Author: Tom Wescott
Sunday, 17 June 2001 - 11:49 pm |        |
Ivor,
It is late and I don't quite feel up to going over the inventory of Eddowes' items, but I do remember there being numerous pieces of cloth, all kept together. If the Ripper simply needed cloth to wipe his blade or hands, those pieces, together, and PERHAPS seperately, would have sufficed. If he needed it, as someone suggested recently, to carry the organs away, then it would have surely have been soaked through with blood. The piece of apron found in Goulston Street was not.
Jon and all,
Aren't you aware by now that Ivor and I are ALL the posters to the Casebook? We have no lives so we take on numerous identities and post back and forth! In fact, Ivor and I take turns at being you! 
Seriously, though. As much as I don't want to spoil my image of being an a$$hole, I must say that Yazoo is normally much more responsible in his posts than he has been the last couple of days on this thread. He's certainly much more thorough than I am. I fear that certain subjects on other threads, which I am involved in, have soured him a little recently and he's carried that over into this read. A lot of us have done that. While we may not see eye to eye with his politics or lifestyle, or even with his Ripper views (do any of us see eye to eye on that?) it's a simple fact that he was the driving force of this website in it's glory days, a big part of it's appeal, and a primary reason for the amazing wealth of information to be found in the archives of these boards, not only from his own input, but the input he inspired from others. I'm not trying to kiss his butt, because I don't feel I've done anything wrong, unless sharing different political views from him can be considered wrong. Besides, brown-nosing's not my style. However, I just thought I'd let you know my OPINION of why he seems a little jaded on these boards lately, because he of all people should not be so easily dismissed. Then again, don't we ALL seem a little jaded on these boards lately? I wonder why that might be? (cue Yoko Ono music).
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott
P.S. This too shall pass. |
Author: Christopher T George
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 12:47 am | |
Hi, all:
Tom I have to say that your statement that the piece of apron that was found in Goulston Street was a piece of loose cloth Eddowes happened to have with her, if in fact that is what you are saying, is erroneous. As Jon and Ivor said, the investigators at the time knew the piece was cut from the apron -- they fitted the two pieces together and they were an exact match. The piece of apron that was taken was obviously deliberately cut by the Ripper for some reason. Moreover, the apron was big, as witnessed by the famous photo of the woman in Dorset Street, the length of the piece of apron was some three to four feet long, so it had to have been cut intentionally by the murderer.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Jon
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 05:40 pm | |
And to add to Chris's rebuke
The piece of apron found in Goulston St. WAS wet, as reported by P.C. Alfred Long...
"about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house.
However, due to the fact it was raining that night we cannot be 100% sure if it was wet with rain or with blood.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 05:50 pm | |
Tom, Cutting out organs is not a messy or bloody job if the correct procedures have been taken.By that I mean if any animal or person has been rendered unconscious before the throat has been cut.After this blood letting the real work can start. It is a misconception that it is a 'bloody'affair. The only parts on the killer I would expect to find smeared with matter or blood would be his hands.A cloth containing organs
would most certainly not be soaked through with blood.If the organs had appendages then these could produce traces of waste matter and a few smears of fluid or slight traces of blood.But not enough to soak anything through. Gutting is vitually a blood free process if procedures are implimented correctly. Yet people for some reason seem to believe the opposite in relation to the true facts. Mind you this can be stated of many things ripper related. |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 11:01 pm | |
Chris,
You completely misunderstood my theory. I never once suggested the Goulston apron came from anywhere but Eddowes' apron. I only suggested the Ripper didn't cut it off himself. It makes perfect sense. Scroll back.
Ivor,
It had been raining, the apron was on the ground. Of course it would be wet. While cutting out an organ may not be as messy as some people may think, the organ itself would absolutely saturate a piece of cloth that came in contact with it. Of course it's possible the Ripper carried away the organs in the apron, but where did he transfer them to in the middle of Goulston Street? His pockets? That's very likely. Of course, the only reason he would have done that would have been to have left the 'clue' with the graffito that he had just written. Right?
