PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Garry Wroe]

It struck me that when Morris opened the back door at 1.42 or thereabouts, light would be emitting from said interior. As I have pointed out previously, depending on which way the door hinges were, and depending on whether the door was an inward or outward swinging door, a certain amount, variable because of the above, of light would then create a shaft, of some description, out into the square ... Additionally, we do not know if the door was silent or creaked ... Given these possibilities of one way or another, it is most possible that said killer would either have seen, heard or his attention been brought to the opening of the door (and the light eminating from it, if only a shaft.)

I think it overwhelmingly likely, Phil, that the killer would have been acutely attuned to sound whilst at the crime scenes, whether this was footsteps, creaking doors, windows opening, approaching carts or even human voices. I consider it no accident that he killed when the streets were largely deserted. Not only were the women he encountered liable to be desperate to earn their lodging money and thus less risk averse, but the quietness of the streets provided the killer with advanced warning of any potential threat.

That could be the reason for him being spooked. It also ties in with the estimated time of death from the FIRST doctor on the scene, Sequiera.

To be honest, Phil, I see no indication of the killer having been spooked at the Mitre Square crime scene. The fact that he took the time to cut away the apron remnant and inflict the delicate cuts about Kate’s eyes signifies to me that there was no hasty retreat from the locus.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or bash another hole in the hull hoping that the water already flooding the boat will rush out of it.

Well you Hunter and all the others can mock and ridicule all you like it has no effect on me especially when you know you are holding all the cards. It all just runs me off like water off a ducks back.

Perhaps you and hunter and others time might be best spent trying to answer the question I posted yesterday- Oh I forgot you cant because there is no answer and that my friends is the deciding factor.

So lets now forget about further discussion about the organs being taken away in the apron piece as it didn't happen shall we, and move onto another part of the apron piece oh I forgot again I already proved that hands or a knife weren't wiped on it. With all this excitement in shattering this part of the myth I almost allowed myself the luxury of a smile.

[Bridewell]

Trevor, where is there any record, written or otherwise to say that they held a contrary belief?

Here we go again another deflection why cant people on here answer a simple question with a simple answer.

We can, Trevor, but yours wasn't a simple question. It was a loaded one. You asked where there was any record of the police or others in officialdom expressing the view that the apron was used to remove body parts. This implies that, if there isn't an official record of its being put to that use, then such use is ruled out. That argument would hold water only if there was a view expressed to the contrary. If there was no contrary view expressed then no conclusion can be drawn from the silence.

For the record, I share your view that the apron was not used to transport body parts - the portion cut away was excessive for that purpose - but your argument about the absence of an official view doesn't close the door if officialdom recorded no view one way or the other.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, where is there any record, written or otherwise to say that they held a contrary belief?


We can, Trevor, but yours wasn't a simple question. It was a loaded one. You asked where there was any record of the police or others in officialdom expressing the view that the apron was used to remove body parts. This implies that, if there isn't an official record of its being put to that use, then such use is ruled out. That argument would hold water only if there was a view expressed to the contrary. If there was no contrary view expressed then no conclusion can be drawn from the silence.

For the record, I share your view that the apron was not used to transport body parts - the portion cut away was excessive for that purpose - but your argument about the absence of an official view doesn't close the door if officialdom recorded no view one way or the other.

Hi careful agreeing with me you be ostracized !

Well as I have stated if officialdom did ever consider the possibility, they quickly chose to not pursue it simply because the spotting/smearing/staining was not consistent with organs being wrapped in it, and they never recorded that fact and questions were not asked at the inquest on that topic.

The suggestion did not even find it way into the papers, so you have no one from the time period suggesting the organs were taken away in it. In fact no one in later years Anderson, Reid, Macnaghten, Abberline, Major Smith or Swanson did either, now doesn't that speak volumes. I am sure at least one of those must have had a brain capable of perhaps wondering how the killer took the organs away.

As I said before destroy this part of the myth then it leaves the door open to challenge other parts which have been readily accepted.

[Cogidubnus]

Don't encourage him to make himself look a --///// he is doing a good enough job all on his own !

What has the proud record of the CID come to, when I have to explain ordinary straightforward English vocabulary to a thick tick?

Trevor, buy yourself a decent dictionary (Clue they're usually prefixed "Oxford English") and check out the difference between emancipation and emaciation - you, as an ex professional footballer might be surprised...the rest of us, as normal human beings, aren't...

All the best

Dave

[TomTomKent]

You'd really think women would learn from this fact...the more freedom they're given, the more freely they menstruate...thank you Trevor for this invaluable lesson in Physiology...it's no wonder that Bedford CID is now one of the foremost authorities on murder...

All the best

Dave

Well to be fair there was a lot more emancipation among Eastern Europeans of Whitechapel a few decades earlier... And autocorrect is a pitch when it comes to tipping words, sometimes using the wrong wards altogether.



With apologies to the Two Ronnies.

[Jon Guy]

Sorry, Jon, but I know of no evidence that supports the chronology you suggest. Purely in psychological terms I think it much more likely that the killer focused first on the abdominal mutilations and then turned his attention to the face as an afterthought.

Hi Garry

I`ve gone with Sam`s timeline (see below).

I believe Sam constructed the timeline with face mutilations first based on there been no trace of faeces on the face, which would have been present if he`d mutilated the face after cutting through the colon.


By Accident or Design? A Critical Analysis of the Murder of Catherine Eddowes -Sam Flynn

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/rip-accident-or-design.html

[Abby Normal]

Hi Garry

I`ve gone with Sam`s timeline (see below).

I believe Sam constructed the timeline with face mutilations first based on there been no trace of faeces on the face, which would have been present if he`d mutilated the face after cutting through the colon.


By Accident or Design? A Critical Analysis of the Murder of Catherine Eddowes -Sam Flynn
http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...or-design.html

Hi Jon
If the ripper didn't use the apron piece to validate his message, I Beleive that the next most likely scenario is that he cut himself early in the attack on eddowes and used it to wrap around his hand.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Jon
If the ripper didn't use the apron piece to validate his message, I Beleive that the next most likely scenario is that he cut himself early in the attack on eddowes and used it to wrap around his hand.

Hi Abby

At the moment I believe it was taken as a clean up rag, possibly later re-utilised as a marker. I`d be surprised if it turns out he had planned to take the apron piece as a marker.

I can`t see the "cut himself" scenario, myself. Just maybe, he cut himself attacking Stride (hence the unexplained blobs of blood on her arm).

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

At the moment I believe it was taken as a clean up rag, possibly later re-utilised as a marker. I`d be surprised if it turns out he had planned to take the apron piece as a marker.

I can`t see the "cut himself" scenario, myself. Just maybe, he cut himself attacking Stride (hence the unexplained blobs of blood on her arm).

Of course that's possible.

There was a sighting of a man with a peaked cap acting suspiciously and wiping his hands in church st. Perhaps he cut himself with stride as you say and or was just cleaning up and discarded that one. Hence he needed a new one after eddowes.
Of course, he needn't have cut himself either, his victim could have caused the wound, biting him etc.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby

At the moment I believe it was taken as a clean up rag, possibly later re-utilised as a marker. I`d be surprised if it turns out he had planned to take the apron piece as a marker.

I can`t see the "cut himself" scenario, myself. Just maybe, he cut himself attacking Stride (hence the unexplained blobs of blood on her arm).

John
You were described by Debra as being intelligent and knowledgeable. I can now see signs of that shining through with your rejection of theory that the apron piece was used to carry away the organs in it.

Let me throw another anomaly your way with regards to this same murder I am sure it will generate heated discussion which is what we want isn't it ?

If one previously accepted part of this mystery has been dispelled why not lets try to dispel more ?

Th first time the nicks to the eyes and the triangles were noticed on Eddowes face appears to have been when the post mortem was carried out. In Dr Browns inquest testimony he simply refers to the face as being disfigured at the crime scene but does not go into specifics. So were they present then?

There is a sketch in existence which shows the body in situ. I am not sure who prepared that or when but it does not show the triangles on the cheeks which I find strange don't you ?

Could the killer really have done all that he is alleged to have done in less than five minutes? And what would have been the purpose of inflicting those cuts. There were none noticed in any of the other victims?

Did the killer inflict those cuts to her eyes and cheeks or is there another plausible explanation ?

[Jon Guy]

You were described by Debra as being intelligent and knowledgeable.

LOL. Debs can be very cruel, Trev.

I can now see signs of that shining through with your rejection of theory that the apron piece was used to carry away the organs in it.

To be honest, I dropped the theory because I only just discovered I was the only one doing the conga on the dance floor to it.

The first time the nicks to the eyes and the triangles were noticed on Eddowes face appears to have been when the post mortem was carried out. In Dr Browns inquest testimony he simply refers to the face as being disfigured at the crime scene but does not go into specifics. So were they present then?

There is a sketch in existence which shows the body in situ. I am not sure who prepared that or when but it does not show the triangles on the cheeks which I find strange don't you ?

Just had a look at the sketch and there does appear to be a mark on the sketch where the v would have been. You may need to zoom in on the sketch to see it.

Could the killer really have done all that he is alleged to have done in less than five minutes? And what would have been the purpose of inflicting those cuts. There were none noticed in any of the other victims?

The attending Doctors don`t appear to doubt the injuries were inflicted in that time frame.

Personally, Trev, I don`t think we should be looking for any logical reasons in what the Ripper might have done. Was the killer getting more confident, was he on a mental downward spiral, was he playing up to the newspapers, or all of the above ?

Did the killer inflict those cuts to her eyes and cheeks or is there another plausible explanation

I think we can see these on the in situ sketch.

What`s your take ?
Who, when .... ?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Jon
For a start the pic you posted would appear to be an enhanced image the original hardly shows anything and what can be seen doesn't in my opinion amount to a triangle it simply looks like a cut to the top of the cheek goinbg in the same direction and at the same angle as the other cuts.. Original below.

As has been proved nothing should be taken for granted and readily accepted as being fact. Lets take the Lusk kidney he received it on Oct 16th it then went to Dr Oppenshaw who examined it and due to brights disease in the kidney and the fact that Eddowes also had the same disease.The police never pursued the fact that as was suggested at the time it could have been a medical student prank and that could have in fact been Eddowes kidney.

But what if the organs of Eddowes were removed at the mortuary by a medical student or students and at the same time again as a prank they made those facial incisions which were then seen and recorded at the post mortem

Did the killer really make those cuts with all that was going on at the time. In his heightened state of awareness he composes himself and carefully makes cuts to both eyes in the same places taking care not to damage the eyes when using a knife, and then again in almost darkness is able to cut out what would appear to be two specific triangles of flesh.

What was the relevance of those cuts and if it were the same killer why were none found on any of the other victims?

[Monty]

The V upon the right cheek is visible. And is upon the original.

You need stronger glasses Marriott.

Monty

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Trevor.

"What was the relevance of those cuts and if it were the same killer why were none found on any of the other victims?"

Oh, ho! NOW you're asking the right question.

Cheers.
LC