PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Monty]

Well you have two trains of thought

1. The motive behind the murders was to kill and remove the organs, in
which case why did the killer go to the trouble of mutilating the
abdomens in such a way as it would damage the organs being sought. If
this had been the case having regards to the anatomical knowledge he is
supposed have shown the killer surely would have simply made the
standard medical incisions and helped himself without any hindrances like
blood filled abdomens etc.

Killers don't suddenly decide halfway through a murder to surgically
remove organs especially when they are in a public place and likely to be
disturbed.

Of course you also have to consider the issue of anatomical knowledge.
How many persons would have sufficient knowledge to remove these
organs in almost total darkness with a six inch knife. Now I know people
keep saying Dr Brown said it could be done in 5 minutes. But that
statement is ambiguous in my opinion, because I believe he was
referring to the murder and the mutilations. This is backed up by his
reluctance to have a go at removing a womb in a later experiment.
Furthermore out of both organs the uterus was the easiest to access and
remove. So can we rely totally on Dr Brown and his timings ?

2. The killer had no design on the organs, either before, or during the
murder, and didn't remove them from the crime scene.

It doesn't answer my question though,

Surely you are presuming the killers motive re the organs. What if, say, possesion was the aim, no matter the condition?

You are assuming, yes?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Foul! You know the answer already.

Mike

Shame you dont !

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would he need pristine organs?

Monty

Well you have two trains of thought

1. The motive behind the murders was to kill and remove the organs, in
which case why did the killer go to the trouble of mutilating the
abdomens in such a way as it would damage the organs being sought. If
this had been the case having regards to the anatomical knowledge he is
supposed have shown the killer surely would have simply made the
standard medical incisions and helped himself without any hindrances like
blood filled abdomens etc.

Killers don't suddenly decide halfway through a murder to surgically
remove organs especially when they are in a public place and likely to be
disturbed.

Of course you also have to consider the issue of anatomical knowledge.
How many persons would have sufficient knowledge to remove these
organs in almost total darkness with a six inch knife. Now I know people
keep saying Dr Brown said it could be done in 5 minutes. But that
statement is ambiguous in my opinion, because I believe he was
referring to the murder and the mutilations. This is backed up by his
reluctance to have a go at removing a womb in a later experiment.
Furthermore out of both organs the uterus was the easiest to access and
remove. So can we rely totally on Dr Brown and his timings ?

2. The killer had no design on the organs, either before, or during the
murder, and didn't remove them from the crime scene.

[The Good Michael]

Why would he need pristine organs?

Foul! You know the answer already.

Mike

[Monty]

Hi Carol
His actions at the crime scene suggest that there was no premeditation and no design on the organs. The stabbing and mutilating of the abdomen in such a way that it would damage any organs he may have been seeking.

Why would he need pristine organs?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The Ripper could have used a waterproof sponge bag to take the kidney and uterus away. Please see my post number 81 on page 9 of this thread.

[ATTACH]16104[/ATTACH]

I think it possible he would have left home prepared to take away one or two 'souvenirs' if his luck held out that night. After all, he had already taken a 'souvenir' before. A waterproof sponge bag would have been an ideal container and very readily available to anyone in London - at a low cost.

Your thoughts, please!

Carol

Hi Carol
His actions at the crime scene suggest that there was no premeditation and no design on the organs. The stabbing and mutilating of the abdomen in such a way that it would damage any organs he may have been seeking.

[Carol]

The Ripper could have used a waterproof sponge bag to take the kidney and uterus away. Please see my post number 81 on page 9 of this thread.



I think it possible he would have left home prepared to take away one or two 'souvenirs' if his luck held out that night. After all, he had already taken a 'souvenir' before. A waterproof sponge bag would have been an ideal container and very readily available to anyone in London - at a low cost.

Your thoughts, please!

Carol

[Wickerman]

I do humbly apologize to all for my lack of punctuation and grammar in these posts but what I lack in that department I make up for with my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts which have led to the dispelling of a major part of this mystery.

So you may have the punctuation and grammar skills, but its for sure you will never have the latter.

I sense a contradiction here.
Does "Humble" actually belong in the same sentence as "my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts."?

[Trevor Marriott]

My apologies.

I should have had the insight to realize that any attempt at propriety and more cognazant communication is a futile effort here.

I do humbly apologize to all for my lack of punctuation and grammar in these posts but what I lack in that department I make up for with my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts which have led to the dispelling of a major part of this mystery.

So you may have the punctuation and grammar skills, but its for sure you will never have the latter.

[Hunter]

My apologies.

I should have had the insight to realize that any attempt at propriety and more cognazant communication is a futile effort here.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Please consider your wrist to have been well and truly slapped by Casebook's resident Guardian of Propriety.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

When you reproduce the quote of another, make sure the word "quote" is all capital letters - that and the "=" symbol, and the poster's name or pseudonym is enclosed in brackets "[ ]"
Then end with bracket, slash, the word "quote" in capital letters, then closed bracket.

Click "preview post" to make sure everything is correct before you press "send."

Quotation marks are my emphasis only and not necessary.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;302569]Then how do you account for the descriptions of the apron provided by various crime scene attendees, Trev, medical men amongst them?


I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t considered, Trev. The fact that we have no written record of such shouldn’t be taken as proof that no-one thought it a possibility at the time. For the record, here’s the relevant passage from my book:-

‘Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

The killer had plenty of options available to him had he merely wished to clean his hands and knife. Taps and water butts were readily available in the area, as were horse troughs. The fact too that the night in question had been punctuated by heavy rainfall means that there would have been puddles and possibly larger sources of standing water that could have been used for washing away blood and other evidence of the Eddowes murder. More to the point, water would have removed unwanted bloodstains far more efficiently than would the dry and possibly contaminated apron taken from Mitre Square. With this in mind I think it likely that the theft of the apron remnant was motivated by some other factor. If so, the most obvious conclusion is that the killer used it to wrap the body parts, thus protecting his clothing whilst he put what he felt was a safe distance between himself and the crime scene.

Think about it in more quotidian terms. No-one in their right mind would consider leaving a butcher’s shop with unwrapped raw meat placed in a pocket for a journey home. So why should Jack the Ripper have been any different? It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.

/QUOTE]

But all of this is academic if the killer didn't remove the organs at the crime scene. Can you not see how all the different scenarios now dovetail into each other to dispel the theory of the killer removing the organs and then taking them away with him in the apron piece.

If she wasnt wearing an apron he couldn't have cut or tore it could he

Popular to contrary belief it not me making it up to fit a theory its the combination of the new facts which when put together suggest what you and others have relied upon may not have been correct.

Its a fact of modern day investigative work that new facts and new evidence are constantly being uncovered in old cases, which casts doubt about what has previously been accepted. Why should the Ripper case be any different simply because you and others who have invested a lot of time and effort into research and writing books etc for obvious reasons don't want it changing and wont accept new facts etc

[Trevor Marriott]

Isn't "1 Piece of old white apron" good enough for you?

Can you explain the difference in the following?

1 - 1 Piece of apron.
2 - 1 Apron with piece missing.

Are we dabbling in semantics now?

No dabbling in two different entities

1 as you say piece of apron

2. Apron with piece missing

In this case both appeared to have come for the same original apron at some time not necessarily the murder scene

Both have to be different otherwise both might have been described as old white aprons, which in effect none of them were as they were two different apron pieces,

[The Good Michael]

So now it's Trevor Gandhi!

Ah, so he died in 1948. That's explains everything. He's haunting us.

Mike