PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Wickerman]

So now you are saying the killer was neat and tidy, and meticulous and took his time, come on get real

There is a sequence for every activity Trevor.

The rule of an investigator is to prove or disprove statements facts and evidence in an unbiased fashion.

Of course, where ever possible, but you cannot 'prove' the organs were removed at the mortuary, just like we cannot 'prove' they were removed in Mitre Square. All we have is testimony, and most of it paraphrase.

You have and others have a different take it seems, that being "Well this is what was written" "This is what was said" so it must be right

The opinions of those present count for much more than the opinions of latter-day theorists.

You wont accept that there are serious doubts now about the apron piece being worn and a portion purportedly being removed to transport the organs away in.

I agree, I do not think any 'serious' doubts have been raised about whether she was wearing an apron. All sources consistently affirm the fact.
Using this piece of apron to carry the organs away is a hypothesis, and as yet still quite feasible.

Do you not think when the doctors and everyone else way back then examined the GS piece, had it been blood stained in any way consistent with the removal and transportation of the organs they would have come to that conclysion and said. After all they were there we can only speak from afar 126 years later.

Ah, a good point at last.
Such a conclusion no doubt would be based on the amount of blood on the cloth. A debatable point considering PC Long said:
"There were recent stains of blood on it., and;
One corner of the apron was wet with blood".

And yet Dr Brown is credited as saying:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street." or;
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.", or;
"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."

So it appears opinions offered were centered on how it looked rather than what it had been used for.

[Hunter]

I''ll say this again. The Daily Telegraph transcription of Dr. Brown's testimony concerning the apron is incorrect. It was not the apron piece from Goulston St. that was described by Brown as being spotted with blood but the piece found on the victim. The DT mistakenly got it all turned around. So your little experiment based on that is irrelevant no matter what the apron piece was actually used for. Also the degree of blood effusion will be quite different in an organ removed from a living being that that from a dead one, where the cardio-pulmonary system is no longer pumping.

We can only asses and evaluate all the facts ..

At first, I thought this was a typical syntax error, but upon reflection, I find that the word "be" was omitted after "only."

I'm right behind you, Stewart.

[Trevor Marriott]

There is a sequence for every activity Trevor.



Of course, where ever possible, but you cannot 'prove' the organs were removed at the mortuary, just like we cannot 'prove' they were removed in Mitre Square. All we have is testimony, and most of it paraphrase.



The opinions of those present count for much more than the opinions of latter-day theorists.




I agree, I do not think any 'serious' doubts have been raised about whether she was wearing an apron. All sources consistently affirm the fact.
Using this piece of apron to carry the organs away is a hypothesis, and as yet still quite feasible.



Ah, a good point at last.
Such a conclusion no doubt would be based on the amount of blood on the cloth. A debatable point considering PC Long said:
"There were recent stains of blood on it., and;
One corner of the apron was wet with blood".

And yet Dr Brown is credited as saying:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street." or;
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.", or;
"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."

So it appears opinions offered were centered on how it looked rather than what it had been used for.

You and others can keep spouting all of these reports from now until hell freezes over. But when are you going to accept that they are inconsistent, they conflict with each other and are therefore unsafe and unreliable.

Have you now conceded that the apron piece did not contain the organs and gone onto another issue now then ? Make up your mind which one you are going for desperate times call for desperate measures eh ?

Both smears and spots can be consistent with that piece of rag being used by the victim for either of the two reasons previously given.

I have attached the results of a kidney removed for a donor who had been dead several days take a look at the transference of fluid even after that length of time.

I also attach a photo of the result of a long bladed knife being wiped on a cloth. The blood is orange that's because its de oxygenated had it been straight out of a living person it would have been blood red. Notice no spotting !

Also the results of wiping a blood hand on a cloth again noting that if the blood had been straight out of a living person it would have been blood red.

I dont know how much more proof you need for you to admit you may be wrong ?

[Fisherman]

I''ll say this again. The Daily Telegraph transcription of Dr. Brown's testimony concerning the apron is incorrect. It was not the apron piece from Goulston St. that was described by Brown as being spotted with blood but the piece found on the victim. The DT mistakenly got it all turned around.

So, what you are basically saying, is that it seems that the killer wiped his hands and/or his knife on the piece of apron that was left beind, still attached to Eddowes´body?
In other words, it would seem that his cleaning-up process was taken care of while he was still in the square.
Then, reasonably, he would have procured the other apron half for some other purpose than wiping himself, right? And Long would have said nothing about any faeces stains on the part that he saw?

Who knows, we may be making progress here!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Hi Debs

Yes that's correct but he does confirm that blood spotting is part of the menstrual cycle.

It was the same expert who removed the uterus and photographed the cloth after it had been placed in it.

I can see where you are coming from but not forgetting that looking at the other side of the coin if the organs had been placed in the apron piece. The experiment shows the extent of blood transference and the apron piece would not have been found spotted with blood.

When you look at the apron, the apron piece, the removal of the organs etc so many pointers which suggest the old previously accepted theory may not be correct. If that be the case there has to be other plausible explanations because we know for sure that the GS piece is linked to the victim.

So we have to ask "how did it get there"? "Who put it there"? "when was it put there"? "What had it been used for"? all important question to which we don't have definitive answers. We can only asses and evaluate all the facts and look at all the plausible explanations and try to come up with the most plausible, based on the strength and weight of evidence there is available in support of the most likely.

All I have done is to look at this in an unbiased fashion. I have taken this part of the mystery by the scruff of the neck given it a shake which has resulted in many anomalies dropping out, which now warrant serious consideration in regards to the old theory.

Thanks Trevor. Can I ask which description he went on?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor. Can I ask which description he went on?

None specifically, he was asked to comment about blood spotting which seems to have been the general consensus.

[Debra A]

None specifically, he was asked to comment about blood spotting which seems to have been the general consensus.

Thanks Trevor. He was just confirming that blood spotting happens during the menstrual cycle then?

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor. He was just confirming that blood spotting happens during the menstrual cycle then?

Yes and also stated that someone of Eddowes age would still likely to be menstruating but due to malnourishment and emancipation those periods would likley to be light, which bring us back to spotting

[Debra A]

Yes and also stated that someone of Eddowes age would still likely to be menstruating but due to malnourishment and emancipation those periods would likley to be light, which bring us back to spotting

Okay, thanks. Is there an official description of the blood pattern on the apron anywhere?

[Hunter]

Well, maybe third time's charm...

So, what you are basically saying, is that it seems that the killer wiped his hands and/or his knife on the piece of apron that was left being, still attached to Eddowes´body?
In other words, it would seem that his cleaning-up process was taken care of while he was still in the square.
Then, reasonably, he would have procured the other apron half for some other purpose than wiping himself, right? And Long would have said nothing about any faeces stains on the part that he saw?

Who knows, we may be making progress here!

Hi Christer,

No, that is not what I am basically saying at all. I was just pointing out an incorrect transcription or sloppy editing on the part of the Daily Telegraph in this instance because people are incorrectly relying on it; maybe and partly because its version is relied upon at Casebook. I never inferred anything else - certainly not what you are suggesting.

I will see if I can put this in sequence for clarification:

Frederick Gordon Brown was the last witness called at the first session of the Eddowes inquest. His testimony was to be the most lengthy and the most crucial. After giving a detailed description of the injuries inflicted upon the victim, Brown was asked some more specific questions by Mr. Crawford.

The apron piece found with the body had previously been presented as evidence by Inspector Collard and it was this piece that Brown was referred to first and described as being spotted with blood. Brown also testified that the blood spots on this piece found on the victim in Mitre Square were fresh - "of recent origin."... Following me so far? The discussion has been about the piece of apron removed from the victim and cataloged at the Golden Lane mortuary.

Now, Brown brings up the piece found in Goulston St.and brought on to the mortuary by Dr. Phillips while the preliminary examination was taking place early that Sunday morning. He describes how he fitted the two pieces and even detailed the corresponding patch on the Goulston St. piece. He remarks that one side was smeared with blood and apparently faecal matter. This is what Brown's signed testimony says and all other press transcripts more or less.

Except the Daily Telegraph, which in a very truncated version incorrectly referred to the Goulston St. piece as the one described by Brown's as the one being "spotted with blood." They edit out his mention of the actual Goulston street piece being smeared with blood and fecal matter.

I am not suggesting anything other than the DT got it wrong. The piece described as being "spotted with blood" was the piece remaining with the victim. The piece described as being "smeared with blood and apparently faecal matter" was the piece found in Goulston St. and brought to the Golden Lane mortuary by Mr. Phillips.

Both pieces had blood on them. I would never suggest what you seemed to derive from my previous post.

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

No, that is not what I am basically saying at all. I was just pointing out an incorrect transcription or sloppy editing on the part of the Daily Telegraph in this instance because people are incorrectly relying on it; maybe and partly because its version is relied upon at Casebook. I never inferred anything else - certainly not what you are suggesting.

Aha - let´s see where this takes us, then!

I will see if I can put this in sequence for clarification:

Frederick Gordon Brown was the last witness called at the first session of the Eddowes inquest. His testimony was to be the most lengthy and the most crucial. After giving a detailed description of the injuries inflicted upon the victim, Brown was asked some more specific questions by Mr. Crawford.

The apron piece found with the body had previously been presented as evidence by Inspector Collard and it was this piece that Brown was referred to first and described as being spotted with blood. Brown also testified that the blood spots on this piece found on the victim in Mitre Square were fresh - "of recent origin."... Following me so far?

Easily, Cris!

The discussion has been about the piece of apron removed from the victim and cataloged at the Golden Lane mortuary.

It has.

Now, Brown brings up the piece found in Goulston St.and brought on to the mortuary by Dr. Phillips while the preliminary examination was taking place early that Sunday morning. He describes how he fitted the two pieces and even detailed the corresponding patch on the Goulston St. piece. He remarks that one side was smeared with blood and apparently faecal matter. This is what Brown's signed testimony says and all other press transcripts more or less.

Aha! So it´s business as usual, then. I thought you were saying that the piece still on Eddowes was the one smeared with blood and feces.

Except the Daily Telegraph, which in a very truncated version incorrectly referred to the Goulston St. piece as the one described by Brown's as the one being "spotted with blood." They edit out his mention of the actual Goulston street piece being smeared with blood and fecal matter.

I´m with you - and clearly, I misunderstood you before. Apologies if it made you feel uncomfortable!

I am not suggesting anything other than the DT got it wrong. The piece described as being "spotted with blood" was the piece remaining with the victim. The piece described as being "smeared with blood and apparently faecal matter" was the piece found in Goulston St. and brought to the Golden Lane mortuary by Mr. Phillips.

Yes, I see what you say.

Both pieces had blood on them. I would never suggest what you seemed to derive from my previous post.

I would not want to put any words in your mouth that did not belong there, Cris. Your description however, seemed to point in the direction of Brown describing the remaining portion of the apron as the one with smears of blood and feces on it.

I am perfectly happy with both versions, at the end of the day. To me, the more important bit is the one describing one corner of the apron as being wet with blood (seventy minutes after the attack...?!), plus of course how Long states in no uncertain terms that the apron was not in place at 2.20.

If the apron piece left with Eddowes had been the blood- and feces-smeared one, it would not have proven that he did not take the other part to clean up anyway - it could always be suggested that the stuff took so much shifting that he initially just made a coarse cleaning up, only to then move on to the more intense scrubbing with the taken-away part as he left the square.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Press reports and specifically those relaying the testimonies given at inquest are a vital and useful source for information. But errors are made. That is why a spectrum of reports on the same subject is necessary reading to properly evaluate the information. Some renditions just give a summary of the proceedings with maybe an editorial comment or two, some a basic third person rendition (the Times for example) and some actually quoted the participants (at least tried to anyway.) All of them were edited to some extent.

Even the official version, signed by the witnesses was edited.

Posters here rely heavily upon the Daily Telegraph version of inquest reports because that's what's presented in the inquest section of the Official Documents page. It is generally a good and reliable source as far as press versions go, but not in this case. And thus certain evidence is continually misinterpreted time and time again.

Another example of missing crucial information regarding medical testimony is the fact that the DT and nearly all of the other news publications decided not to print Dr. Phillips' description of the mutilations to Annie Chapman's lower abdomen. And considering the conflict over this at the time, one can see why. But the Morning Advertiser did publish this testimony and what it relates is quite revealing. Yet most people in this field (except Gareth)have completely missed it.

Caution and basic reasoning and comprehension are always necessary when evaluating any historical data, but what Trevor suggest about how press reports should be viewed is nonsensical and given his past predilictions... hypocritical. The same reserve does not seem to apply to the writings of others... There... I said it... report me to administration.

[Trevor Marriott]

Press reports and specifically those relaying the testimonies given at inquest are a vital and useful source for information. But errors are made. That is why a spectrum of reports on the same subject is necessary reading to properly evaluate the information. Some renditions just give a summary of the proceedings with maybe an editorial comment or two, some a basic third person rendition (the Times for example) and some actually quoted the participants (at least tried to anyway.) All of them were edited to some extent.

Even the official version, signed by the witnesses was edited.

Posters here rely heavily upon the Daily Telegraph version of inquest reports because that's what's presented in the inquest section of the Official Documents page. It is generally a good and reliable source as far as press versions go, but not in this case. And thus certain evidence is continually misinterpreted time and time again.

Another example of missing crucial information regarding medical testimony is the fact that the DT and nearly all of the other news publications decided not to print Dr. Phillips' description of the mutilations to Annie Chapman's lower abdomen. And considering the conflict over this at the time, one can see why. But the Morning Advertiser did publish this testimony and what it relates is quite revealing. Yet most people in this field (except Gareth)have completely missed it.

Caution and basic reasoning and comprehension are always necessary when evaluating any historical data, but what Trevor suggest about how press reports should be viewed is nonsensical and given his past predilictions... hypocritical. The same reserve does not seem to apply to the writings of others... There... I said it... report me to administration.

I have never said they were nonsensical I have said that they are conflicting, unsafe and unreliable which is true.

Yes errors are made, and have been highlighted. The trouble is the some wont accept the errors, because the errors are what they seek to rely on, and to dismiss them would be catastrophic for those persons perceptions.


And the funny farm might be more appropriate than administration !

[Trevor Marriott]

Press reports and specifically those relaying the testimonies given at inquest are a vital and useful source for information. But errors are made. That is why a spectrum of reports on the same subject is necessary reading to properly evaluate the information. Some renditions just give a summary of the proceedings with maybe an editorial comment or two, some a basic third person rendition (the Times for example) and some actually quoted the participants (at least tried to anyway.) All of them were edited to some extent.

Even the official version, signed by the witnesses was edited.

Posters here rely heavily upon the Daily Telegraph version of inquest reports because that's what's presented in the inquest section of the Official Documents page. It is generally a good and reliable source as far as press versions go, but not in this case. And thus certain evidence is continually misinterpreted time and time again.

Another example of missing crucial information regarding medical testimony is the fact that the DT and nearly all of the other news publications decided not to print Dr. Phillips' description of the mutilations to Annie Chapman's lower abdomen. And considering the conflict over this at the time, one can see why. But the Morning Advertiser did publish this testimony and what it relates is quite revealing. Yet most people in this field (except Gareth)have completely missed it.

Caution and basic reasoning and comprehension are always necessary when evaluating any historical data, but what Trevor suggest about how press reports should be viewed is nonsensical and given his past predilictions... hypocritical. The same reserve does not seem to apply to the writings of others... There... I said it... report me to administration.

Let me ask one question which will close the door on the suggestion that the organs were taken away in the apron piece once and for all.

Not just for you to answer but all the other knowledgeable and intelligent people on here

Where is there any record, written or otherwise from any police official doctor or coroner that in 1888 to say they believed or even suspected that the organs were taken away in the GS apron piece.

Because if there is not, then all this talk about this over the ensuing years has been based on nothing more than wild uncorroborated speculation from so called intelligent and knowledgeable researchers who should know better.

If the police and doctors had no reason to suspect this in 1888 then why are all of you so sure it happened? Where is the evidence now that wasnt available to them in 1888 to support this.

[Fisherman]

Posters here rely heavily upon the Daily Telegraph version of inquest reports because that's what's presented in the inquest section of the Official Documents page.

I have - much like you, apparently - come to put much less trust in the DT than I originally did. When you start doing Ripperology, the DT and the Times are proposed as the better sources on the whole. But I think that we must always weigh together the different sources before reaching any conclusion.

One example that I think is useful, is how the Morning Advertiser tells us that the coroner had to ask Mizen whether there was another man around as the PC spoke to Lechmere on the murder night.
All other papers had compiled this issue, telling us that the carmen were in company, but boiled down, we find that it is the coroner who asks whether there was another man in Lechmere´s company as Mizen met him, and Mizen answers in the positive - there WAS another man there, who also appeared to be a carman.
Up til that point, one may believe that the two both approached Mizen in company and spoke to him, whereas after having read this article, where it is made clear that Mizen told his stoy without even reflecting on mentioning Paul on his own accord, we can see that we need to be wary about reading too few sources.

There are other examples too, but this one will suffice, I think.

All the best,
Fisherman