Kate's Apron

[GBinOz]

To wipe his bloody hands on I think despite what the doctor says that it had the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped. We are able to challenge this by showing that the staining was only on one side. Now if the killer as is suggested had his hands in a blood filled abdomen and then cut the piece to either wipe his knife or his hands.i would expect to see signs of staining on both sides of the apron.

Furthermore would the killer have carried such and incriminating piece of evidence that distance before disposing of it?

Hi Trevor,

If he cut his hand he would have wrapped the cut from the corner around his hand to stop the bleeding and prevent a blood trail. He would only have needed it until the bleeding stopped and he then disposed of it, which happened to be in Goulston St. Does this fit your stain theory?

Cheers, George

[The Baron]

Because you only accept your interpretation of what the apron looked like. The apron piece at the mortuary and the GS piece very clearly and obviously made up a complete apron. You talk about using ‘common sense’ in your response to Jeff’s post but what could be more ‘common sense’ than this.

If the police considered the GS piece a clue (to the killers escape route) then very obviously if the apron wasn’t complete when the 2 parts were matched up then officers in charge would have immediately issued orders to Constables on the beat “you’re looking for another piece of white cloth” as the missing piece would also have been a clue which could have taken the police further along the killer’s escape route.

Its unthinkable that the police would have ignored this or failed to mention it. The only explanation is that the MP and the GSP fitted together to make up a complete apron.

I fail to see how you can’t see this as entirely common sense and reasonable and based on what we actually know

1. That there was a piece missing from the MP (Halse)
2. That the GSP and the MP fitted together (Brown)
3. And that no one mentions an incomplete apron or a missing piece.

How can anyone not concede this?

Then take this and smoke it while you are scratching your head looking for words:


"A clue discovered during the investigation into the murder of Catherine Eddowes (a piece of her blood-stained clothing) indicates that the murderer travelled north-east from where she was murdered, whereas Druitt's chambers, and the railway station, were to the south-west"


You see Herlock, it is not setting well with you no matter how you spin it, it won't fit!


Gotcha




The Baron

[DJA]

Why would he hide in a building he could have dumped the apron piece anywhere between Mitre Square and GS so why does ge decide to dump it in that archway doesnt make sense.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Goulstonian Lecture - Wikipedia

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

If he cut his hand he would have wrapped the cut from the corner around his hand to stop the bleeding and prevent a blood trail. He would only have needed it until the bleeding stopped and he then disposed of it, which happened to be in Goulston St. Does this fit your stain theory?

Cheers, George

The apron piece was not heavily bloodstained or the blood localised, and does not account for the traces of faecal matter and the absence of blood on the reverse side.

If the killer as suggested had both his hands inside her blood filled abdomen gripping and removing organs which he would have to have done then he would have had blood on both hands and when either cutting a piece of apron or simply using it to stem blood flow residue would be deposited on both sides of the apron none was seen on the reverse side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

The apron piece was not heavily bloodstained or the blood localised, and does not account for the traces of faecal matter and the absence of blood on the reverse side.

If the killer as suggested had both his hands inside her blood filled abdomen gripping and removing organs which he would have to have done then he would have had blood on both hands and when either cutting a piece of apron or simply using it to stem blood flow residue would be deposited on both sides of the apron none was seen on the reverse side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I thought I read that most of the blood was confined to one corner. Are you suggesting that there was so little blood on the cloth that it hadn't soaked through to the other side?

I would have thought that he would have wiped his hands and knife on her clothing in order to avoid carrying an incriminating piece of evidence. But if he had cut his own hand, he wouldn't have had that option, and he wouldn't have anticipated that eventuality and come prepared. On the other hand, being caught with freshly extracted organs would be pretty incriminating.

Cheers, George

[Herlock Sholmes]

They helped in the fact Kate was wearing apron that night and the early next morning 9/29-30.But if questioned as to was the apron worn by Kate in the mortuary the "exact" apron worn by her earlier when they saw it, a reasonable doubt could be had. But for our discussion that it was very similar is enough. I learned re-reading the inquest testimonies of Collard/Brown/Halse/Watkin/Morris/Harvey but I do not know how did I get sucked in debating whether Kate was wearing the apron when killed or not.
Wearing it or one of her possessions did not matter.
It was the direction the Ripper was escaping that was important as PC Long helped prove,this is useful.

The direction of escape has become an important point in this debate as Trevor suggests that Hutt and Robinson might have just been ‘helpful’ in mentioning her wearing an apron because it was what the police wanted them to say but this makes no sense because if the police had any suspicion that the apron piece might not have been dropped by the killer no be if it could be gained from deceit. And so there would have been no problem for either of them to have said “I can’t remember” if that had been the case.

[Trevor Marriott]

I thought I read that most of the blood was confined to one corner. Are you suggesting that there was so little blood on the cloth that it hadn't soaked through to the other side?

I would have thought that he would have wiped his hands and knife on her clothing in order to avoid carrying an incriminating piece of evidence. But if he had cut his own hand, he wouldn't have had that option, and he wouldn't have anticipated that eventuality and come prepared. On the other hand, being caught with freshly extracted organs would be pretty incriminating.

As would be being caught with ad incriminating piece of apron, along with a knife and having blood stained hands and a possible knife cut to his hand

Cheers, George

You are right if he had wanted to wipe his hands or his knife he could have done that at the scene.on her clothing

There was only blood and faceal matter on one side.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

Then take this and smoke it while you are scratching your head looking for words:


"A clue discovered during the investigation into the murder of Catherine Eddowes (a piece of her blood-stained clothing) indicates that the murderer travelled north-east from where she was murdered, whereas Druitt's chambers, and the railway station, were to the south-west"


You see Herlock, it is not setting well with you no matter how you spin it, it won't fit!


