Catherine Eddowes Apron piece the real truth ?

[Trevor Marriott]

There is, and you have been informed of this before. Stating that there is no evidence the two pieces made up one whole apron is factually incorrect.

E.g. The Star, October 11th: "THE APRON was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it"

What you're claiming is that there is no reliable evidence and therefore we do not know if the two pieces made up one full apron. For instance, that the Star's wording should not be relied on because they were known to change details or exaggerate or whatever.
That is another matter which may or may not be correct, but is not per se factually incorrect.


I do hope you consider the difference between the two positions before replying.

When I posted that there was no direct evidence I should have perhaps written primary evidence. Just to explain that primary evidence in this context would be someone being present and either physically matching the two pieces and be able to say they made up a full apron,or some being present and witnessing that same fact.

We dont have that, you refer to a newspaper article the source of what they printed cannot be established and is therefore what is known as at best secondary evidence, but of course in any event it is unsafe because there is no corroboration to it. So I stand bu my original statement that there is no evidence to show the two pieces were ever shown to have a full apron when matched

I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

there is no direct evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

There is, and you have been informed of this before. Stating that there is no evidence the two pieces made up one whole apron is factually incorrect.

E.g. The Star, October 11th: "THE APRON was here produced by the police, in two pieces, covered with blood, and witness identified it"

What you're claiming is that there is no reliable evidence and therefore we do not know if the two pieces made up one full apron. For instance, that the Star's wording should not be relied on because they were known to change details or exaggerate or whatever.
That is another matter which may or may not be correct, but is not per se factually incorrect.


I do hope you consider the difference between the two positions before replying.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The explanation I have for many years put forward with regards to Eddowes apron piece and who cut it and for what purpose and who deposited it in GS has never been fully documented on these boards I feel it is now the right time for it to be aired in full having regards to the fact that over the past week questions have been asked and answered which in my opinion make the old accepted theory unsafe to rely on.

During the past week, It has now been accepted that Eddowes clearly had the time to make her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean street where she was lodging after being released, and then she would have had the time to make her way back to the city where she would meet her killer. So could Eddowes have deposited the apron piece herself whilst in that location? The answer is yes.

The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron. Those who support the killer cutting a piece support the belief that she was wearing an apron and that he did cut the piece, later discarding it in GS.
However, the list showing the clothing she was wearing and the property she had in her possession makes no mention of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and the list made. What we do see is an entry at the end of her list of possessions which describes “one old piece of white apron” so that suggests to me that perhaps earlier in the day and before her arrest for being drunk she could have had been in possession of two old pieces of apron, that at some time previous may have come from a full apron.

Now having regard to the fact that we cannot discount her being in the location of the GS archway and my suggestion of her depositing it under the archway, we have to ask what would have been the reason for her doing this, The answer is quite simple and revolves around a female body`s natural functions, and feminine hygiene in Victorian Times, and how street women dealt with their monthly cycle. It is a known fact that street women would use rags or cloth when menstruating and then discard them when soiled.

Looking closely at the GS apron piece and how it was described, spotted/smeared with blood and faecal matter all on one side only. All of these put together are consistent with that piece being folded and used as such a device by her between her legs. Blood spotting is consistent with the monthly cycle and a gynaecologist tells me that the blood spots when menstruating are more likely to occur in undernourished women and would explain the blood spots residue being found on one side only likewise the faecal matter.

Now add the wetness to the mix, which is a debatable issue, as some suggest it, was blood, again this is contentious, but I am going to work with it being wet. Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and left in a cell for many hours. It is a known fact that when drunk people fall asleep they are prone to becoming incontinent so a clear explanation for the wetness described on the apron piece by a witness.

So after being released from the station and making her way towards Flower and Dean street she went under the archway to relieve herself and having regard to the fact that the apron piece was by that time wet and soiled she discarded it.

I fully understand how the old accepted theory was generated and how it has stuck for 130 years but I do not think this explanation should be disregarded especially as the evidence to support the old accepted theory is unsafe, and the evidence to support this other explanation is quite valid.

