|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Archive through June 16, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: Specific Victims:
Catherine Eddowes:
Catherine Eddowes (General Discussion):
Archive through June 16, 2001
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 02:09 am |        | Oh yeah, before I'm totally blasted for making too much out of nothing, misreading the evidence, or whatever...consider this:
Do we have any other example -- hopefully one that is not as contentious as this minor detail has proved to be -- of any misperception or conflicting perception on the part of the 1888 investigators? And could such an example, if it exists, possibly be construed as having some possibly important bearing on the case? (You're all making me crazy with misreading or misunderstanding what I've said so far that I may -- arrgh! -- strike words like "maybe," "possibly," "could," "might," etc. out of my vocabulary for at least a couple of weeks!!)
That same night or the following morning (if you prefer), a message was found on a wall somewhere near where the Eddowes' apron piece (as if there was only one piece!) was found.
Based on the testimony and the surviving records from that time, can anybody tell me exactly and unequivocably what that message said and how it was spelt?
Yaz |
Author: Martin Fido
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:09 am | | If anybody tries, Yaz, they're talking through their hat. Since the police officers who wrote it down for the records produced sightly different wording and spellings, we just don't know, and the best you can do is assess the arguments of any writer who declares a preference for one version over another.
All the best,
Martin |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 03:35 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
I don't know quite what your point is but I think it highly unlikely that the missing piece of apron, i.e., the piece found in Goulston Street, could have been the upper or bib portion as you are saying. First, an upper piece would have been quite distinctive and would have been remarked upon. Second, the upper piece would have had strings on it or a halter type arrangement, wouldn't it? This is not mentioned either in the official documents.
The likelihood therefore appears to be that the piece found in Goulston street is a lower portion with no strings attached. That is, it is half of the lower portion with the strings remaining on the apron that was still on Eddowes' body when she was discovered. I don't see what the mystery is here for you. Yaz, as ever, I admire your never-ending quest to get to the bottom of the mystery of the Whitechapel murders. However, in this line of enquiry, I have seen nothing so far that would indicate that your queries are going to reveal any new information. Sorry!
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 05:16 pm | | Hey Chris:
My focus is not to distinguish what piece of the apron was found in Goulston street. I honestly don't care about that. I cannot see what difference it would make to anybody.
What I have focused on is how we came to this state of not being able to declare the simple, basic facts about this apron: its size, shape, characteristics, which piece was found where and what were each otheir respective sizes, shapes, characteristics.
I've provided a lot of information on my thinking/my thoughts that started me off trying to learn as much as I could about the apron. Where I ended up was with some apparent ambiguities -- ,b>not just about the physical apron itself -- but also as to how the apron or its pieces were processed by the investigators and handled at the inquest.
Jon's dissertation was, I thought -- and still think -- an excellent starting point for trying to determine the characteristics of this apron/pieces. But you see how confusing the whole thing becomes -- down to obscuring the real importance of what I'm saying -- that whether the apron had a bib or not, or whether that was the piece found in Goulston Street or not, became the contentious issue.
Look at the 1888 records. See if you can clearly and unambiguously dig out "facts" about this apron: the chronology of what the investigators saw at the crime scene, what they saw when they removed the clothes, what they realized about the apron in relationship to the arrival of Dr. Phillips with the Goulston Street piece, what they put on the list and when each item was put there (incidentally, The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook has another variation of this list, which includes details of how some clothing was cut and so on), on and on, down to...
...the important issues:
Is there a conscious or unconcious bias demonstrated in how the two Constables were shown the apron/piece(s) to identify Eddowes versus how Lawende was seemingly not shown the apron to identify Eddowes? Why was the apron ignored in Lawende's questioning?
Mr. Crawford's request that Lawende's description of the man he saw with the woman, who seems to be Eddowes from Lawende's identification of her "clothes," makes it seem that this description should be treated with privileged discretion. What does it mean or imply when Crawford requests that the description not be provided in open session of the inquest? And what would it mean to how the police proceeded to act (or not act) on Lawende's description of the man if, through the confusion over the apron, Lawende's testimony had no relevance at all to the murder?
