PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

There you go...the Diva has returned.

Monty

I never left !

[Monty]

The post mortem was not carried out until 2.30pm the following day by which time the piece would no doubt have dried significantly in any event.

But why would they then bother to smell the apron piece. I can see why they smelt the stomach, but there would have had no logical reason to go around smelling all the items of clothing at that time unless a specific issue had been raised.

126 years later it is easy for us to question things like
"why didn't they do this"
"why didn't they go there"
"why didn't they ask that"
"why didn't they look at that"

The fact is they didn't in a lot of instances within the overall mystery and we have to ask why? naievety, inexperience over confidence, laziness

But because they didn't we are left with un answered questions, and researchers who continue to wildly speculate in an attempt fill in the missing answers.

There you go...the Diva has returned.

Monty

[Hunter]

The post mortem was not carried out at 2 p.m. the following day. It was carried out at 2 p.m. that same day, Sunday. Brown didn't even wait to notify the coroner. The apron piece was brought by Phillips and examined with the other within two hours of the body arriving at the morgue.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor



If, as you suppose, the wetness was due to urine, would not the doctors have been able to note this, due the smell?
After all, they seemed to check for the presence of narcotics and alcohol by smelling the contents of the stomach.




It may have just been me that has constantly been raising this point, Trev.
For some reason, I have always thought it was an option for the use of the rag, and now you mention it I can`t recall it been mentioned at the time, so perhaps we can scrap that option
It must have been a clean up rag ;-)

The post mortem was not carried out until 2.30pm the following day by which time the piece would no doubt have dried significantly in any event.

But why would they then bother to smell the apron piece. I can see why they smelt the stomach, but there would have had no logical reason to go around smelling all the items of clothing at that time unless a specific issue had been raised.

126 years later it is easy for us to question things like
"why didn't they do this"
"why didn't they go there"
"why didn't they ask that"
"why didn't they look at that"

The fact is they didn't in a lot of instances within the overall mystery and we have to ask why? naievety, inexperience over confidence, laziness

But because they didn't we are left with un answered questions, and researchers who continue to wildly speculate in an attempt fill in the missing answers.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Trevor

First lets look at the description. I am only going to deal with the blood issues. Pc Long who found it in his inquest testimony says "There were recent stains of blood on it"

The Telegraph seems to have got it right this time and writes "I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it”

The Times is much in line also “I found a portion of a woman`s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood”

Dr Browns inquest testimony says "Some blood" on the piece now he doesn't say how much but if it had been heavily bloodstained I would have expected that to have been mentioned.

When cross examined by Mr Crawford when asked about the GS piece he says "On the piece of apron brought there were smears of blood on one side" I have purposely left out the remaining sentence for discussion later

The Telegraph quotes Dr Brown “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion".

If, as you suppose, the wetness was due to urine, would not the doctors have been able to note this, due the smell?
After all, they seemed to check for the presence of narcotics and alcohol by smelling the contents of the stomach.

So to me that now clearly shows and proves that the organs were not taken away in GS piece

I also stand to be corrected in as much that I don't recall anyone at the time suggesting the organs were ever taken away in it.

It may have just been me that has constantly been raising this point, Trev.
For some reason, I have always thought it was an option for the use of the rag, and now you mention it I can`t recall it been mentioned at the time, so perhaps we can scrap that option
It must have been a clean up rag ;-)

[Jon Guy]

I contacted an independent Forensic pathologist and put to him several important questions his answers were interesting to say the least in relation to some of these hotly disputed issues.

Here are the questions and the answers.

Q . Is Ecchymosis always consistent with strangulation or suffocation?

A. Ecchymosis is just another word for a bruise and, as such, it is quite non-specific. Strangulation can (and usually does) leave a bruise or bruises, but this is not always the case. Suffocation is perhaps less likely to result in bruising, but it would of course be possible. So the presence or absence of bruising to the neck does not either prove or exclude strangulation / suffocation.

Q Is a swollen tongue and face always consistent with the above.?

A. swollen tongue and / or face is another finding that is non-specific. Many people try to attribute such findings to particular causations, but often it means nothing as a variety of mechanisms (natural and unnatural) can result in the same appearance. There is also no guarantee that somebody’s description of a ‘swollen’ tongue or face represents genuine swelling, as appearances of bodies after death can appear peculiar to observers and prompt all sorts of not-necessarily-objective descriptions.

Q. If the killer stuck the knife into a victim’s windpipe severing it would death be instantaneous.

A. Severing a windpipe would not cause ‘instantaneous’ death. The level of the cut would most likely be below the vocal cords, so the victim would be unable to shout or cry out particularly well. They would almost certainly have been able to carry out some form of breathing, at least at first, through the hole in their neck. If they were then to die of their injuries (e.g. from blood loss, choking on inhaled blood, gradual airway blockage, etc.), this would take some time (perhaps a few minutes or even longer). They could, of course, become unconscious for some time prior to dying.

