Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Indeed, Jeff!

One never knows which direction these threads will take!

So far I have seen many Victorian contraptions which look like torture devices, aimed at middle / upper class Victorian ladies.

They look kind of like nag's bridles for your privates!

I suspect that for those in the slums, it was each to their own with whatever was to hand.

I have just learned that Johnson & Johnson produced the first product that we would recognise as being a sanitary towel in the US in 1888. It looks like it's adhesive and has none of the weird accoutrements of the other contraptions.

That's kinda interesting!

Will keep looking.......

Hi Ms Diddles,

Yes, the journey takes some rather unexpected turns at times. Some of the contraptions that passed as women's apparel are truly horrifying. Good luck in your searching, no doubt you will find all sorts of things, some of which you may wish you hadn't!

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

While the issue of the apron can be viewed as a tempest in a teacup, the two general ideas being discussed here differ in a very important detail, namely who deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street? If Kate was not wearing an apron, but was using a portion of it as a sanitary napkin/towel, and she deposited the piece in Goulston Street, that has important implications. First, it relegates the graffiti to unrelated to the case. That debate is unsettled because of course we do not know who wrote it, but if it could be established that Kate deposited her sanitary item there, then that would also conclude debates over the graffiti (leaving pro-JtR as author proponants to resort to the argument that JtR could still have written it, and by coincidence happened to choose the location where Kate left her undergarment or perhaps argue that Kate and JtR had met at this point, so JtR knew where she had left this item and returned there to leave a message). Interestingly, that last idea (that I admit just popped into my head while writing this), would likely suggest that JtR went straight to Goulston Street, left his message, but now that direction of travel would no longer indicate his direction of travel to a home base.

The original police explanation was that JtR took the piece of cloth from the crime scene and at some point dropped it at Goulston Street. What time that occurred cannot be firmly established. We know it was found at 2:55 by PC Long, we know he patrolled that location at 2:20, and that he states it was not there at 2:20. PC Long, however, was on his first night patrolling that beat, and also we see later in his testimony regarding the graffiti, that he appears to have lacked attention to detail (he correctly spelled Jews in his notebook, rather than spelling it as Juwes, and also appears to have the word not in the wrong place).

Regardless, if JtR was the one who transported from the crime scene the apron piece and deposits it Goulston Street and PC Long overlooked it at 2:20, that would suggest the direction he's fleeing, which is into Whitechapel and consistent with a local. If, however, JtR returns home and then later emerges to get rid of the apron piece (so it wasn't there at 2:20, as PC Long testifies), then the area in which JtR's home base is located is considerably larger, and not necessarily in the direction of travel between Mt. Square and Goulston Street.

Let's first consider the original police explanation. We cannot know if JtR cut the apron in order to get a piece of cloth or if the apron was simply cut in the process of cutting her clothes open to access her abdomen. While some argue that he may have done this deliberately, in order to obtain a piece of cloth to wrap the organs in, that idea only works if JtR heads home first, and then comes out to discard the piece of apron. Also, the descriptions of the blood patterns on the piece found in G.S. are described by Dr. Brown as appearing as if something, a hand or knife, had been wiped on the cloth. This does not sound like something that could have arisen from a cloth wrapped around a partial uterus and a kidney. As such, I do not think there is evidence to support that idea. Moreover, in the previous case of Annie Chapman, JtR did not cut any of her clothes in order to transport her uterus, suggesting he was prepared (had something of his own already for this purpose). That last suggestion must be viewed with caution, however, as of course he may have taken something he found in Annie's possessions that we are unaware of.

Anyway, given nothing in the evidence fits with the idea that the organs were wrapped in the piece found in G.S., this points to JtR being somewhat organized in that not only does he have a knife (disorganized murderers often just use something found at the crime location, or manual strangulation, etc) but may have also ensured he has something to carry his trophies in. This would tend to point away from psychotic offenders, such as Kosminski, given that planning and organization are not typical of such offenders. So if JtR didn't need the cloth to carry the organs in, it seems unlikely that when he cut the apron that he did so with the intent on taking it with him. However, PC Harvey patrolling Church Passage most likely interrupted him causing him to leave the scene. Given he takes the uterus and the kidney with him, he must have already stored those however he transported them (again, suggesting a more organized offender). However, having damaged Kate's bowel, and having his hands bloody and with fecal matter on them, and now being confronted with PC Harvey coming down Church Passage, it seems most likely he just grabbed a convenient piece of cloth to use to clean up as he fled. Goulston Street is only about a 5-7 minute walk from the Crime Scene, and while that's a bit long to be wiping one's hands, if his first instincts are to get as far from the crime scene as possible, there's no reason to expect him to toss it immediately. The piece of cloth is said to have patterns that indicated to Dr. Brown something like hands or knife was wiped on the cloth, and blood and fecal matter are reported as being on it. There are also drops of blood on it, which would be consistent with material that was present at the scene of a knife murder (possibly cast off as he moved the knife, possibly dripping from his hands as he reached down for it, lots of ways for "drops" to appear on the cloth). One corner is described as being wet, and there are accounts where that is specified as "wet with blood". This description is also echoed back by members of the jury when they ask question. Again, that would be consistent with a piece of material, laying on the ground, at the crime scene, where there was a large area covered in blood that had flowed from her throat.

