Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[lynn cates]

alles gute

Hello Trevor. Thanks. In which case, good luck.

Cheers.
LC

[Ally]

Has she learnt to read now ?

Better than you apparently, at least when it comes to inquest reports and you know, the actual facts of the case.

And won't it be delightful to have me there, making sure you don't stretch those facts? Rest assured, I will have NUMEROUS questions I am sure you will have ready answers to.

I know a man with your rigorous determination to ferret out the truth will welcome it. Your answers in the past notwithstanding.

[Monty]

Has she learnt to read now ?

rest asured it will be

Clearly.

Just as you have learnt to spell.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly.

Just as you have learnt to spell.

Monty

It wouldnt be right for us all to be perfect like you

[Trevor Marriott]

Better than you apparently, at least when it comes to inquest reports and you know, the actual facts of the case.

And won't it be delightful to have me there, making sure you don't stretch those facts? Rest assured, I will have NUMEROUS questions I am sure you will have ready answers to.

I know a man with your rigorous determination to ferret out the truth will welcome it. Your answers in the past notwithstanding.

Oh yes I am looking forward to meeting many people face to face that I have not met before you and Monty are on my list for the first two dances

[Monty]

Oh yes I am looking forward to meeting many people face to face that I have not met before you and Monty are on my list for the first two dances

I'm afraid I've been taken Trevor, as you know.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Monty;228903]I'm afraid I've been taken Trevor, as you know.

Monty
[/QUOT

Well i hope you have been practising the right steps.

If you need expert help you only have to ask you know my motto satisfaction guaranteed or you get a full refund.

[Ally]

As amusing as it is to watch you wag your willy about and attempt to play big boy, the facts are these: you invented a completely dumbass "theory" concocted out of thin air and didn't bother to check the facts of the case first, which would have easily disproved your case as complete nonsense.

And rather than just being a man and admitting that it doesn't hold water, you have to keep digging yourself in like a foolish old man, desperate for one last "dance" on the stage, who can't just admit he made an error.

It does always seem to be the arrogance of age that thinks they can compete with the vigorous thrust of youth. It's too bad they don't make little blue pills for the brain as well.

So here are the facts: Catherine Eddowes was in possession of several articles that she would have used before cutting up a valuable article of clothing like her apron. The inquest STATES CLEARLY that they did not thoroughly search drunks before locking them up, only removing dangerous items, which would NOT include her handkerchiefs.

She didn't cut up her apron. You look like an idiot for even attempting to hang on to this one. Quit gyrating your wrinkled old butt and waving your tattered old g-string and leave the dance to those who have the moves for it.


My sincere apologies for the image that may have conjured in anyone's head. But frankly, now it's in mine and why should I have to suffer alone so I am not deleting it.

[Trevor Marriott]

As amusing as it is to watch you wag your willy about and attempt to play big boy, the facts are these: you invented a completely dumbass "theory" concocted out of thin air and didn't bother to check the facts of the case first, which would have easily disproved your case as complete nonsense.

And rather than just being a man and admitting that it doesn't hold water, you have to keep digging yourself in like a foolish old man, desperate for one last "dance" on the stage, who can't just admit he made an error.

It does always seem to be the arrogance of age that thinks they can compete with the vigorous thrust of youth. It's too bad they don't make little blue pills for the brain as well.

So here are the facts: Catherine Eddowes was in possession of several articles that she would have used before cutting up a valuable article of clothing like her apron. The inquest STATES CLEARLY that they did not thoroughly search drunks before locking them up, only removing dangerous items, which would NOT include her handkerchiefs.

She didn't cut up her apron. You look like an idiot for even attempting to hang on to this one. Quit gyrating your wrinkled old butt and waving your tattered old g-string and leave the dance to those who have the moves for it.


My sincere apologies for the image that may have conjured in anyone's head. But frankly, now it's in mine and why should I have to suffer alone so I am not deleting it.

I see you are full of compliments yet again. I bet your teeth are happy when you are asleep.

Play at big boy wag my willy about hmmmmmmmmmm well you wouldnt want it as a wart on the end of your nose !

As to having a wrinkled butt definatley not the case ! My G string is far from tattered. At least I can get into one I would suspect you might need swish curtain.

