The Apron Again

[lynn cates]

not very likely

Hello Velma. The sad truth is, I find NONE of the scenarios likely.

New scenario time?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;199078]Rob,

Any chance you could provide Trevor with a map from his privvy to his lounge? he gets lost easily.

Well at least I do venture out you should try that now and again did you know that houses now have carpets in them with elctricity and central heating. But that will all be new to you

So Eddowes trod all the way to Gouldston Street to relieve herself when there was a toilet just a 30 second walk from Mitre Square and, after looking at Robs map, far closer that the Wentworth Dwellings.

You really amaze me yet again showing you naievety and ignorance you should try engaging yor brain before you rush to reply to my posts.

You mention the public convenience in Miter Square if she was making her way from Flowere and Dean St and wanted to go for a pee would she have waited til she got there after all do we know that is where she was intending to go. I doubdt she herslef knew she was just wandering obvioulsy looking for business.

The apron piece was wet we know that but it was never examined and ascertained what that wetness was. that is a fact. It was undercover so i doubt we can blame the weather. So you have to conside all possibilties not just those that suit your theory.


Who is the seasoned Murder Squad detective here? I mentioned that the bladder wasnt intact to point out that the apron could not have been soaked in urine at the scene. Its an arguement in favour of you theory. This despite me wearing blinkers huh? Geeze, you throw em a bone and they.....

The scene of the crime has nothing to do with the wetness of the apron piece if she was using it prior to her death and deposited before she got to Mitre Square.

Ah, I see why you are so desperate with your theory. No Trevor, I do not think the killer used the apron piece to carry or wrap up the organs.

Brown suggested that the apron was used to wipe the knife/hands as he said that. Being a Divisional Surgeon, of many years experience I add, I think he would be able to tell the difference between wiping smears and regular markings. Also being a Divisional Surgeon he is representing the force.

It tells me Brown was far better placed to make a judgement, having see the apron piece, than you, I or your little army of orange Ooompa - Marriotts ever will be.

Well if he were that experienced he would have know the difference between wiping hands and wiping a knife the results of each are different. Again the decscription of the apron piece is not consistent with either. That why I did tests to show the difference to prove or disprove these theories.

One picture is worth a thousand words.

And my army of orange ooooompa marriotts as you call them are winning the war. Every day the ranks are increasing with defectors from your side soon you wil be the only one left and you will be sad and lonely or have you reached that stage already.

[Trevor Marriott]

I don't know what map you've been looking at Trevor, but here's an 1891 map showing the quickest routes to Flower and Dean Street (green line) and Mitre Square (blue line) from Bishopsgate Police Station. When the apron was found is the red dot.

[ATTACH]13101[/ATTACH]

If your referring to Fosters drawing, than that shows two possible routes the killer could have taken from Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

Rob

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 Marriott]

Surgeon's tend to view surgical practices from the perspective of "do no harm", steady & slow.
This "cut-n-thrust" in the dark is perhaps beyond most modern surgeons ability to truely appreciate.

I had learned that rapid surgical techniques were first adopted out of necessity during the American Civil War. The British surgeon of the time would have been both horrified & out of his depth trying to replicate such practices.

Regards, Jon S.

Evem moder day surgeons adopting a cut and thrust approach would have difficulty in effecting the removals in this time. Look at how long Phillips said it would take him to effect a removal at the Chapman inquest.

Another point i keep mentioning which seems to fall on the deaf ears of some is if the motive was to murder and mutilate these women which clearly it was then are we expected to believe that after carrying out this frenzied attack our killer suddnely calms down composes himslef and effects these removal with some anatomical precsion.

If the other motive were to harvest organs then why would he inflict such abdominal wounds on the vistims thereby makimg it difficult to remove the organs and the liklihood that the mutilations would damage them.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

But didnt it match up to a previous repair so it could have been torn and besides remember her clothes were drawn up meaning the outer garment i.e the apron would have been the closet to her body making it hard for the killer to access it to cut it.

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.

Bit like your reply

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.

I wish some of your people when replying to posts would read the post correctly before posting a reply.

I am not suggesting that she used the rag after toileting. I am sugegsting that she alreday had the rag in place and then went in the archaway for a pee and as it had become wet and soiled discarded it.

So answer me why would the police have bothered checking the piece to see if the wetness was urine. They didnt come to any conclusion as to why it had been removed so to check for urine is a triviality in the scheme of things.

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.

See above answer.

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.

Well what does having an intact bladder have to do with whether she went for a pee prior to her death.

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.

[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]

[Monty]

Rob,

Any chance you could provide Trevor with a map from his privvy to his lounge? he gets lost easily.

Speaking of privvies.

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

No all. In the affluent West End yes, however in the squalor of the East End, the majority of public urinal (for both men and women) were free, this due to fear of epidemic diseases. These urinal were mostly akin to the pissiores of France, built on ground in ornate cast iron predominantly by a manufacturer from Glasgow.

Now this from the Weekly Herald 5th October 1888.

THE MITRE SQUARE CRIME.

Mitre Square is a sort of huge yard about 120 feet square, and there are three entrances to it, the principal being from Mitre Street; which is broad enough to accomodate two vehicles abreast. There is also a short, covered court, about 20 yards long, leading into St. James's Place, another square, popularly known as the "Orange Market," in the centre of which is a public convenience, a street fire station consisting simply of a waggon on wheels, and also a permanent street fire station in course of erection.

This public convenience was later replaced by a fancy underground structure in the early 20th century.

So Eddowes trod all the way to Gouldston Street to relieve herself when there was a toilet just a 30 second walk from Mitre Square and, after looking at Robs map, far closer that the Wentworth Dwellings.

