Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[Ally]

True. You know, I am getting really tired of this sort. There is nothing I hate more than hypocrisy and this branch of Ripperology completely reeks of it.

They say they want debate and information, but god forbid anyone actually provides rebuttal. Then it turns into a complete circus with them trumping up any fake bit of nonsense to prevent an actual discussion from taking place.

And then they claim "we" are the ones against progress in the field.

[PaulB]

My sentiments too, but I can only suppose that it's the difference between those who are genuinely interested in the subject and those who try to exploit it for reasons of their own. In fact, I don't really mind the latter as long as they've put the work in, but parading one's ignorance as if it was an art form, claiming the work of others as one's own, and challenging received wisdom (itself not a bad thing) simply to be provocative and controversial is unacceptable, especially when coupled with a clodhoppering approach to research which succeeds only in upsetting people.

[Tom_Wescott]

My sentiments too, but I can only suppose that it's the difference between those who are genuinely interested in the subject and those who try to exploit it for reasons of their own. In fact, I don't really mind the latter as long as they've put the work in, but parading one's ignorance as if it was an art form, claiming the work of others as one's own, and challenging received wisdom (itself not a bad thing) simply to be provocative and controversial is unacceptable, especially when coupled with a clodhoppering approach to research which succeeds only in upsetting people.

Why is this ringing so many bells with me? And why, as I read it, did I get a mental image of Raymond Burr prouncing around a court room?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[PaulB]

Why is this ringing so many bells with me? And why, as I read it, did I get a mental image of Raymond Burr prouncing around a court room?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Dunno, Tom. I can't imagine Perry Mason ever saying 'clodhoppering'! But maybe you've read me saying those things before.

[Michael W Richards]

Dunno, Tom. I can't imagine Perry Mason ever saying 'clodhoppering'! But maybe you've read me saying those things before.

Quite so Paul, seems thats likely an Okie colloquialism. Now theres something TW can claim with authority.

I wonder why some people think that continually kicking mud on someone somehow makes them shiny, clean and more credible. Like perrymason I like using the evidence and proving something before I name a culprit. But many feel the start to Ripperology is simply Who killed the 5 women, so its been acceptable to name almost anyone who lived in east London at the time as a result. No proof? No problem. Just exclude the data that suggests otherwise.

Cheers Paul,

Mike R

[Monty]

Hi Monty. Are you sure the logging and organization didn't occur after the double event?

And I was being silly about the one man and a costume. No flights of fantasy (isn't the term 'fancy?) here.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hey Tom,

This, a letter from St Judes VC, to The Daily News published 11th September 1888.


To the Editor of The Daily News

Sir,

Although it is hardly true to say that the inhabitants of Whitechapel are in a state of panic, yet no doubt excitement does exit, and the committee which I represent think that the present moment is advantageous for turning the feeling which has been aroused into action. They hope, therefore, that your kindness in publishing this letter may lead others to take steps to do what private citizens can do to better the state of our streets. A few days after the murder of the woman in George yard last month a meeting of about 70 men residing in the buildings in the immediate neighbourhood was held, and after discussion a committee of twelve was appointed to act as watchers, whose duties should be to observe the state of certain streets, chiefly between the hours of 11 and 1, and not only try to support the action of the police, when necessity arises, but also take careful note of disorderly houses and causes of disturbance. This committee has since met once a week to receive reports, which are carefully preserved, and to decide on future plans. It must not be supposed that we have in any way attempted to supplant the regularly constituted authorities, or that we are concerned merely with particular outrages or their perpetrators. But it does not need a long residence in this district to convince any one that many of the social conditions of the neighbourhood distinctly favour the commission of such crimes as those which have lately startled London. The police, whom we have found courteous and ready to allow us to work with them, must remain practically powerless as long as the apathy of the neighbourhood tolerates the scandalous scenes of daily and nightly occurrence. We have at present no definite suggestion, but we feel strongly that until the deeply rooted causes of these evils are known and attacked, the action of police courts, School Boards, and philanthropic institutions can do little to stamp out the disorder and crime which disgrace our city. The space which our committee is covering is very small, and must needs be so to secure efficiency, and as there is, at least, equal need for such district committees, for the better regulation of our streets elsewhere, we wish to suggest to those who feel as we do that steps should be taken in this direction without loss of time. If some communication could be set up between these committees when constituted, our powers would be strengthened and our opportunities improved.

I am, Sir, yours truly,
The Secretary of the St. Jude's District Committee.

Monty

[Bridewell]

The Secretary of the St. Jude's District Committee

The first ever Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Monty. There must be some confusion, as I meant the WVC. The St. Jude's committee, as I understood it, stuck to their area around Brick Lane, and as the two groups were not affiliated, I'm sure they had different practices or organization.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

That's true Tom, however I don't recall a boundary of Brick Lane. Seeing Wentworth Street is literally a stones throw from St Judes there is a possibility St Judes covered Wentworth Streey in some part at least.

There is reference of similar organisation within the WVc in my article, however, and rather embarassingly, I cannot locate that source. I'm working on it.

I still feel if the 2 men were patrolmen then they would have made themselves known to Halse and it would have been noted.

Monty

[Ally]

30 -1 with Trevor finally weighing in, and still not a single logical or factual rationale for the idea. Shiny.

[Fleetwood Mac]

30 -1 with Trevor finally weighing in, and still not a single logical or factual rationale for the idea. Shiny.

