Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kate's Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

    That should read “Or if he didn’t…”
    Ah, you have troubles with 'did' & 'didn't', too?
    That's what happened to me a couple of weeks ago - with a 'Can' not 'can't', I thought it was my age....
    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
      Ok, I’ll throw one out there just for the sake if it. Can we be 100% that the faeces was Catherine’s? If he took the cloth away so that after leaving Mitre Square he could give himself a quick check and wipe when he neared a lamp then maybe as he was wiping some blood from his trousers he noticed that he must have knelt in something in Mitre Square. So he wiped off blood and s**t at the same time?

      I await the onslaught.
      If it was the same guy who killed Stride, he may have picked it up in Dutfields Yard. I suspect the references to 'mud' in Dutfields Yard, was a euphemism for horsesh*t.
      Where would you get mud from in a cobbled yard, in the East end. Some of these folk had never seen a blade of grass their entire life.

      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        If it was the same guy who killed Stride, he may have picked it up in Dutfields Yard. I suspect the references to 'mud' in Dutfields Yard, was a euphemism for horsesh*t.
        Where would you get mud from in a cobbled yard, in the East end. Some of these folk had never seen a blade of grass their entire life.

        True enough. To be honest what triggered the thought was that famous photograph of the horse in Mitre Square.

        Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-11-2021, 08:48 PM.
        Regards

        Sir Herlock Sholmes



        "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

        ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          If it was the same guy who killed Stride, he may have picked it up in Dutfields Yard. I suspect the references to 'mud' in Dutfields Yard, was a euphemism for horsesh*t.
          Where would you get mud from in a cobbled yard, in the East end. Some of these folk had never seen a blade of grass their entire life.
          Intereting you should say that, I was reading about the road surfaces of victorian London only yesterday.

          The gaps between the "cobbles" (more likely granite setts) were filled by sand, or gravel, or a dry cement grout. Combined with the surprising amount of stone worn away by traffic meant a lot of dust was created. Apparently in dry weather some roads had to be watered daily to keep it down. Which led to a lot of dirt.

          ​​​​​​​And you're absolutely right about the contents of the "mud". Or 57% right, I should say - an analysis of the mud from the streets was found to be composed of: horse dung 57%; abraded stone 30%; and abraded iron 13%.

          ​​​​​​

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
            Ok, I’ll throw one out there just for the sake if it. Can we be 100% that the faeces was Catherine’s? If he took the cloth away so that after leaving Mitre Square he could give himself a quick check and wipe when he neared a lamp then maybe as he was wiping some blood from his trousers he noticed that he must have knelt in something in Mitre Square. So he wiped off blood and s**t at the same time?

            I await the onslaught.
            I thought for a moment you were suggesting that Jack crapped himself!

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

              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
              The doctor simply gave an opinion.

              Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                I thought for a moment you were suggesting that Jack crapped himself!
                Don’t give out ideas for theories Joshua

                . Intereting you should say that, I was reading about the road surfaces of victorian London only yesterday
                I’ve heard of some pretty obscure books in my time but I’ve never seen a copy of “British Road Surfaces Of The Victorian Era” Joshua? A bit of a ‘page turner’ no doubt.
                Last edited by Herlock Sholmes; 08-11-2021, 10:22 PM.
                Regards

                Sir Herlock Sholmes



                "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  The doctor simply gave an opinion.

                  Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  Why couldn’t the killer have wiped his hands on her clothing but took a piece of cloth away so that he could check himself over away from the scene of the crime and in better light?
                  Regards

                  Sir Herlock Sholmes



                  "Tis but a part we see, and not a whole."

                  ”Baroni licitum est dicere troglodytam”

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    The doctor simply gave an opinion.

                    Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    What makes you think he dipped both hands into her abdomen?
                    Everywhere we look, we find you've based much of your theory on false assumptions.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      The doctor simply gave an opinion.

                      Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Hi Trevor,

                      I can certainly do that, all depends upon how much paint I have on my hands, how big the cloth is, and how I handle it. You seem to be implying you can't fathom how that could be possible though? I suggest you may gain more than I would if you challenged yourself to do it. I bet, with a little practice as you figure it out, you too will be able to accomplish it. Once you stop thinking it is impossible, and actually consider what is being said, you'll realize it is, in the end, a pretty simple thing to do.

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • What did Long see first,the writing or the apron piece? He is sure about the apron not being present on one inspection,but is not sure about the writing.So both items have to be assessed separately.Now if the writing was in place on the inspection prior to the finding of the apron,and the killer is resposible for both,it could raise interesting questions.
                        What were the "Annual practices" I ask because of this item. "He read from page 934 of 'Annual Practices for 1892',as follows" The item was raised during a court case.It was about proceedure.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The doctor simply gave an opinion.

                          Try an experiment dip both your hands in a tin of red paint and then try to pick up a white cloth and wipe you hands without getting paint on both sides.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Hi Trevor,

                          I forgot to add, that yes, of course the doctor gave his opinion. But his opinion was drawn from actually seeing the evidence rather than an opinion being drawn to suit a theory derived by someone who has not seen the evidence.

                          - Jeff

                          Comment


                          • Was the excrement on the apron piece fresh or old?.There was no reporting of any foul smell. How much would it take to attract a person passing by?
                            Long was drafted in to help,and was assigned special duties.Would be interesting to know whether those duties related to watching for persons on the streets,rather than normal patrol duties,

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by harry View Post
                              What did Long see first,the writing or the apron piece? He is sure about the apron not being present on one inspection,but is not sure about the writing.So both items have to be assessed separately.Now if the writing was in place on the inspection prior to the finding of the apron,and the killer is responsible for both,it could raise interesting questions...
                              [Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

                              [Coroner] How came you to observe the writing on the wall? - I saw it while trying to discover whether there were any marks of blood about.
                              I'm not aware of any detailed description of the positioning of the apron - it would be useful to know whether it was scrunched up in the corner or laid out prominently.

                              I've wondered if the writing was 'pre-written'. The three key questions for me regarding the apron are 'why did he cut it up'?, 'why did he take it with him'? and 'why did he leave it where he did'? That he placed it there to associate the crime with the writing is the only explanation I've seen that answers all three (in a straightforward manner). If it was to clean up it would be quicker and easier to take the whole apron - and why dump it?

                              The writing doesn't really make sense to me as racist graffiti so I figure it's connected.

                              All the best.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Greenway View Post



                                I'm not aware of any detailed description of the positioning of the apron - it would be useful to know whether it was scrunched up in the corner or laid out prominently.

                                I've wondered if the writing was 'pre-written'. The three key questions for me regarding the apron are 'why did he cut it up'?, 'why did he take it with him'? and 'why did he leave it where he did'? That he placed it there to associate the crime with the writing is the only explanation I've seen that answers all three (in a straightforward manner). If it was to clean up it would be quicker and easier to take the whole apron - and why dump it?

                                The writing doesn't really make sense to me as racist graffiti so I figure it's connected.

                                All the best.
                                Welcome Greenway. I am inclined to agree. Of course, we are all making assumptions based on our perceived senses of possibilities and probabilities.

                                It seems unlikely that the message would have been left on the wall for very long without being removed by the residents who were predominently Jewish, and it would be a remarkable coincidence for the writer and JtR to pick the same spot for their two totally different intended tasks. Yes, as you say, the message on its own, without the bloody apron, is a vague and general and not particularly clear and valid racial slur, until the apron appears, and then the significance of the "blame" is indicated. Without the apron, the reader will wonder what specific event the writer is complaining about.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X