The Apron Again

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Curious, what's that philosophy in continental Europe? Structuralism where history, or an event, can only ever be explained within its context.

I imagine there are few women these days who would do such a thing, although street walkers may; but what about the destitute in 1888? I mean, people slung shite out the windows in those days.

It's only 40 years ago that my Grandad used to eat lumps of fat cooked a frying pan. He grew up with it when he was a lad, with times being hard and the like, and so the taste stuck. Had the stuff dripping down his chin. Doubt there are many people eating lumps of fat these days. Times change.

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.

This is an altogether better point.

I'd agree, and it's supported by the various pieces of cloth she had squirelled away in her possesion - why not just use one of those?

[Rob Clack]

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

And as we both know Neil the route from Bishopsgate to either Flower and Dean Street or Mitre Square would take us nowhere near Goulston Street.

I knew all those long walks and map studying would pay off one day.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

You are entitled to your opinion, as are we all.
And as to your good friend and his self irony regarding his (and your) researching, I have PRAISED it, often. Something that your mate ignores, as he also does when commenting about who gets up off their backsides to do research. Trevor has acknowledged at least 3 others who did exactly that in helping his efforts.
Facts that perhaps you should remind him of whilst you call for them from others

best wishes

Phìl

[Monty]

And as we both know Neil the route from Bishopsgate to either Flower and Dean Street or Mitre Square would take us nowhere near Goulston Street.

I knew all those long walks and map studying would pay off one day.

Rob

I thought we were looking for pubs mate.

Yes, when you look at the important and recent locations in the last 24 hours of her life, Goulston Street isn't on a natural route.

However, logic is dull Rob. Face it son, we just aint sexy anymore.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

I thought we were looking for pubs mate.

I already had them plotted.

Yes, when you look at the important and recent locations in the last 24 hours of her life, Goulston Street isn't on a natural route.

However, logic is dull Rob. Face it son, we just aint sexy anymore.

Monty

Speak for yourself, I'm still a babe magnet at 42.

Rob

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

You are entitled to your opinion, as are we all.
And as to your good friend and his self irony regarding his (and your) researching, I have PRAISED it, often. Something that your mate ignores, as he also does when commenting about who gets up off their backsides to do research. Trevor has acknowledged at least 3 others who did exactly that in helping his efforts.
Facts that perhaps you should remind him of whilst you call for them from others

best wishes

Phìl

Why don't you tell him yourself? He doesn't put people on ignore so he can see what you write.

Rob

[Monty]

Hello Rob,

You are entitled to your opinion, as are we all.
And as to your good friend and his self irony regarding his (and your) researching, I have PRAISED it, often. Something that your mate ignores, as he also does when commenting about who gets up off their backsides to do research. Trevor has acknowledged at least 3 others who did exactly that in helping his efforts.
Facts that perhaps you should remind him of whilst you call for them from others

best wishes

Phìl

Robs not my keeper Phil, so you do your own dirty work instead of getting others to.

Again you twist the point. Its not about praise, its about presenting a theory which encompasses the facts and acknowledges its flaws. Instead of presnting an half arsed idea and running with it.

And not every post I make is in reference to you. As much as you wish it, my world doesn't revolve around you.

Monty


PS There's more evidence suggesting the killer cut her apron than Eddowes doing it herself.

[Hunter]

... 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 Neil, you are ignoring the possibility that a shitt eating dog might have come by before Long finally stumbled over the apron. Maybe it was an early version of a Shihtzu and they hadn't quite gotten all of the bugs worked out of the breed yet. Long should have been thankful because that dog saved him from stepping into more than he eventually did.

There are dogs that like excrement made from a binger. I had a crew member who came to work after an all nighter at the beer joints (pubs). Sometime in the morning he had to make a sudden visit to the woods. Now, he didn't have time to look around for something to use when he was done, so he ripped off his shirttail and took off a runnin'.

The homeowners had a big black Lab and it took off after him. He said that he barely made it to a little holler and had squatted down doin' his business when he suddenly heard a lappin' sound. He looked down... and there was that dog enjoying the remnants of the case of beer this guy had drank the night before.

He didn't have to go back to the woods after that because he said he threw up the rest of what was in his stomach.

No Shitt!

[Trevor Marriott]

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

You criticise me for moving the goal posts to suit my own agenda but you are just as guilty. Just because there were toilet facilities at the nick it doesnt mean to say that she needed to go at the specific time she was released. After walking around she may have been wanting to go.