Q. Would there be very much blood loss from this method of killing.

A. Blood loss could have been great if major neck vessels were severed. It is possible for much of the bleeding to remain within the body, though, so it would not necessarily result in a large volume of blood being visible externally.

Thanks for that, Trevor. Very interesting, and good on you to refer to a forensic pathologist.

But I think we may be in danger of veering off subject, which is a shame and these are interesting points of discussion. So I hope you don`t mind my starting a new thread.

[GUT]

Though some people to seem to have the opinion that if they threaten to take their bat and ball and go home everyone should stop disagreeing with them, which is more than just a bit childish.

[GUT]

Hi Trevor,

PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE CASEBOOK. CASEBOOK WOULD BE A POORER PLACE IF YOU LEFT. JUST KEEP YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS COMING. THAT IS WHAT CASEBOOK IS FOR - AN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH THE HOPE OF FURTHERING THE TRUTH.

Apart from what I have just written - I'd miss you!

Carol

P.S. If anyone wants to be nasty to me because of the above, then just go ahead if it makes you feel better. I only want people to be happy.

Good on you Carol. I certainly don't agree with what a lot of people say here but defend their right to talk rubbish.

[Carol]

Hi Trevor,

PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE CASEBOOK. CASEBOOK WOULD BE A POORER PLACE IF YOU LEFT. JUST KEEP YOUR THOUGHTS AND IDEAS COMING. THAT IS WHAT CASEBOOK IS FOR - AN EXCHANGE OF VIEWS WITH THE HOPE OF FURTHERING THE TRUTH.

Apart from what I have just written - I'd miss you!

Carol

P.S. If anyone wants to be nasty to me because of the above, then just go ahead if it makes you feel better. I only want people to be happy.

[Wickerman]

The photo is herewith attached and as can be see it is heavily blood stained now add to that a kidney and the even more blood would be transferred.

Your medical team should have advised you that the presence of the kidney adds nothing with respect to additional blood.

The kidney is contained within a fatty membrane. The detail provided by Dr Brown does not help us determine whether the kidney was removed along with the fatty membrane, or removed from within the fatty membrane.
As it happens neither scenario helps your theory.

If the fatty membrane was removed containing the kidney, there will be no appreciable blood added to the apron as blood does not adhere to fat.
If, the kidney was extracted from inside the fatty membrane, then the kidney is not immersed in blood as there is no blood inside the membrane.

I also stand to be corrected in as much that I don't recall anyone at the time suggesting the organs were ever taken away in it.

That is correct.
The first time the idea was ever aired was in 1999, in this dissertation:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

[Monty]

Geeze,

Get a room Guys.

Besides, Trevor has comeback more times than Sinatra. Don't fret so Varmq.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, don't go. Ignore this people. You actually did experiments. they did not. They love their heads too much. As far as analysis is concerned a lot of times what looks good in the head/thought, even with common sense at it's sharpest, does not necessarily mean it's what actually happened/s in the street.They could be totally different.They have totally different dynamics.
Also as far as reports go they also only stick to their way of reading between the lines.
As far as events are concerned they make it like people always act rationally. They don't.

Although I disagree with some of your interpretations, as far as I'm concerned I learned more about this case from you than most of them combined.

Thank you for your kind words and support

[Varqm]

Trevor, don't go. Ignore this people. You actually did experiments. they did not. They love their heads too much. As far as analysis is concerned a lot of times what looks good in the head/thought, even with common sense at it's sharpest, does not necessarily mean it's what actually happened/s in the street.They could be totally different.They have totally different dynamics.
Also as far as reports go they also only stick to their way of reading between the lines.
As far as events are concerned they make it like people always act rationally. They don't.

Although I disagree with some of your interpretations, as far as I'm concerned I learned more about this case from you than most of them combined.

[El White Chap]

Don't worry I intend to If I stayed here and had to read the utter garbage
that you for one keep coming out with I am likely to become as deluded as you clearly are.
You have no sense of reasoning or logical thinking and clearly no other interests in life you are one of those who I described as being brainwashed into believing all you have read

Like I have said to others the truth is a bitter pill to swallow

Here...Have some more straws to clutch

[TomTomKent]

So returning to more civil matters, what evidence is there for the type of apron and number of strings, etc? I know the question was called ridiculous when somebody else asked it, and I got a response about how it would fit a certain theory if it were bibbed, and perhaps I am just pedantic because working in industry I have come across a few different types of apron that would match one or more of the suggestions made here, strings and all... I have probably missed some key posts when skimming the thread to get up to speed, but do we even know what material the apron was (and therefore how likely it would be to soak blood up blood in various quantities rather than have the blood stay on the surface)?