Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Ally]

I wanted to do a poll because I wanted to find out what people actually thought about the idea that someone other than Eddowes' killer cut and discarded the apron. I have left out the words "Jack the Ripper" to head-off any possibility of discussion as to whether "Jack the Ripper"existed or not, whether he killed her or not, etc. Now I realize there is a logic-impaired lunatic fringe out there who will argue anything against the common perception, just to have the thrill of bucking the crowd, but I truly wanted to know whether there was anyone rational out there who had a coherent argument for the (IMO) completely irrational idea that Eddowes herself cut and discarded the apron.

I have yet to hear a coherent rationale for this belief (and it is my opinion that it is held by only 3-4 people) but I would be interested in the debate nonetheless, if there is in fact someone out there other than the "grass is blue, sky is green" set who holds this belief.

[Cogidubnus]

Well I voted conventionally. Don't understand what possible rationale there is to believe otherwise...

Dave

[Bridewell]

Well I voted conventionally. Don't understand what possible rationale there is to believe otherwise...

Dave

So have I. My money is on the red line going round the block before the other two amass two votes between them.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Ally]

I don't understand the rationale either, which is the purpose of this thread. I would dearly love to know what LOGICAL evidence there is, in any form, in any way to even suggest this as a viable scenario. It seems, to me anyway, to fly in the face of even basic common sense. But again, maybe there is something I am missing.

[Bridewell]

I've just noticed that, according to The Ultimate, Dc Halse went to Mitre Square in the company of Dc Marriott. Does he get an extra vote as an eye-witness?

[Sally]

The kiler cut the apron. Other explanations (that I have seen) are counterintuitive in my view.

[lynn cates]

complex question--move to divide

Hello Ally. This is a good idea for a poll. Unfortunately, I cannot vote for the wording implies what a logician calls a "complex question." It asks "who cut AND discarded the apron piece." That assumes that they are the same person.

I am quite happy to have Kate's assailant attempting to duplicate what had happened to Annie and, tyro that he was, botch the job and cut a piece of apron to clean up. What BOTHERS me is that it was found where it was.

By rights, he should be walking quickly from Mitre Square and wiping his hands equally quickly. When finished--one or two minutes later--he should have discarded it. I would prefer just outside of St. James passage (I think that was Gareth's preferred exit); or, Mitre street (as per Gavin Bromley). Could even be just outside of Church passage had the killer found a way to keep from tripping over PC Harvey.

But Goulston street? I have, sadly, neither firm beliefs nor clever ideas about the depositor.

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Hi Lynn,

Ah but I did not say discarded it AT GOULSTON STREET. I said discarded it. He could have discarded it anywhere, even at the scene, immediately after cutting it. He clearly did not keep it forever, ergo, he must have discarded it at some point, somewhere.

Lawyered.


P.S. In reading over my reply, I have come to the conclusion that discarded is a very awkward word.

[lynn cates]

wrong assumption

Hello Ally. You see, I ASSUMED your meaning. I must have assumed wrong. Very well, now I may vote--but reserve the right to renege AFTER Trevor's presentation. (Hope it's good.)

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

LOL...I am not holding out much hope. When questioned by me on the podcast about these issues, Trevor had some confusion with the facts. He apparently did not remember that Eddowes was in possession of two handkerchiefs on her person (in addition to the rags in her bag for the stated purpose) that she could have used for his proposed purpose and in addition when it was pointed out that even if her bag had been taken (which seems unlikely given the inquest testimony) she could have asked the police for one of her rags, to which he replied that based on police procedure she probably hadn't been able to communicate with the police during her lockup, which is directly contradicted by the testimony of the officer who said he spoke to her a couple of times during her lock up.

So basically it's a full bunch of nonsense. Even if her bag was taken, she had two handkerchiefs on her person. Based on inquest testimony, it's highly unlikely her bag was taken.

The officers who stated that the apron appeared to match the one the deceased was wearing made no mention of the fact that it was torn when she left, and considering that the apron piece was being used as proof of the murderer's route, you'd think that it would be something they would have mentioned.

In short, it's about the biggest cockamamie theory I've ever heard, and makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

[Monty]

LOL...I am not holding out much hope. When questioned by me on the podcast about these issues, Trevor had some confusion with the facts. He apparently did not remember that Eddowes was in possession of two handkerchiefs on her person (in addition to the rags in her bag for the stated purpose) that she could have used for his proposed purpose and in addition when it was pointed out that even if her bag had been taken (which seems unlikely given the inquest testimony) she could have asked the police for one of her rags, to which he replied that based on police procedure she probably hadn't been able to communicate with the police during her lockup, which is directly contradicted by the testimony of the officer who said he spoke to her a couple of times during her lock up.

So basically it's a full bunch of nonsense. Even if her bag was taken, she had two handkerchiefs on her person. Based on inquest testimony, it's highly unlikely her bag was taken.

The officers who stated that the apron appeared to match the one the deceased was wearing made no mention of the fact that it was torn when she left, and considering that the apron piece was being used as proof of the murderer's route, you'd think that it would be something they would have mentioned.

In short, it's about the biggest cockamamie theory I've ever heard, and makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever.

Hutt, as Gaoler, checked upon those held in the cells. He then reported to the Inspector or Station Sergeant (Byfield) on the condition and they would make the call on release or charge.

I think Hutt checked every half hour, if memory serves correct.

Women were often used to tend to female prisoners. Usually the Station house had female Housekeepers who were utilised for this duty. I must stress, this wasn't the case in every station however the orders show Bishopsgate (where Eddowes was held) did have a female Housekeeper and cook around that period.

Monty

[Ally]

Oh don't be silly, Monty. Everyone knows that female prisoners were dropped in deep dark holes where they had no contact with any of the officers except for when they came by to wiz on them (and then they were too afraid to open their mouths).

[Monty]

Oh don't be silly, Monty. Everyone knows that female prisoners were dropped in deep dark holes where they had no contact with any of the officers except for when they came by to wiz on them (and then they were too afraid to open their mouths).

You've been reading somebodys book again haven't you Ryder?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Ally. You see, I ASSUMED your meaning. I must have assumed wrong. Very well, now I may vote--but reserve the right to renege AFTER Trevor's presentation. (Hope it's good.)

Cheers.
LC

rest asured it will be

[Trevor Marriott]

You've been reading somebodys book again haven't you Ryder?

Monty

Has she learnt to read now ?