PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Fisherman]

It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

A question if I may, Garry: Do you know whether Shawcross brought the towel along with him or if he procured it at the murder site?

As for the apron piece cut away in Mitre Square, I think that the suggestion that he carried the organs has a good deal going for it - up til the point when we realize that the fluid blood there is, is just present in a corner of the apron.
Why, if he placed a uterus and a kidney inside the apron piece, would he have placed it up in one corner?
Furthermore, what would the "purpose" as such have been for the apron? To carry the organs with him to his bolthole? Then we must assume that he lived in Wentworth Model buildings - and was careless enough to drop a vital clue on his own doorstep.

If he lived somewhere else, why change a perfectly functionable carrying bag for a handkerchief? That would entail him putting the apron on the ground, unrolling it, displaying the innards, whereupon he pulled a handkerchief out - a piece of cloth that would easily have the innards bleeding through it and smearing his clothes - and put the organs inside that handkerchief and went on his way.

Would it not be very much easier to just proceed with the apron piece? The innards had not bled through it if he DID use it as a carrying bag - the only piece that was wet with blood was the corner, and if he had rolled the innards up by placing them on that corner, then there would have been layer upon layer of cloth that was still dry outside the corner core.

To my mind, the apron was not used as a means to carry any organs. If it was, my hunch is that he would have taken the organs in it to where he was going to stow them away, instead of discarding a useful carrying bag halfways there.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I am not basing my arguments on that fact alone but on a combination of facts that put together would suggest that the organs were not taken away in the piece, along with the facts that suggest she wasn't wearing an apron.

Then how do you account for the descriptions of the apron provided by various crime scene attendees, Trev, medical men amongst them?

Just as a matter of interest why do you think the police did not consider the fact that the apron piece was used to take the organs away in ?

I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t considered, Trev. The fact that we have no written record of such shouldn’t be taken as proof that no-one thought it a possibility at the time. For the record, here’s the relevant passage from my book:-

‘Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

The killer had plenty of options available to him had he merely wished to clean his hands and knife. Taps and water butts were readily available in the area, as were horse troughs. The fact too that the night in question had been punctuated by heavy rainfall means that there would have been puddles and possibly larger sources of standing water that could have been used for washing away blood and other evidence of the Eddowes murder. More to the point, water would have removed unwanted bloodstains far more efficiently than would the dry and possibly contaminated apron taken from Mitre Square. With this in mind I think it likely that the theft of the apron remnant was motivated by some other factor. If so, the most obvious conclusion is that the killer used it to wrap the body parts, thus protecting his clothing whilst he put what he felt was a safe distance between himself and the crime scene.

Think about it in more quotidian terms. No-one in their right mind would consider leaving a butcher’s shop with unwrapped raw meat placed in a pocket for a journey home. So why should Jack the Ripper have been any different? It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.

[Wickerman]

Then it would have been listed as one white apron with piece missing.

Isn't "1 Piece of old white apron" good enough for you?

Can you explain the difference in the following?

1 - 1 Piece of apron.
2 - 1 Apron with piece missing.

Are we dabbling in semantics now?

[Trevor Marriott]

It was still attached with two strings.
Do you seriously think the doctors are going to look for the knot underneath her body and fiddle with it to untie the blood soaked apron?
They could hardly turn her over could they!
More likely they just snipped the string at one side to get it off and out of the way.

Well if they did that then it would have been noticeable and listed as an item she was wearing. They prepared two separate lists of clothing shew was wearing were thy that incompetent that they missed the apron of both occasions. Besides they would have had to lift the body up to removes the other items of clothing. They would also have had to turn the body to see if there were any marks cuts etc to the back

Therefore, any third party looking at this portion of an apron will naturally see one string still attached to the apron.

Then it would have been listed as one white apron with piece missing.

Stop hanging onto a myth that has crumbled

[Trevor Marriott]

Well, Trev, Hutchinson's Astrakhan story went unchallenged until I subjected it to scrutiny in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays very few take Hutchinson at face value. But if you are suggesting that we should reject the notion that the killer wrapped Eddowes' body parts in the apron remnant purely on the basis that no-one proposed it at the time, then we must surely apply the same logic to your own argument and dispel the contention that the victims' body parts were taken away by someone other than the murderer.

