PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[The Good Michael]

You have no sense of reasoning or logical thinking and clearly no other interests in life

yeah. That's why I post so often these days. I really just popped in to take out the garbage, but after what you've left, I'm going to need a bigger trash bin.

Cheers,

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

I read your asinine posts despite your pitiful use of English. You post a photo of cloth that isn't heavily bloodstained and say that it is. Your argument is that an organ would have added so much blood to the already bloodstained apron piece that the language used would have been something like, "The portion was soaked in blood" rather than the weaker language used. The fact is, you are stuck in some bit of perpetual madness that makes you believe only YOU understand the meaning and the intention of the language used. Really you waste everyone's time. You need to quit the boards again. That would make it, what 4 or 5 times? But who's counting?

Have a nice delusion,

Mike

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

[The Good Michael]

Do you not read the posts or do you engage put pen to paper without engaging your brain?

I am not even going to bother to reply

I read your asinine posts despite your pitiful use of English. You post a photo of cloth that isn't heavily bloodstained and say that it is. Your argument is that an organ would have added so much blood to the already bloodstained apron piece that the language used would have been something like, "The portion was soaked in blood" rather than the weaker language used. The fact is, you are stuck in some bit of perpetual madness that makes you believe only YOU understand the meaning and the intention of the language used. Really you waste everyone's time. You need to quit the boards again. That would make it, what 4 or 5 times? But who's counting?

Have a nice delusion,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

Caz
You cannot rely on any of the sources except the official ones there are so many inconsistencies.

I don't rely on any of them and nor should you.

The official mortuary lists are the most reliable

Trevor Marriott: "The official mortuary lists are the most reliable"

Full Stop.

According to you, Trevor, nothing concerning the City of London mortuary is reliable because it was there the organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed. Which would be the most flagrant violation of medico/legal practices we could dream up. I can't think of anything more outlandish.

So Trevor, to have you come back and use official mortuary documents to butress any part of your argument is absurd.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Roy

I`m afraid I might have mentioned it as an option for the possible use of the rag.

Hi Jon
I thought you might be interested in this. As you know I am in conflict with many posters on here over many of the issues in particular the Eddowes murder in order to add clarity to some of the disputed issues 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.

[Jon Guy]

Right. No one suggested that then. That's why I keep asking you who you are arguing with, Trevor. About the apron being used to carry organs. Who said that? Just name one person please. Anybody. I'm only aware people think he carried the organs in his pockets if he took them any distance.

Trevor I have been trying to save you (and us) a lot of time and trouble by clarifying who you are arguing against. So yes please answer at your convenience.

Hi Roy

I`m afraid I might have mentioned it as an option for the possible use of the rag.

[Trevor Marriott]

Great thought, but organs don't sit in blood. After cutting the flesh and moving things around, there isn't a lot of blood there. If the reports stated there was a lot of blood, I would suggest the killer cut himself severely. As it is now, not knowing whether it was a lot of blood or not, we can't know exactly what was there, but we can presume either organs or, a hand-wiping, or both, or an accident that needed the blood staunched.

Mike

Do you not read the posts or do you engage put pen to paper without engaging your brain?

I am not even going to bother to reply

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trev,

Well clearly when Eddowes was found, there was not 'an apron' on the body, just a portion of one. I didn’t think anyone was disputing this.

You argued that the two portions, when matched up, didn't make a complete apron. But Inspector Collard, as you quote above, would dispute this, since he refers to 'a' portion of the apron (found on her), and 'the other' portion - as in 'the rest of the apron' (picked up in Goulston St). If the two portions had not made up the whole garment, surely someone would have made a note that a piece, or pieces, were still missing. It would have been plain enough to see, and Collard would have described the latter as 'another' portion, or a 'further' portion.



Collard is backed up here by Dr Brown, who refers to fitting one portion to the 'remaining' portion. See? No missing pieces - using your own sources.



Here, Warren refers to the torn 'bib' taken to Goulston St. He says the 'bib' found on the corpse had 'a piece wanting' (which is pretty much what you were looking for from Collard: 'apron with a portion missing'). He also refers to 'that [the apron] which was worn by the woman'. A bib is the front part of an apron above the waist. So unless Warren is talking utter cobblers, he is suggesting that the piece found in Goulston St was torn from the bib, not the skirt, of the apron worn by Eddowes.

I really don't think you want to rely on either Collard or Warren as your sources. Collard has just two portions making up the whole, while Eddowes would hardly have used Warren's torn piece of bib for her private functions.

I think you'd better think it out again.

Love,

Caz
X

Caz
You cannot rely on any of the sources except the official ones there are so many inconsistencies.

I don't rely on any of them and nor should you.

The official mortuary lists are the most reliable and when you look at them they corroborate each other, not a mention of her wearing an apron simply an old piece of white apron in her property or in her possession, Hence the term "found on her"

Collard wasn't sure and he was present when the body was stripped he says "Apparently wearing" now either you are wearing an apron or not how can you apparently wear one?

Halse say he saw the body stripped does that mean he saw the body naked after the clothes were removed.

Like it or not no one saw her wearing an apron either at the crime scene or at the mortuary if they had they would have said, instead of all these ambiguous newspaper report etcs which you and others seem to flourish on

Show me one piece of evidence which shows she was wearing an apron when she was murdered. I am fed up with having to keep repeating he facts which disprove all of this some people just dont want this part of the myth to be disproved.

and where doe it mention the two pieces when matched made a full apron -it doesnt

No one else mentions a bib

for her to be wearing a bib it would have still been visible and would have been noted when she was undressed stop changing the goal posts to suit your own misconception

[Roy Corduroy]

Who are you arguing against ?

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.

Right. No one suggested that then. That's why I keep asking you who you are arguing with, Trevor. About the apron being used to carry organs. Who said that? Just name one person please. Anybody. I'm only aware people think he carried the organs in his pockets if he took them any distance.

Trevor I have been trying to save you (and us) a lot of time and trouble by clarifying who you are arguing against. So yes please answer at your convenience.

Roy

[caz]

Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced”

Notice he refers to portion not an apron there is a massive difference. If she had been wearing an apron it would have been described as an apron with a portion missing

Hi Trev,

Well clearly when Eddowes was found, there was not 'an apron' on the body, just a portion of one. I didn’t think anyone was disputing this.

You argued that the two portions, when matched up, didn't make a complete apron. But Inspector Collard, as you quote above, would dispute this, since he refers to 'a' portion of the apron (found on her), and 'the other' portion - as in 'the rest of the apron' (picked up in Goulston St). If the two portions had not made up the whole garment, surely someone would have made a note that a piece, or pieces, were still missing. It would have been plain enough to see, and Collard would have described the latter as 'another' portion, or a 'further' portion.

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

Collard is backed up here by Dr Brown, who refers to fitting one portion to the 'remaining' portion. See? No missing pieces - using your own sources.

The evidence is not totally conclusive either way but a good case can be brought to suggest the killer certainly didn't cut it or tear it and take it away with him for the reasons which have been suggested, and even the police did not subscribe to this, and in fact one senior officer had major doubts as can be seen from the attached letter date Oct 3rd 1888 from Sir Charles Warren to Sir James Fraser heda of the City Police

My Dear Fraser,
I have seen Mr. Matthews today and he is anxious to know whether it can be known that the torn bib of the woman murdered in Mitre Square cannot have been taken to Goulston Street by any person except the murderer.
In order to do this it is necessary if there is any proof that at the time the corpse was found the bib was found with a piece wanting, that the piece was not lying about the yard at the time the corpse was found and taken to Goulston Street by some of the lookers on as a hoax, and that the piece found in Goulston Street is without doubt a portion of that which was worn by the woman.
I shall be very glad if you can give me the necessary particulars on this point [?].
Very truly yours, C.W.

Here, Warren refers to the torn 'bib' taken to Goulston St. He says the 'bib' found on the corpse had 'a piece wanting' (which is pretty much what you were looking for from Collard: 'apron with a portion missing'). He also refers to 'that [the apron] which was worn by the woman'. A bib is the front part of an apron above the waist. So unless Warren is talking utter cobblers, he is suggesting that the piece found in Goulston St was torn from the bib, not the skirt, of the apron worn by Eddowes.

