PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Fisherman]

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

If so, then the killer laid out the apron on the ground, placed the innards neatly up in one corner, and then he wrapped the apron around the contents.

Could that have happened? Yes, it could.

But would the killer suddenly stop and change the container for something else, if it was working fine and dandy, not allowing any of the blood to seep through? Thatīs what I am questioning.

Moreover, if the killer dropped the apron at, say 1.50-1.55, would the corner still be wet with blood more than an hour later? Thatīs very doubtful to my mind.

We need an explanation for the wet state of the blood at 2.55. The cut hand, the visit to Broad Street, the apron not being in place in Goulston Street at 2.20, the long hiatus before Kelly - these matters all work together with the scenario of a cut hand. I fail to see that any other scenario has as much going for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

And we need to ask ourselves why that wet blood was present in the corner of the apron only.

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

[Fisherman]

The relevant information pertaining to the apron and the blood can be found in the Times, Friday the 12:th of October 1888:

By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

So here it is in black and white. The apron corner was wet with blood.

The official report, written by Long himself and filed on November 6 1888, reads:

I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage …

Here, it is not mentioned where the apron was covered in blood, but we know it from the inquest: it was one of the corners of the apron that was. The expression ”covered in blood” goes to show us that it was not just a small amount of wet blood on the rag – it was a significant measure of it.

Once it has been established that the apron corner was covered in wet blood, we must ask ourselves who that blood came from, seventy minutes plus after the Eddowes slaying. And we need to ask ourselves why that wet blood was present in the corner of the apron only.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Precisely, Varqm. This is exactly the counterargument I was intending to include in two of my previous posts, but the posts ended up by being way too long so I decided to leave it for further discussion. Thanks. Now you've saved me the trouble.

It clearly states "wet with blood", so that is a given.

The best,
Fisherman

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

The date on my copy of Garry's book is 2006.

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

... I explored this issue in my book and presented a list of modern killers who had conducted far more technically demanding procedures than the Ripper ever did, yet not a single one of them had an atom of medical knowledge or experience.

Garry, may I ask, when was your book published?, I can't find any record of when it was first made publicly available.

[Garry Wroe]

Depending on a witness's own way/level of describing things at the time of the statement we do not know if it was meant to be 'cloth with wet blood on it' or a wet cloth (from water) with blood on it. It had rain until midnight the previous day and the hallway could have been wet.The apron could have been wet from the rain or hallway floor and had blood on it and Long describe it as such.

Precisely, Varqm. This is exactly the counterargument I was intending to include in two of my previous posts, but the posts ended up by being way too long so I decided to leave it for further discussion. Thanks. Now you've saved me the trouble.

[Debra A]

Post no.511 is pretty much TKO, lights out, goodnight

Have a great weekend everyone, you too Trev.

This would have been the perfect ending..

[Varqm]

Post #511

Good post Garry.

Just thoughts.

'Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood"
'Which suggests that the apron remnant was used to wrap the organs'

It's not safe to accept Long's description as describing the freshness/recentness or condition of the blood.

Depending on a witness's own way/level of describing things at the time of the statement we do not know if it was meant to be 'cloth with wet blood on it' or a wet cloth (from water) with blood on it. It had rain until midnight the previous day and the hallway could have been wet.The apron could have been wet from the rain or hallway floor and had blood on it and Long describe it as such.

As far as I remember there is no corroboration to Long's statement if it is to be taken as cloth with wet blood on it.

[Wickerman]

Organ Removal
I have touched on this above, and I will simply highlight the flaws in the old theory.

1. Time, there is approx a 5-minute window for the killer to carry out all he is supposed to have done. I maintain that was not long enough to incorporate the removal of the organs.

I think we can agree that two minutes was not sufficient time.
So as Harvey arrived at the square by 1:41-42, and Watkins returned by 1:44, and found the body. Then clearly the body was also there at 1:42, so the murder took place between 1:30 and 1:44, a maximum window time of 14 minutes.
P l e n t y of time.

2. Light not sufficient light to be able to see to remove these organs.

"There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light"
Dr. G. W. Sequeira.

3. Knife, could he have performed those removals using a long bladed knife? Experts say no.

"The wounds were inflicted with a sharp pointed knife, with a blade at least six inches long."
Dr F. G. Brown.

