The Apron Again

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[lynn cates]

coherence

Hello Tom.

"I for one would not want to accuse Harvey, Watkins, or any other witness of lying without damn good reason."

Hear, hear. Let's suspend judgment until the facts are made to cohere.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

cut

Hello Trevor.

"I think you wil find it is possible to tear a piece off and if i am not mistaken the two pieces were matched and identified via a repair is that not significant"

I think Velma's point is that it was cut, not torn.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

middle class chap

Hello Tom.

"I don’t know what you mean. The point of taking the apron wasn’t to deposit it in a safe house, but for it to be as a ‘signature’ for the graffiti."

I can live with that. But then that cries loudly, "Implication of the Jews."

"Our killer had no reason to fear being discovered or searched."

But how can he rule out a search? Suppose he were discovered whilst writing the graffito? Suddenly, a lantern is opened and a gruff voice from some dark spot commands, "'Ere now. You there! What d'yer think yer doin'?"

"This much is obvious by the appearance of the graffiti and apron so long after the murder. He HAD to have gone somewhere in between."

Clearly--if it were the selfsame person. But if the point is to call attention to the grafitto, surely the site was chosen? And does that not mean to imply someone or ones, in Goulston st? But then it need not have been the murderer with such an axe to grind (oops! sorry!).

"Our options are that he roamed the streets unseen or that he had a nearby safehouse (or bolthole as some call it)."

Or were 2 different people.

"That’s bourgeous thinking, Lynn."

Simply because I'm an old bourgeois chap. (heh-heh)

"Our killer would in no way be disgusted by the feces of his victim any more than he would have been disgusted by the numerous other bodily fluids he got on himself."

How do we know that? In my view, he was a first timer--perhaps an only timer. But, if you like, omit the grimace.

"And he would have prepared as much for the clean-up as he would have the kill.'

Again, not sure how we know this.

"The apron was not taken for clean up, as you yourself have indicated by virtue of the fact that the apron is not where one might expect it to be if used for such a purpose."

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.

Cheers.
LC

[Rob Clack]

Rob
I was refering to Fosters map if the killer could have taken either of those routes to Goulston Street then Eddowes could have reversed these routes back to Mitre Square. Of course she could have made her way from Bishopsgate PS to Flower and Dean Street and then in any one of a number of directions back to Mire Square via Goulston Street

Clearly your map shows it would have been easy to take short cuts from Flower and dean St across to Mitre Square

Trevor,

Catherine Eddowes turned left out of Bishopsgate Police Station, so it is very unlikely she was heading towards Flower and Dean Street. She was more than likely heading back towards Aldgate.
It is therefore extremely unlikely that she went to Goulston Street after leaving Bishopsgate Street.

Rob
Rob

[Tom_Wescott]

To Phil Carter

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,
I applaud your taking the time and effort to seek new solutions. You are to be commended for challenging the old ideas and status quo. Those are good things.

I would be embracing your theory if it made any sense to me.

However, there are too many areas where it simply does not appear to be anywhere near plausible or to make sense.

Perhaps it is understandable that you defend "your baby" but, against all logic? really?

I really need to know how you propose that Eddowes managed to cut her apron. Where is there any suggestion that she possessed anything that would cut the material of the garment?

Without her being able to cut the material, your theory can not even get started.

curious

I think you wil find it is possible to tear a piece off and if i am not mistaken the two pieces were matched and identified via a repair is that not significant

[curious]

[B]Well someone came up with these ideas in the last 123 years and it wasnt anyone conncted to the investigation. So why shouldnt someone challenge these theories becasue they clearly dont stand up to close scrutiny/B]

Trevor,
I applaud your taking the time and effort to seek new solutions. You are to be commended for challenging the old ideas and status quo. Those are good things.

I would be embracing your theory if it made any sense to me.

However, there are too many areas where it simply does not appear to be anywhere near plausible or to make sense.