I doubt wheteher the nick had toilets in each cell as they do today and drunken persons then were probabaly ignored unti lthey became sober

As i said before drunken people in custody regularly lose control of their bodily functions. The apron piece and how it was described is consistent with it being between the legs of an un hygenic drunken woman. The description is not consistenst with all the other theories.

Even today some of the low class prostitues I come in contact with (in the line of work) can be described in the same way.

And I say again the police never ever suggested the apron piece was used for any of those previoulsy mentioned theories do you not think they would have asked themselves what was it cut or torn for ?

She had a fourty minute window between release and murder it is not know where she went so to say Gouldton Street wasnt on her route is being naieve. Bt of course if that excuse is to be used to prop up another theory then so be it.

[Monty]

Bishopsgate Police Station had WCs however there were none in the cells. Instead bowls were used, the po.

Its true, yes, Eddowes may not have needed to go at that time however there were public conveniences in the area. This isn't addressed.

To state no other theory is consistant with the description of the apron is either ignorant of other fieasble possibilities or deliberately misleading. The apron was dirty and smeared with feculent matter and blood. There is no mention or urine at all, which was detectable then. Seeing as Eddowes colon was cut, and the intestines smeared with feculant matter the evidence is consistant with the idea Eddowes killer removed her apron piece at the same scene as where her mutilations took place. It must be noted that her bladder was healty and intact. It must also be noted, as mention, that there is no note of urine on the apron in any report.

Now, let's say Eddowes did use a doorway to relieve herself. There are plenty in the area, why Goulston Street? Its not on route to Flower and Dean Street or back to Aldgate. She would have basically gone out of her way to go there. Sure, she could have wandered around but there? Its illogical.

No serious student of the case buys your theory, surely that must indicate something.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Monty

Bishopsgate Police Station had WCs however there were none in the cells. Instead bowls were used, the po.

Its true, yes, Eddowes may not have needed to go at that time however there were public conveniences in the area. This isn't addressed.

Werent public conveniences only accessabe by payment hence the term "Spend a Penny" besides i am sure thse type of women were used to going anywhere they could. I doubt they would scour the streets at that time of the morning looking for a proper toilet

To state no other theory is consistent with the description of the apron is either ignorant of other fieasble possibilities or deliberately misleading.

It is a fact not misleading at all

The apron was dirty and smeared with feculent matter and blood. There is no mention or urine at all, which was detectable then.

The piece was wet we dont know if it was wet from urine of from any other use. Why would they bother checking for urine by the time it had got back to the mortuary it would no doubt have started to dry out

Seeing as Eddowes colon was cut, and the intestines smeared with feculant matter the evidence is consistant with the idea Eddowes killer removed her apron piece at the same scene as where her mutilations took place. It must be noted that her bladder was healty and intact. It must also be noted, as mention, that there is no note of urine on the apron in any report.

What is your point about the bladder it matters not whether her bladder was intact it not does that stop her from going to the toilet 40 minutes before he was killed.

Now, let's say Eddowes did use a doorway to relieve herself. There are plenty in the area, why Goulston Street? Its not on route to Flower and Dean Street or back to Aldgate. She would have basically gone out of her way to go there. Sure, she could have wandered around but there? Its illogical.

Its no more illogical than the suggestion that the killer made his way back to Whitechapel Via Goulston Street when he could have gone in other directions

No serious student of the case buys your theory, surely that must indicate something.

Yes it must indicate thast they are all wearing rose coloured spectacles and no one with any professional experience buys the theory that this killer performed major surgery in almost total darkness in 9 minutes after ripping open the body in a mad frenzy and then carefully removed these organs.

What really stuffs you and the other serious students and you have no answer to it is the fact that no police officer ever suggested the apron piece was used for carrying away the organs,for wiping bloody hands or for cleaning a knife. In fact they never ever suggested anyhting now doesnt that tell you and the other serious students something.

I think it suggests a vist to the opticians is required.

I am surprised at you being an ex police officer your approach to this is very blinkered much like the police in 1888. The years have not been kind to you as you seem to have lost your ability to assess and evaluate the facts in an unbiased fashion.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Curious, what's that philosophy in continental Europe? Structuralism where history, or an event, can only ever be explained within its context.

I imagine there are few women these days who would do such a thing, although street walkers may; but what about the destitute in 1888? I mean, people slung shite out the windows in those days.

It's only 40 years ago that my Grandad used to eat lumps of fat cooked a frying pan. He grew up with it when he was a lad, with times being hard and the like, and so the taste stuck. Had the stuff dripping down his chin. Doubt there are many people eating lumps of fat these days. Times change.



This is an altogether better point.