In short, there is nothing that raises any major conflicts, and coupled with multiple individuals testifying to the fact that Kate was wearing an apron that day, it seems there is no reason to reject this idea.

However, just because we cannot reject an idea does not mean that alternative explanations cannot exist. It is quite common that two, very different explanations, can both withstand scrutiny, leaving us in a situation where we cannot proceed.

If Kate is the one who deposited the apron piece, then this would have us believe that she was wearing an apron with a portion missing from it, or that all of the witnesses who testified to Kate wearing an apron, are all mistaken. These include members of the public (her doss house keeper), members of the police (various police officers), and Dr. Brown. All of these people must be mistaken or deliberately lying as to their memory, and Kate was not wearing an apron as they testify. Moreover, we are to believe that Kate cut a piece out of her apron rather than have a ready supply of items to use for such occurrences. It has been suggested, or at least implied, that perhaps this apron was her supply, which would address that concern. Because Kate was not wearing underwear, it is proposed she used pins and needles to affix the apron piece front and back to other articles of clothing. The fecal matter is therefore suggested to arise due to the cloth rubbing against her, leaving skid marks, and the blood spots and smears are the result of her menstruating. Finally, the corner, testified to as being wet, is argued not to be wet with blood, but is the result of her becoming incontinent while in the drunk tank - it was wet with urine.

The first issue of concern is that we have no mention of urine anywhere in the testimony. Moreover, we do not have a description of a stain of fecal matter, such as a skid mark would be, rather only that fecal matter was on the cloth. A skid mark type pattern would be readily identifiable to Dr. Brown so the lack of noting such a pattern needs to be noted, while recognizing that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Now, if Kate deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street then she must have changed direction from the last reported confirmed siting of her, when she headed away from the police station and towards Houndsditch. There is time for her to reach Goulston Street, that is not in question, but we have no evidence of her either in that area or of her traveling in that direction. This is the first assumption we must accept as true without having supporting evidence. Moreover, we have to believe something like the following. First, Kate is menstruating, another point that is never mentioned in any of the testimony creating our second assumption that must be true. Second, that when she reached Goulston Street (at sometime after leaving the police station at 1:00 and before she's found dead at 1:44), she lifted her skirts, reached under, and removed all of the pins that were holding the apron in place, both front and back, and then left the piece of cloth in that location where it later gets found, but not until 2:55. And, despite menstruating, and having her apron supply of material to use as her sanitary item, she does not put on a replacement (a 3rd assumption, that despite having her supply of sanitary napkin material, and her pins, and menstruating, after removing one she had in place she decides not to replace it). I find that to be highly unlikely as replacing a sanitary garment would be a high priority. Given she was not found with a sanitary napkin being used at the time of her death, this indicates she was not in need of one earlier.

So, with the Kate theory, we must accept the following assumptions as being true as there is no testimony to support these:
1) Kate turned around after leaving the police station and went to Goulston Street
2) Kate was menstruating
3) Kate used her apron as a supply for her sanitary napkins
4) Kate pinned this material front and back to hold it in place (something like a nappy)
5) Kate, while in Goulston Street, lifted all of her outer clothing and removed the pins and discarded the sanitary napkin she had in place
6) despite menstruating, Kate does not replace her sanitary garment
7) the blood and fecal matter stains were distinctly separate stains
8) Dr. Brown's interpretation of a stain that looked like wiped hands/knife is in error and he did not recognize a skid mark or menstrual spotting/stains
9) the corner of the apron was not wet with blood, which is mentioned in some versions of the testimony and which is echod back by jury members, but with urine, which is not mentioned even once in the testimony.

and, we also have to conclude
1) every witness who testifies to Kate wearing an apron that day is mistaken or lying

While I wholeheartedly support Trevor's willingness to consider alternative explanations to those offered by the police in 1888, this alternative does not, in my view, provide us with a satisfactory explanation. There are too many unsupported assumptions, and it involves too many unbelievable behaviours (such as Kate not replacing her sanitary napkin despite having all of the materials to do so), in comparison with the original police explanation that JtR took the cloth from the crime scene.

Questioning the original explanations is a vital and necessary procedure when examining a cold case. However, it is not necessary to overturn the original explanation simply because one questions it. I would further suggest that just because the original police explanation survives this particular comparison, that does not make it out of bounds, and if another alternative explanation can be found, that does not require adopting a series of unsupported assumptions and yet can still explain the data we have, then we may reconsider the original police idea. But until then, it is the best we've got. And, moreover, it covers all of the evidence we currently have access to.

My view, and while it's not the only one possible, is that the apron was probably cut in the process rather than with a purpose in mind. That JtR stored the organs as soon as he removed them (but I have no idea how he did that, but I suspect he was prepared). He only grabbed the cloth as he had to flee the scene quickly when PC Harvey approached, it was an act of convenience. This indicates he's quick thinking, and also he's thinking of how to remove visible evidence to reduce the risk of getting caught (remove the blood and fecal matter from his hands and his knife), also suggesting he's not psychotic but more psychopathic. The dropping of the piece in G.S., a 5-7 minute walk from Mitre Square, shows both caution (getting away from the immediate vicinity of the crime), and perhaps also he was hoping it was far enough away that it would not get discovered and just be overlooked as a piece of trash (as it may indeed have been at 2:20). Alternatively, he may have gone home first and later goes out to discard it, but I find that harder to accept. That, however, is just my own personal bias, and I can't discount it, so if he did that, it again shows a more psychopathic type offender who is not afraid to re-emerge and go fairly near to the crime scene despite the fact the police would be looking for the murderer.

