The Apron Again

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn,

There's no way that Eddowes was anyone's first time kill. And unless we assume the killer was overtaken by sudden, dramatic urges to kill, we're left with the reality that he left his home knowing what he wanted to do, and would have prepared for it. After all, he didn't want to be caught. 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. 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.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Luke111]

Anyway, he needed to go home first to arrange his organs on the mantlepiece (with kidney taking pride of place between the grandfather clock and a bronze duck).

Just wondering what you mean by that? Where does this information come from?
regards,
Lukas

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil (and Monty, Lynn, Trevor, Curious, and al),

There are a couple of possible outcomes here. For one, with more medical opinion we might determine that the timeline as it exists is entirely possible. This would be nice. Or, as you state, we might be faced with an 'inconvenient truth'. If this is so, I would hope that Monty and others would be open to a reconsideration of the accepted wisdom. But only if science demands it. I for one would not want to accuse Harvey, Watkins, or any other witness of lying without damn good reason. It would also be nice if Trevor and others were open to scenarios other than their current ones, and accept that possible does not always equate to plausible.

As Lawende never stated he saw Eddowes, I wouldn't have too big a problem if the medical evidence should prove that he COULDN'T have seen Eddowes and her killer. I would have more of a problem with the ramifications on the police evidence.

I should think that the timings we currently have on the discovery of the body are absolute and immovable. I really see no reason to pay attention to estimated times of death, because they are in now way hard scienece, and in the case of Eddowes, we already have a strong general idea of when she was murdered, and what we're talking about here is a matter of 'Did it take 5 minutes?' or 'Did it take 15 minutes'?

Considering Monty's vast knowledge of the timings and movements in Mitre Square ( I need to re-read Gareth's article, thanks for the reminder!), it would be beneficial if he and Trev could call a truce and we could get some further insight on exactly whose evidence would be effected if we were to extend the killer's time with Eddowes back say 5, 10, or more minutes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom
You raise some valid points but as far as the removal of the organs are concerned we know as it stands the killer only had 9 minutes to walk knto the square kill mutilate and allegedly remove the organs.

I am, and have looked at the other scenarios thats why i set out to prove or disporove them

As it current stands the modern day medical eveidnce suggests that 9 mins would not be enough time.

That being said the other issue is even if that time were extended would the killer have been able to remove the organs with some precison given the lighting, the conditon of the body and the degree of difficulty. The modern day medical evidence says no.

Dr Phillips when discussing the removal of the uterus from Chapman suggests a time span much greater than 9 minutes I belive he mentions from 15 mins up to 45 mins and thats just for one organ if you include a kidney amost double the time with the degree of difficulty.

Looking at the apron piece if you negate the suggestion that the organs were removed by the killer the apron piece is ruled out of being used to take away the organs. So that limits it to two other suggestion wiping hands or knife.

Looking at this again sensibly if it were taken for either of those purposes why would he retain it for up to 12 mins before disposing of it it woulndt have taken him that long to wipe his hands or a knife and besides he could have donne either at the sene on her clothing before he left.

[Tom_Wescott]

Fair enough PROVIDED it were not deposited near by and taken up later. An important codicil.

At any rate, this is why I cannot be wholly satisfied with ANY currently existing scenario.

Again, we're discussing a possibility that really isn't plausible, that being that DC Halse would find the apron, secret it about himself, and plant it in Goulston Street. You're offering this scenario seemingly based on nothing, whereas it's certainly more plausible that the person who killed Eddowes was the person who cut the apron and therefore the person who deposited it where found. That's a plausible, satisfying scenario. I sometimes get the impression that you (and others) are intentionally arguing against the plausible just for the sake of doing so.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fleetwood Mac]

3. Lawende stated " we left there (Imperial Club) at 5 mins past half past one"
he said he SAW Eddowes.

Phil,

It's rarely mentioned, but Levy said they waited for a few minutes after the clock struck 1.30, which would make their arrival at the corner 1.38/1.39. If true, and I suppose it's 50/50, then that would mean Lawende's man wasn't Jack.

Also, I can't remember which one, but the doctor states his arrival at the scene at 1.55. I personally would trust a doctor to have the time right.

Which means if Watkins is correct on timing at 1.44, then it took 11 minutes to run around a bit, stand and stare, fetch the doctor from Jewry Street (think it was Sequiera). 11 minutes sounds about right to me.

4. Sequiera stated that Eddowes had not been dead more than 15mins when he examined her at around 2 o'clock. (He was called on at 5 to 2)

Both doctors had the earliest time of death at 1.40 with a mid point being around 1.47.

The evidence fits if you believe it took around 4 minutes for the lot, but he must have been very close to the police coming to the scene, perhaps he slipped into a doorway as they ran past.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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]

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