The Apron Again

[Supe]

Neil,

Its what's driving the serious study of this case backwards and deeper into the sewer of untruth and falsity. No wonder we are regarded as cranks.

I quite agree. Unfortunately, Gresham's Law -- that bad money drives out good money -- also applies to currency of the mind and bad ideas drive out good ones.

Don.

[Monty]

Hi Simon,

The one that doesn't involve phantom knives on Kellys table, dogs taking evidence from the scene of crimes, unfounded accusations of police skullduggery and twisting of testimony to fit ones own agenda.

Cue Wormtongue.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Simon,

just another point that indicates what we have been told does not add up, how long will it be before ALL the things that are put down to co-incidence, mis-reporting and defence of the "way we are told" without getting the old cop out thrown at those that do question the official evidence actually gets questioned with open eyes and not get "conspiracist" launched from fencesitters who dare not contemplate that LIES may have been told all through the Eddowes story? Some people wont see it because it would throw many years of "sensible" "guided" presented study down the drain. Shame. I'd rather keep my eyes open to the reality- something. And I dont know what- was driving this along. And a few people in the know knew it too.
I wonder sometimes if some today actually know?Thanks for showing another example of why the "safe" option of believing everxthing we are told rhould be questioned. The Mitre Square story is all wrong. Its that simple.

Kindly

Phil

Generally speaking, I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories re any subject.

I tend to think that most people play by the book, and actually most people have their own politicial and social costs/consequences to attend to, and such costs tend to keep people tied up.

But, I feel there is always room for one or two individuals being a touch creative with a situation.

Happens all the time: a few ethically loose accountants, doctors etc.

So, I'd go with the possibility that the apron was put there by someone else. It follows from what I've said that I wouldn't go with a mass cover up but more one or two people who felt it expedient to place the apron in the dwellings. I wouldn't go with anything particularly sinister, such as police involvement in the murders, but I could go with it being placed their to deflect responsibility from the City Police to The Met. People have done far worse in order to manage the personal cost.

I don't think this idea is in the realms of fantasy, but it certainly does lack evidence.

Edited to add: having said this, it would surely make Watkins at least an accomplice. So, we're getting into the realms of mass cover up, and I'm not a fan of that sort of thinking.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

What reality would that be?

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Some cannot accept the reality, they need the fantasy.

Its what's driving the serious study of this case backwards and deeper into the sewer of untruth and falsity. No wonder we are regarded as cranks.

All in the name of the victims.

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

time

Hi All,

At what time did Dr. Brown fit the missing piece of apron "which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body"?

Eddowes was stripped upon her arrival at Golden Lane mortuary [3.15 - 3.30 am?], yet almost two hours later when Dr. Brown left the mortuary at 5.20 pm, Dr. Phillips, who had taken possession of the missing piece of apron at Leman Street police station, had yet to arrive [Lloyds Weekly News, 30th September].

Regards,

Simon

Hello Simon,

just another point that indicates what we have been told does not add up, how long will it be before ALL the things that are put down to co-incidence, mis-reporting and defence of the "way we are told" without getting the old cop out thrown at those that do question the official evidence actually gets questioned with open eyes and not get "conspiracist" launched from fencesitters who dare not contemplate that LIES may have been told all through the Eddowes story? Some people wont see it because it would throw many years of "sensible" "guided" presented study down the drain. Shame. I'd rather keep my eyes open to the reality- something. And I dont know what- was driving this along. And a few people in the know knew it too.
I wonder sometimes if some today actually know?Thanks for showing another example of why the "safe" option of believing everxthing we are told rhould be questioned. The Mitre Square story is all wrong. Its that simple.

Kindly

Phil

[lynn cates]

time & place

Hello David. As I say, I make no claims about dogs taking apron pieces. My point is that a dog could get the piece and yet not disturb the body. Again, this would happen only if the apron were a few feet/yards away and were noticed by the dog--or other animal--before discovering the body.

On the other hand, if we assume the killer deposited it at Goulston st, then we may wish to account for the intervening time and distance.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hummm...aaarfff....mouais....je crois pas...

Hi Lynn

possible....yes. But highly unlikely (understatement). I'm an incorrible conservative who is still of opinion that JtR killed twice that night, chalked the graffito and laid the piece of apron where it has been found.

Slainte ! (suis dans ma période scotch)

[lynn cates]

reproduction

Hello David.

"I'm afraid it's extremely unlikely, if not ridiculous. A dog would have disturbed the CS."

