Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Was Catherine Eddowes Menstruating?

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

  • Back to topic.

    I have sinned as well.

    Would a jail receiving Eddowes been without female staff - this is the question before the house.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
      Maybe there was an infirmary at the prison and they had bandages and stuff, for multiple purposes?


      Doesn't make any sense whatsoever or help in any way Marriott's theory. Even if we were to assume that Eddowes were menstruating that night and that they failed to give her some help at the prison, she STILL had her 12 rags along and could have used those instead of tearing up her precious apron, which (so I've heard) in Victorian Britain also served as a leg warmer.
      Maria
      Trevor has argued that Eddowes was not wearing an apron. Instead he claims that she had two pieces of material which had once belonged to the same apron. He further argues that the two pieces did not comprise a whole apron.

      In this scenario, as Eddowes was not wearing an apron, the question of cutting up her apron doesn't arise. Similarly, he argues that the piece of apron dropped in Goulston Street was not necessarily used because Eddowes was menstruating, but was possibly used to wipe herself after sex with a man, or to wipe herself after she had, er, defecated (he points to the feces on the apron piece as supporting that, although in fact is doesn't.)

      The question of whether or not she was menstruating or did or did not have access to apron piece or rags or undergarments therefore doesn't now arise.

      What I am not clear about is why Trevor favours the idea that Eddowes dropped the apron rather than the generally held view, then as now, that the murderer took the apron.

      Of course, if Eddowes was wearing the apron and would not have destroyed her only apron to use as a sanitary pad or instead of toilet paper, then obviously she did not drop the apron piece herself and it must have been dropped by the murderer.

      As for the policemen at the station depriving Eddowes of her possessions, including the 12 pieces of rag, as she would would still have had her undergarments, one of those could have furnished her with material for whatever purpose she needed it.

      Comment


      • Bob:
        In regard to your question, I cannot recall ever seeing or reading about women on duty in the police at that time.
        I think Neil or Paul would know ....maybe Trevor does.
        To Join JTR Forums :
        Contact [email protected]

        Comment


        • Yes, I know about the fecal traces on the apron piece.

          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Maria
          Trevor has argued that Eddowes was not wearing an apron. Instead he claims that she had two pieces of material which had once belonged to the same apron. He further argues that the two pieces did not comprise a whole apron.
          Complete conjecture. And non sensical too.

          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Similarly, he argues that the piece of apron dropped in Goulston Street was not necessarily used because Eddowes was menstruating, but was possibly used to wipe herself after sex with a man, or to wipe herself after she had, er, defecated (he points to the feces on the apron piece as supporting that, although in fact is doesn't.)
          Yeah, or maybe used it after she met with a man who had a scat fetish. Please excuse the silly pun.

          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          What I am not clear about is why Trevor favours the idea that Eddowes dropped the apron rather than the generally held view, then as now, that the murderer took the apron.
          Maybe because he prefers to imagine that the killer didn't take the organs?

          Originally posted by Paul View Post
          Of course, if Eddowes was wearing the apron and would not have destroyed her only apron to use as a sanitary pad or instead of toilet paper, then obviously she did not drop the apron piece herself and it must have been dropped by the murderer.
          As for the policemen at the station depriving Eddowes of her possessions, including the 12 pieces of rag, as she would would still have had her undergarments, one of those could have furnished her with material for whatever purpose she needed it.
          Absolutely on both counts.
          Best regards,
          Maria

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Howard Brown View Post
            Bob:
            In regard to your question, I cannot recall ever seeing or reading about women on duty in the police at that time.
            I think Neil or Paul would know ....maybe Trevor does.
            Not in the police ranks - employed by the jails to deal with women prisoners.

            Maybe they weren't. But I think we can find this out.

            Comment


            • That's what I meant Bob...I know ladies weren't police officers, but they may have had matrons for some of the larger precincts or station houses in London.
              To Join JTR Forums :
              Contact [email protected]

              Comment


              • A couple of points as I am pushed for time.

                1) PC Robinson DID state Eddowes had an apron

                2) Women were usually commandeered from the section house where they would be working as a Cook or Housekeeper in the Section House. In the case of Bishopsgate it could be possible that a Matron or nurse could be used from the adjoining Police hospital.

                3) However not all stations had a females in them so they had no choice to use males.

                4) As we have no female witnesses regarding Eddowes stay in Bishopsgate we must draw 2 conclusions. 1 the Coroner did not deem their input as relevant or 2, there were no female attendants at Bishopsgate police station.

                As Byfield nor Hutt refers to a female, in my opinion it is most likely there were no female attendants to see to Eddowes.

                I have rates of pay for these ladies, I have to have a look see and, honestly speaking, I am a bit snowed under so may take some time.

                Monty


                PS more than a couple, I know. Apologies.

                Comment


                • Thanks Neil !
                  To Join JTR Forums :
                  Contact [email protected]

                  Comment


                  • Hi All

                    I'm going to make this post as a point of Clarification. But I've been running two points in my head from comments made by Ed and Trevor that have focussed my thinking.

                    Let me firstly state that the most obvious and simple senario for me, has laways been that Jack cut the piece of apron after mutilating Eddows to clean himself or the knife. This simply fits best what we know about Jack who consistently appears to avoid getting covered in blood. I also believe he paused a while in Goulston Street to avoid a police patrol, while on his way home..

                    OK. Two things that have been on my mind. Firstly Ed stated that the apron hadn't parted down the repair made by Eddows? I dont doubt Ed on this but it DOES NOT make sense. If we assume the apron was roughly the size posted by Chris G of dorsett street and it has a large repair, if I hold one end and Ed holds the other end and we pull.. then surely we can assume that the apron gives way along the tear? But it Didnt

                    Then Trevor made the simple observation that the Apron if cut after the killer raised the skirts (Which seems most logical) then the apron would be UNDER the skirting, thus hidden. I pionted out to him that if thrown up roughly then part of the apron might be exposed, and I think if we imagine a long apron as in the Dorsett street photo that is very probable..

                    So we have raised heavy skirts with a protruding piece of apron. The heavy skirt material would create a new point of resistance... This could be tested..

                    As my partner said cutting the thick cotton material even with a sharpe knife would not be easy.. BUT.. If the apron was pulled hard and resisted by heavy over garments it would create a natural tear/cutting piont down the line of resistance once pulled hard..

                    The white apron we have all agreed would be the most visable item in the square and on Kate.. Thus once cut the remaining piece of Apron would be NOT visable.

                    Once at the mortuary I beleive the clothes would have been cut from the body and if the Mortuary attendant cut the apron where the string joined the apron effectively you would be left with ONE STRING with a knot in the middle. The apron would be discarded until its importance was recognised.

                    Kate is stated as having been wearing the apron shortly before the murder by several witnesses and it seems improbable given the weight of evidence that she would have removed or even damaged the garment in the few short hours before her death, Hutt's evidence being the biggest support to the FACT that she was wearing the apron.. thanks Mr B.

                    But this senario does explain the apparent lack of the apron in teh famous sketch of Eddow's body in position. Interestingly what I suggest could be put to the test by experiment, although whether the apron protrudes could be rather hit or miss and might even be effected by how she was attacked, which is again speculative.

                    But I do believe this version of events, ties all the lose ends together so to speak.

                    Yours Jeff

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                      A couple of points as I am pushed for time.

                      1) PC Robinson DID state Eddowes had an apron

                      2) Women were usually commandeered from the section house where they would be working as a Cook or Housekeeper in the Section House. In the case of Bishopsgate it could be possible that a Matron or nurse could be used from the adjoining Police hospital.

                      3) However not all stations had a females in them so they had no choice to use males.

                      4) As we have no female witnesses regarding Eddowes stay in Bishopsgate we must draw 2 conclusions. 1 the Coroner did not deem their input as relevant or 2, there were no female attendants at Bishopsgate police station.

                      As Byfield nor Hutt refers to a female, in my opinion it is most likely there were no female attendants to see to Eddowes.

                      I have rates of pay for these ladies, I have to have a look see and, honestly speaking, I am a bit snowed under so may take some time.

                      Monty


                      PS more than a couple, I know. Apologies.
                      Thank you for corroborating what I had previoulsy posted,

                      Comment


                      • Police Matrons

                        Just something to chew on

                        July 20th 1888 Pall Mall Gazzette

                        Monty
                        Attached Files

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                          Maybe there was an infirmary at the prison and they had bandages and stuff, for multiple purposes?


                          Doesn't make any sense whatsoever or help in any way Marriott's theory. Even if we were to assume that Eddowes were menstruating that night and that they failed to give her some help at the prison, she STILL had her 12 rags along and could have used those instead of tearing up her precious apron, which (so I've heard) in Victorian Britain also served as a leg warmer.
                          Maria
                          There has been a lot of posts on both the topics of organ removals and both pieces of apron. May I suggest you go back and read them all in detail before you post. Clearly the manner and content of your posts indicate you have not done that. Ut might helep yu to understand bith sides of the disputed issues.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Maria Birbili View Post
                            Maybe there was an infirmary at the prison and they had bandages and stuff, for multiple purposes?


                            Doesn't make any sense whatsoever or help in any way Marriott's theory. Even if we were to assume that Eddowes were menstruating that night and that they failed to give her some help at the prison, she STILL had her 12 rags along and could have used those instead of tearing up her precious apron, which (so I've heard) in Victorian Britain also served as a leg warmer.
                            Bishopgate station had a Police Hospital as part of its complex. Marked here in yellow.

                            Monty
                            Attached Files

                            Comment


                            • Jeff oh Jeff is the earth crumbling beneath your feet

                              Originally posted by Jeff Leahy View Post
                              Hi All

                              I'm going to make this post as a point of Clarification. But I've been running two points in my head from comments made by Ed and Trevor that have focussed my thinking.

                              Let me firstly state that the most obvious and simple senario for me, has laways been that Jack cut the piece of apron after mutilating Eddows to clean himself or the knife. This simply fits best what we know about Jack who consistently appears to avoid getting covered in blood. I also believe he paused a while in Goulston Street to avoid a police patrol, while on his way home..


                              OK. Two things that have been on my mind. Firstly Ed stated that the apron hadn't parted down the repair made by Eddows? I dont doubt Ed on this but it DOES NOT make sense. If we assume the apron was roughly the size posted by Chris G of dorsett street and it has a large repair, if I hold one end and Ed holds the other end and we pull.. then surely we can assume that the apron gives way along the tear? But it Didnt

                              Then Trevor made the simple observation that the Apron if cut after the killer raised the skirts (Which seems most logical) then the apron would be UNDER the skirting, thus hidden. I pionted out to him that if thrown up roughly then part of the apron might be exposed, and I think if we imagine a long apron as in the Dorsett street photo that is very probable..

                              Firstly if she was wearing an apron there is no indication given at to its size however both pieces have been desrcibed as portions. We know that the mortuary piece was a corner piece with one string attached. So it is easy for us to picture this. To my mind that may have been at best one quarter of a full apron or even less.

                              So if the killer did cut or tear the apron then he must have taken away the remainder which would in effect be three quarters of a full apron. If that had have been the case it would have been documented and we wouldnt be discussing the sanitary towel issue.

                              If that be the case that three quarters had bee taken away, firstly the GS piece would surely have had to have had the other piece of string attached because as i have pointed out you cant tie and apron with only one piece.

                              Secondly how would he have been able to detach the apron from the strings because if you say she was wearing an apron then both strings would have been attached and tied at the back. That would mean he would have to have undone it or cut through it. If the latter then the other string would have still been attached to the GS piece and had that been the case it would have been mentioned by Dr Brown.

                              The best explanation is that she at some stage (could have been days before) had in her posession half an old apron which was half of one side of a full apron. That then has been cut into two. One piece with one string attached the other piece as just a piece of apron.

                              You are also forgetting that she was stabbed at least twice through all of her outter clothing. Had she been wearing an apron then there would likley to be signs of that which is in line with how the cuts were noted on the other outter clothing and as likley as not be bloodstained. Also not forgetting that after being stabbed and bleeding the killer drew up her clothes so her apron would be almost in direct contact with the open wounds. The mortuary piece was not described as having been cut nor showed signs of bloodstains.

                              So we have raised heavy skirts with a protruding piece of apron. The heavy skirt material would create a new point of resistance... This could be tested..

                              As my partner said cutting the thick cotton material even with a sharpe knife would not be easy.. BUT.. If the apron was pulled hard and resisted by heavy over garments it would create a natural tear/cutting piont down the line of resistance once pulled hard..

                              The white apron we have all agreed would be the most visable item in the square and on Kate.. Thus once cut the remaining piece of Apron would be NOT visable.

                              Once at the mortuary I beleive the clothes would have been cut from the body and if the Mortuary attendant cut the apron where the string joined the apron effectively you would be left with ONE STRING with a knot in the middle. The apron would be discarded until its importance was recognised.

                              Clothes would be "carefully" removed and listed as is known

                              Kate is stated as having been wearing the apron shortly before the murder by several witnesses and it seems improbable given the weight of evidence that she would have removed or even damaged the garment in the few short hours before her death, Hutt's evidence being the biggest support to the FACT that she was wearing the apron.. thanks Mr B.

                              We do not know when she cut it into two

                              But this senario does explain the apparent lack of the apron in teh famous sketch of Eddow's body in position. Interestingly what I suggest could be put to the test by experiment, although whether the apron protrudes could be rather hit or miss and might even be effected by how she was attacked, which is again speculative.

                              It corroborates the suggestion that she wasnt wearing one !

                              But I do believe this version of events, ties all the lose ends together so to speak.

                              Well if you are happy believing that you carry on

                              Yours Jeff

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Monty View Post
                                Bishopgate station had a Police Hospital as part of its complex. Marked here in yellow.
                                Thanks so much Monty.
                                Best regards,
                                Maria

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X