Exactly how the police and doctors and the legal system processed and presented the evidence of the apron raises questions over their collective competence in handling this evidence (and by extension all the other evidence we have about the other murders), or whether they deliberately left behind an inexact or incorrect record about this evidence (with the same implication for all other evidence in the other murders).
I stress that the ambiguities and the questions that arise from them aren't being testing, and therefore neither being proved or disproved, because they simply aren't recognized. I'm only attempting to raise the issues, not prove any conclusions.
So far I seem to be alone in seeing any issues at all, let alone what implications might/could/possibly/may/potentially be raised if we reconcile the ambiguities over the apron's processing and presentation by the 1888 authorities.
I hope that helps distinguish between the non-issue of what were the characteristics of the Goulston Street apron piece versus how the whole apron was processed and presented officially, and how the questions -- not statements of fact or conclusions -- that I have about this process remain in the record and possibly affect our own thinking.
If someone else understands what I'm saying and could phrase it better, please go ahead. But if it still isn't clear to anyone, I vote we just forget the whole business.
Yaz
P.S., Forget it as long as it's clear that I was not, am not, and will not be criticizing Jon's dissertation nor am I arguing for one description of the Goulston St. apron piece over any other. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 07:23 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
I agree that we should examine the information from 1888 and look for inconsistencies in testimony and so on. I have no argument with that. I am not sure, though, so far that you have revealed anything new in respect to the testimony from the different witnesses regarding the apron. As you say, maybe there is someone out there who sees what you are driving at. I am sorry I do not at this moment.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 09:37 pm | | Hey Chris:
Let me put it this way:
1) From the time that Eddowes was arrested and jailed until her body was discovered, there were three significant witnesses called to identify Eddowes.
2) Two of those witnesses (Constables Robinson and Hutt) were shown the apron and the coroner specifically asked Hutt if he recognized the apron.
3) The apron was used to identify Eddowes by both Constables.
4) Two other witnesses (Lawende and Levy) called by the inquest may have seen a man with Eddowes, and we are left to draw the inference that they were the last people to see her alive.
Levy cannot identify the woman.
Lawende states he recognized Eddowes' "black jacket and bonnet" (cited from the Inquest testimony here on the Casebook) from his inspection of her clothing at a police station.
5) Why wasn't Lawende also asked about or shown the apron to see if he recognized that item, thus completing a chain of identification from Robinson to Hutt to Lawende, using one item...the apron?
6) Or, if you're as tired of the apron as I am, why didn't the inquest ask the two Constables about the bonnet and the jacket? We are presumably safe in assuming that the bonnet, the jacket, or the apron did not either mysteriously appear or disappear in the time between her arrest by Robinson, jailing with Hutt, and sighting by Lawende?
7) Lawende is the anomoly in this chain of identifying Eddowes. Lawende is also the only one of the three witnesses who was prepared to give a description of the man Eddowes was with...again, presumably/possibly her murderer. Lawende's testimony is interrupted by Mr. Crawford, and the coroner and the jury all agree with Crawford that they don't need to make that description public at that time.
Lawende is treated differently in what he is shown, what he is asked or not asked, and in what he is not allowed to say.
If the apron's size or shape -- one example of which is described in Jon's dissertation -- could change Lawende's mind about his identification of Eddowes, do you think the coroner, Mr. Crawford, or the jurors did the right thing by not presenting Lawende with the apron and questioning him about it?
Yaz |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:01 pm | | Hi, Yaz:
Okay, I see more what you are driving at now. Let me consider the matter. I will get back to you about it. Thanks for the explanation.
Chris |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 03 May 2001 - 10:34 pm | | Bless you, Chris! I don't think it's possible for me to have anything more to add, so I'll just seet nice 'n' quiet like and be content with your judgement (and anybody else who's stuck it out with me this long...bless your leetle hearts!!), come what may.
Yaz |
Author: Steve
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 02:17 pm | | Yaz
A few thoughts on your messages re the apron.
Was it the upper or lower portion? If the Times report of the 2nd Oct is correct it was the lower portion of a bib type apron and the upper part was still attached around the neck.
Times 2 Oct 88
As stated in the particulars given in The Times of yesterday, part of the attire of the unfortunate woman who was butchered in Mitre-square consisted of a portion of course white apron, which was found loosely hanging about the neck.