I'd agree, and it's supported by the various pieces of cloth she had squirelled away in her possesion - why not just use one of those?

Because at the police station her propetry was taken from her and she would not have been given it back until she was released and besides she no doubt had them wit her fro some form of private enterprise she is not going to ruin potential money making.

[Trevor Marriott]

And as we both know Neil the route from Bishopsgate to either Flower and Dean Street or Mitre Square would take us nowhere near Goulston Street.

I knew all those long walks and map studying would pay off one day.

Rob

Well clearly the map made at the time shows two routes she could have taken which would have taken her along Goulston Street that without any shortcuts she may have known. The same two routes it is sugegsted he kiler took.

The fact is that it cannot be proved or disproved that she was in Goulston Street as some time before he death yet so many are willing to point blankly reject it.

Come on guys take the blinkers off.

[curious]

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

Phil, Lynn,
I agree with you that desperate times do call for desperate measures -- where I completely disagree with the thinking is that she would cut her outer garment instead of one of several inner garments.

Had it been an inner garment that had been cut, and remember the testimony is cut, not torn, it might be a plausible idea. Is there any evidence at all, anywhere, that Kate had any means to CUT something?


Phil, you ask: "Why could not Eddowes herself have cut the piece off at an unknown time previously?"

Ask youself: AND CONTINUE WEARING THE OTHER HALF?

and cut it? how? by what means? The white handle table knife in her possession?

If you're pushing the theory that she was drunk and desperate while jailed and her apron cut during that time. If her 12 rags and other possessions were removed from her, so would have been the means to cut the apron. Right?

The fact that part of the apron remained on the body screams that Kate did not cut the garment herself because she would have removed the apron if she were using half/part of it for sanitary purposes.

And would she not have been required to remove it in order to cut it? Could she have cut it while wearing it? Is that physically possible -- to cut straight while wearing a garment? and if half of it were gone, would the other half stay up on the body (If it were the bib type, it might) while she walked around? Well, she was drunk and desperate. But then by what instrument could she have CUT the material?

Phil you say: "It is pure assumption that the killer did it."

I'm not assuming that. I don't know who cut it.

You say: "There is no proof that the killer of Eddowes cut any piece of apron"

It seems to me that there is even less proof that Eddowes herself did. The killer had a sharp knife. Did Eddowes had the means to cut her apron?

Phil, that does not mean that the killer HAD to be the one who cut the apron, but since Kate didn't, it appears to narrow down the possibilities.

Now, Phil, you already know I don't believe the one killer for the 5 women, and haven't since I first read through the case.

You also know I embrace new theories and enjoy exploring them.

Exploring, gentlemen. Some are plausible, some aren't. This one isn't.

Phil, you write: "Velma, I am not putting any theory together, just looking at alternatives. "

Don't blame you, Phil. Alternatives are good. But evaluate them, and when one doesn't add up, let it go.

Ask yourself: Does it seem even remotely possible that Kate could cut her apron in half while wearing it? Or that she would? Why in the world not remove it first?

Is it plausible that she would destroy an outer garment, when she had several inner garments she could use instead?

You all have fertile brains and imaginations, why not come up with something that makes sense instead of clinging so tightly to something that doesn't?

Good luck, gentlemen. Surely there are other possibilities that just haven't been thought of yet.

[curious]

Because at the police station her propetry was taken from her and she would not have been given it back until she was released and besides she no doubt had them wit her fro some form of private enterprise she is not going to ruin potential money making.

Trevor,
You can't have it both ways.

If she used the apron in the jail because her possessions were taken away from her, then she had no way to cut the apron. Remember, it was cut, not torn? Any knife or scissors would have been taken from her, too.

If, AFTER HER RELEASE, she used the toilet and used the apron to wipe herself -- that was after jail, then her possessions had been returned to her and she DID have the other rags in her possession at the time.

The last bit is gibberish.

About another of your replies in which you did not understand someone's focus on the healthy, uncut bladder.

very simple.

IF Eddowes used the apron piece to wipe up after toileting, then the rag would most likely have had urine as well as fecal matter and perhaps blood.

The lack of mention of urine on the apron piece is important.

As is the lack of mention of excrement being in the doorway or area. A police officer conscientious enough to have discovered the rag and the writing on the wall, would have noticed and reported the pile of dung.

If the killer had used the apron piece to clean a knife or wipe his hands, the apron would have blood and fecal matter, but NO urine because the bladder was intact.

and that is the importance of the intact bladder.

Perhaps the authorities at the time never mentioned how they thought the apron was used, because they had no better idea then than any of us do today.