GSG Conclusion

[FrankO]

because Eddowes was stabbed in the abdomen and the knife drawn down and across several times as the cuts in the clothing are described from the mortuary list

First of all, there's no evidence of the cuts in the waistbands being done in several separate goes. In fact, they could all very well have been caused by one and the same stabbing & cutting action that Wickerman has suggested in the past. But, regardless, the apron pieces were seperated all the same.

But perhaps your point is that Eddowes wasn't wearing the apron and her killer put it on her after the mutilations, then cut off a piece and took it with him to drop it in Goulston Street (or something similar)?

[Trevor Marriott]

Below is the photo we're talking about, isn't it? Or, at least, that's the one I am talking about. Now, what I see is an unfurled piece of cloth of which only one side is visible (the up side - the down side being underneath and invisible) and that contains two bloody stains, caused by the wiping of two hands. How do you see both the up and down side in this picture?? Plus, even if we'd be talking about 'stains on left or right side (of the up side)' we might say that the stains were on one side only, because, by far, the bigger part of the right side is unstained.

I can tell you that what you see is as a result of two bloody hands being wiped on a piece of material which was screwed up in the wiping in exacatly the same way you would dry your hands on towel. That process is shown in the first picture. The result is that blood stains were transferred to both sides of the material and were seen when the material was unfurled

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

The two photos posted show the hands being wiped in the first instance and the second shows the result of that wiping on both sides when the cloth is unfurled so what that photo shows is the result of bloody hands being wiped on both sides of the cloth as the first picture clearly shows

Below is the photo we're talking about, isn't it? Or, at least, that's the one I am talking about. Now, what I see is an unfurled piece of cloth of which only one side is visible (the up side - the down side being underneath and invisible) and that contains two bloody stains, caused by the wiping of two hands. How do you see both the up and down side in this picture?? Plus, even if we'd be talking about 'stains on left or right side (of the up side)' we might say that the stains were on one side only, because, by far, the bigger part of the right side is unstained.

[Trevor Marriott]

It was still years after the fact, and we do not know if he was made aware that the heart was missing. I recognize there is a basis for that assumption, but it is not an ascertained fact. Moreover, what we think someone would not forget at a given time is quite often at odds at what they do forget. And by forget, that doesn't mean "lost entirely", just that during that particular interview he may have not remembered. While you do not believe that occurs, memory is one of the areas I am familiar with and I can assure you that just such things are very common occurrences and should not be dismissed when evaluating things like statements made 8 years after the fact.

- Jeff

There are several newspaper reports from 1888 which corroborate the fact that no body parts were taken away, and such a horrific murder as that for anyone involved in the investigation, I am sorry I dont buy the memory failure to suggest that I see as nothing more than an excuse for not accepting the reality of Reids newspaper interview.

Walter Dew another Detective involved in the murder also makes no mention of any organs taken away in his memoirs
Dr Bond in his letter to Anderson on the murders makes no mention of any organs taken away by the killer

How can such an important part of this particluar murder have simply been forgotten back then, the answer is that it was not forgotten because the heart was not taken away by the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

That was Major Henry Smith, Acting Commissioner City of London Police in 1888. The tale was contained in his 1910 memoirs "From Constable to Commissioner: The Story of Sixty Years Most of Them Misspent". He placed the sink incident first in relation to Mitre Square, and a few pages later placed the same incident after Miller St. His memoirs were particularly harsh on "the blunders" of Anderson.

Best regards, George

Ah yes, that's it. Thanks George.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

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

It was still years after the fact, and we do not know if he was made aware that the heart was missing. I recognize there is a basis for that assumption, but it is not an ascertained fact. Moreover, what we think someone would not forget at a given time is quite often at odds at what they do forget. And by forget, that doesn't mean "lost entirely", just that during that particular interview he may have not remembered. While you do not believe that occurs, memory is one of the areas I am familiar with and I can assure you that just such things are very common occurrences and should not be dismissed when evaluating things like statements made 8 years after the fact.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Brown did make a sketch of Eddowes' body before it was removed from Mitre Square to the mortuary. However, I believe Foster used that sketch to prepare his own drawing to be shown in court, which is the version we have today. So it is a copy of Brown's original sketch.

Why would Forster used Browns sketch to draw from when he was at the mortuary where Eddowes body was ! ?. If Forster wasn't at the mortuary and copied Browns sketch somewhere else , why do we see the date and time at (3.45.am) on Forster sketch?.

[Joshua Rogan]

So its Browns not Forsters yes ?. How could anyone make out from that sketch if she was wearing and apron or not .?

Brown did make a sketch of Eddowes' body before it was removed from Mitre Square to the mortuary. However, I believe Foster used that sketch to prepare his own drawing to be shown in court, which is the version we have today. So it is a copy of Brown's original sketch.

[Herlock Sholmes]

well he drew the rest of the clothes

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In no great detail.

[Trevor Marriott]

Although interesting, how does this have any influence on the fact that the two apron parts were seperated and for what purpose the apron piece was taken away, Trevor? Furthermore, why should the apron pieces have cut or stab marks beyond the cut by which the parts were seperated?

because Eddowes was stabbed in the abdomen and the knife drawn down and across several times as the cuts in the clothing are described from the mortuary list

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Again, not necessarily so - just as one of the photos you posted shows.

The two photos posted show the hands being wiped in the first instance and the second shows the result of that wiping on both sides when the cloth is unfurled so what that photo shows is the result of bloody hands being wiped on both sides of the cloth as the first picture clearly shows

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The Foster sketch is showing the mutilations. The whole abdomen is uncovered. On both sides of her abdomen there are areas of indistinct white which could easily have been bunched up apron. To suggest that Foster would have drawn a recognisable apron is absurd and utterly desperate.

well he drew the rest of the clothes

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[FrankO]

But you are also missing the point and that is that he lifted her clothes above her waist so any apron she was wearing would be nearest to her body and the least accessible for him to then cut a piece as an afterthought and he cleary stabbed her several times initally through her outer clothing there was no mention of either two pieces of apron having cut or stab marks.

Although interesting, how does this have any influence on the fact that the two apron parts were seperated and for what purpose the apron piece was taken away, Trevor? Furthermore, why should the apron pieces have cut or stab marks beyond the cut by which the parts were seperated?

[FISHY1118]

So its Browns not Forsters yes ?. How could anyone make out from that sketch if she was wearing and apron or not .?

[FrankO]

If you have two bloody hands covered in faecal matter and you pick up a cloth to wipe your hands you cannot help but get some form of residue on both sides you hold one piece to wipe with one hand and wipe the other hand on the opposite side

Again, not necessarily so - just as one of the photos you posted shows.