PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Roy Corduroy]

Why cant you accept the mortuary lists.

I wish I had a pound for every time someone on here wants to go against the new theory and they come back citing one of these reports to prop it up ...

But Trevor, you can't use the mortuary lists, or in fact anything from the City of London mortuary to back up your new theory. If I understand it from TV, your theory is that the City of London mortuary is where the organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed.

You are retired law enforcement. Let's say you are in court testifying in a criminal prosecution. And it turns out the morgue has removed the victms body parts. Everything, and I mean everything concerning the morgue would be disallowed. The defense lawyers would be in heaven. They'd be peeing all over themselves with glee.

But here we are, with you telling us the City of London is where the organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed, yet we need to accept the mortuary lists. In your theory, Trevor, we accept nothing from the mortuary. Everthing about the mortuary is hopelessly compromised.

How can I make it any clearer. I can't.

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent post and it prove that in order for some to prop up the old theory they cherry pick the parts which suit.

As I have said before as can be seen here the reports conflict with each other and not only that they conflict with the inquest testimony so they are unreliable and unsafe

I wish I had a pound for every time someone on here wants to go against the new theory and they come back citing one of these reports to prop it up, Now I call that cherry picking don't know what you call it ?

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;302982]I’ve been banging that drum for decades, Trev. To my mind the evidence does not support the notion of Stride as a Ripper victim. I would disagree with you, however, in that I believe an increasing number of people over recent years have begun to question the concept of the double event.


The Whitechapel Murders file, Trev, was merely a documentary repository incorporating information relating to a number of attacks on women committed over a relatively short period of time in a confined geographical area. It was the press rather than investigators, in point of fact, which attributed a link of common authorship across these crimes. If you’d care to read the relevant reports you’ll find that Dr Phillips ruled out several victims on the basis of ‘anatomical and professional grounds’. Anderson even described the McKenzie crime as an ‘ordinary murder’. It is therefore wrong to suppose that investigators believed a single assailant to have been responsible for all of the crimes contained within the Whitechapel Murders file.

I don't subscribe to a single killer in any event but it appears that the police did hence McNaghten mentioning five and five only, and I don't recall any other officer suggesting anything to the contrary. The police also build there case based on the evidence they are provided. It appears they did not take onboard the medical evidence you refer to.

The heart was not accounted for, Trev.

This has always been a contentious issue based on the ambiguous comment by the doctor that the heart was absent from the pericardium. Bbut that is not clear proof that it was missing from the room or taken away by the killer.

To try to come to a proper conclusion about this there were several newspapers reported that no organs were removed from the room. Now i treat newspaper report wih caution but in this case several different papers corroborate each other with the same story, Can they all be wrong ?

The Times 10th November

[I]The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.

The Echo 12th November

Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...

The Times 12th November

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.


Read the reports, Trev. Most of the doctors considered the killer medically maladroit. 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.

Yes but how many did it in almost total darkness in only a matter of minutes in a public place with a long blade knife not suitable for carrying out such removals

Dr Brown amongst others noted that Eddowes was wearing part of an apron.

No he doesnt

The table knife was blunt, Trev. It could not have made the clean cut which separated the two sections of apron.

There is no evidence to suggest a clean cut was made it would have been easy to put the knife in and cut the parts which had been sewn.

But she was, Trev. The documentary evidence is incontrovertible.

No it is not you are cherry picking again

Refer to Brown. The apron was tied around her neck. No matter how technically demanding you consider the exercise might have been, the simple reality is that the killer cut away part of Kate’s apron, took it away with him, then deposited it in the Goulston Street vestibule. Medical men as well as policemen attested to as much. If you are going to dispute such testimony you’ll have to demonstrate the impossibility of that sequence. Simply saying that it couldn’t have been accomplished isn’t good enough.

Where does Brown say the apron was tied round her neck ?

[B]Why cant you accept the mortuary lists. As I said previous they made two lists of clothing she was wearing. Had she been wearing a bib apron then the top part would still be around her neck. The evidence you refer to is inconclusive to suggest she was.

Insp Collard "Apparently wearing, found outside her dress" either she was or she wasnt ? he was there when the body was stripped. outside her dress ! thats not wearing is it ?

Halse " I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing"
Did he see the body after it had been stripped. He doesn't mention her
wearing an apron!

However in a newspaper report he says "A portion of the apron was found on her" On her ?why not say she was wearing ?

Dr Brown " it was the corner of the apron with a string attached" Note corner with a string attached you cant tie an apron with one string !

Then his telegraph report

Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Conflicts with inquest testimony does it not. He couldn't not have fitted the Gs piece to the body because when the body was stripped the GS piece had only just been found, and it was no taken to the mortuary till much later.

[/B]
Aw, now I’m disappointed. Still, since no-one at the time suggested that anyone other than the killer took away the victims’ organs, we can now categorically dismiss your contention to the contrary. Right?

Why should they there was not sufficient blood on the piece for that to be considered. Do you not think that Dr Brown when asked about the marks on it would not have said the killer could have taken away the organs in it but no he mentions wiping a hand or a knife. If you were the one who started this myth about the organs being taken away then you should now re think but of course you wont because you nailed your colours to the mast with your book.

Unfortunately, Trev, as I have stated previously, your demonstration was not a valid comparison. Although Eddowes’ apron was officially described as white, it was so old and dirty that those who saw it initially thought it black. Someone, somewhere, as I recall, described it as being ‘filthy grey’. This is important for evaluation purposes because the darker the sample material, the greater is the difficulty in discerning bloodstains with the naked eye – which is why today’s crime scene analysts use luminol for detecting blood evidence. Your experiment, remember, was conducted using a pristine white cloth.

The demonstration was very valid I am sure they could recognize the difference between blood and dirt-- come on get real, especially when those who saw it referred to blood spots and stains. Put a kidney and a uterus in the cloth what do you have? Take a look at attached photo. Also for the benefit of you and Fisherman I have also show a photo showing the size of a kidney when removed from the renal fat.

The other problem is that we have no detailed description of the blood and other matter found on the apron. Brown, for example, spoke of smears – as though the killer had wiped his hands and knife on the garment. There was also the suggestion of possible faecal contamination. Contrast this, however, with Long’s contention that the material was wet with blood at three o’clock. This, as I outlined in a previous post, was roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. So now we have one of two possibilities. Either the killer left Goulston Street shortly before Long discovered the apron remnant, or he had visited the scene much earlier and Long had failed to spot the garment. If the former, whatever blood remained on the killer’s hands and knife would have dried of its own accord, so there would have been little or no wet blood transference from hands to cloth. If the latter, the cloth would have been exposed to the open air for more than an hour and thus would have dried by natural processes. In other words, irrespective of when the killer deposited the cloth in the vestibule, the blood should have dried by the time Long chanced upon it. Yet Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood at three o’clock. How could this have been so if the material was merely bloodsmeared as a consequence of the killer having wiped his hands and knife upon it?

As you say blood on the killer hands would have dried within a few seconds no need to walk 9 minute with incriminating evidence. As to the knife again one swipe of the knife job done get rid of the apron piece asap.

As for him cutting himself this is another feeble explanation to prop up the old theory. Those who suggest this probably now accept that the killer did not take the organs away in it !

I take it, Trev, that you are here referring to the Eddowes murder. If so Dr Brown stated that the mutilations could have been completed in five minutes. That said, I tend to agree that the killer would have required more time than is generally accepted to complete the crime in its entirety. By this I mean walking along Church Passage, reaching the south-east corner of the square, subduing Kate, cutting her throat, performing the mutilations, cutting away the apron remnant and making his getaway. For this reason I disagree that the killer was disturbed by Harvey. Trusting to the timetable that emerged through the various testimonies, I remain convinced that Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed. But that’s another issue.

Thats easy to say that bu doing so you give the killer more time!. We simply do not know exactly to the minute what time the killer did have. So you cannot disregard the fact that he might have been disturbed.
[/B]
Not if the killer groped around in the abdominal cavity until he found something of interest, then held the organ in his left hand whilst he cut it away with the knife he held in his right hand. Other serialists have accomplished similar tasks under similar lighting conditions without too many problems.

You cannot grope and take hold of a kidney it sits encased flush in renal fat you have to see it.

I suppose that depends on the expert, Trev. Nick Warren doesn’t appear to see this as much of an issue.

Well I would concede that modern day surgeons and I say surgeons as against mere doctors probably could do this because they are doing this all the time day after day. But we are not talking about a highly skilled Victorian surgeon are we?

Grope, grasp, pull, cut. He did it. And so have many others.

With respect, Trev, you have demonstrated only that you have failed to take on board the evidence handed down to us through the various police statements, press reports and inquest depositions. On top of this you have neglected the case histories of those whose criminal activities provide an invaluable insight into the behaviors and psychology of the Whitechapel Murderer.

No I have assessed and evaluated it in a professional manner. Each crime must be looked at as a separate crime. I am aware that some modern day killers have carried out similar crimes, but where did they get the idea from, perhaps Jack the Ripper 1888 murdering and mutilating women removing organs? Our Jack or Jacks have a lot to answer for do they not, especially if we now prove he didn't do all he is supposed to have done.

[Wickerman]

Trevor, then please supply any descriptions I left out.

[Trevor Marriott]

That Goulston piece was described differently by several reporters present at the Inquest.

The Official record tells us:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

Daily Telegraph.
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Times:
"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

Daily News:
"It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."

Morning Post:
"There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it,.."

PC Long:
"There were recent stains of blood on it."
"..one corner of which was wet with blood."

As some of the smears were only on one side, that suggests a wiping action. But apparently there were also spots of blood and a wet portion at the corner.
I think it is erroneous to adopt one description over another, it is more likely that this apron displayed a variety of marks, suggested by the testimony.