Hi Garry

I am not basing my arguments on that fact alone but on a combination of facts that put together would suggest that the organs were not taken away in the piece, along with the facts that suggest she wasn't wearing an apron.

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

Just as a matter of interest why do you think the police did not consider the fact that the apron piece was used to take the organs away in ?

[Garry Wroe]

But did you not wonder why no one from 1888 or therefater ever thought of it ?

Well, Trev, Hutchinson's Astrakhan story went unchallenged until I subjected it to scrutiny in the mid-Eighties. Nowadays very few take Hutchinson at face value. But if you are suggesting that we should reject the notion that the killer wrapped Eddowes' body parts in the apron remnant purely on the basis that no-one proposed it at the time, then we must surely apply the same logic to your own argument and dispel the contention that the victims' body parts were taken away by someone other than the murderer.

[Monty]

True, I remember two examples-William McGrath and Harriett Buswell research as related to Special Branch wasn't it?

Indeed Debs,

Goose and Gander.

Monty

[Monty]

"which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief"
Monty

But who decides these two. So now you and others who think like you, are saying
you have such a total, excellent sense/grip of life/reality/this case and it's
possibilities,that you know more about what could have happened and not?
Please. Don't be silly. Such nonsense.

whatever happened to..
veni vedi veci..
instead ...(a one ton rock falls in front)
The materials are way too scant, there are several possibilities,
we cannot conclude with any degree of certainty.
People can still create reasonable doubt.

Not at all Varmq,

I do not know your status however I know mine, and I know when evidence is being stretched to fit a theory.

Indeed, 'materials' are far too scant, yet Trevor not only forms theories on this material, but claims them as truths. And therees the rub.

Now you may be happy with this low level of integrity, however I am not. I believe we have a responsibility to state fact it as it is, not as we percieve it.

Monty

[GUT]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

never been a more truer saying

So now it's Trevor Gandhi!

[Varqm]

"which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief"
Monty

But who decides these two. So now you and others who think like you, are saying
you have such a total, excellent sense/grip of life/reality/this case and it's
possibilities,that you know more about what could have happened and not?
Please. Don't be silly. Such nonsense.

whatever happened to..
veni vedi veci..
instead ...(a one ton rock falls in front)
The materials are way too scant, there are several possibilities,
we cannot conclude with any degree of certainty.
People can still create reasonable doubt.

[Debra A]

Yes but many without any real sense of reasoning, or the ability to apply logic to the research. I think it commonly called being blinkered.

True, I remember two examples-William McGrath and Harriett Buswell research as related to Special Branch wasn't it?

[Wickerman]

If that were the case then it would have still been fixed to the body at the back with the two strings....

It was still attached with two strings.
Do you seriously think the doctors are going to look for the knot underneath her body and fiddle with it to untie the blood soaked apron?
They could hardly turn her over could they!
More likely they just snipped the string at one side to get it off and out of the way.

Therefore, any third party looking at this portion of an apron will naturally see one string still attached to the apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed Carol,

Some have studied the case for over 60 years, and taken their time to reach their conclusions whereas other, like Trevor, are Johnny come lately's, and rush into ill researched and ill informed conclusions which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief.

Luckly there are reasoned and responsible reseachers and authors to counter the latter.

Monty

Yes but many without any real sense of reasoning, or the ability to apply logic to the research. I think it commonly called being blinkered.

Perhaps they should spend more time re investigating the case in more detail as I have. Instead of simply accepting what has gone before. Because those few you refer to are in the minority now. The public are wising up now to the fact that there are other plausible alternatives to some parts of this mystery and good evidence to support the new alternatives.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

never been a more truer saying

[Monty]

Indeed Carol,

Some have studied the case for over 60 years, and taken their time to reach their conclusions whereas other, like Trevor, are Johnny come lately's, and rush into ill researched and ill informed conclusions which are way beyond reason and require leaps of fantastical belief.

Luckly there are reasoned and responsible reseachers and authors to counter the latter.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

There's a lot to think about, isn't there!

I guess I'll have to put my winter bloomers on early this year as knowing me I'll still be sitting on the fence come Christmas. (My husband will tell you that I'm not known for making quick decisions - much to his exasperation at times!).

Carol

Hi Carol

Well as long as you arrive to what you believe to be the right one at the end. It doesn't matter how long it takes. Look at how long the old accepted theories have been relied on without question