Oh I wish York was this week I cannot wait my sword is sharp and my noble steed ready let the battle commence to the victor the spoils

[Fleetwood Mac]

Oh I wish York was this week I cannot wait my sword is sharp and my noble steed ready let the battle commence to the victor the spoils

The presentation will do, Trev. Not so sure the Ripper enthusiasts are overly concerned with Richard the Lionheart and assorted Battle of the Roses trips down memory lane.

I think it very likely that the killer cut the apron.

I think it probable, but less so, that the killer transported the apron.

Perhaps he was out of his mind and simply got up and walked down the street with blood, excrement etc all over his hands. Perhaps he did not wipe, nor care for wiping, anything.

[Bridewell]

No Vote?

Good Morning, Trevor,

You've posted six times on this thread, but the poll score remains 17 - 0 - 0.
Does this mean:
(a) That you've changed your mind about how the apron piece got to be where it was found?
(b) That you're still undecided?
(c) That you've abstained?
(d) That you hit the wrong button by mistake?

Perplexed, Bridewell.

[Monty]

I see you are full of compliments yet again. I bet your teeth are happy when you are asleep.

Play at big boy wag my willy about hmmmmmmmmmm well you wouldnt want it as a wart on the end of your nose !

As to having a wrinkled butt definatley not the case ! My G string is far from tattered. At least I can get into one I would suspect you might need swish curtain.

Oh I wish York was this week I cannot wait my sword is sharp and my noble steed ready let the battle commence to the victor the spoils

I, For one, have better things to do.

Besides, I promised to be a good boy.

If its anything like lasts weeks talk, I tell you, you need more than a table knife and a pot bellied nag.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

The actual reason for this thread has been clearly made. 'lunatic fringe' baiting.
let us see shall we?

Question: Who cut and disposed of Eddowes apron?

The Killer? (note the capital K)
or
Eddowes, herself
or
Other (reason below)

Answer from this poster: Other
Reasons:

1) I don't KNOW.
2) NOBODY KNOWS. Opine? Yes. KNOW? No.
3) There is no evidence to PROVE the killer transported the apon piece, only assumption based on opined likelyhood, not factual proof.
4) There is no evidence to rule out an accomplice.
5) There is POSSIBLE evidence to consider an accomplice.
(After the Kelly murder, according to the police and a doctor in his C5 list to Anderson, the killer of MJK and Eddowes were one and the same. The reward statement given by the Home Office after the Kelly murder INCLUDE a possibility of an accomplice. If this was just in conjunction with the Kelly murder it indicates 2 two different murderers- one who acted alone and one who way have acted with an accomplice. So if the killer may have had an accomplice for MJK- be he the same man- he may have had an accomplice murdering Eddowes. We do not know the specific reason for the nature of the wording in the reward statement- so we cannot rule out any reason)
6) The only known persons stopped by any known policeman were the TWO people said by Halse to have been both seen and stopped, and cleared, without any known particulars taken. Contrary to known police procedure we have no record that the ONLY people ever seen NEAR the murder site, walking in the general area of the graffito, were never escorted to a station. Therefore it is possible they dumped the apron piece at some time after 2.20am. This cannot be ruled out as we hear of no other person on the streets in the vicinity of the graffito. They were stopped BEFORE Halse didnt see the apron piece at about 2.20am,
7) There is nothing to link the chalk writing to the killer, thereby downgrading the reason the ASSUMED reasoning by the police the importance of said chalk writing. If the writing WASNT made by the killer, the dumping of the apron piece is less likely to have any direct link to it.
8) There is reason to leave the option of Eddowes herself dumping the rag. She left the police station with ample time to have walked via Gouston St to (if Lawende be correct) the top of Church Passage. Why? Dont know. Nobody can say she didnt take that or any other route in those 30mins. Could she have used the piece herself? Possible. But unknown.
9) We have NO evidence the killer walked to Goulston St. IF he had an accomplice, the killer would not have to walk that way, leaving the accomplice to dump the rag.
10) Because of lack of official papers, we have only been fed the assumption of the police that the killer dumped it. The SAME police that assumed the writing was connected to the murder.