Although I make no claims about dogs with regard to the apron piece, I think it possible that a dog could take the piece and yet not come close to Kate's body. This would depend upon the its being sufficiently far from the body. I suppose that would entail some few yards.

And the best way to ascertain tdistance, I think, would be to reproduce certain parts of the slaying (without a real victim, of course).

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Aaaargh.....

The only thing I chew is fresh and green awoday khat, when I'm in Ethiopia. It's far better, trust me.

Cheers !

[Rubyretro]

....as piece of apron, it would have chewed it....etc etc.

Thank goodness that it wasn't chewed ! We'd have people speculating that it
had been chewed by JTR, and trying to read things into the particular dentition in the photos of Monty or Le Grand...

[DVV]

Hi Chava

It's not unlikely Ruby. On the contrary, it's highly likely.

I'm afraid it's extremely unlikely, if not ridiculous. A dog would have disturbed the CS. It would rather have taken away the piece of intestine....as for the piece of apron, it would have chewed it....etc etc.

Beurk !

Amitiés !

[lynn cates]

Lpt

Hello Greg.

"Understood Lynn, but again, the floodgates may have been open after she just "went" 10 minutes earlier."

Och! I know that feeling.

"I agree with you here Lynn, although others have suggested it, I don’t think the Victorians indulged in the sordid vices of our contemporaries."

Thanks. I think this was largely an overactive male fantasy on the part of some ripper students.

"I also agree that your peeing thesis, which I’ll henceforward call Lynn’s Peeing Thesis or LPT, causes a raised eyebrow or two."

Thanks again. Wonder if it will attain the heights of the GSG? (heh-heh)

"What intrigues me about LPT is the question of where the liquid came from.

Did Kate drink some water in jail?
Did she drink some water after her release?
Did she acquire a pint or two or a glass of gin or two and if so, how did she pay?"

What about the mass quantities consumed earlier that day in the pub? I've always wondered whom was buying.

"Did she in fact meet Sailor man in a pub where he bought her a couple of drinks in exchange for a later slam dance in the corner of Mitre Square?"

Close, I'd say. I think her "friend" knew the laws of the City of London--concerning release of a public intoxication--and wished to have Kate kept "fresh" whilst he awaited an opportunity.

"Again, the possibilities are endless but such ideas are what most interests me about LPT. I daresay you should have used LPT in your original dissertation."

OK. Umm? At least, it is not confused with LVP.

"I'm not quite there yet Lynn yet somehow I feel your pain..."

Then hie thee hither to the WC. We can meet and discuss the apron and GSG.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Peeing or fleeing?

Try imagining that sequence in a prostitute's trysting pattern. If Kate did that first, then she could have gone about her soliciting. But she did not.

Understood Lynn, but again, the floodgates may have been open after she just "went" 10 minutes earlier.

Indeed. But you are interjecting 21st c prostitutes into the 19th c.

I agree with you here Lynn, although others have suggested it, I don’t think the Victorians indulged in the sordid vices of our contemporaries.

But I agree with you that this is only one of many items that cause the eyebrows to raise.

I also agree that your peeing thesis, which I’ll henceforward call Lynn’s Peeing Thesis or LPT, causes a raised eyebrow or two.

What intrigues me about LPT is the question of where the liquid came from.

Did Kate drink some water in jail?
Did she drink some water after her release?
Did she acquire a pint or two or a glass of gin or two and if so, how did she pay?

Did she in fact meet Sailor man in a pub where he bought her a couple of drinks in exchange for a later slam dance in the corner of Mitre Square?

Again, the possibilities are endless but such ideas are what most interests me about LPT. I daresay you should have used LPT in your original dissertation.

No need to apologise. After all, it's a very important topic for people my age . . . (heh-heh)

I'm not quite there yet Lynn yet somehow I feel your pain...


Greg

[lynn cates]

pain, articles, etc

Hello Ruby.

"Lynn -you are pretending to feel like Kate"

Pretending? Oh no. It's like the American President Bill Clinton once said, "I feel your pain."

"Maybe neither of us can 'be' Kate?"

Indeed. But we can understand a distended bladder and "priorities."

"As much as I can empathise with the victims, being a vulnerable woman, it is more productive to focus on the mentality of the killer rather than the bladder contents of his poor victims?"

But how shall we do that? For example, I notice you use the definite article for the assailant. Why is that?

Cheers.
LC