And that's me on this.

- Jeff

[harry]

It is apparant to me Trevor ,that quite a few of the replies and remarks directed at you,are personality based,and not a real attempt to argue your points.No one as yet,except yourself, offered an alternate explanation showing someone else other than the killer could have,and needed to, cut the apron.There was not only 12 pieces of cloth accessable,but other items of clothing,that could have been cut.
How much material was needed to make a sanitary napkin?Take one modern babies disposable napkin. Take a piece of material and fold it untill it is of the same size as the babies napkin,and you have a comparable example,and you may be surprised.
Two odd things about the Eddowes case.One is the amount and nature of objects and clothing she had,and the other is the scattering of belongings around the body.That is suggestive to me,and offers a reason as to why the apron piece was selected.Perhaps other posters have ideas.
Rags,Fiver,in the old days,and to my recollection, could refer to two things.Flags and womens clothing.New as well as old.

[harry]

Jeff,
Is there a summary,written by the police,similar to the one you have written above,that can be examined? You seem to rely heavily on police information.

[Abby Normal]

While the issue of the apron can be viewed as a tempest in a teacup, the two general ideas being discussed here differ in a very important detail, namely who deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street? If Kate was not wearing an apron, but was using a portion of it as a sanitary napkin/towel, and she deposited the piece in Goulston Street, that has important implications. First, it relegates the graffiti to unrelated to the case. That debate is unsettled because of course we do not know who wrote it, but if it could be established that Kate deposited her sanitary item there, then that would also conclude debates over the graffiti (leaving pro-JtR as author proponants to resort to the argument that JtR could still have written it, and by coincidence happened to choose the location where Kate left her undergarment or perhaps argue that Kate and JtR had met at this point, so JtR knew where she had left this item and returned there to leave a message). Interestingly, that last idea (that I admit just popped into my head while writing this), would likely suggest that JtR went straight to Goulston Street, left his message, but now that direction of travel would no longer indicate his direction of travel to a home base.

The original police explanation was that JtR took the piece of cloth from the crime scene and at some point dropped it at Goulston Street. What time that occurred cannot be firmly established. We know it was found at 2:55 by PC Long, we know he patrolled that location at 2:20, and that he states it was not there at 2:20. PC Long, however, was on his first night patrolling that beat, and also we see later in his testimony regarding the graffiti, that he appears to have lacked attention to detail (he correctly spelled Jews in his notebook, rather than spelling it as Juwes, and also appears to have the word not in the wrong place).

Regardless, if JtR was the one who transported from the crime scene the apron piece and deposits it Goulston Street and PC Long overlooked it at 2:20, that would suggest the direction he's fleeing, which is into Whitechapel and consistent with a local. If, however, JtR returns home and then later emerges to get rid of the apron piece (so it wasn't there at 2:20, as PC Long testifies), then the area in which JtR's home base is located is considerably larger, and not necessarily in the direction of travel between Mt. Square and Goulston Street.

Let's first consider the original police explanation. We cannot know if JtR cut the apron in order to get a piece of cloth or if the apron was simply cut in the process of cutting her clothes open to access her abdomen. While some argue that he may have done this deliberately, in order to obtain a piece of cloth to wrap the organs in, that idea only works if JtR heads home first, and then comes out to discard the piece of apron. Also, the descriptions of the blood patterns on the piece found in G.S. are described by Dr. Brown as appearing as if something, a hand or knife, had been wiped on the cloth. This does not sound like something that could have arisen from a cloth wrapped around a partial uterus and a kidney. As such, I do not think there is evidence to support that idea. Moreover, in the previous case of Annie Chapman, JtR did not cut any of her clothes in order to transport her uterus, suggesting he was prepared (had something of his own already for this purpose). That last suggestion must be viewed with caution, however, as of course he may have taken something he found in Annie's possessions that we are unaware of.

Anyway, given nothing in the evidence fits with the idea that the organs were wrapped in the piece found in G.S., this points to JtR being somewhat organized in that not only does he have a knife (disorganized murderers often just use something found at the crime location, or manual strangulation, etc) but may have also ensured he has something to carry his trophies in. This would tend to point away from psychotic offenders, such as Kosminski, given that planning and organization are not typical of such offenders. So if JtR didn't need the cloth to carry the organs in, it seems unlikely that when he cut the apron that he did so with the intent on taking it with him. However, PC Harvey patrolling Church Passage most likely interrupted him causing him to leave the scene. Given he takes the uterus and the kidney with him, he must have already stored those however he transported them (again, suggesting a more organized offender). However, having damaged Kate's bowel, and having his hands bloody and with fecal matter on them, and now being confronted with PC Harvey coming down Church Passage, it seems most likely he just grabbed a convenient piece of cloth to use to clean up as he fled. Goulston Street is only about a 5-7 minute walk from the Crime Scene, and while that's a bit long to be wiping one's hands, if his first instincts are to get as far from the crime scene as possible, there's no reason to expect him to toss it immediately. The piece of cloth is said to have patterns that indicated to Dr. Brown something like hands or knife was wiped on the cloth, and blood and fecal matter are reported as being on it. There are also drops of blood on it, which would be consistent with material that was present at the scene of a knife murder (possibly cast off as he moved the knife, possibly dripping from his hands as he reached down for it, lots of ways for "drops" to appear on the cloth). One corner is described as being wet, and there are accounts where that is specified as "wet with blood". This description is also echoed back by members of the jury when they ask question. Again, that would be consistent with a piece of material, laying on the ground, at the crime scene, where there was a large area covered in blood that had flowed from her throat.