So my answer is Other- reason- I don't know. Anybody that states 'the killer' or 'Eddowes' is either guessing or assuming without evidential proof because an accomplice simply cannot be ruled out either, and nobody knows or can guess with any certainty Eddowes movements from 00.05 to 00.35 either. I will not spoil those oh so indicative stats. (a harmless quip)

There. All done without insulting any poster or their views, or their theories.
Fine if disagreed with- but I reserve the right to use the marginalia response about the ID AT A Seaside Home. You cant PROVE it didnt happen that way.

When arguing against the above, do use PROOF and not assumption. Likelyhood isnt proof, however strong. It is at best evidential likelyhood. That proves nothing at all.

Prove the killer dumped it or
Prove Eddowes dumped it or
Prove A N Other dumped it.

Otherwise? Nobody KNOWS ' who dumped and discarded the apron piece.'

Semantics? Thats a matter of opinion, much like, I opine, the true value of the vote.
'who, in your opinion, dumped the...' is something of literal difference.

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Otherwise? Nobody KNOWS ' who dumped and discarded the apron piece.'

Semantics? Thats a matter of opinion, much like, I opine, the true value of the vote.

Phil

Phil,

I can't agree.

No one can say with 100% certainty; in the same vein no one can say with 100% certainty that gravity will not cease to exist tomorrow.

It does not follow that we simply "don't know" and it's up for grabs.

The reason being that the killer was at the scene with the victim, armed with a knife. He is the one person who set about Eddowes with a knife. In the absence of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, it would seem that the man with a knife who attacked the victim cut the apron and made off with it.

This position of "we can't prove it" is futile. Of course we can't prove it; we can't prove many things in connection with this case; we can say what is highly likely based on inquest testimony and the few facts we have avilable to us etc.

I think there is a small window of opportunity to say that the apron was transported by the police out of survival instinct, but this is not akin to we "don't know". It is a hunch for want of a better term; moreover, it is unlikely when considering the few facts we have available to us.

In the absence of dramatic new evidence hitherto unseen, I'm afraid the reasonable assumption is that the killer cut and transported the apron.

There may appear to be some oddities surrounding this: if for organ transportation then why stop to throw away the apron and put the organ in your pocket; if for wiping hands/knife then why not at the scene etc. In all likelihood, however, there will be a very simple explanation driven by Jack's state of mind and his way of doing things.

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

I can't agree.

No one can say with 100% certainty; in the same vein no one can say with 100% certainty that gravity will not cease to exist tomorrow.

It does not follow that we simply "don't know" and it's up for grabs.

The reason being that the killer was at the scene with the victim, armed with a knife. He is the one person who set about Eddowes with a knife. In the absence of any reasonable evidence to the contrary, it would seem that the man with a knife who attacked the victim cut the apron and made off with it.

This position of "we can't prove it" is futile. Of course we can't prove it; we can't prove many things in connection with this case; we can say what is highly likely based on inquest testimony and the few facts we have avilable to us etc.



I think there is a small window of opportunity to say that the apron was transported by the police out of survival instinct, but this is not akin to we "don't know". It is a hunch for want of a better term; moreover, it is unlikely when considering the few facts we have available to us.

In the absence of dramatic new evidence hitherto unseen, I'm afraid the reasonable assumption is that the killer cut and transported the apron.

There may appear to be some oddities surrounding this: if for organ transportation then why stop to throw away the apron and put the organ in your pocket; if for wiping hands/knife then why not at the scene etc. In all likelihood, however, there will be a very simple explanation driven by Jack's state of mind and his way of doing things.

Hello FM,

i have absolutely no argument with your views. It IS reasonable, per se, to use a likely scenario. Yes.
But, there is a wimdow that allows for an accomplice based on that reward wording IF the killer of Kelly was the same as Eddowes. Something told the police (we know not what) that an accomplice may have been involved. Ipso facto.. Eddowes' demise may have been the same premiss. We dont know.

As regards that futile argument- I agree! But when I put that very point forward I was told it was 'up to you to prove it didnt happen' re the marginalia.
Whats good for the goose.
But yes, I agree- its futile.

hope you are well? Ages since we discussed!

Best wishes

Phil