Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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]

26

And still not even a smidge of logical rebuttal. On another thread recently Debs spoke about people who bluster, call us all fools who can't think and then run and hide when asked to back up their assertions. I must say, she did nail it, didn't she?

Nailed very firmly to the wall. But I seem to recall that Trevor went AWOL before, when 'called' on his accusations about a cartel.

[Ally]

26

And still not even a smidge of logical rebuttal. On another thread recently Debs spoke about people who bluster, call us all fools who can't think and then run and hide when asked to back up their assertions. I must say, she did nail it, didn't she?

[Tom_Wescott]

I think there's news reports of the organising of the patrols after Chapman. I will see if I can't locate them after I've slept.

Thank you, that would be much appreciated. Now get some sleep.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Supe]

Ally,

25 now.

And nary a vote suggesting Eddowes was responsible. Is Marriott not registered to vote?

Don.

[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

It was a play on the phrase Tom, and it was directed at those who label me as holding 'outdated ideas', not you.

I think there's news reports of the organising of the patrols after Chapman. I will see if I can't locate them after I've slept.

Ally,

Nothing to state they were together for sure no. However I'm working from memory. Again, I shall check once I've slept.

Monty

[Ally]

Distance, possibly, but nothing as to indicate time or togetherness. For example, there's nothing in the written record as far as you were aware that would preclude the following scenario -- Halse turns on Wentworth, sees Man 1, stops him and is speaking to him, as he is finishing and continuing down the street man 2 approaches and he then in turn stops him and speaks to him.

According to official reports, there is nothing that directly ties the two as a pair?

[Tom_Wescott]

As for them being WVC patrolmen, these patrols were organised and logged in a register, akin to the police beats.

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

[Monty]

Ally,

Judging by the short distance of Wentworth St from Middlesex St to Goulston St then I'd say the men were together at least in distance to each other.

As for them being WVC patrolmen, these patrols were organised and logged in a register, akin to the police beats. It would have been easily verified and, I suspect, noted at inquest or in a report. To me its unlikely they were WVC patrolmen. I agree with Don here.

Monty....who'd sooner stick with outdated facts and good common sense than flights of fantasy bordering on the comical.

[Ally]

Indeed, Trevor, and at the moment it's 24 votes to 0 against Kate Eddowes being the person who deposited the apron piece. That doesn't prove that she didn't do it of course, but does mean that, to date in this poll, nobody believes that she did.

Regards, Bridewell.

25 now.

[Tom_Wescott]

Or the same man after a costume change? Hmmm?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott