Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

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

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    What Reid says

    [SIZE=16px][FONT=Times New Roman]I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete.
    Did Reid somehow know that the organs had been taken while the bodies were in the mortuaries, but inexplicably failed to mention it? Or did he think that the doctors (who declared under oath at the inquests that some organs were indeed missing) were either incompetent or lying?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

      What Reid says

      [SIZE=16px][FONT=Times New Roman]I ought to tell you that the stories of portions of the body having been taken away by the murderer were all untrue. In every instance the body was complete.

      Did Reid somehow know that the organs had been taken while the bodies were in the mortuaries, but inexplicably failed to mention it? Or did he think that the doctors (who declared under oath at the inquests that some organs were indeed missing) were either incompetent or lying?
      Hi Trevor and Joshua,

      In every instance the body was complete.

      I am reading this as "With regard to every organ the body was complete". Joshua is referring to "bodies" but my interpretation is that Reid was referring only to the body of MJK. What is your interpretation of this Trevor?

      Cheers, George
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FrankO View Post
        Hi George,

        Of course, it’s possible that he cut his finger and that he applied the apron piece to try and stop the bleeding, but we have more than just Long’s description (and even Long didn’t describe only the wet corner). Dr. Brown described the blood on the apron as smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it and he stated it contained what appeared to be stains of faecal matter.

        Also, if the Ripper seriously cut himself and had used the apron piece to bandage the wound, then I’d expect the doctors to have recognized this possibility and we, then, would very likely have known about it. I’d find it odd that this possibility wasn’t mentioned at all by any of the medical men involved.

        Taken all of this together, it doesn’t strike me that the Ripper took the apron piece with him to just bandage a smallish cut. What still makes the most sense to me is that he primarily took it to wipe his knife (on that wet corner) and his hands on it while getting away or when he was some distance away from the crime scene.

        Best regards,
        Frank
        Hi Frank,

        I find myself still not persuaded on your point of view. I still can't find Brown's description. Can you point me to it please?

        AFAIK Eddowes was the only victim that had clothing taken away indicating that Jack had prepared for the contingencies of hand/knife cleaning and organ transport on the other occasions. If Jack had been picked up after leaving Mitre Sq his carrying a knife and/or having some blood on him may not have been enough to secure a conviction as knife carrying was not unusual, and the technology of the time could not differentiate between Eddowes blood and blood claimed to be from a nose bleed etc. The incriminating factor would be the possession of part of the apron of the victim, so were it just for wiping I would expect it would have been disposed of long before Goulston St. As a bandage it was necessary until the bleeding stopped, but it could have also been used in the secondary role for wiping. My next reservation is that wiping blood off hands/knife leaves stains on a cloth but does not make the cloth "wet", where as blood from a wound does soak into cloth.

        Quote from post by Boris: "Given the fact that there also was fecal matter found on the piece, the killer may have suffered from a severe sepsis or at least inflammation/delayed wound healing due to the depth of the cut, which would explain the comparatively long pause between Eddowes and Kelly.". Were the sepsis sufficiently severe, Jack could have even died as a consequence, leaving MJK as a copycat.

        Best regards, George
        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

        Everything that needs to be said has already been said. But since no one was listening, everything must be said again. - Andre Gide

        Comment


        • I recall that the Ustinov TV Special (1988) reported that the Ripper had washed his hands after Mitre Square in a fountain or horse trough. What was that based on? It was raining that night, but how hard and how much? How wet were the streets, were there standing puddles all over? My point is that if he did cut his hand, the Ripper probably used the apron piece to stem the blood flow (depending on how serious it was). If there was standing water all over the place, he could have washed the injury (which I would assume was to his hand) quite quickly anywhere, rather than a fountain some distance away, even if he knew it was on his way. Wash the cloth, then wrap the injury up to stop the blood from dripping and being easily noticed by someone that might ask questions, even if he already DID have something to carry his prize/-es.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by C. F. Leon View Post
            I recall that the Ustinov TV Special (1988) reported that the Ripper had washed his hands after Mitre Square in a fountain or horse trough. What was that based on? It was raining that night, but how hard and how much? How wet were the streets, were there standing puddles all over? My point is that if he did cut his hand, the Ripper probably used the apron piece to stem the blood flow (depending on how serious it was). If there was standing water all over the place, he could have washed the injury (which I would assume was to his hand) quite quickly anywhere, rather than a fountain some distance away, even if he knew it was on his way. Wash the cloth, then wrap the injury up to stop the blood from dripping and being easily noticed by someone that might ask questions, even if he already DID have something to carry his prize/-es.
            That comes from a hypocraphal tale from one of the police memoirs written many years later (I forget who just now). It never happened - well, the blood was not found still swirling down the sink, as he told he found it.

            - Jeff

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

              Did Reid somehow know that the organs had been taken while the bodies were in the mortuaries, but inexplicably failed to mention it? Or did he think that the doctors (who declared under oath at the inquests that some organs were indeed missing) were either incompetent or lying?
              I suspect that when the room was searched, and they found her kidneys, and uterus, and it appeared everything was there, though spread about the room, the thought was the body was complete. Reid was at the scene and would have been aware of that initial assessment. Her heart, however, was probably not noticed as absent from the chest until late in the autopsy, changing the assessment as gets reported in later papers. Reid was not at the autopsy, and also, when he's recounting things some 25 years later, his initial memory of everything being accounted for was probably what he was recalling. Police memoirs were written based upon what they recalled, and I don't think they tended to go back and dig out old files and re-evaluate things. There will be some mis recollections as a result.

              - Jeff

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post

                I suspect that when the room was searched, and they found her kidneys, and uterus, and it appeared everything was there, though spread about the room, the thought was the body was complete. Reid was at the scene and would have been aware of that initial assessment. Her heart, however, was probably not noticed as absent from the chest until late in the autopsy, changing the assessment as gets reported in later papers. Reid was not at the autopsy, and also, when he's recounting things some 25 years later, his initial memory of everything being accounted for was probably what he was recalling. Police memoirs were written based upon what they recalled, and I don't think they tended to go back and dig out old files and re-evaluate things. There will be some mis recollections as a result.

                - Jeff
                The newspaper article was 1896 not 25 years later

                But Reid did go back to Miller Courts with the other medics and other police officers later in the day after the full post mortem, so he would have known at that time whether or not the body was complete and the heart had been accounted for.

                A killer cutting out a heart and taking it away is not something anyone would forget, lets drop this failing memory suggestion in an attempt to discredit Reid.

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                  Hi Trevor and Joshua,

                  In every instance the body was complete.

                  I am reading this as "With regard to every organ the body was complete". Joshua is referring to "bodies" but my interpretation is that Reid was referring only to the body of MJK. What is your interpretation of this Trevor?

                  Cheers, George
                  Reid was at that time talking about Mary Kelly so I would suggest that is who the comment applies to why would he suddenly in the middle of talking about Kelly throw in a comment about other bodies that would be out of context. especially as he does also in the interview talk about the other murders but not in as much detail as he was not as directly involved with some of them as he was with Kelly

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                    Well if you have two bloody hands and you wipe them on a piece of cloth then you will transfer the residue to both sides its a simple excercise to try at home another test we did at the mortuary shows the results.
                    I see what you mean, Trevor, although what you say doesn't mean that hands can't be wiped on only one side of a cloth (as the photo on the right seems to portray). The only thing you have to do is to fold the cloth in half. But also, who's to say whether "on one side" meant "only on the front or back side" instead of "the upper or lower side" of the apron piece? And, of course, it's also possible that he only had one hand he needed to wipe off (using his other hand to only hold the knife).
                    "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                    Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                      If he had done that he could have disposed it it long before he got toGS
                      Could? Yes. Should? No.
                      "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                      Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        I didnt conveniently forget, I was dealing specifically with the article, not the whole of the police investigation into the murder which you seem to think he should have disclosed and why should he have disclosed what you suggest Hutchinson was deemed to be a non starter,

                        For all we know he had retained copies of his report which he was referring to, and besides if Hutchinson is to be believed Blotchy is ruled out because Hutchinsons sighting of her was after she was seen with Blotchy, so Blotchy ruled out back then so need for him to be mentioned by Reid and we all know how suspect Hutchinsons statement was, so again no prime suspects for Reid to mention to the reporter. There is always a simple answer no need for you to get over excited

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        You really won’t acknowledge anything that contradicts a point that you’ve made will you.

                        And a ‘simpler’ explanation is that Hutt and Robinson were undoubtedly correct when they said that Eddowes was wearing an apron. Of course you need to discredit this very simple piece of observation to keep your theory afloat but they have absolutely no motive for confirming something that wasn’t true. The police in general would have gained zero benefit in propping up a suggested piece of evidence that wasn’t genuine. And as she couldn’t have walked around wearing an apron with a chunk missing which included te string this is all obvious stuff. The Police, who actually saw the apron and the GS piece (unlike you and I who can only try to imagine what they looked like) were clearly had no doubt that the piece was taken from an apron that she was wearing.

                        I can only assume that the reason that you’re so persistent in this, in the face of the evidence, is that you are trying to protect at all costs your other theory - that the body parts were taken in the mortuary rather than in situ and so you try to eliminate any suggestion that the cloth might have been taken to carry them?

                        So to do this you have to label the police and doctors idiots who couldn’t correctly match up two pieces of cloth, that they wouldn’t have realised or mentioned that another piece of it might have been missing, that two Police officers who saw and spent time with Eddowes a very few hours earlier (and minutes before she was murdered) imagined that she was wearing an apron or that they deliberately lied to prop up a piece of false evidence that would have been of zero help to the police, then you have Eddowes returning to her lodgings completely unseen by anyone and then, after walking all of the way there, she then trudges all the way back to a location where, as far as we know, she had no connection to. And you have the nerve to accuse others..
                        Regards

                        Herlock Sholmes

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          The newspaper article was 1896 not 25 years later

                          But Reid did go back to Miller Courts with the other medics and other police officers later in the day after the full post mortem, so he would have known at that time whether or not the body was complete and the heart had been accounted for.

                          A killer cutting out a heart and taking it away is not something anyone would forget, lets drop this failing memory suggestion in an attempt to discredit Reid.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          As you attempt to discredit Hutt and Robinson.
                          Regards

                          Herlock Sholmes

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                            You really won’t acknowledge anything that contradicts a point that you’ve made will you.

                            And a ‘simpler’ explanation is that Hutt and Robinson were undoubtedly correct when they said that Eddowes was wearing an apron. Of course you need to discredit this very simple piece of observation to keep your theory afloat but they have absolutely no motive for confirming something that wasn’t true. The police in general would have gained zero benefit in propping up a suggested piece of evidence that wasn’t genuine. And as she couldn’t have walked around wearing an apron with a chunk missing which included te string this is all obvious stuff. The Police, who actually saw the apron and the GS piece (unlike you and I who can only try to imagine what they looked like) were clearly had no doubt that the piece was taken from an apron that she was wearing.

                            I can only assume that the reason that you’re so persistent in this, in the face of the evidence, is that you are trying to protect at all costs your other theory - that the body parts were taken in the mortuary rather than in situ and so you try to eliminate any suggestion that the cloth might have been taken to carry them?

                            So to do this you have to label the police and doctors idiots who couldn’t correctly match up two pieces of cloth, that they wouldn’t have realised or mentioned that another piece of it might have been missing, that two Police officers who saw and spent time with Eddowes a very few hours earlier (and minutes before she was murdered) imagined that she was wearing an apron or that they deliberately lied to prop up a piece of false evidence that would have been of zero help to the police, then you have Eddowes returning to her lodgings completely unseen by anyone and then, after walking all of the way there, she then trudges all the way back to a location where, as far as we know, she had no connection to. And you have the nerve to accuse others..
                            you keep missing the point and you are not listening or reading the posts. I accept that the two pieces matched, but you cant seem to grasp the fact that when the two pieces were matched there isnt any evidnce to show that they made up a full apron. So if you say she was wearing a full apron where did the rest of it go? and how did the piece found among her posessions come to be there and was not seen on the body. not forgetting that she carried her possessions in two tick bags

                            Because they were matched by the seams they had to have come from the same side of the apron, therefore one piece with a string attached was from the top half and the other piece from the bottom half. making up half an apron and again if the killer lifted up all her clothes above her waist was he able to cut a piece of apron for whatever purpose when it would have been easier for him to cut a piece of material from any other item of her clothing which was more accesible because the apron would have been the furthest away from him.

                            She had more than enough time after leaving the police station to make her way back to Flower and Dean Street, if she did that I have no idea why she didnt go to her lodgings and then decided to go back to the City and try to make some money to compensate for the money she had spent on drink earlier in the day.

                            What cant speak can lie there is no sign of an apron or any piece of an apron in Fosters sketch of the body that is another factor which clearly shows she was not wearing an apron.

                            www.trevormarriott,co.uk
                            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 05-15-2022, 09:17 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              As you attempt to discredit Hutt and Robinson.
                              The connecting evidence discredits them

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post
                                I find myself still not persuaded on your point of view.
                                Fair enough.

                                I still can't find Brown's description. Can you point me to it please?
                                Daily News of October 5:
                                "My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body. It is impossible to assert that the blood is human blood. It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."
                                Evening News of October 5:
                                "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman? - It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
                                Are the stains of recent origin? - They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goldstone street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
                                On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it? - Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of faecal matter."
                                Morning Advertiser of October 5:
                                "Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
                                Are the stains of recent origin?-They are. Dr. Phillips afterwards brought me a piece of apron which had been found in Goulstone-street by a policeman. The stains are those of blood, but it is impossible to say that it is human blood.
                                On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?-Yes. There were also some other stains."
                                St. James Gazette of October 5:
                                "He had examined a portion of an apron found on the deceased with blood spots upon it of recent origin. He had also seen another portion of the apron found in Gouldstone street, which had smears of blood upon it as if hands or a knife had been wiped upon it."
                                Times of October 5:
                                "Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness. - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.
                                Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence."


                                AFAIK Eddowes was the only victim that had clothing taken away indicating that Jack had prepared for the contingencies of hand/knife cleaning and organ transport on the other occasions.
                                True enough George, but it was also the only victim with whom he had to deal with faecal matter. So, yes, the evidence doesn’t preclude that he used the apron piece to stop some relatively minor cut from bleeding, just as it doesn’t preclude that the main purpose for taking it was to clean his hands, knife and, possibly, the organs from especially the faecal matter. The thing is that we know too little. For instance, we don’t know how big the wet corner was and whether it was only blood or even whose blood it was.

                                If Jack had been picked up after leaving Mitre Sq his carrying a knife and/or having some blood on him may not have been enough to secure a conviction as knife carrying was not unusual, and the technology of the time could not differentiate between Eddowes blood and blood claimed to be from a nose bleed etc. The incriminating factor would be the possession of part of the apron of the victim, so were it just for wiping I would expect it would have been disposed of long before Goulston St.
                                There’s no way for us to know. What you suggest, does sound sound & logical, but that doesn’t mean it has to be true. He may well have mostly ran/jogged for a minute or 2 (some 450 metres/490 yards) to first get some distance between himself and the crime scene before reaching Goulston Street and deeming the entrance to the building safe enough to do the wiping and dumping. Perhaps it was a bit of both (stopping the bleeding, if there was any on his part, and first getting some distance away from the crime scene). Who knows?

                                All the best,
                                Frank
                                "You can rob me, you can starve me and you can beat me and you can kill me. Just don't bore me."
                                Clint Eastwood as Gunny in "Heartbreak Ridge"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X