P.S. Why haven't you responded to my email? |
Author: Tom Wescott
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 11:06 pm | |
Jon and Ivor,
Crap! I pulled a Yazoo and posted to both of you under Ivor's name. Ha ha. Please forgive me. The 'wet' portion is to Jon and the 'organ' portion is to Ivor, although technically they're to anyone who cares, right?
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 11:35 pm | |
| Tom, Believe when I say organs would NOT saturate a piece of cloth I have handled enough of them to know.I could cut out a heart and place it straight in my coat pocket and you would not see any blood seeping through my coat pocket. The killer did not go to Goulston Street on Leaving Mitre Square. Do not ignore vital evidence. The apron piece and writing were not at Goulston Street prior to 2.20am.It was not seen until 2.55am We can not ignore the evidence. It is no good to say, "Well P.C. Long who found it could have been wrong" We have got to go by his evidence and not make up our own rules as we go along or see fit. He said it was not there prior to 2.20am neither was the writing. He was certain of this fact. So that tells us that the killer never went straight to Goulston street from Mitre Square. He went to ground straight away for several reasons.You are right in what you say about leaving the clue (apron) with the writing. What E-mail Tom ? I never got it. Send me a test e-mail. I must get to bed it's 4.45am Catch you later. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Monday, 18 June 2001 - 11:43 pm | |
| Tom,If Jack never cut off that piece of apron who did? Eddowes sure as hell didnt.The evidence states it was cut with one sweep of the knife. The knife was very sharp.Just seen your post about the e-mail |
Author: Christopher T George
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 03:03 am | |
Hi, Tom:
As is Ivor, I am confused as to whom you mean cut off the piece of apron. You mentioned Eddowes' thimble being found next to her body. Are you suggesting that she herself cut it off the piece of apron and was sewing it back together when she was killed, or something along those lines? I think you had better explain. Thanks.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Martin Fido
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 07:57 am | |
Although I have long been (and still am) one of those who believes that PC Long's insistence that the apron was not in Goulston Street until 2.55am probably covered his own failure to observe it earlier (because of the extraordinary unlikelihood, it seems to me, of the killer hanging around in the immediate vicinity for the best part of an hour, while the police hullaballoo intensified), Ivor's caveat about just dismissing and forgetting such uncomfortable pieces of the historical record is well taken. (Maybe the Scotland Yard exercise's postulated dog which could have carried the apron any distance up to 100 yards might be called in).
Martin F |
Author: Yazoo
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 10:27 am | |
Oh no! Anything but the dog or I will start howling at the moon.
Grins,
Yaz
P.S., In defense of PC Long: How did he know the apron was important if the doctors and police on the scene in Mitre Square didn't realize a piece of apron was missing until...well, when did they know, is the best question?
Sorry if this has already been mentioned. But it would clear PC Long of negligence if he paid little attention to basically a rag (bloody or wet...there were meat and fish processors in the East End, no?) until somehow the info was got out that a piece of apron was missing from the murder victim. |
Author: Diana
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 04:56 pm | |
Re: Ivor's assertions concerning the ability of freshly cut organs to saturate a piece of cloth.
I do not have his expertise, however I do on occasion go to the supermarket and buy meat. A roast or a chunk of liver is going to be sold in a plastic tray, which is usually lined with white papertowel type stuff to absorb the ooze. In fairness said ooze is not a lot and is not bright red, but rather a watery pink. If this oozing were not a common occurrence butchers would not provide the white absorbent stuff to catch it. |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:29 pm | |
P.C.Long stated that there appeared blood stains on the apron piece and one portion of it was wet. ( he did not state what with. It was a wet night so it may not have been blood )
He searched 6-7 staircases and the building area and then took the evidence straight to Commercial Street Police Station. He said he knew about the murder before he went to Commercial Street Police Station.
D.C. Halse said he came through Goulston Street at 2.20am and passed the spot where the apron piece was found.He stated that he did not notice anything. So we have two police officers who passed the spot and saw nothing. One of these officers P.C. Long again passed the spot at 2.55am and found the evidence.If these two statements are true then the killer did not go straight to Goulston Street from Mitre Square. If these police statements are to be ignored then all evidence should be ignored!!
Diana, When meat leaves a slaughter hall it can goes through several processes before you see it in a supermarket.It can be frozen so when it gets to the supermarket it thaws out.And we know what happens to meat when it thaws out dont we. Tricks of the trade can also make meat look nice and red when you buy it from the shop. Meat I have handled to take home to eat from work was not dripping with blood or anything else for that matter. If you or anyone else on these boards can handle it go and watch a gutman at work in a slaughter house. You can get permission if you say it is for research purposes. Then you will see what it is all about. Going to your local supermarket is a waste of time. |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:35 pm | |
Yaz
When P.C. Long stumbled across that piece of apron it had no significance. He must have approached it because it was not there 30 minutes earlier, it was at this point he noticed the blood stains on the rag, and as he says, he entered the premises and searched the stairs as the blood stained cloth raised his suspicion.
There is a report that P.C. Long called to a passing P.C. on another beat to stand at the location while he ran to Commercial St. Police Station with the piece of apron.
We know at that point he will have been informed of another murder across the city, Berner St. but there is also a report that P.C. Long exchanged a few words with the P.C. he left on his beat about another murder. The report is not clear as to which if the two murders were being talked about.
So, whether P.C. Long knew about Mitre Sq, or Berner St. prior to him leaving for Commercial St. is not clear. But, certainly the apron would have had no significance at all as it was not known about the large section of apron being missing from the Mitre Sq. murder.
Regards, Jon |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:39 pm | |
| Sorry Jon, I repeated what you wrote about the apron piece I have only just spotted it. We will have to stop this sort of thing or we will be accused of being one and the same :-) |
Author: Tom Wescott
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:46 pm | |
Chris, Ivor, Jon, etc...
I was simply stating that it's very possible that Catherine cut the apron piece off herself at some previous time and stashed it in her belongings with the other pieces of cut and torn cloth. She could have used a knife of John Kelly's, or a hop-picking mate, or one at a doss house, etc. Sharp knives are not hard to come by. It's just that the evidence states that there were numerous pieces of loose cloth available to the Ripper at that crime scene, whereas they weren't at previous crime scenes, and that happens to be the one where he makes away with a piece of cloth, so it's really only assumption that he cut it off himself. Does that make more sense?
IVOR,
I sent you a response about D'Onston. A rather long one. You should have received it. I'll send again.
Yours truly,
Tom Wescott |
Author: Jon
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 06:55 pm | |
Hey Ivor, ....which only goes to show the hand is quicker than the eye
(Psst...are you Ivor tomorrow or Jon ?)
(we should get our story straight before they sus us)
|
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 07:00 pm | |
| Chris,About the thimble. Someone did come up with the novel idea that the killer was with Eddowes in the corner of the Square so that she could repair his trousers. She then presumably dropped the thimble when attacked.Have repair kit will travel. I will have to remember that one as a pick up line. "Ere ducks fancy coming round the corner with me for a quick repair job".Knowing my luck I would end up getting a smack in the mouth!!! |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 07:19 pm | |
Tom,I dont believe this.I went to check to see if I have your e-mail ( not here ) then while looking I had an e-mail. THE CROSS STITCHERS WEDDING SPECIAL. It is a special offer on cross stitch designs.Do you think that Eddowes is trying to make contact!!!
Jon, Tomorrow I am you,you can be me. I have had a word with Tom and he is going to be both of us.And I can be Tom as well.I know that may appear confusing and may not make much sense.It isnt supposed to. That way it wont make sense to anyone else so they wont have a clue as to what is going on.OK |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 07:38 pm | |
| Tom, When Lawende saw Eddowes she had her back to him.The question has been asked why was he not shown the apron.This may be why he was never shown the apron.He never saw the front of it. But when Eddowes left the station at 1.00am the police would have known if the apron was intact or not. So that gives a period of about 33-35 minutes ( from the time she left the station until seen by Lawende & Company)for her to cut her own apron up. But why would she do that if she had other pieces of cloth on her person? Dont you think it rather strange that she would do such a thing? I dont think the pieces of cloth she carried were of the size required by the killer. Hence the reason why he cut a good sized piece from her apron. |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 09:24 pm | |
Is this a connection? Eddowes' apron is cut, and she has a thimble on her finger. Could she have been attempting some kind of sewing work at the time? Also note that many loose buttons were found in her coagulated blood--so perhaps her "sewing kit" was open when she was thrown to the ground. What would she have been doing sewing at that time of night? It is possible she was trying to make some money, since she'd pawned her man's boots earlier that day, then drank up all the money. Or was she somehow trying to demonstrate her sewing skills by cutting her apron and then sewing it back together, in the hopes of picking up some work? What scenario could be imagined for that time and that place?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Tuesday, 19 June 2001 - 10:55 pm | |
| David, A dark corner in a Square ( at that time of the morning) is not the sort of place I imagine anyone wanting to do some sewing.Taking into account that a knifeman is out on the loose carving up prostitutes.Although a thimble and loose buttons were indeed found on site no needles or any cotton thread were found on her person. If she had to do some sewing then I can think of better places to do it.Now I'm off to my bed. |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 12:18 am | |
Ivor,
This is the kind of thing whence I feel like jumping off the back side of the planet Pluto to who-knows-where. Let's jump off together, hand in hand.
Perhaps she ripped her apron whilst clowning around drunkenly that afternoon. She sees its ripped while in the Bishopsgate lockup, and gets out her sewing kit. Then they release her. So she's walking around, looking for a bright enough area to continue working. She then meets the Ripper and they get to talking. He sees the ripped apron and gets the idea for the kidney, the graffito, the whole works right there.
How's that sound?
David |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 01:19 am | |
| Dadid, I'll take you up on the offer of jumping.I think you are right, seeing a ripped apron got him going and there was no stopping him after that.He must have found some tailers chalk in her needle kit which gave him the idea to write the message.By jove David I do believe we have cracked it. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 05:24 am | |
Let's not forget the cotton merchant who wrote about playing 'Hunt the thimble' around Whitechapel. Wasn't he an old sew-and-sew, trying to keep us all in stitches?
'Nothing' is as she seams on Saucy Jack Tar's HMS Pinafore...
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 11:27 am | |
| Jack ran off with the needle and thread? Why did she have a thimble but no needle or thread? Why would Jack run off with a needle and thread? Makes no sense. |
Author: David Cohen Radka
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 12:46 pm | |
What kind of kinky sexual practice might be performed with a thimble and half an apron? Perhaps he asked her to do that. When in college, we used to discuss a Bolivian sex practice (attributed to Cuban revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara) involving the human genitals, an empty dresser drawer and a live duck. We really racked our minds to come up with exactly what should be going on, but could never figure it out.
David |
Author: Simon Owen
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 01:16 pm | |
Maybe Jack really had ripped his trousers , he had just committed the murder of Long Liz after all and maybe he had to climb a fence to escape.
Or maybe Liz had put up a tough fight and ripped his clothes : an ex-girlfriend of mine managed to rip my leather jacket with her fingernails after all ! Its a possibility...
" Thanks me old dear , oh by the way whats yer name ? "
" Its ...er...its Kelly ...er...' Mary '..."
"Oh , is it now..."
As for a place for sewing trousers , Mitre Square had a couple of streetlamps and it was private as well.
As an alternative , maybe Jack had suffered an injury ( from Stride ? ) and Kate was making him a bandage from her apron ; when Jack realised somewhat later that the bandage could tie him to the dead woman he chucked it into the Goulston Street archway. Or he had to remove it to write the graffitti.
Simon |
Author: Diana
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 02:00 pm | |
| The thimble and buttons were Jack's, dropped in the struggle? Jack was a tailor? Tailors rip seams. Don't mind me giving the trade name? I even think I sound coo-coo. |
Author: Rosemary O'Ryan
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 02:48 pm | |
Dear Diana,
Maybe he was looking for his mummy?
Rosey:-) |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 07:19 pm | |
| Caroline, Diana,Rosie, It would appear that the Yorkshire Ripper receives a lot of mail from quite a few women.Some of whom we are informed wish to propose.From my perspective I have no idea why.Perhaps you could explain to me, What is the attraction that women have for such creeps who only want to rape them, and then hit them on the head with a hammer? Perhaps you could be so kind as to enlighten me on this matter. I have led something of a sheltered life so such things are quite naturally far beyond my comprehension. It appears that he is 'pulling' more women while in prison than he did while out and about. Ps I have just ripped my trousers can you pop round and mend them for me! |
Author: Mark List
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 07:35 pm | |
Ivor,
Women are (sometimes) fasinated with the unknown. the Mysterious, the unexplained.
You'll find that a lot of women who have interests in "serial killers" have it because it's an exciting fanasty to them.
This Powerful mysterious man ....Blah, blah, (swoon, swoon)
One woman, who I can't remember the name of, is fasinated with Richard Ramirez AKA the Nightstalker. She say that he a sweet man...
Some women who are lucky (or unlucky) to have ongoing correspondences with inmates like it.
They don't have to have the house clean, dinner made. ...Wifey things... but they do have letters and a few phone calls that make them feel important and loved.
"taste great less filling" that sort of thing.
A dettached relationship that's on their own terms. A false sense of security.
-Mark
p.s. the same goes for men who like "bad girls" |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Wednesday, 20 June 2001 - 08:51 pm | |
| Thanks for that insight into the workings of women's minds Mark.Speaking for myself I certainly would not contemplate contacting the likes of Mira Hindley. |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 12:01 am | |
Tinker Tailor Soldier Sailor. . .
Actually, the bandage idea might be a possibility. Who knows? One of the things that I keep thinking about is that Jack must have had something about him that made him seem trustworthy and not like a killer. So possibly Kate may have felt like helping him but he ended up killing her. . .
Chris |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 01:42 am | |
Chris,I have never seen a killer who looked like a killer.What is a killer supposed to look like ?
A killer looks just like anyone else and this is exactly why the prostitutes went with him.A serial killer's problem is in his head and not in his appearance. How many times have we heard a victim who has survived an attack say, "He looked like I could trust him" or "He seemed so nice".Look at Ted Bundy for example. The problem is that the prostitutes who went with Jack had their own conceptions about what the killer looked like and Jack did not fit.They all made the same mistake they dropped their guard.Being Street wise did them no good. He seemed ok to them and he led them up the garden path. They had misconceptions about the killer and it cost them their lives. Just like it costs the lives of many women today.If I had to look for a killer I would look for someone who didnt look like one, if that makes any sense.In fact some of the most dangerous people I have ever met seemed very nice on the outside and very quietly spoken.Archie Hall being one such example. But on the inside it was another ball game.One should never judge a book by its cover if you do then you could be in for a surprise. |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 05:07 am | |
Hi Chris,
Tinker Tailor Soldier Sailor Rich Man Poor Man Beggarman Thief - Jack of All Trades...
The imagination can play all sorts of tricks, but it's sometimes hard to get right away from the notion that someone was giving us all sorts of clues that we just keep missing.
Hi Ivor,
I can't for the life of me imagine myself ever wanting to get into any sort of correspondence with a maniac like The Yorkshire Ripper.
But I do know examples of male prisoners who write to susceptible females on the outside, hoping that the appearance of a blossoming and steady-looking relationship might hasten their parole or an appeal. One such couple (the female is a friend of mine, and met the man - an ex-policeman - shortly before he was put away for a crime involving violence) actually got married within a very short time of his release. But it was all a farce, and within a couple of days he had left the marital home and re-offended! (This all happened in the early 80s, and my friend has been happily married to hubby no.3 for many years now.)
I have another friend whose idea of the perfect relationship is to have a man she can keep in a cupboard and just let out when she wants him, then lock him up again! I've told her that this might just explain why she is still looking for Mr. Right, but perhaps I should tell her to write to someone locked up at her majesty's pleasure.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Diana
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 09:15 am | |
| First of all, I would never become involved with an SK. Women are just like other people. There are all kinds and some of us are a little ditzy. Women like to feel that their man is in some sense powerful. How else is he going to make a good 'protector'? Some women, I suspect, do not pick up on the fact that being an SK does not make one a hero, but rather a pitiful coward. The willingness of the victims to go with Jack has a lot to do with desperation. I think the FBI profile said that Jack very likely had some kind of physical defect. Being a Special Education Teacher has taught me that the nondisabled often underestimate the capabilities of those with disabilities. For instance, for many years children with Cerebral Palsy, who had normal intelligence, were put in special classes because nobody thought it through. There was nothing wrong with their minds, only with the control of their bodies. Maybe the victim said to herself, "'e carnt 'urt me, 'es a bloomin' cripple", or "Look 'ow scared 'e is. Why 'es stutterin'". |
Author: Christopher T George
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 11:43 am | |
Hi, Ivor:
Thanks for your reply. I have often thought that Jack could have been a Ted Bundy type. Utterly charming, utterly deadly.
"Excuse me, madam, I inadvertently nicked myself."
"You poor dear! 'Ere, lovie, let me make you a bandage out of me owld apron."
"Your so kind, madam, here is a shilling for your trouble."
A flash of the knife. Blackout.
Best regards
Chris George
P.S. Caz, when you hear the songs from my musical at the Bournemouth convention, Abberline sings a song with the line, "Tinker Tailor Soldier Sailor" with the rest of the lyrics varying from the old children's line you quoted. |
Author: Mark List
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 12:29 pm | |
Arthur Shawcross is a great example of the, "prostitutes feeling safe with him" aspect.
He looked like an ordinary simple person.
-Mark |
Author: Ivor Edwards
Thursday, 21 June 2001 - 06:39 pm | |
Hi,Caroline, Diana, Chris and all.Funny you should write Jack of all trades Caroline.That is exactly how I refer to him in my book.He was a man of many experiences. It is more apt to refer to him as Jack of all trades rather than Jack the ripper.A police Inspector who saw some of my research material thought it was most apt to refer to him as such.A man who tapped on his experiences to achieve his objective.A man with many experiences is more often than not an older man.Your friend certainly did not last long being married. Sounds like she was used by a really obnoxious type. Glad to know things turned out all right in the end for her though.Only one thing worse than a bent policeman and that is a nonce.
Diana, you have made a good valid point about the victims willingness to go with the killer due to desperation.Desperate people do indeed commit desperate acts. Point taken about the defect issue. Also I suppose certain types appeal more to women than others.Like chris was pointing out a man seeking some type of sympathy maybe.
Chris, Is this musical going to be a sing along?
Will it be like the old music hall type scenario where we all turn up dressed like Victorians ? If so I had better get a few singing lessons under my belt. I know the words to that old favourite: 'Down at the old bull and Bush' and also 'She was only the fishmongers daughter'. Or will it be more up market than that. If so then I beg of you please dont make me stand up when they play God save the Queen when it's time to go home. |