In short, there is nothing that raises any major conflicts, and coupled with multiple individuals testifying to the fact that Kate was wearing an apron that day, it seems there is no reason to reject this idea.

However, just because we cannot reject an idea does not mean that alternative explanations cannot exist. It is quite common that two, very different explanations, can both withstand scrutiny, leaving us in a situation where we cannot proceed.

If Kate is the one who deposited the apron piece, then this would have us believe that she was wearing an apron with a portion missing from it, or that all of the witnesses who testified to Kate wearing an apron, are all mistaken. These include members of the public (her doss house keeper), members of the police (various police officers), and Dr. Brown. All of these people must be mistaken or deliberately lying as to their memory, and Kate was not wearing an apron as they testify. Moreover, we are to believe that Kate cut a piece out of her apron rather than have a ready supply of items to use for such occurrences. It has been suggested, or at least implied, that perhaps this apron was her supply, which would address that concern. Because Kate was not wearing underwear, it is proposed she used pins and needles to affix the apron piece front and back to other articles of clothing. The fecal matter is therefore suggested to arise due to the cloth rubbing against her, leaving skid marks, and the blood spots and smears are the result of her menstruating. Finally, the corner, testified to as being wet, is argued not to be wet with blood, but is the result of her becoming incontinent while in the drunk tank - it was wet with urine.

The first issue of concern is that we have no mention of urine anywhere in the testimony. Moreover, we do not have a description of a stain of fecal matter, such as a skid mark would be, rather only that fecal matter was on the cloth. A skid mark type pattern would be readily identifiable to Dr. Brown so the lack of noting such a pattern needs to be noted, while recognizing that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence.

Now, if Kate deposited the apron piece in Goulston Street then she must have changed direction from the last reported confirmed siting of her, when she headed away from the police station and towards Houndsditch. There is time for her to reach Goulston Street, that is not in question, but we have no evidence of her either in that area or of her traveling in that direction. This is the first assumption we must accept as true without having supporting evidence. Moreover, we have to believe something like the following. First, Kate is menstruating, another point that is never mentioned in any of the testimony creating our second assumption that must be true. Second, that when she reached Goulston Street (at sometime after leaving the police station at 1:00 and before she's found dead at 1:44), she lifted her skirts, reached under, and removed all of the pins that were holding the apron in place, both front and back, and then left the piece of cloth in that location where it later gets found, but not until 2:55. And, despite menstruating, and having her apron supply of material to use as her sanitary item, she does not put on a replacement (a 3rd assumption, that despite having her supply of sanitary napkin material, and her pins, and menstruating, after removing one she had in place she decides not to replace it). I find that to be highly unlikely as replacing a sanitary garment would be a high priority. Given she was not found with a sanitary napkin being used at the time of her death, this indicates she was not in need of one earlier.

So, with the Kate theory, we must accept the following assumptions as being true as there is no testimony to support these:
1) Kate turned around after leaving the police station and went to Goulston Street
2) Kate was menstruating
3) Kate used her apron as a supply for her sanitary napkins
4) Kate pinned this material front and back to hold it in place (something like a nappy)
5) Kate, while in Goulston Street, lifted all of her outer clothing and removed the pins and discarded the sanitary napkin she had in place
6) despite menstruating, Kate does not replace her sanitary garment
7) the blood and fecal matter stains were distinctly separate stains
8) Dr. Brown's interpretation of a stain that looked like wiped hands/knife is in error and he did not recognize a skid mark or menstrual spotting/stains
9) the corner of the apron was not wet with blood, which is mentioned in some versions of the testimony and which is echod back by jury members, but with urine, which is not mentioned even once in the testimony.

and, we also have to conclude
1) every witness who testifies to Kate wearing an apron that day is mistaken or lying

While I wholeheartedly support Trevor's willingness to consider alternative explanations to those offered by the police in 1888, this alternative does not, in my view, provide us with a satisfactory explanation. There are too many unsupported assumptions, and it involves too many unbelievable behaviours (such as Kate not replacing her sanitary napkin despite having all of the materials to do so), in comparison with the original police explanation that JtR took the cloth from the crime scene.

Questioning the original explanations is a vital and necessary procedure when examining a cold case. However, it is not necessary to overturn the original explanation simply because one questions it. I would further suggest that just because the original police explanation survives this particular comparison, that does not make it out of bounds, and if another alternative explanation can be found, that does not require adopting a series of unsupported assumptions and yet can still explain the data we have, then we may reconsider the original police idea. But until then, it is the best we've got. And, moreover, it covers all of the evidence we currently have access to.