Gotcha




The Baron

I’d ask all posters to read this post of The Baron’s as it yet again proves my point. Not only check out the tone but check out the content.

I made a simple point, in response to Trevor, about his suggestion that the 2 pieces didn’t make up a full piece.

.
If the police considered the GS piece a clue (to the killers escape route) then very obviously if the apron wasn’t complete when the 2 parts were matched up then officers in charge would have immediately issued orders to Constables on the beat “you’re looking for another piece of white cloth” as the missing piece would also have been a clue which could have taken the police further along the killer’s escape route

Then for absolutely no reason, and without any previous reference, The Baron inexplicably brings Druitt into the debate! No one has mentioned Druitt as he’s irrelevant to this debate. This perfectly exemplifies Baron’s obsession with me. I have stated that I prefer Druitt of the named suspects (no more than that…..I’ve never once stated that he was definitely the ripper) So I ask….why this reference and why the childish ‘gotcha’ again. While we’re trying to discuss the subject of the thread Baron is obsessively trawling around to find things to make Druitt-related digs. As I’ve mentioned before, even when I was away from the boards for months and posters were expressing concern, I returned to kind comments yet The Baron’s message was ‘another Druittist!’

I hold my hands up to being irritable, exasperated and sarcastic at times. I hold my hands up to pursuing heated debates that I’d have been better walking away from. But I’m getting totally sick of the Baron’s pointless obsession and random digs which are irrelevant to the matter in hand and so entirely personal.

Baron…..there’s a word for your type of poster but I won’t use it….but we all know what you are.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You are right if he had wanted to wipe his hands or his knife he could have done that at the scene.on her clothing

There was only blood and faceal matter on one side.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why couldn’t the piece have been folded in half when he wiped his hands, resulting in blood and faeces only being on one side?

[harry]

I made a simple point about shorthand Herlock,and look at the reception I got.Why are you complaining?

[Wickerman]

Then take this and smoke it while you are scratching your head looking for words:


"A clue discovered during the investigation into the murder of Catherine Eddowes (a piece of her blood-stained clothing) indicates that the murderer travelled north-east from where she was murdered, whereas Druitt's chambers, and the railway station, were to the south-west"


You see Herlock, it is not setting well with you no matter how you spin it, it won't fit!


Gotcha




The Baron

Not quite.
It has already been shown that one of Druitt's cousins(?), a close relative of some sort, lived in Bethnal Green, or that general area. The actual address is given in one of the Druitt books.
This 'direction of flight' issue has already been tested with the Druitt theory, the author was trying to show if it could be determined Montie & this relative were close, which he wasn't able to do.
However, the bottom line is, a Druitt family member lived in that direction, not too far from Whitechapel.

[JeffHamm]

Why couldn’t the piece have been folded in half when he wiped his hands, resulting in blood and faeces only being on one side?

No reason at all. It's been suggested before, I think by you, and it puts the lie to the claim that blood on one side is somehow a deciding factor that rules out wiping his hands or knife on it, despite the doctors who actually saw it telling us that is what it looked like and they were not shocked beyond belief to see such a miracle.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

The apron piece was not heavily bloodstained or the blood localised, and does not account for the traces of faecal matter and the absence of blood on the reverse side.

If the killer as suggested had both his hands inside her blood filled abdomen gripping and removing organs which he would have to have done then he would have had blood on both hands and when either cutting a piece of apron or simply using it to stem blood flow residue would be deposited on both sides of the apron none was seen on the reverse side of the apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Typically, you would only use one hand to feel through the abdomen, you hold the knife in the other.
So when you pick up a cloth (with your clean hand?), the cloth is only wiped on one bloody hand, the other side is clean(er).
It's not difficult to figure out how it could have happened.

[Wickerman]

You are right if he had wanted to wipe his hands or his knife he could have done that at the scene.on her clothing

There was only blood and faceal matter on one side.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I remember you posting pictures to show the extent of blood staining on a piece of cloth after an organ was removed from a body?
Or something of that nature.
I think you argued the amount of blood was more than what was described on the pieces of apron?

My questions at the time remain the same.
- Working class apron's of the period were typically made of calico, it's a course tightly woven material that doesn't let blood through easily. Did you use calico for your cloth?
- We cannot know if the killer removed the organs before he sliced off a piece of apron. If this was the case he could have put them down on the wet ground momentarily while finding something to wrap them in (ie; cutting off a piece of apron?). They (especially the uterus) would drain of most of the blood onto the ground before he had time to wrap them.
Did you allow for this possibility?

If I recall, you said you didn't use calico, and you didn't put them down on a wet surface for 30? seconds.
So how can you argue that you replicated all eventualities?

[Wickerman]

No reason at all. It's been suggested before, I think by you, and it puts the lie to the claim that blood on one side is somehow a deciding factor that rules out wiping his hands or knife on it, despite the doctors who actually saw it telling us that is what it looked like and they were not shocked beyond belief to see such a miracle.

- Jeff

In butchering, a righthanded person tends to let his left hand do the dirty work.
It's just so common (or it was common), that when a butcher has a bloody left hand, he scoops his apron up (hand behind his apron) with his clean right hand and wipes his dirty left hand with the outside of the apron.
Clean right hand inside - dirty left hand outside. It just becomes a form of habit. You don't want blood on the inside next to your clothes.
It might be difficult to imagine just reading the action put into words - maybe I should make a video?