was killed by a different hand, we have 3 killers at large. Therefore a single "Jack the Ripper" did not exist. It was brilliantly promoted that way though. Today, not so brillantly promoted.

Best wishes

Phil