My view, and while it's not the only one possible, is that the apron was probably cut in the process rather than with a purpose in mind. That JtR stored the organs as soon as he removed them (but I have no idea how he did that, but I suspect he was prepared). He only grabbed the cloth as he had to flee the scene quickly when PC Harvey approached, it was an act of convenience. This indicates he's quick thinking, and also he's thinking of how to remove visible evidence to reduce the risk of getting caught (remove the blood and fecal matter from his hands and his knife), also suggesting he's not psychotic but more psychopathic. The dropping of the piece in G.S., a 5-7 minute walk from Mitre Square, shows both caution (getting away from the immediate vicinity of the crime), and perhaps also he was hoping it was far enough away that it would not get discovered and just be overlooked as a piece of trash (as it may indeed have been at 2:20). Alternatively, he may have gone home first and later goes out to discard it, but I find that harder to accept. That, however, is just my own personal bias, and I can't discount it, so if he did that, it again shows a more psychopathic type offender who is not afraid to re-emerge and go fairly near to the crime scene despite the fact the police would be looking for the murderer.

And that's me on this.

- Jeff

hi jeff

me on this is that the ripper would bring something out with him to put organs in. after the stride murder, the anon church st sighting sees a suspicious man wiping his hands. having to use his intended organ carier to wipe his hands (and then get rid of immediately), he needed something to carry eddowes organs in so cut a piece of her apron. he gets to his bolt hole and pissed off at being interupted by jews decides that this piece of apron could be a perfect way to get back at tjem as well as possibly throw off police. he cleans up, drops off his knife and goodies, grabs some chalk and heads to goulston street to write the grafitti and sign it with the apron. long didnt miss it first time around because it wasnt there yet.

its a pretty simple explanation and straight forward reason for everything, fits the evidence and is a narrative that makes sense considering all the circs of the double event.

[JeffHamm]

Jeff,
Is there a summary,written by the police,similar to the one you have written above,that can be examined? You seem to rely heavily on police information.

Hi harry,

Not that I'm aware of. Generally, what I've written is based upon my reading of the inquest testimonies, mostly of course found in the various newspapers, and also official versions when available. Oddly, the official versions omit the questions posed and only record the witness's answers, which can make reading and understanding them more difficult sometimes. The alternative comes from a summarizing of various posts that Trevor has made, given it's his idea. I'm, of course, also including aspects of my own thinking with regards to implications that seem to arise. I tend to stick to the gist that's common over the various presentations of the inquests, knowing that none of them will be a perfect record - hand written transcription, done on the fly, is never going to be without ommissions or insertions, whether they be official documents or newspaper reports. For the newspapers, the closer to a transcript, the better, and the less sensational papers, the better as well. But, and I agree with Trevor on this, one does have to exercise a bit more caution with all of the newspapers as their goal is to sell papers while at least the goal of the official reports is to record what was said. Generally, though, there isn't huge disagreements of substance, although clearly some papers omit some whole sections of the inquest statements. Anyway, as I was saying, I do try and stick to what was being said unless there are strong grounds to set that evidence aside. For example, I will ignore the various time of deaths offered by the doctors of the day because it is now well known that their techniques are just not capable of producing reliable values. It doesn't matter that they sometimes report values that seem to work, because those cases are almost always the ones where there are other events that make it clear the murder had to happen within a certain time frame. For example, with Eddowes, we know she wasn't dead at 1:30 because PC Watkins went through the square at that time, and we know she was 14 minutes later when he found her. When the doctor's indicate she died within that time window, they really couldn't say anything else. For things like estimates of times, I look for those who checked clocks, and how long prior, and give more weight to them than those who just estimate the time with no known reference point. Unless someone is widely off, meaning their reported time just cannot fit with the time based upon everyone else, then one could argue their estimate is just not possible. But without something in the evidence to lead me to that point where I'm forced to conclude their information is wrong, I keep my interpretations constrained by it. Trevor uses a different approach to mine, he will dismiss evidence because he considers it unsafe. While that's really what I'm doing too, our criterion for calling something unsafe differ. That's not a personal attack on him, it's just an observation and Trevor and I have, repeatedly, debated over that very issue of what constitutes "unsafe". His name comes up a lot because the idea we are discussing is, in the end, his idea and he should be acknowledged as the originator of it.

Noting your message to Trevor above, I would like to clarify that while I disagree with Trevor, I do not have any personal issues with him. He's blunt at times (as is everyone, myself included), and he's very passionate about his work, which is not a bad thing. I agree with him in principle that it is vitally important to reassess things, and to go back over the original ideas. We differ in that I do not believe that reassessment requires a rejection of the original suggestions. I suspect Trevor agrees on that in principle, that one can reexamine a case and end up concluding the original ideas were well founded. One still might suggest new avenues of investigation even if one still holds the original idea to be the best one. We, of course, can't do new investigations, or re-interview witnesses for clarification.

Discussions with Trevor, because he is so committed to his ideas, do often become heated. It is, in part, a reaction to some of his verbal ticks, if you will, which is to call people blinkered, or to accuse them of having an agenda to hold up the "old accepted ideas", a phrase he uses disparagingly. As a result, replies can tend to reflect more of the same, and none of us are immune to that; it's human nature. Generally, everybody gets frustrated because people are not accepting what is put forth that convinces ourselves. I know I am sometimes at a loss to understand how Trevor can continue to hold to his beliefs after one of my most incredible missives, but then, I suspect he feels much the same. Seriously though, I've had a number of conversations and back and forths with Trevor over the years, but I would happily sit and have a beer with him should the pubs ever reopen again.