It is a fact not misleading at all

No, its neither a fact nor non misleading. Its purely an interpration, your own interpretation.....neither fact or non misleading.

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

So we do not know now? Thought this was fact, the condition of the apron leads to the conclusion it was urinated on?

You now saying this isnt so? But....But.....but you said fact.

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.

Who is the seasoned Murder Squad detective here? I mentioned that the bladder wasnt intact to point out that the apron could not have been soaked in urine at the scene. Its an arguement in favour of you theory. This despite me wearing blinkers huh? Geeze, you throw em a bone and they.....

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

If he lived that way, and looking at the evidence from the previous murders it does hint at that, then its highly logical.

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 (sic) now doesnt that tell you and the other serious students something.

Ah, I see why you are so desperate with your theory. No Trevor, I do not think the killer used the apron piece to carry or wrap up the organs.

Brown suggested that the apron was used to wipe the knife/hands as he said that. Being a Divisional Surgeon, of many years experience I add, I think he would be able to tell the difference between wiping smears and regular markings. Also being a Divisional Surgeon he is representing the force.

It tells me Brown was far better placed to make a judgement, having see the apron piece, than you, I or your little army of orange Ooompa - Marriotts ever will be.

The rest of your post is a rant and irrelevant.

Monty

[Rob Clack]

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.

I don't know what map you've been looking at Trevor, but here's an 1891 map showing the quickest routes to Flower and Dean Street (green line) and Mitre Square (blue line) from Bishopsgate Police Station. When the apron was found is the red dot.



If your referring to Fosters drawing, than that shows two possible routes the killer could have taken from Mitre Square to Goulston Street.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Oh and Tom- if Sequiera is right that the body was only 15mins dead when HE arrived at about 2am, and Brown is right that death was caused by the first injury and that it would take at least 5 mins, then put those two expert medical statements together and it means the killer left the body at about 1,50am...

Even Browns outside estimate of t.o.d. At 1.48 would mean Watkins and Morris would have been on the spot when the murder occured.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

time

Hello Tom.

You said that if the timing was scrutinized by a greater number of medica experts and the concencus was indeed that the injuries could not be done in the alloted time, the whole time frame evidence would have to be scrapped.

Now although I am in total agreement with you about this, it should be pointed out that the effect is far greater, for example:-

1. If the time used is extended, and the extra time be added to the start of the time period, doing it after would compromise evidence given by another before the arrival of the medical men. (Gerge Morris, who stated " At a quarter to two Watkins knocked at my door" .

2. If it is time added earlier, then PC James Harvey's evidence is questioned. He stated " At 20 to 2 I went down Duke St and down Church Passage as far as Mitre Square. I saw no one. I heard no cry or noise...I was at the end of Church Passage about 18 or 19 mins to 2.
In addition to Watkins, whn both passed through Mitre Square at 1.30 and "about" 1.44.

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

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)

5.Brown arrived at 2.18 am. He stated that the perpetrator would have taken at least 5 mins. "the body had been there only a few mins" then " Certainly within 30-40mins"
That makes his estimated t.o.d. at between 1.38 and 1.48.

If the time used to kill Eddowes is increased, and added BEFORE 1,44, Sequiera is wrong, if added After 1,44, then Sequiera is wrong, Watkins is wrong and Morris ir wrong, if BEFORE, Harvey must have in all likelyhood have seen or heard something at 1,41 or 1,42, otherwise we are talking missing the murder by seconds, not mins,
that places both Watkins and Harvey very near the scene of the crime when it was comitted. .

Thats not crank talk either. So if it took more than 5mins- there are far more reaching effects that involve ALL THE TIMES given.. and the statements.

Best wishes

Phil

[Wickerman]

More to do with different levels of experience than idiocy Tom.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick and Don,

Well, I would hope to solicit the advice of medicos who weren't complete idiots. LOL.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Jon,

Good point. And something else for some to bear in mind is that five minutes is a much longer perios of time than we might reckon intuitively. Those who doubt that might benefit from sitting quietly for five minutes while a companion keeps silent track on a watch. It often seems an eternity.

Don.

[Wickerman]

Surgeon's tend to view surgical practices from the perspective of "do no harm", steady & slow.
This "cut-n-thrust" in the dark is perhaps beyond most modern surgeons ability to truely appreciate.

I had learned that rapid surgical techniques were first adopted out of necessity during the American Civil War. The British surgeon of the time would have been both horrified & out of his depth trying to replicate such practices.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Not sure, but I'm open to suggestions. I have never been satisfied with such a low estimate of time, but I was reminded of this recently when watching Trevor's documentary where two experts reviewed the evidence and one said it was medically impossible and the other intimated it was extremely unlikely. I know Trevor bashing is the order of the day, and that to show any level of interest with anything associated with his name could get you labeled a crank, but unless anyone has found reason to discredit his experts, I think what they say should be given some discussion and thought. More expert opinion would certainly be nice as well.

If more medical experts chimed in on this and came to some general consensus on how long it would have taken the killer in Mitre Square, then we'll be close to getting some answers. However, if the medical evidence conflicts with that of PC Watkins, then we'll have to conclude either that the medical community is wrong, or that Watkins was quite off in his timings.

Let me say that this would not be the same as suggesting PC Long was off in his evidence, as in that case, there's absolutely no evidence to conclude he had been mistaken or that he lied, whereas if hard science determines Watkins' evidence is in error, the Mitre Square timeline will have to be rewritten.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[curious]

The biggest problem I have with the accepted wisdom is the length of the time the killer spent 'working' on Kate. I'm not at all satisfied that 5 or 7 minutes would have done the trick

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

How do you see getting around that, Tom?