PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Jon Guy]

I think you need to go back and look again at the cuts in the clothing see where your theory falls down some of her clothing only started at waist level and went down,
The sternum is located about 7 inches above the waist

Dr Brown dors refer to stab wounds and cuts in parts of the abdomen

Yes, the articles tied around her waist, doesn`t even matter if it was just a belt, were hindering the killer in mutilating the torso. So, he had to cut all the crap around her waist so he could push her clothes up. No theory.

Can you cut and paste the reference by Brown to these stab wounds please ? Just to be sure I am looking at the same detail that you refer to

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the articles tied around her waist, doesn`t even matter if it was just a belt, were hindering the killer in mutilating the torso. So, he had to cut all the crap around her waist so he could push her clothes up. No theory.

I]Well the clothes that were tied around her waist would have come up without the need to cut them as is clearly shows by how the body was found with the clothes all drawn up.

If you theory is to be believed why did he not simply make one long cut cutting all the garments in one go thereby making an complete opening of the garments he could have done that with one sweep of the knife if he had have done that we wouldn't have different length of cuts in different directions. All of these cuts in my opinion goes to show the ferocity of the attack.
[/I]
Can you cut and paste the reference by Brown to these stab wounds please ? Just to be sure I am looking at the same detail that you refer to

Page 230 Source Book

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, the articles tied around her waist, doesn`t even matter if it was just a belt, were hindering the killer in mutilating the torso. So, he had to cut all the crap around her waist so he could push her clothes up. No theory.

Well the clothes that were tied around her waist would have come up without the need to cut them as is clearly shows by how the body was found with the clothes all drawn up.

If you theory is to be believed why did he not simply make one long cut cutting all the garments in one go thereby making an complete opening of the garments he could have done that with one sweep of the knife if he had have done that we wouldn't have different length of cuts in different directions. All of these cuts in my opinion goes to show the ferocity of the attack.


Can you cut and paste the reference by Brown to these stab wounds please ? Just to be sure I am looking at the same detail that you refer to

Page 230 Source Book

[Jon Guy]

Well the clothes that were tied around her waist would have come up without the need to cut them as is clearly shows by how the body was found with the clothes all drawn up.

They were all drawn up because he`d cut through all the crap tied around her waist :-)

You can clearly see on the attached sketch how high the clothes are pushed up and away exposing her.


If you theory is to be believed why did he not simply make one long cut cutting all the garments in one go thereby making an complete opening of the garments he could have done that with one sweep of the knife if he had have done that we wouldn't have different length of cuts in different directions. All of these cuts in my opinion goes to show the ferocity of the attack.

I believe the killer took the easiest option in this instance, without having to cut a hole in her clothes with which to work through.

Either way, there`s no doubt as to the ferocity of the attack.

I look forward to seeing your reference to Brown`s description of these wounds in the Source book.

[Hunter]

Trevor, I apologize, but I have no idea what you are going on about in your response to my post. You stated that the press sometimes were in error. I agreed and cited an example. Its that simple really. The DT is out of context with all other press transcriptions and the official one concerning Brown's deposition about the apron. Its really not hard to figure out if you examine all of it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, I apologize, but I have no idea what you are going on about in your response to my post. You stated that the press sometimes were in error. I agreed and cited an example. Its that simple really. The DT is out of context with all other press transcriptions and the official one concerning Brown's deposition about the apron. Its really not hard to figure out if you examine all of it.

My point is that researchers are citing newspaper reports as being the correct accounts to argue that she was wearing an apron, when clearly they may not be. But I cant seem to make them understand this. They see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. There is no changing a person who is so fixated in this way it seems.

[Monty]

Erm, no.

Robinson and Hutts statements are taken from official inquest reports into Eddowes death, held at LMA for all to see.

Monty

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Debs

Good morning Trevor, I asked you this:

And even if the killer did not take the apron (part 2) how is that a clue? A clue to what? That was my original question, Trevor.

And you answered:

A clue to dispel what has previously been accepted, that the killer cut or tore the GS piece and took it away with him for the reasons again which have been suggested all these years. Dispel the accepted apron piece theory and you go along way to dispel the suggestion that the killer removed the organs at the crime scene

Thank you for your answer.

You are suggesting in regards the apron: If the killer did not cut the apron piece, and take it away, then it follows - he didn't remove bodily organs.

I don't agree. I don't see how the apron has anything to do with whether he removed organs. It offers no clue. That is my point.

When you say 'the reasons again which have been suggested all these years' I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against. The removal of the organs is a totally separate issue from the apron. The doctors said removal. It happened. The apron has no bearing on that.

Roy

[Michael W Richards]

Its possible that only 2 people had access to Kate in death and were later standing at the entranceway to the Model Homes that same night.....we would presume that 1 of them was her killer.