Those who do not subscribe to this suggestion highlight the fact that she had in her possession 12 pieces of white rag, and suggest she could have used one of them for the same purpose. We do not know what she was doing with that amount of white rags, or whether the rags were the remnants of torn or cut apron pieces, that should not be discounted. At a calculated guess she may have had them for selling as this is a large number of identical pieces for her to keep for any personal uses. She is documented in some reports as being a hawker so we cannot rule out this possibility.

It has also been asked how she would have kept in place this device when she was not wearing any drawers, but she was found in possession of one piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles which could have been used to affix the device to any other item of her clothing.

Let me also add that I don’t subscribe to the belief that Eddowes cut a piece from her apron to use for this purpose.

By posting this in full I hope that common sense will prevail and researchers will be able to consider this explanation as a valid alternative for the old accepted theory.

I accept that there are certain researchers and I have to say they are in the minority, that no matter what is presented to them will not be prepared to consider or accept anything new that goes against the old accepted theories. Time and time again I see lame brain excuses and a plethora of "what if`s" "maybes" "I think" being put forward to negate valid and plausible explanations, and its sad that these researchers in my opinion have alienated themselves from reality having immersed themselves so deeply in the old accepted theories and that I can do nothing about that is there prerogative.

In concluding I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888 because as a professional investigator I can see obvious flaws in evidence and witness testimony that perhaps others cannot see or if thy can they choose to reject it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Can’t someone that disagrees with you do it for genuine reasons Trevor? I’d also ask why you appear to be allowed to speculate but when others do it you accuse them of trying to prop up the ‘old established theories? “What if’s,” “maybe’s,” and “I think’s,” are far better IMO that someone constantly guilty of over-confidence. Caution is not a bad thing.

Just because Eddowes might have had time to have gone back to Flower Snd Dean Street doesn’t justify a presumption that she did so. You are speculating (oh I forgot..you’re allowed to.) Against this speculation we have the fact that no one saw her at a residence where she would have been a familiar face. You’ve speculated on a dozing door keeper. Possible of course but would that lodging house have been totally dead at around 1.00am? No one sees her going in or leaving, or walking away? Then of course we have to ask why she would have walked back to F & D Street only to go straight back to the area from which she’d just came. So your speculation about her returning has some points against it (which you will no doubt dismiss.)

Could she have relieved herself in the GS doorway? Of course she could but you can no more state this with any degree of confidence than could anyone else state against it. I’d assume there were facilities in the police station so perhaps that makes on the way back from the station slightly less likely?

Collard mentions the piece of apron (separately from the pieces of cloth of course) and it matched the piece found in GS. This is a fact but, as you say, the sizes aren’t mentions and so you speculate that they might have been 2 pieces that Eddowes was carrying at the time of her death. I don’t see how this helps you because one piece still got to GS whether the killer just took it or cut it away so even if it was just 2 pieces the killer could still have taken it to assist in cleaning himself up (something that he wouldn’t have wanted to spend any time doing in Mitre Square.)

The blood on the cloth is totally inconclusive of course. Absolute speculation.

So nothing that you’ve said disproves the ‘old accepted theory.’ It’s simply speculation of course. If some agree with you that’s fine but if they don’t agree I’ll warn them now in preparation......you won’t be treated by Trevor as someone who’s looked at the facts and arrived at a different conclusion of course. You will have come to a different conclusion because you are desperate to prop up those ‘old established theories.’ Only Trevor is capable of looking at the facts, assessing them and arriving at a conclusion. In fact I’d say that all you want to do Trevor is to create your own “old established theories.”

[Trevor Marriott]

As you know, it is not true that we have no evidence that the two pieces made up the entirety of the apron. We do have evidence to that effect, you just consider it "unsafe to rely on".

So it would be helpful if you would phrase it "there is no reliable evidence to show" etc. or some similar phrase.

I call it how i see it, and there is no direct evidence that the two pieces when matched made up a full apron.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

[FONT=Calibri]The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron.

As you know, it is not true that we have no evidence that the two pieces made up the entirety of the apron. We do have evidence to that effect, you just consider it "unsafe to rely on".

So it would be helpful if you would phrase it "there is no reliable evidence to show" etc. or some similar phrase.

