From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[Wickerman]

Are you not making an assumption?

Yes, I've never tried to eat one myself.

[Wickerman]

The act of rolling up the apron would surely have resulted in a lot of wet blood all along that side of the apron and not just in one corner.

I have only explained why I see one corner being wet with blood. I don't know how big the wet spot was, it could have been quite large, but that is neither here nor there because we do not have a suitable description detailing the size or shape of the wet area.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Yes, I've never tried to eat one myself.

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I have only explained why I see one corner being wet with blood. I don't know how big the wet spot was, it could have been quite large, but that is neither here nor there because we do not have a suitable description detailing the size or shape of the wet area.

If the murderer rolled up the apron piece as you suggested, then a larger area than a corner of it would have been wet with blood because other parts of the same edge of the cloth would have come into contact with the blood.

Such a large area could not have been described as a corner.

One more thing: you are assuming that the murderer placed both organs together in one corner.

Why?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi George.
I have a copy of a memo from Warren to Fraser (City Police), asking if "...it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer".
It is dated 3rd Oct. 1888.

So, apparently Eddowes apron had a bib up the front as shown in the photo's.

This style of apron was for men & women, back in the 70's butchers still wore the same calico apron. Men would often fold the bib portion down behind the skirt, it was viewed as feminine to wear the bib up. Only the manager was expected to wear it that way - and he didn't do anything!
This was the most common apron we see in a lot of photographs of women in the streets, of the time.




Well I'm sorry about that, I didn't mean to suggest the apron was 6 feet tall. The width is about 3 ft, it doesn't just cover the front, it is intended to curl around the legs. There's only a slight gap at the back.



It looks like he used his initiative with Chapman too.
Apparently, Chapman was seen wearing a scarf when she left the lodging house, but no scarf was listed among her possessions. It seems to have disappeared the night she was murdered.
Not many people mention this, but it adds to the spontaneity of his actions, that they were not premeditated.
That's the way it looks to me, at least.



You are kidding, right?



I hoped you would accept the plastic bag was to be ignored in our case.
But, you must have noticed the meat was placed nearer to the bottom corner, not in the middle of the paper, and that near corner is pulled up and over the raw meat. Which explained why this one corner will be more wet with blood (in the absence of a plastic bag), than the other three corners. This is the only corner that is in direct contact with the meat/organs. This is what the evidence suggested, one corner was wet with blood, the others were not.

Yet again the evidential merry-go-round trundles on I wish I had a pound for every time this same topic has been discussed

If she had been wearing a bib apron then the top half around her neck would have still been in situ Insp Collards list of clothing does not make mention of anything around her neck which could relate to the top part of a bib apron. If it was a bib apron the rest of what was left would be clearly visible,

From Dr Browns testimony

Dr. Brown: "I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

yet again we have two evidential conflicts

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

What evidence would you expect?

[Wickerman]

Yet again the evidential merry-go-round trundles on I wish I had a pound for every time this same topic has been discussed

If she had been wearing a bib apron then the top half around her neck would have still been in situ..

You're making an assumption again, Warren didn't say she was wearing the bib, he said the apron had a bib - it being a bib-type apron.

It may have been tied around her neck, or may have been tucked down behind the waist band. The bib portion is square and would look like a large handkerchief, or a rag the same size as a handkerchief.
One such article is listed among her possessions (13th item) - "1 Large White Handkerchief, blood stained", interestingly, the Evening News lists this same item as "..large white handkerchief round neck..".
So it was on the body still around the neck and assumed to be a handkerchief.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

What evidence would you expect?

One cannot assume that he was a cannibal on the ground that one cannot expect to see evidence that he was one.

[Fiver]

Are you not making an assumption?

If you believe the From Hell letter is genuine, then it's not an assumption.

[Fiver]

I meant that you are assuming that the murderer took Eddowes' kidney and uterus with the intention of eating them.

There is no evidence that the Whitechapel Murderer was a cannibal.

There is evidence if the From Hell letter is genuine.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

There is evidence if the From Hell letter is genuine.

I wonder why Wickerman did not think of that.

[Trevor Marriott]

You're making an assumption again, Warren didn't say she was wearing the bib, he said the apron had a bib - it being a bib-type apron.

It may have been tied around her neck, or may have been tucked down behind the waist band. The bib portion is square and would look like a large handkerchief, or a rag the same size as a handkerchief.
One such article is listed among her possessions (13th item) - "1 Large White Handkerchief, blood stained", interestingly, the Evening News lists this same item as "..large white handkerchief round neck..".
So it was on the body still around the neck and assumed to be a handkerchief.

Oh come on there is a big difference between a handkerchief and a bib apron

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[erobitha]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness, yet some on this thread thought it was far too dark for him to write a message on a wall in chalk.

It might be something to ponder.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The Ripper extracted a kidney in almost pitch-black darkness

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

[erobitha]

He didn't.

Human beings have night vision. Providing there is some light source, our eyes adjust to darkness. There were two lamps in Mitre Square, admittedly in the northern part of the square and I believe the lamps we're talking about didn't give a great deal of light off at all. Still, that's a light source for human eyes to work with.

The only place where a human being would not be able to see due to darkness, is deep in a cave or somewhere like that where there is no light whatsoever.

And, we're not talking about being able to see down the street: we're talking about right in front of him.

And then, we have the opinion of Dr Sequeira, who wasn't surprised that the crime could be accomplished in that part of the square and at that time of the morning.

So Wentworth Buildings was pitch black and Mitre Square wasn't is that what you are saying?