I really don't think you want to rely on either Collard or Warren as your sources. Collard has just two portions making up the whole, while Eddowes would hardly have used Warren's torn piece of bib for her private functions.

I think you'd better think it out again.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Great thought, but organs don't sit in blood. After cutting the flesh and moving things around, there isn't a lot of blood there. If the reports stated there was a lot of blood, I would suggest the killer cut himself severely. As it is now, not knowing whether it was a lot of blood or not, we can't know exactly what was there, but we can presume either organs or, a hand-wiping, or both, or an accident that needed the blood staunched.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Dispelling the myth part 2

Now that the long and sometime tedious discussions into part 1 of dispelling the organ removal and apron piece theory has subsided. I would like to move onto part 2. So what is part 2, I can hear you all asking well it is much simpler than part 1

I am going to deal with specific parts separately starting with the suggestion that the killer cut or tore the apron piece from the apron she was wearing to carry the organs away in.

For the time being lets forget about whether or not she was wearing an apron, because the answer to what I am about to discuss may prove to add even more weight to the suggestion that she was not wearing an apron and therefore the killer could not have cut it or tore it and took away the organs in it.

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"

Again issues with conflicting reports but on this occasion I don't think it makes any difference.

Now the amount of blood found on the apron is important having regard to the killer removing two organs from a blood filled abdomen. I as would my medical team would have expected there to be a significant transference of blood onto the apron. If that had been the case then the apron piece would have been heavily bloodstained. From the conclusion drawn from the description of the GS piece it would appear to not have been heavily bloodstained.

Now to prove a point as part of my investigation I put together a medical team part of which was a consultant gynecologist, to either prove or disprove this theory that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece.

On a day when the gynecologist was in the operating theater he had cause to carry out a hysterectomy operation on a live donor that involved removing the uterus. Having removed the uterus he wrapped it up in a cloth and left it for 30 minutes before unraveling it and photographing the cloth to show exactly how much blood transference there had been from the live organ onto the cloth.

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.

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.

[Phil Carter]

But he did stay long enough to inflict several delicate cuts to and about Eddowes' eyelids, Jon. Besides which, wiping his hands and knife on the victim's clothing would have taken but a few seconds.

I would suggest that the notion of the killer being surprised by the arrival of a beat policeman neglects the fact that the vast majority of uniformed policemen wore heavy leather-soled boots, the sound from which announced an officer's approach long before his eventual appearance at any given street location. George Morris referred specifically to this under press interview. He, like Fanny Mortimer and others, stated that he could hear the sound of the beat policeman's boots every fifteen minutes or so, and this from within the warehouse in which he was stationed. With this in mind, I think it likely that the killer went about his business whilst listening for any hint of danger. If he did hear the sound of boot on pavement he'd have been be long gone by the time the officer appeared on the scene. Hence the unlikelihood of the killer being caught red-handed.

Hello Gary,

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.)

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.

Thoughts?



best regards


Phil

[Debra A]

Hi Debs

It would appear that the repair was on the GS piece.

He fitted it to the mortuary piece and stated the seams of the borders corresponded. So to me that means the side of the piece and that to me interprets to the bottom left or bottom right to the corresponding mortuary piece.

Okay, thanks Trevor.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sorry, but why is this ridiculous? Is there some previous discussion of bib and brace style aprons that suggest such arrangements were as yet unavailable? Some photograph that shows how many strings the apron used and if they were tied aft, wrapped and tied fore, or looped entirely around the trunk? Or is there an assumption this is just a kitchen apron.

If she was wearing a bib style apron the top piece, which went over the head would definitely have still been on her and clearly visible to all and sundry. These bib aprons have a loop which goes over the head.

Take a look at this style of apron if you were to cut this type of apron around the waistband you would have an almost unmanageable large piece of apron left over from the waist almost to the ground.

If you then cut that in two. you would finish up with three pieces of apron both large in size if equally cut. Even if you didn't cut them equally there would be at least one large piece of apron. and we know there were only two pieces. So yes ridiculous as i said