In short, there is no obligation to avoid disagreeing with someone, just to avoid being disagreeable.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff

me on this is that the ripper would bring something out with him to put organs in. after the stride murder, the anon church st sighting sees a suspicious man wiping his hands. having to use his intended organ carier to wipe his hands (and then get rid of immediately), he needed something to carry eddowes organs in so cut a piece of her apron. he gets to his bolt hole and pissed off at being interupted by jews decides that this piece of apron could be a perfect way to get back at tjem as well as possibly throw off police. he cleans up, drops off his knife and goodies, grabs some chalk and heads to goulston street to write the grafitti and sign it with the apron. long didnt miss it first time around because it wasnt there yet.

its a pretty simple explanation and straight forward reason for everything, fits the evidence and is a narrative that makes sense considering all the circs of the double event.

Hi Abby Normal,

Well, all I can say is there's nothing in the evidence that refutes that general idea. I'm not particularly partial to the bolt hole return idea, but there's nothing we have that really rules it out. It sits more uncomfortably with me than a direct dash and dump, but serial offenders do things differently sometimes. I believe Ted Bundy went to one area where he had abducted and killed one of his early victims, and the police were searching the area (I don't think they knew if she was dead yet). Anyway, Ted apparently chatted them up, told them he was a law student, was allowed to pass through, and as he did, picked up her earring (I think it was) that he had dropped when taking her to his car, and then he walked off with it. All in front of the police searching the area.

Now, if someone proposed that, it wouldn't sit well with me. So, what do I know? That's why I try and limit, if I can, making too many calls on "what I would do in that situation" and try to focus on what the information we have tells us about what he did, and not get too caught up in "what was he thinking" or "why would he do that"? They don't think like us, so the why wouldn't make sense to us. The what, at least, we can hopefully at least narrow down a bit to get a glimpse of that.

- Jeff

[harry]

The most reliable account in the Eddowes killing is surely that of Collard,whose testimony does not rely on memory,a point that Trevor has stressed.Yet you made no mention of Collard Jeff,in your summary,but you do rely heavily on the words of Long.Is that a balanced view?Yes,Long did produce his notebook,but does that qualify him as being more reliable than Collard?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi harry,

Not that I'm aware of. Generally, what I've written is based upon my reading of the inquest testimonies, mostly of course found in the various newspapers, and also official versions when available. Oddly, the official versions omit the questions posed and only record the witness's answers, which can make reading and understanding them more difficult sometimes. The alternative comes from a summarizing of various posts that Trevor has made, given it's his idea. I'm, of course, also including aspects of my own thinking with regards to implications that seem to arise. I tend to stick to the gist that's common over the various presentations of the inquests, knowing that none of them will be a perfect record - hand written transcription, done on the fly, is never going to be without ommissions or insertions, whether they be official documents or newspaper reports. For the newspapers, the closer to a transcript, the better, and the less sensational papers, the better as well. But, and I agree with Trevor on this, one does have to exercise a bit more caution with all of the newspapers as their goal is to sell papers while at least the goal of the official reports is to record what was said. Generally, though, there isn't huge disagreements of substance, although clearly some papers omit some whole sections of the inquest statements. Anyway, as I was saying, I do try and stick to what was being said unless there are strong grounds to set that evidence aside. For example, I will ignore the various time of deaths offered by the doctors of the day because it is now well known that their techniques are just not capable of producing reliable values. It doesn't matter that they sometimes report values that seem to work, because those cases are almost always the ones where there are other events that make it clear the murder had to happen within a certain time frame. For example, with Eddowes, we know she wasn't dead at 1:30 because PC Watkins went through the square at that time, and we know she was 14 minutes later when he found her. When the doctor's indicate she died within that time window, they really couldn't say anything else. For things like estimates of times, I look for those who checked clocks, and how long prior, and give more weight to them than those who just estimate the time with no known reference point. Unless someone is widely off, meaning their reported time just cannot fit with the time based upon everyone else, then one could argue their estimate is just not possible. But without something in the evidence to lead me to that point where I'm forced to conclude their information is wrong, I keep my interpretations constrained by it. Trevor uses a different approach to mine, he will dismiss evidence because he considers it unsafe. While that's really what I'm doing too, our criterion for calling something unsafe differ. That's not a personal attack on him, it's just an observation and Trevor and I have, repeatedly, debated over that very issue of what constitutes "unsafe". His name comes up a lot because the idea we are discussing is, in the end, his idea and he should be acknowledged as the originator of it.

Noting your message to Trevor above, I would like to clarify that while I disagree with Trevor, I do not have any personal issues with him. He's blunt at times (as is everyone, myself included), and he's very passionate about his work, which is not a bad thing. I agree with him in principle that it is vitally important to reassess things, and to go back over the original ideas. We differ in that I do not believe that reassessment requires a rejection of the original suggestions. I suspect Trevor agrees on that in principle, that one can reexamine a case and end up concluding the original ideas were well founded. One still might suggest new avenues of investigation even if one still holds the original idea to be the best one. We, of course, can't do new investigations, or re-interview witnesses for clarification.

Discussions with Trevor, because he is so committed to his ideas, do often become heated. It is, in part, a reaction to some of his verbal ticks, if you will, which is to call people blinkered, or to accuse them of having an agenda to hold up the "old accepted ideas", a phrase he uses disparagingly. As a result, replies can tend to reflect more of the same, and none of us are immune to that; it's human nature. Generally, everybody gets frustrated because people are not accepting what is put forth that convinces ourselves. I know I am sometimes at a loss to understand how Trevor can continue to hold to his beliefs after one of my most incredible missives, but then, I suspect he feels much the same. Seriously though, I've had a number of conversations and back and forths with Trevor over the years, but I would happily sit and have a beer with him should the pubs ever reopen again.

In short, there is no obligation to avoid disagreeing with someone, just to avoid being disagreeable.

- Jeff

Jeff
I am going to be brief and pick you up on a few points

Yes I do use the word unsafe and when i do it is not out of context

You have now admitted that you base many of your counterarguments on the evidence not only from the official inquest testimony but from newspaper reports which are more often than not in conflict with the official inquest testimony but are also in direct conflict with each other, now on that basis I do not think is is wrong to suggest that they are unsafe, and that term is quite different to the term disregarded which I have never used.

Yet again I have to point out where the unsafe testimony is in relation to Pc Robinson and Hutt which again you suggest shows that she was wearing an apron. It is a known fact that Victorian women wore white aprons., and on that day I am sure both officers would have come across many women wearing white aprons.

Now it seems that in the case of inquests which took place in the City statements relative to the death were not written in advance in officers pocket books and so when giving there evidence is was to the best of their recollection. This is borne out by Pc Long who did nor have his pocket book with him when giving his evidence but had to go away and come back with it.

Yet they both say they remember her wearing an apron, now I have to ask that when they were asked that question out of all the things that happened on that day and all the things that happened to them over the 4 day s between murder and inquest how were they able to clearly remember she was wearing an apron, out of all the clothing and property she was in possession of why remember a non descript apron. There clearly was nothing unusual about the apron for it to stick in their minds, and why was it so important to establish the facts surrounding the apron at the inquest.

Now I come to the laughable part of the official inquest testimony where Pc Robinson is shown a piece of old white apron which could have come from anywhere and he states he believed it to be the one she was wearing. There is no way that testimony can be safely relied on. Also there is no mention in this part of the inquest which piece he was shown the GS piece or the mortuary piece.

Then Pc Hutts testimony follows along the same lines with the same testimony as does the lodging house keeper who clearly remembers 4 days later that when she left she was wearing an apron.

I can understand why the apron was important at that stage because the police were trying to show which way the killer went and I believe that all those connected to the apron piece testimony were not deliberately lying but trying to be too helpful having regards to the fact that by the time the inquest took place the details about the GS piece were common knowledge.

So despite your reservatioins the testimony is unsafe and I should hope that you are sensible enough to agree.

Now I stand to be corrected on this final point but I do not recall very many, if any at all police officers suggesting that the killer cut or tore the GS piece from the apron she was wearing.

I think that we should forget about was she or was she not wearing an apron and concentrate on how a piece of old white apron got to GS and who deposited it there.

In concluding you postulate that the killer could have cut a piece when cutting through the waistband. Again that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because if she was wearing an apron it is documented that she was stabbed several times around the upper abdominal area, but if she had been wearing an apron then the mortuary piece would also have cuts ti it and traces of blood.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby Normal,

Well, all I can say is there's nothing in the evidence that refutes that general idea. I'm not particularly partial to the bolt hole return idea, but there's nothing we have that really rules it out. It sits more uncomfortably with me than a direct dash and dump, but serial offenders do things differently sometimes. I believe Ted Bundy went to one area where he had abducted and killed one of his early victims, and the police were searching the area (I don't think they knew if she was dead yet). Anyway, Ted apparently chatted them up, told them he was a law student, was allowed to pass through, and as he did, picked up her earring (I think it was) that he had dropped when taking her to his car, and then he walked off with it. All in front of the police searching the area.

Now, if someone proposed that, it wouldn't sit well with me. So, what do I know? That's why I try and limit, if I can, making too many calls on "what I would do in that situation" and try to focus on what the information we have tells us about what he did, and not get too caught up in "what was he thinking" or "why would he do that"? They don't think like us, so the why wouldn't make sense to us. The what, at least, we can hopefully at least narrow down a bit to get a glimpse of that.

- Jeff

But you are simply guessing what he did from that information

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby Normal,

Well, all I can say is there's nothing in the evidence that refutes that general idea. I'm not particularly partial to the bolt hole return idea, but there's nothing we have that really rules it out. It sits more uncomfortably with me than a direct dash and dump, but serial offenders do things differently sometimes. I believe Ted Bundy went to one area where he had abducted and killed one of his early victims, and the police were searching the area (I don't think they knew if she was dead yet). Anyway, Ted apparently chatted them up, told them he was a law student, was allowed to pass through, and as he did, picked up her earring (I think it was) that he had dropped when taking her to his car, and then he walked off with it. All in front of the police searching the area.

Now, if someone proposed that, it wouldn't sit well with me. So, what do I know? That's why I try and limit, if I can, making too many calls on "what I would do in that situation" and try to focus on what the information we have tells us about what he did, and not get too caught up in "what was he thinking" or "why would he do that"? They don't think like us, so the why wouldn't make sense to us. The what, at least, we can hopefully at least narrow down a bit to get a glimpse of that.