Why wasn't Lawende questioned about the apron? I think that the Coroner/Crawford would have seen this as a pointless line of questioning given Lawendes deposition I only saw her back.
Now for a question that puzzles me.
Why and by who was an Architect/Surveyor called out at 2am?
Steve |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 03:55 pm | | Hi, Steve:
The architect/surveyor who was called out to Mitre Square at 2:00 a.m. was most probably City Surveyor Frederick William Foster who did the sketches of Mitre Square showing the body of Catherine Eddowes in situ in the square. These were the sketches that were, remarkably, found in a drainpipe at the London Hospital, Whitechapel, in recent decades--one of the small miracles of evidence recovered in the case considering so much else has gone "missing."
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 06:17 pm | | Hey Steve:
Thanks for the info on The Times article.
Whether Eddowes' apron was bibless or not was a small point, the important point was Jon's findings about the size of the lower portion -- the possibility existing that the apron could have wrapped almost completely around Eddowes' lower body.
If this apron is that wide then Lawende would have been able to comment on it, even though he only saw the woman from behind -- he believed it was Eddowes' based on the bonnet and jacket he saw at the police station.
As I said, having used the apron twice to establish Eddowes' identity from the time of her arrest, it was beholden upon the inquest to establish why -- if they seem to think Lawende saw Eddowes that night -- Lawende was not presented the apron. Again, as I said, if it was only to establish another characteristic of the apron -- that it did not wrap around her lower body -- it should have been recorded somewhere. The inquest record was primary; but also the listing of Eddowes' clothing and belongings; and also the aggravating-at-times Br. Brown and his sometimes vague report.
Without establishing the type and size of the apron, the records that we have are imprecise and potentially seriously misleading. Suppose the physical apron had been lost after the inquest, who even in 1888 (note the inconsistencies between reports of the Goulston Street graffito) could have reliably remembered the size and shape of the apron?
The inquest could have asked Lawende, but did not.
The catalog of Eddowes' clothing and possessions could have been updated and clarified (even if a new sheet of paper or official form was needed), but was not.
Dr. Brown's report could have clarified its size and shape and where it was cut -- even a simple drawing would have been sufficient -- but Dr. Brown did not clarify.
At this point, I find it pointless to wonder why -- it simply is.
And based on the history of that little apron, I personally cannot be sure when and where and on what points the rest of the record we have is anymore precise or even accurate. Without a higher regard for the completeness of the little info we do have, I cannot confidently say anything about the murder cases.
Just my opinion,
Yaz
P.S., I don't know anything about the architect or surveyer. Sorry. |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 07:35 pm | | Hi Yaz
Still floggin the apron thingy?
I honestly think you take my dissertation too rigidly. What I did was to propose three possibilities that had been on my mind for several months the previous year.
No-one to my knowledge had ever considered the possibility that the portion of apron had been removed for any other reason than to wipe the blade, or himself, clean while fleeing the murder scene. What I had proposed was to find an answer that fit all the known facts, specifically that Jack sliced off a portion of apron to carry away the organs. This appeared logical to me due to the fact they were warm, wet and slippy and would have ouzed blood all over his clothes had he simply stuffed them in his pockets.
If our Jack was Lawende's man then where was his bag?, Lawende did not describe a bag, if Lawende's man did not put the organs in his pocket, soiling his clothes, then he must have had some means of carrying the organs away. This led me to conclude that a sizable piece of cloth cut from the victims clothes would do the same job, hence we now have a reason for the missing portion of apron.
Now, I had to consider what is wrong with the original suggestion of this apron being removed to simply clean himself as he ran away. This led me to measure the distance between the crime scene and where the portion of apron was found, and then it jump's right out at you.....the distance is much farther than most people imagine.
Many commentators remark that Jack cast aside this cloth in the nearest available doorway. A review of the most common suggested route of flight strongly indicates that Jack may have had that cloth with him for another reason, which I hope became apparent as you read the text. Also, be aware that the route is not my suggestion, but the most commonly understood route accepted by many investigators of the case.
Now we have a flawed original reason for the apron being cut, we also have a valid reason as an alternative. Next we have an answer to the problem of "where did Jack put the organs as he fled the scene?", so I wanted to find out just how big that portion of apron could have been. I searched out all the relative reports on the matter as an excersize, and found that due to a wide selection of contemporary photo's it appeared that many apron's worn by the lower classes were quite large. Of course the sizes vary, that is to be understood, but if we can demonstrate that many of the aprons were large enough that even when cut in half could be folded and still be of adequate size to wrap the wet organs completely, then we will have taken a step in the right direction to answering a few long-time problems.
This I believe was done, we now have a reasonable alternative to the long standing mystery of how Jack carried away the organs and why he dropped the rag so far away from the crime scene.
That was two problems, the third was the 'writing on the wall', and I want to say right here, I presented my justification for the grafitti being recent as only a possibility not as any deeply held belief of mine. I have no suspect, no deeply held beliefs. I am always open to alternative suggestions, so long as they do not compromise the known facts, evidence and accepted testimony.
I am not aware that anything in my dissertation compromised any of those guidlines.
But, lets not forget, my suggestions were "an alternative", and certainly not put forward as the last word on the matter. I simply think the proposals, in my opinion, offer a more acceptable solution to the little mysteries, of the portion of apron and its use that night.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 08:30 pm | | I don't see Yazoo as taking ANYTHING rigidly. This is the most diffusive man I've ever read. He is SO free-form, SO undetermined, and SO subjectively dissociated, I can't comprehend a rigid bone in his body. I imagine Yazoo as a pure limp protean potential, able to take on the form of whatever may pass into him at any time. A host if you will, a vessel to hold liquid, liquid itself, or even air, purely etheral or lumeniferous.
David |
Author: Yazoo
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 09:03 pm | | Jon:
I have not, am not, nor will I be critisizing your dissertation. It is fine work.
Your dissertation led me to another train of thought...why is it that after more than a century we have to recreate this insignificant apron -- whatever significant use it was put to, and carrying organs or wiping hands and knife are significant, but it was just as significant if the murderer just carried it away away and discarded it.
Your work on the probable size of the apron -- yes, probable; we can't prove its size but your work has added to the weight of probability -- led me to review how the apron was treated in the surviving official records: the police, Dr. Brown, and the inquest.
My thesis has nothing at all to do with the murderer or the crimes...it has everything to do with those records.
The records are poor.
(1) Dr. Brown's report should not be considered a chronology of autopsy events but, in my opinion, he is aggravatingly vague about when he realized he had half an apron. If The Times report is true about the bib, he and the police must have been severely myopic or incredibly incompetent to fail to notice this ridiculous bib around Eddowes' neck. Even if The Times is wrong -- and you must remember how fond I am of following newspaper reports -- it is still unclear when Brown knew something was taken from Eddowes' clothing until he mentions matching Phillips' half with "his half" -- as if he always knew he had half an apron.
But the catalog of Eddowes' belongings only shows one piece of apron, and it appears farther down the list, long after Eddowes' apparel has been listed.
Once they knew they had two halves of an apron, why wasn't that fact listed in the catalog? Does another item listed in Eddowes' apparel signify the hitherto unsuspected "half" of an apron? When Phillips arrived and the matter became clear, why wasn't the list simply copied again, this time getting all the listings exact and correct? (This last is important for the inquest).
(2) The police at the inquest and the crime scene spent a great deal of time and effort on the apron piece, the location, and that stupid message. The apron becomes even more important for the 1888 autrhorities. Is the list updated? No. Is Dr. Brown asked to clarify his report? Apparently not.
(3) On to the inquest. Possibly the last four people who saw Eddowes' alive were involved in the inquest:
a) Robinson who arrested Eddowes identified her by her apron, shown to him at the inquest.
b) Hutt who kept her in jail identified her by her apron, shown to him at the inquest.
c) Lawende (Levy doesn't count because he claims he saw nothing he could swear to) identified Eddowes...by her bonnet and jacket. Further he is about to describe the man she was with, whose face he supposedly did see, when the court interupts him and asks that his description not be entered into the record.
Lawende is not shown the apron; he isn't even asked about it to settle any questions a month, a year, five years later -- if and when the murderer might have been caught. No one knew obviously in 1888 that JtR would never be caught. They could only speculate on when he might be caught.
Hypothetically, if something had happened to the apron (it was destroyed or stolen), or Lawende (he died or moved away where he could not be found...how would the police, and more importantly the prosecutor effectively link the murder of Eddowes to the man in their custody? A defense attorney would have shredded the material we possess for the prosecution's case -- actually, the police's and Dr. Brown's handling of the evidence -- and, in all fairness, the murder of Eddowes would have been officially unsolved...she would have had no justice. It would only be an inference that this hypothetical accused man, convicted on one or all counts of the other murders -- that's a huge maybe now, IMHO -- would have been unofficially viewed as the likely murderer of Eddowes.
d) The fourth "eyewitness" is 'the person or persons unknown' who killed Eddowes. This person was never caught, was never tried, was never sentenced. People have their opinions on who is/was JtR then just as they do now. But how would they ever know if the handling of Eddowes' apron is typical of the way the police, doctors, and coroners handled evidence?
Personally speaking...based on the way I perceive the 1888 authorities handled the "Problem of Eddowes' Apron," I have no confidence that I can rely on anything we "know" about this case...not even the info from the few official documents that have survived. That has been my point. It was a sad decision for me, one I've always tried to avoid when questions about police or official competence came up -- especially the issues surrounding Dr. Phillips' opinions.
I have never lacked confidence in the way you handled Eddowes' apron, Jon.
Yaz |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 24 May 2001 - 11:25 pm | | So David think's of Yaz as some sort of jellyfish?
Something limp, shapeless, watery & freeform?....maybe we should rename you 'oozay'?
:-)
No Yaz, I didnt think of you as critisizing but more like focussing soley on the size of the apron like it really mattered, to question it being smaller so as to question the proposal.
I really didnt think there was any reason to believe it being a bib portion that was left in the archway. The last time I read your postes you appeared to be pushing that suggestion, and I couldnt see what you were basing it on.
The size if the apron doesnt really matter so long as half of it was still enough to hold a kidney & uterus.
And your right about the sorry state of the evidence, sad but true.
Regards, Jon |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 01:04 am | | Yaz knows that I respect his mind. I believe he is one of the smartest people ever to post here. His review of the medical evidence of three years ago is perhaps the best single post these boards have ever received, bar none.
He and I have very different personalities, though. I am a clamped-down, anal-retentive logician/accountant type, and he is a let-it-go, live-for-the-moment, free spirit, will o' the wisp type, or that is at least the way I perceive him. When I read his posts, I've got my ba**s in left hand and my a** in my right, hoping against hope I won't be torn asunder the next moment.
Respectfully,
David |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 05:05 am | | Hi Yaz,
It does seem incredible that Lawende, whose description of the man was considered so important, wasn't asked about the apron, even if the (false?) assumption was made that, because he only saw the back of the woman, he would not have seen enough of it to identify it as Eddowes' own.
Not trying to excuse the authorities here, but I was just thinking that maybe, just maybe, if the wearing of a certain type of apron was as everyday and plain as the nose on Eddowes' face (I don't know if this would have been the case), could it have been the equivalent of asking Lawende to comment on whether the woman he saw had boots on - or taking it to extremes (sorry!) - four fingers and a thumb on each hand? And could Lawende also have taken the wearing of such an item for granted? In other words, was it perhaps not thought in any way illuminating for Lawende to confirm for the record, "Yes, the woman I saw was wearing the usual sort of apron"? I don't know.
Have a good weekend all.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Yazoo
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 09:21 am | | Hey Caz:
I understand your point. But, using your first example, Eddowes' was wearing men's shoes or boots and man's vest...or so we are told in the catalog of items...so you can leave nothing for granted as far as Eddowes' wardrobe. But then why would the officials use the apron twice to identify Eddowes' with two policemen, not with the civilian who also, possibly saw the murderer?
I simply don't know either.
Yaz |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 10:18 am | | Yes, I wondered myself how the two policemen ended up positively identifying Eddowes at the inquest by her apron, if there was nothing that made it stand out from other similar aprons. Was it used just as a formality for the inquest perhaps? I don't know much about these things.
The alternative would be that there was something recognisable about the apron, which allowed the policemen to both say, "Yes, Eddowes was wearing this apron when we saw her earlier", and that the authorities may well have been wrong if they took it for granted that Lawende wasn't in a position to see what the policemen saw.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Steve
Friday, 25 May 2001 - 02:24 pm | | Hello All,
Chris
Thanks for the info on the drainpipe discovery of the drawings that's a new one to me .
I'm still at a loss as to why an architect/surveyor's services was called for at the dead of night. I can understand the need for a doctor, but a surveyor!
With all due respect to Mr Foster's ability as a surveyor his artistic ability left something to be desired.
The only logical explanations I can think of is that the City force considered the idea of escape via the sewer system to be a possibility, or Mr Foster just happened to be in the area and offered his services.
Yaz
Reading the press transcripts and depositions for the inquest I can't see that the apron formed any part of the evidence of Eddowes identification. As I see it the questions by Mr Crawford were aimed at proving the provenance of the apron and nothing else. That is to say Eddowes was taken into custody ,gaoled , released and murdered while wearing the apron and to question Lawnede would have added nothing to proving this point.
I agree with you that the evidence on the apron is lacking and contradictory. Re-reading the press articles I've found that both the Times and Telegraph describe the apron as being 'torn' which contradicts the 'cut cleanly' statement made by Major Smith. Interestingly if the press are correct this adds a further dimension as to the possible shape and size of the portion of apron found in Goulston St.
Regards
Steve
PS I see there are two of us posting as Steve. I'm the one in UK not the one basking in the sunshine of one of our former collonies.  |
Author: Steve
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 02:39 pm | | Hi All,
Just a thought (probably not original) on the issue of the apron.
I'd always assumed that the murderer cut/tore the apron at the last minute before leaving the scene. The problem I have with this is as the clothes were pushed up and turned back as described, the apron would have been under the other skirts etc.
Could the apron have been torn during the attack?
If it was it may explain how the murder was committed.
If Eddowes was kneeling on the apron and then forced backwards would this be sufficient to tear the apron through the weakened repair area?
Could the discolouration on the front shoulders of some of the victims have been caused by pressure from the murderers knees?
More to the point would this form of attack be possible?
Regards
Steve |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 06:16 pm | | Steve,
We all need to make working assumptions on the case, since no one has yet been able to find a conclusive thread linking all the evidence together and pointing to a certain individual. However, these assumptions are usually blown apart when an attempt is made to put the case together as a whole. The assumption that the Ripper obtained the apron at the last minute is a good example--the truth is, we just don't know when he took it from the body. We do know, however, that he did not cut through the stays, and that he took a good-sized piece. This means he had to use his knife to cut through a good deal of material--he couldn't have ripped it with his hands. It would have been manifestly easier for him to either take the whole apron, or to cut through the stays to get half to take, but he didn't--he cut right through the middle with his knife.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:35 pm | | Just in case David's post above happens to be deleted by some evil moderator , may I make the following statement :
" The above post by D. Radka is a work of genius and takes a major step towards solving the case as a whole."
This may discourage removal , however if it is removed then this post will irritate the hell out of anyone who reads it , and cause them to question the policy of the evil moderators ! Problem solved !
However what if they removed this post as well ? In which case you wouldn't be reading this anyway so you would never know about David's post and...oh bummer !
 |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 07:45 pm | | Just how big of a piece of cloth was taken from Eddowes?
Mark |
Author: Jon
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 08:03 pm | | When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut.
(Det. Sergeant Halse, City Police)
By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'
- (Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Thursday, 14 June 2001 - 09:54 pm | | Hello all,
More than likely, Jack did not cut the piece of apron from Eddowes. She was a pack rat and had numerous pieces of cloth on her person, some of them assuredly from her own clothes as they became ripped. These cloth items were exposed to her killer. He probably just grabbed the largest one. She may have been working on the apron at the time of her solicitation by Jack as you will remember that a thimble was found next to her right hand, just off her finger. With the pieces of cloth already lying out by the body, it seems unlikely Jack would have thought to cut a portion off. He simply grabbed one because it was available. Anyway, that scenerio makes the most sense to me, but who knows?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 02:35 pm | | Hi Tom
Typically there's a distinct difference between a tear or rip & a cut. My guess is that both police statements were intended to be specific on that point so as to leave no room for misinterpretation. Police are usually trained not to be vague, this might not apply to Smith but would certainly apply to Halse.
I think they meant what they said.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Tom Wescott
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 03:49 pm | | Jon,
I'm a little slow in the head today, I'm afraid. All of the warped politics on another thread have me frazzled. Ha ha. I'm afraid I don't see what your post means in reference to mine.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 05:41 pm | | | Placing myself in the shoes of the killer I would have cut the piece of apron from the victim before doing the mutilations. I would then have placed the apron piece (double) next to the body. Then while cutting out the body parts needed I would have placed them in the middle of the apron piece. When finished I would have simply and quickly cleaned my knife and wiped my hands on the inside layer of the cloth.Then I would have folded the apron up in such a manner that it would not be soiled on the outside.Thus picking it up and leaving the scene.The apron piece which was once white was black with dirt and grime according to the medical evidence.So any smears of matter on the outside would not be noticed.Talking as a experienced gutman who once worked in a slaughter gang for F.M.C. and who has gutted thousands upon thousands of livestock it would not have been a bloody job. In fact many misconceptions are held in relation to such work.Also it is very simple to tell if a gutman is experienced in his work.This killer had experience in gutting. |
Author: Diana
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:00 pm | | Taking what you have just said in conjunction with what a Dr. on this board said is getting us closer to the truth. I assume you've worked in a slaughterhouse then? The Dr. said the level of expertise did not have to imply medical knowledge. I understand there were a couple of slaughterhouses near where Nichols body was found. That may be significant.
I have always been puzzled by the thimble too. Why would she have gotten it out when she was about to . . . oh boy! Everybody has always assumed that these women were preparing to service Jack in their chosen profession. What could be more disarming to a Whitechapel prostitute who was nervous about JTR than to be approached by a shy little man. Ahem, mum, I have a rip here see. I'll give ya fourpence if you could just mend it. I'll just pop round behind this ere gate and take off me trousers . . . It would explain the gates. Every one of them that was murdered in the street was near a fence or a gate. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:08 pm | | | Ps, As for reasons for taking the apron piece two reasons come to mind. Putting myself in the killer's position I would want to kill two birds with one stone. I need to wrap the stolen organs in the apron piece as a parcel.Then my next intention is to leave a message written on a wall. But a message written on a wall can be written by anyone. So how do I leave a written message so the police have no doubt that it was written by me? I leave conclusive evidence with the writing to show that the two are connected and what better evidence to leave than the piece of apron that I have to dispose of anyway.I dont go to Goulston Street on leaving Mitre Square Instead I go to ground as soon as possible because I know the body can be found within minutes. I do not wish to be walking the streets on my way to Wentworth Model Dwellings with evidence that can condemm me when the hue and cry goes up. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:17 pm | | Bravo Ivor....you've got your eye on the ball my good man
This strongly indicates a killer with purpose and under control.
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 06:34 pm | | | Diana,Yes I have worked in a slaughter house. I do not believe that the killer was a slaughterman. I believe he was a medical man. A slaughterman needs to see what he is doing and is not trained to work in such conditions in the dark. A medical man can work in the dark by touch and probing with very little light.At the war museum in London one can see the dark and adverse conditions that army surgeons had to work under at great speed in the 1914-18 war. Imagine what it would have been like in the 19th century. I would like to know if the items found were placed in a deliberate manner near the body of Eddowes. If not then they may have fallen from her pockets when she was placed on the ground and then onto her side for throat cutting.Or when placed on her back for mutilation.It is a matter of conjecture whether or not the killer went through her pockets. |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 07:36 pm | | If anyone is interested the 'need for speed' during amputation, Ken Burn's monolithic 'The American Civil War' documentary makes mention of how the speedy surgeon developed and became a necessity due to the then modern battlefield conditions.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 07:53 pm | | In response to Ivor's last point.....
Because Chapman & Eddowes both had the contents of their pockets spread or scattered around their bodies we must speculate that this was a coincidence by accident or Jack was looking for something.
If it was not an accident then what could he be looking for? was he robbing them or retrieving back his 2d (or more?), in either case this does not support a Jack from the 'pillars of society'.
It rather suggests a low-life from the poor side of town, a local.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 09:06 pm | | Thanks for the comments Jon. Lets kick that ball about and see where it leads. In my opinion one reason why this case was never solved was because the true motive was never ascertained.Jack has been placed by some people in the sexual serial killer category.I for one dont buy this theory.
We can travel in a certain direction to try and determine the true motive. Not enough effort has gone into trying to discover why Jack took the missing organs.The answer to this question can lead to the true motive. This in turn can lead to the killer.Only a few reasons exist why he would want the organs.More effort should be directed in this direction.Any idea's Jon. |
Author: Diana
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 11:27 pm | | | This is great, Ivor. Dr. Ind the surgeon says it couldn't have been a Dr. You, the slaughterman say it couldn't have been a slaughterman. AAAARGH! |
Author: Jon
Friday, 15 June 2001 - 11:50 pm | | Excellent Ivor, I could have wrote those points myself, in fact I think I have over the years in one way or another.
- The true motive has not yet been agreed on.
- Jack is dubiously labelled as a sexual serial killer.
- The reason for the organ removal was not adequately investigated.
- Satisfactory solutions to the above may cast new light on this murder mystery.
Reasons for organ removal:
1 - genuine medical study.
2 - ritual 'sacrifice'?
3 - sexual gratification.
4 - sadistic demonstration of power.
For and against on point 1.
For - Foreign medical students or professionals could not access the bonfide medical organ market in England without recognised credentials.
Against - Would a medical student or foreign professional resort to murder to advance his profession?.
For and against on point 2.
For - Black magic or some similar foreign religous belief may have been the reason for requiring certain human organs.
Against - This is usually regarded as 'novel fiction' and the general public's comprehension and awareness of such private rituals is limited therefore this hypothesis is not taken seriously by many students of the case.
For and against on point 3.
For - Modern sexual serial killers display similar tendencies to those demonstrated by Jack.
Examples of later killers taking body parts as 'trophies' is documented.
Against - Much of the reasoning that was originally used to suggest Jack being a SSK was flawed data due to taking all the ripper murders as the act of one man. Today we cannot be certain that Jack had no more than 3 or 4 victims.
For and against on point 4.
For - If the stated times can be relied on then Jack showed purpose, control and a determination to act decisively in selecting, coercing, influencing and finally overpowering his victims. His apparent speed in locating and removing organs in so little time indicated preplanning. To go beyond simple murder to selective mutilation on the open streets indicates his confidence of being in charge of any situation, he can do what he wants where and whenever he choses.
Against - To believe that Jack could slip in and out unseen and with almost perfect timing is probably too much to accept. The times stated by witnesses may be erroneous. It is the time factor which has contributed much to this murder mystery making Jack into something akin to a supercriminal of the highest order.
------------------------------------
The above are but a few simple points to be considered in our search through the evidence. Nothing much can be taken for certain in this case but also there are many avenues which have not been adequately pursued. And yet researchers still cling to the old traditional lines of inquiry, which have consistantly turned up nothing, and will continue to turn up nothing.
This case needs a new perspective.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 04:21 am | | I think the parts were taken to create fear to the public,--and police constables. From the newspapers he knew the effect he was having. He was spoken of as a thing, a kind of shapeless Rumplestiltskin, thats the way I believe he would want to keep it, no letters or cards, no taunting, that was for fools and heartless bastards trying for a cheap thrill or laugh. I think Jack the Ripper remained silent during the whole period. None of us are experts on this topic, none of us were there!! But some of us are more "read" up than others on the matter. And I've got to say it, some of us have very poor memories regarding what we have read!!!. And some people surprise me as regards what they haven't read. You have to read it all, it seems to me --sometimes-- if you are revealed as not having read it, you are a touch naive, if you have read something that has a bit of clout, it's looked at with doubt, it's all a question of what you want to believe. Thats what it will remain, the opportunity to find out who JtR was,(without a doubt) passed 100-113yrs ago, because the police weren't good enough,--- were they!!!
Regards Rick |
Author: Simon Owen
Saturday, 16 June 2001 - 10:08 am | | The ability to work quickly and under pressure in dark and unsanitary conditions might suggest an army surgeon , or even more so a naval surgeon. Maybe our killer had some military experience ? This could also explain how he managed to dispatch the women so quickly and without fuss ; it also links to the mysterious soldier last seen with Martha Tabram before she was found butchered.
Simon |
|
|
|
|