Perhaps it is understandable that you defend "your baby" but, against all logic? really?

I really need to know how you propose that Eddowes managed to cut her apron. Where is there any suggestion that she possessed anything that would cut the material of the garment?

Without her being able to cut the material, your theory can not even get started.

curious

[lynn cates]

contention

Hello Velma. Yes, I believe so. That's why I have contended that Kate had items on her mind other than a trip to Mitre sq for loose change.

cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

You absolute hypocrite Trevor,

These forums are dotted with your abuse so preaching to me smacks of double standards.

I save my venom for those who bite others as well as myself. You get cute with me, I WILL respond.

Back to the matter in hand, how did you draw a comparative conclusion on something you've never seen?

Browns description, Christ I'm tired of typing this, corresponds with wiping. So your conclusion is mere suggestion, not fact.

Go ask Stewart Evans, a man with more years experience in the subject and policework, what he thinks of your theory. Go ask Don too. I do not see them exstalling your theory.

The only reason you are portraying me as the Ogre here is because I am not gulible and have the balls not to follow your myth blindly. The reasons why these theories have stood the test of time is because they are sound. You change the focus on to me because you are so desperate to hold on to your lame theories and suppositions. Not once have you acknowledged the flaws in those theories.

I feel sorry for others who come here also. Because they are bombarded with falsity and theory portrayed as fact. You are accused of peddling myth and support your ideas with...well, with nothing really.

The standard of Ripperology here, on these forums, has dropped drastically. We do not hear from good solid researchers anymore. Chris Scott, Debra Arif, Mark Ripper, John Bennett and so on hardly post. Big names such as Stewart, Martin and Paul only appear once in a blue moon. All we have left are a handfull of good researchers and a bagfull of uninformed, arrogant ar$es who like the sound of their own voices.

We are going backwards, McCormickesque, and rapidly.

Monty

I notice how you always evade answering the questions which really blow your argumenst out of the water.

The tests carried out are the nearest we are ever going to get to proving or disproving some of these so called accepted theories.

You refer to Dr Brown is this the same Dr Brown who attened the crime scene and failed to ascertain whether organs had been removed by the killer, having regard to the earlier murder of Chapman where it was suggested her utreus had been removed.

The same Dr Brown who described the apron piece as being spotted with blood (emphasis on spotted) big diffrenece to bloodstained and if you wipe a bloodstained knife you dont get spots you get a smearing or a stain where the knife is drawn across.

Having read all the medical evidence it would seem that although they may have been good medical men they were equally as good with guess work

[Tom_Wescott]

"I say safe because he did not anticipate problems with any police who might stop him, so no danger of the discovery of the apron."

I would agree if there were a safe house and the apron were deposited there. But is was not.

I don’t know what you mean. The point of taking the apron wasn’t to deposit it in a safe house, but for it to be as a ‘signature’ for the graffiti.

"This explains the time lapse, distance, his comfort in writing the graffiti without discovery (no blood on him), . . ."

But if he were discovered and searched, surely he would be found with a bloody apron piece? Would that not be enough to send him to the gallows?

You’re getting close. Our killer had no reason to fear being discovered or searched. This much is obvious by the appearance of the graffiti and apron so long after the murder. He HAD to have gone somewhere in between. Our options are that he roamed the streets unseen or that he had a nearby safehouse (or bolthole as some call it).

4. I inadvertently cut through a bit of the entrails and contaminate my hands.

5. I grimace in disgust.

6. I place the cut portion on the ground.

7. I cut a piece of apron for hand wiping.

That’s bourgeous thinking, Lynn. Our killer would in no way be disgusted by the feces of his victim any more than he would have been disgusted by the numerous other bodily fluids he got on himself. And he would have prepared as much for the clean-up as he would have the kill. The apron was not taken for clean up, as you yourself have indicated by virtue of the fact that the apron is not where one might expect it to be if used for such a purpose.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott