Who cut Eddowes Apron?

[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

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly.

Just as you have learnt to spell.

Monty

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

[Monty]

Has she learnt to read now ?

rest asured it will be

Clearly.

Just as you have learnt to spell.

Monty

[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.

[lynn cates]

alles gute

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

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Monty

Has she learnt to read now ?

[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

[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

[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]

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]

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.

[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]

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]

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

[Sally]

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