Excellent post and it prove that in order for some to prop up the old theory they cherry pick the parts which suit.

[Wickerman]

The manuscript was completed in 1995, Jon. I believe that it was published on Casebook in 2000, maybe 2001. PM me with your e-mail address if you'd like a more user friendly version of the original.

Hi Garry.
Thankyou for the offer.

My interest was due to the fact that I had researched all the available published material up to 1998 to see if any author had suggested that this portion of apron might have been used to carry away organs - no-one had. Not even the likes of Stewart, Paul & Martin who among others were all Casebook contributors at the time had ever heard of the idea.
This seemed strange to me as my impression was that it was so obvious a possibility that someone must have given thought to the idea.
Hence my dissertation on the subject in late 1998.

Recently you mentioned that you suggested this in 1995 I wondered how I could have missed a source. Given the fact your manuscript was not publicly available until about 2000 then that answers my question.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry, may I ask, when was your book published?

The manuscript was completed in 1995, Jon. I believe that it was published on Casebook in 2000, maybe 2001. PM me with your e-mail address if you'd like a more user friendly version of the original.

[Wickerman]

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

That Goulston piece was described differently by several reporters present at the Inquest.

The Official record tells us:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

Daily Telegraph.
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Times:
"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it."

Daily News:
"It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."

Morning Post:
"There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it,.."

PC Long:
"There were recent stains of blood on it."
"..one corner of which was wet with blood."

As some of the smears were only on one side, that suggests a wiping action. But apparently there were also spots of blood and a wet portion at the corner.
I think it is erroneous to adopt one description over another, it is more likely that this apron displayed a variety of marks, suggested by the testimony.

[Fisherman]

We'll covered in blood and wet with blood are different.It's absolutely clear to me you cannot determine within an hour when the blood was deposited by Long's description.

Wet with blood and covered in blood MAY be different - but they may also correspond totally. And I suspect that is exactly what they do here - one corner of the apron was covered in blood, if the apron was unrolled and then dropped to the ground in one movement, then the corner would have ended up on top, giving the impressio that the rag was covered in blood. Plus the blood was wet.

It all works eminently.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

We'll covered in blood and wet with blood are different.It's absolutely clear to me you cannot determine within an hour when the blood was deposited by Long's description.

[Fisherman]

You're welcome Garry.

Fisherman,

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

Additionally...

It was cold that morning,how much did that affected the drying time of the blood.Also the amount would have affected it.
As far as the quality of the wetness was it a little/so/kinda wet?

If the dirty apron was wet/partly from rain water would it have affected how PC Long would have seen/describe the blood.

In this instance was Long referring to wet with blood ,in general terms,as any cloth with that liquid in it.

All I'm saying is the blood could have come from the crime scene itself and Long's description/statement does not really help in determining the main argument.

To me, wet with blood is wet with blood. To me, covered in blood is covered in blood.
I try always to go with the evidence, and factoring in that the wet blood could have been rainwater does not belong to that equation.

That does not mean that I am somehow excluding that the blood could have come from the crime scene - but I do think that it is our second best guess.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

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

Regards,

Simon

Thankyou Simon.

For some reason I cannot see it via Google, nor on Bookfinder.com.

[Varqm]

You're welcome Garry.

Fisherman,

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

Additionally...

It was cold that morning,how much did that affected the drying time of the blood.Also the amount would have affected it.
As far as the quality of the wetness was it a little/so/kinda wet?

If the dirty apron was wet/partly from rain water would it have affected how PC Long would have seen/describe the blood.

In this instance was Long referring to wet with blood ,in general terms,as any cloth with that liquid in it.

All I'm saying is the blood could have come from the crime scene itself and Long's description/statement does not really help in determining the main argument.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Hi Christer.

And we still see this method of wrapping meat today at your local butchers.
That is not to say that 'the killer' was so meticulous, but it does explain why one corner was 'wet' compared with the rest of the apron.

I know, Jon, since you have posted that experience of yours before. It is interesting, and it could have happened, although just like you say, it would predispose a very neat and meticulous killer.

As for the corner of the piece still being 'wet with blood', it may only have been dropped minutes before it was found - that is something we cannot possibly know.

Would the innards have kept the apron wet with blood for seventy minutes? I don´t know. I favour the suggestion that the killer cut himself since that WOULD provide us with wet blood.
I also think it would be strange if the killer hung on to an organcarrier for seventy minutes, seven minutes from the crime scene.
Once again, I like the Lechmere proposal with Broad Street figuring on this issue.

But there are many unanswered questions here, and no certainty can be reached. You explanation that butchers do employ that corner very much belongs to the overall picture, anyhow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

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.

And we still see this method of wrapping meat today at your local butchers.
That is not to say that 'the killer' was so meticulous, but it does explain why one corner was 'wet' compared with the rest of the apron.

As for the corner of the piece still being 'wet with blood', it may only have been dropped minutes before it was found - that is something we cannot possibly know.