4. Degree of difficulty in finding and taking hold of organs in the blood-filled abdomen.

Which means what, exactly?

5. If able to remove organs how did he transport them away?

The apron Trevor, the apron!

All you have managed to do Trevor is get a handful of members who normally would not agree on anything, to actually arrive at a consensus, that being, they think you are wrong.

[Bridewell]

Well if he simply wanted a part of the body why go to great lengths to take a kidney the most difficult organ in the body to locate and to take hold of and remove. If he wanted a trophy why not take any other part of the body or simply a piece of the body?

Perhaps because he specifically wanted a kidney?

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe: Trusting to memory, Fish, I believe that Shawcross carried the towel with him on returning to the disposal site of a previously killed victim.

So a small but vital difference, then. He brought his organ bag with him.

If the apron remnant really was wet with blood when Long chanced upon it shortly before three o’clock, Fish, it seems unlikely that the killer had used it merely to wipe his hands and knife.

Agreed. I think we can bank on that.

The apron was discovered roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. Had he taken the apron for the specific purpose of removing blood from his hands and knife, common sense dictates that he would have cleaned up at the first available opportunity.

Yes, that makes sense to me too.

The likelihood, then, is that he would have made for Goulston Street immediately upon leaving Mitre Square. So how is it that an apron exposed to the air was found more than an hour later still wet with blood?

I have suggested that he may have cut himself in the left hand (if he was righthanded) when killing and cutting up Eddowes - a very hasty affair in extremly low light. I think he may have taken the rag to use as a makeshift bandage.
Such a bandage would be put on the hand by grabbing on to one corner of it, and then wrapping it around the hand. Thatīs why the corner only was wet with blood.
The reason for hanging on to the rag would be the need to stem the blood and not produce a trail of blood for the police to follow.

My suggestion is that he went to Broad Street after the killing, deposited his trophies and cleaned up as best as he could. However, if the wound had not stopped bleeding, he would need to hang on to his bandage when leaving. Then, on his way home, he stepped into that doorway, unrolled the bandage, noticed that the bleeding had stopped, and threw the rag away before he left.

This, I reason, takes care of why Long did not see the rag at 2.20, and it also explains why it was wet with apparently fresh blood in one corner. It also helps to understand - if I am right, of course! - why there was such a long hiatus before Kelly.

On the contrary, Fish. I addressed this issue in some detail in my book. It relates to the psychological ‘hot zones’ formulated during human cognitive mapping and might be worth a read if you’re interested in what academic studies have revealed about such behaviour. Suffice to say, the killer would have jettisoned the cloth at what he considered to have been a safe distance from his place of safety as a preventative against the police investigation coming too close to home. Careless criminals get caught. Jack the Ripper was not among them.

Not in any way impossible or very improbable, of course - but I still think that he would have bought that derailing at a potentially very dear cost. He needed to expose his trophies there and then before he could hide them again. I find that a bit reckless, to say the least.
And on the whole, I donīt think he had much to win by depositing the rag at a safe distance from home. He would have had a lot more to win by not depositing it at all - then there would have been no clue at all, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

Killers don't suddenly decide halfway through a murder to surgically
remove organs especially when they are in a public place and likely to be
disturbed.

Interesting assertion, Trevor. Do you have any evidence to support it?

[Bridewell]

Hi Garry

So if she wasn't wearing an apron the killer could not have cut it or tore it in any event and therefore could not have taken the organs away.

And nor could a large portion of it have remained with the body. Yet it did. Your theory, which you claim to be the most likely explanation, requires that Eddowes used a portion of her apron for sanitary purposes, despite having a dozen or so pieces of cloth she could have used instead. It also relies on the assumption that she spent the evening in possession of half an apron with one string attached and without anybody ever noticing.

[Bridewell]

If he had left having done all of that as you suggest wasn't he lucky in not picking an exit route where he would have met an oncoming police officer ?

Perhaps, but not necessarily. The same officer (Watkin) was responsible for both the Mitre Street and St James Passage exits. If the killer saw Watkin exit the square he would have a reasonable idea of how much time was available - i.e. until he heard Watkins approach along Mitre Square around 14 minutes later - at which point he would know that St James Passage was clear.