From what I remember, Trevor argued that the apron couldn't have been used to transport the organs, due to the blood being on the corner as opposed to the centre of the apron. One nugget of logic. Some sort of assessment was undertaken by advisors, who, presumably, know about these things.

I may have been the first to argue that it would depend upon the method of wrapping the organs. For instance, he may have placed it/them in the corner and wrapped like a bag of fish and chips, and it follows the centre would have been unscathed.

I tend not to agree the apron was used for carrying the organs - for other reasons.

I think, however, it is fair to point out that Trevor has used logic to arrive at his conclusion.

[curious]

F

I think, however, it is fair to point out that Trevor has used logic to arrive at his conclusion.

It seems that what passes for logic for one does not for another.

I see nothing logical in Trevor's stance.

curious

[Jon Guy]

Trevor argued that the apron couldn't have been used to transport the organs, due to the blood being on the corner as opposed to the centre of the apron.

I think, however, it is fair to point out that Trevor has used logic to arrive at his conclusion.

But Trev would be wrong to say "it couldn`t have been used to transport organs, due to it been wet with blood on one corner", because, of course it still could have, whatever alternative reason he has.

Trev or his experts aren`t aware that Chapman had a woolly scarf missing, so unless Chapman was menstruating too, it was more than likely that, like the rag in Goulston St, it was used to clean up or transportation.

[Ally]

I disagree regarding his use of logic. In addition to the above points re: organs, there are other facets to the killer taking away the apron piece. For example when questioned on the podcast regarding the apron being used as a means for Jack to wipe his hands, he made the statement that he had scientifically proven that the apron was not used to wipe hands. His scientific "proof"? That he had a fellow wearing latex gloves DIP HIS HANDS IN BLOOD and then wipe his hands on an apron piece and the marks did not match the description of the smears on the discarded apron. This is how his "logic" works. He tests a specific scenario that does not in any way match the particulars of what actually would have occurred and when this rigged test oh so surprisingly yields the exact results he set them for, he states he's scientifically proven the rag wasn't used to wipe the hands! This is his logic -test a scenario by setting it up in a manner that bears NO resemblance to the facts and then claim the facts have been disproven. This is not logic. It's chicanery. It's leading the evidence to the conclusion he's already drawn.

Trevor decided without looking at the facts that the killer hadn't discarded this apron. In his book, he doesn't even push the "caught in the jail cell theory". He gives primary to saying Eddowes probably used it as a rag to wipe herself after going to the toilet in g-street or as a sanitary device in general. Recognizing the sheer stupidity of that when it was pointed out she had 12 rags on her person at the time, he changed it to her being caught in the jail cell without her rags, again apparently never having read the inquest that stated she wasn't stripped of her possessions while in jail.

He made up his mind what had happened -that eddowes cut the apron, and he attempts to twist and completely ignore the facts that prove this idea sheer idiocy. Logic is not making up your mind BEFORE you know the facts. Logic is not refusing to accept the facts prove you wrong. There is no logic in what Marriott argues.

[Trevor Marriott]

I disagree regarding his use of logic. In addition to the above points re: organs, there are other facets to the killer taking away the apron piece. For example when questioned on the podcast regarding the apron being used as a means for Jack to wipe his hands, he made the statement that he had scientifically proven that the apron was not used to wipe hands. His scientific "proof"? That he had a fellow wearing latex gloves DIP HIS HANDS IN BLOOD and then wipe his hands on an apron piece and the marks did not match the description of the smears on the discarded apron. This is how his "logic" works. He tests a specific scenario that does not in any way match the particulars of what actually would have occurred and when this rigged test oh so surprisingly yields the exact results he set them for, he states he's scientifically proven the rag wasn't used to wipe the hands! This is his logic -test a scenario by setting it up in a manner that bears NO resemblance to the facts and then claim the facts have been disproven. This is not logic. It's chicanery. It's leading the evidence to the conclusion he's already drawn.

Trevor decided without looking at the facts that the killer hadn't discarded this apron. In his book, he doesn't even push the "caught in the jail cell theory". He gives primary to saying Eddowes probably used it as a rag to wipe herself after going to the toilet in g-street or as a sanitary device in general. Recognizing the sheer stupidity of that when it was pointed out she had 12 rags on her person at the time, he changed it to her being caught in the jail cell without her rags, again apparently never having read the inquest that stated she wasn't stripped of her possessions while in jail.

He made up his mind what had happened -that eddowes cut the apron, and he attempts to twist and completely ignore the facts that prove this idea sheer idiocy. Logic is not making up your mind BEFORE you know the facts. Logic is not refusing to accept the facts prove you wrong. There is no logic in what Marriott argues.

Perhaps you should desist from your moronic rantings until after the event in York when I will be covering everyhting in my presenation on the Eddowwes murder.

The matters which you keep referring to are in the past.It is he present and the future you should concern yourself.

You will have every opportunity of facing me face to face instead of hiding behind your rantings and ravings on here and doing your utmost to not only to discredit my research but my character.

I wont run and hide but I am not going to continue to argue on here on issues that can and will be explained fully in the future.

You want evidence of a cabal well we only have to look at the posts in this thread what do we see the three lost souls you,Begg and Monty all so far up each others arses its frightening. One posts something then the other two follow like sheep to keep the pot boiling.

Take my advice Ally grow up and act your age .