The apron section could easily have been transported to that spot by Halse, and the police sentiments towards the overcrowding of that immediate area by Russian, Polish and Eastern European immigrants, like Latvian, were generally not positive. Many were seen as anarchists and a threat to the nation as a whole, not just London. Many were in fact just that.

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Roy

Thanks Debs

Good morning Trevor, I asked you this:



And you answered:



Thank you for your answer.

You are suggesting in regards the apron: If the killer did not cut the apron piece, and take it away, then it follows - he didn't remove bodily organs.

I don't agree. I don't see how the apron has anything to do with whether he removed organs. It offers no clue. That is my point.

Well it does as far as the old accepted theory that some seek to rely on that is the killer cut or tore a piece from the apron she was wearing to take away the organs in or for wiping his knife or blood stained hands on.

Disprove the wearing of the apron and it dispells that theory does it not,

When you say 'the reasons again which have been suggested all these years' I'm not sure who or what you are arguing against. The removal of the organs is a totally separate issue from the apron. The doctors said removal. It happened. The apron has no bearing on that.

There is no dispute that organs were removed but the question is where when and by whom?

Disprove the theory that the killer removed the organs, what have you got, one big hole in this mystery and a lot of unhappy reserachers, authors and television documentary makers


All of the above are interconnected

Roy

[Trevor Marriott]

Its possible that only 2 people had access to Kate in death and were later standing at the entranceway to the Model Homes that same night.....we would presume that 1 of them was her killer.

The apron section could easily have been transported to that spot by Halse, and the police sentiments towards the overcrowding of that immediate area by Russian, Polish and Eastern European immigrants, like Latvian, were generally not positive. Many were seen as anarchists and a threat to the nation as a whole, not just London. Many were in fact just that.

Cheers

Hi
Michael
That is another distinct possibility however if Halse did pick up one of the two pieces of her apron would you not have thought he could have then returned with that piece saying that he found it at any location he chose.

Discarding where it was found would not guarantee it being found and if it were would anyone relate it to a murder. Of course unless Halse did make contact with Pc Long and told him to look under archways etc knowing he would find it.

[Trevor Marriott]

Erm, no.

Robinson and Hutts statements are taken from official inquest reports into Eddowes death, held at LMA for all to see.

Monty

We have already at length discussed the credibility of the officers testimony and highlighted the issues with it.

Lets look at it another way if we accept that she was wearing an apron when she left the police station who is to say that at some point thereafter she removed it and for whatever reason cut it into several pieces. One of those pieces she could have deposited herself in GS and the other was still in her possession when she was murdered.

That scenario should keep you quiet now, but I doubt it

Headlines in the morning paper "Monty silenced at last, cabal in turmoil"

[Jon Guy]

Whether Eddowes was wearing the apron on not (obviously she was) the police at the scene thought the killer took the apron from Mitre Sq to Goulston St. The only point of contest is why the killer took the apron.

Which is why they asked Foster to draw the plan of the route from Mitre Sq to Goulston St !!

[Michael W Richards]

Hi
Michael
That is another distinct possibility however if Halse did pick up one of the two pieces of her apron would you not have thought he could have then returned with that piece saying that he found it at any location he chose.

Discarding where it was found would not guarantee it being found and if it were would anyone relate it to a murder. Of course unless Halse did make contact with Pc Long and told him to look under archways etc knowing he would find it.

Just to play this out a bit Trevor, the intention may have been to have PC Long be the one to find it because he had no direct link to the crime scene itself, while Halse obviously did. Perhaps less questionable provenance.

Since we know that the man who was in charge of these investigations on the ground at the time, Anderson, came to an opinion that an immigrant Jew was responsible for the murders, presumably based on the information gathered by the detectives knocking on doors while he was "resting" in Paris, not Switzerland possibly,...we might presume that such accusations came from street detectives and police that fought a bloody battle with these sorts of folks the previous year in Trafalgar Square. The same factions, albeit the fringe elements, planned to blow up the Queen the year before as well. 90 pounds of dynamite were shipped to London for that reason.

In the same way that police today might encounter an opportunity to "plant" evidence so that they could arrest people they know are guilty of crimes but lacked the evidence to prove it in court, I could see someone planting something that directly links a crime with those kinds of groups.

Remember who these senior policemen were too....men who in the course of their duties supplied spies with money and the freedom to carry out plans such as the Jubille Plot.

Cheers

[Trevor Marriott]

Whether Eddowes was wearing the apron on not (obviously she was) the police at the scene thought the killer took the apron from Mitre Sq to Goulston St. The only point of contest is why the killer took the apron.

You have not read my latest post

Which is why they asked Foster to draw the plan of the route from Mitre Sq to Goulston St !!

Not necessarily