- Jeff

hi jeff
well if you dismiss the ripper going to his bolt hole first and then heading back out, then you either have to assume he had chalk him on him when he originally went out that evening to write the grafitti, and then say long missed it first time around or that he didnt write the grafitti at all., but just happened to dump the apron there, again with long missing it. both options seem highly unlikely to me and go against the evidence.

and youre right, serial killers are weird, dont behave like us and the annals of serial killer crime are littered with examples of them doing just this sort of thing. its really not that much of a mystery to me.

amd btw the anon church street sighting is an important clue, if only people would recognize it.

[Fisherman]

Why this is under discussion at all, I fail to see. Long was asked whether he was able or not to say if the apron was in place at his first visit to the doorway, and he answered that it was not there then. That involved him answering in the positive to the question whether he was able to establish this or not: yes, he was.

To negate Longs answer, we need somebody who was also there, and who had a deviating opinion. There is no such witness. We are therefore left with a PC who claimed that he was able to tell if the rag was there or not, and he said it was not.

Nota bene that this was an answer that defied what one would expect; one would expect the killer to flee Mitre Square and drop the apron in Goulston Street in direct combination with the murder. Therefore, when Long testified to the opposite, he gave the unexpected answer. That makes the testimony so much the stronger; if he had said "Ehhhr, yes, surely it must have been...?" or something like that, it would be another story. But a firm "Yes, I am able to tell, and no, it was not there at that stage" is a straightforward and strong statement that is not easily overthrown.

The rag was not there then. How about offering Long some respect and gratitude for his crucial piece of testimony?

[JeffHamm]

The most reliable account in the Eddowes killing is surely that of Collard,whose testimony does not rely on memory,a point that Trevor has stressed.Yet you made no mention of Collard Jeff,in your summary,but you do rely heavily on the words of Long.Is that a balanced view?Yes,Long did produce his notebook,but does that qualify him as being more reliable than Collard?

Hi Harry,

PC Long's discovery time is important. Collard also indicates that Eddowes was wearing an apron in his testimony. Basically, Collard's list is refuted by Collard himself, so I don't see him as any more important than any of the other police officers that also testify she was wearning one. Trevor sees Collard's list as very important because he's able to make an argument based upon it and finds ways to turn a blind eye to all the other testimony. I assure you, if Collard had listed the apron first, somehow that would be "unsafe" and ignored and something/someone else would be the most reliable witness.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

Jeff
I am going to be brief and pick you up on a few points

Yes I do use the word unsafe and when i do it is not out of context

You have now admitted that you base many of your counterarguments on the evidence not only from the official inquest testimony but from newspaper reports which are more often than not in conflict with the official inquest testimony but are also in direct conflict with each other, now on that basis I do not think is is wrong to suggest that they are unsafe, and that term is quite different to the term disregarded which I have never used.

Yet again I have to point out where the unsafe testimony is in relation to Pc Robinson and Hutt which again you suggest shows that she was wearing an apron. It is a known fact that Victorian women wore white aprons., and on that day I am sure both officers would have come across many women wearing white aprons.

Now it seems that in the case of inquests which took place in the City statements relative to the death were not written in advance in officers pocket books and so when giving there evidence is was to the best of their recollection. This is borne out by Pc Long who did nor have his pocket book with him when giving his evidence but had to go away and come back with it.

Yet they both say they remember her wearing an apron, now I have to ask that when they were asked that question out of all the things that happened on that day and all the things that happened to them over the 4 day s between murder and inquest how were they able to clearly remember she was wearing an apron, out of all the clothing and property she was in possession of why remember a non descript apron. There clearly was nothing unusual about the apron for it to stick in their minds, and why was it so important to establish the facts surrounding the apron at the inquest.

Now I come to the laughable part of the official inquest testimony where Pc Robinson is shown a piece of old white apron which could have come from anywhere and he states he believed it to be the one she was wearing. There is no way that testimony can be safely relied on. Also there is no mention in this part of the inquest which piece he was shown the GS piece or the mortuary piece.

Then Pc Hutts testimony follows along the same lines with the same testimony as does the lodging house keeper who clearly remembers 4 days later that when she left she was wearing an apron.

I can understand why the apron was important at that stage because the police were trying to show which way the killer went and I believe that all those connected to the apron piece testimony were not deliberately lying but trying to be too helpful having regards to the fact that by the time the inquest took place the details about the GS piece were common knowledge.

So despite your reservatioins the testimony is unsafe and I should hope that you are sensible enough to agree.

Now I stand to be corrected on this final point but I do not recall very many, if any at all police officers suggesting that the killer cut or tore the GS piece from the apron she was wearing.

I think that we should forget about was she or was she not wearing an apron and concentrate on how a piece of old white apron got to GS and who deposited it there.

In concluding you postulate that the killer could have cut a piece when cutting through the waistband. Again that doesn't stand up to close scrutiny because if she was wearing an apron it is documented that she was stabbed several times around the upper abdominal area, but if she had been wearing an apron then the mortuary piece would also have cuts ti it and traces of blood.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

While I agree that all eye witness testimony is prone to error, I feel that it is more unsafe to conclude the opposite of the testimony, which is what you're doing. You are saying "because they all say she was wearing an apron" therefore she wasn't. Disregarding inconvienient testimony just so you can conclude the opposite doesn't fly.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

But you are simply guessing what he did from that information

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You're projecting Trevor.

- Jeff