[Trevor Marriott]

The explanation I have for many years put forward with regards to Eddowes apron piece and who cut it and for what purpose and who deposited it in GS has never been fully documented on these boards I feel it is now the right time for it to be aired in full having regards to the fact that over the past week questions have been asked and answered which in my opinion make the old accepted theory unsafe to rely on.

During the past week, It has now been accepted that Eddowes clearly had the time to make her way back in the direction of Flower and Dean street where she was lodging after being released, and then she would have had the time to make her way back to the city where she would meet her killer. So could Eddowes have deposited the apron piece herself whilst in that location? The answer is yes.

The evidence surrounding the two pieces shows that they were matched, but there is no evidence to show the sizes of either piece, or whether or not they even made up a full apron. Those who support the killer cutting a piece support the belief that she was wearing an apron and that he did cut the piece, later discarding it in GS.
However, the list showing the clothing she was wearing and the property she had in her possession makes no mention of her wearing an apron when the body was stripped and the list made. What we do see is an entry at the end of her list of possessions which describes “one old piece of white apron” so that suggests to me that perhaps earlier in the day and before her arrest for being drunk she could have had been in possession of two old pieces of apron, that at some time previous may have come from a full apron.

Now having regard to the fact that we cannot discount her being in the location of the GS archway and my suggestion of her depositing it under the archway, we have to ask what would have been the reason for her doing this, The answer is quite simple and revolves around a female body`s natural functions, and feminine hygiene in Victorian Times, and how street women dealt with their monthly cycle. It is a known fact that street women would use rags or cloth when menstruating and then discard them when soiled.

Looking closely at the GS apron piece and how it was described, spotted/smeared with blood and faecal matter all on one side only. All of these put together are consistent with that piece being folded and used as such a device by her between her legs. Blood spotting is consistent with the monthly cycle and a gynaecologist tells me that the blood spots when menstruating are more likely to occur in undernourished women and would explain the blood spots residue being found on one side only likewise the faecal matter.

Now add the wetness to the mix, which is a debatable issue, as some suggest it, was blood, again this is contentious, but I am going to work with it being wet. Eddowes was arrested for being drunk and left in a cell for many hours. It is a known fact that when drunk people fall asleep they are prone to becoming incontinent so a clear explanation for the wetness described on the apron piece by a witness.

So after being released from the station and making her way towards Flower and Dean street she went under the archway to relieve herself and having regard to the fact that the apron piece was by that time wet and soiled she discarded it.

I fully understand how the old accepted theory was generated and how it has stuck for 130 years but I do not think this explanation should be disregarded especially as the evidence to support the old accepted theory is unsafe, and the evidence to support this other explanation is quite valid.

Those who do not subscribe to this suggestion highlight the fact that she had in her possession 12 pieces of white rag, and suggest she could have used one of them for the same purpose. We do not know what she was doing with that amount of white rags, or whether the rags were the remnants of torn or cut apron pieces, that should not be discounted. At a calculated guess she may have had them for selling as this is a large number of identical pieces for her to keep for any personal uses. She is documented in some reports as being a hawker so we cannot rule out this possibility.

It has also been asked how she would have kept in place this device when she was not wearing any drawers, but she was found in possession of one piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles which could have been used to affix the device to any other item of her clothing.

Let me also add that I don’t subscribe to the belief that Eddowes cut a piece from her apron to use for this purpose.

By posting this in full I hope that common sense will prevail and researchers will be able to consider this explanation as a valid alternative for the old accepted theory.

I accept that there are certain researchers and I have to say they are in the minority, that no matter what is presented to them will not be prepared to consider or accept anything new that goes against the old accepted theories. Time and time again I see lame brain excuses and a plethora of "what if`s" "maybes" "I think" being put forward to negate valid and plausible explanations, and its sad that these researchers in my opinion have alienated themselves from reality having immersed themselves so deeply in the old accepted theories and that I can do nothing about that is there prerogative.

In concluding I have to ask are we really expected to accept without question everything that has been documented regarding these murder from 1888 because as a professional investigator I can see obvious flaws in evidence and witness testimony that perhaps others cannot see or if thy can they choose to reject it.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk