PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

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.

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.

Trevor, where is there any record, written or otherwise to say that they held a contrary belief?

[Hunter]

Quickly, in referral to your question, Trevor, I see little if anything in the evidence to suggest the killer took the apron to store the organs. He might have, but these organs were very small. Phillips described what was taken from Chapman as fitting in a teacup. And that included more than the uterus. I've taken a deer kidney (the dogs love 'em) put it in a handkerchief and stuck it in a coat pocket until I got out of the woods. Little if any blood seeped through other than a spot where the vessels were severed.

What Brown described as the condition of the piece found in GS is the only real evidence as to what was done with it. Anything more than that is conjecture.

[Roy Corduroy]

Trevor's theory is the City of London mortuary is where the bodily organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed.

Think about that.

It means everything, and I mean everything about the City of London mortuary is unreliable. According to Trevor. Because it was at the City of London mortuary the most egregious violation was made. The removal of the body parts of a murder victim brought there by the police for a post mortem and inquest.

Thank about that.

The deal is queered. For all we know it was the doctors themselves who removed the body parts, then wrote up their reports of the body parts missing. Everything about the City of London mortuary and its procedures, and any and all reports emanating from said mortuary, all of it is unreliable. With extreme prejudice.

So folks, arguing with Trevor about the list of possessions, the arpon, and so forth is like you doing a guest appearance on the Twilight Zone. Either you swallow Trevor's theory whole hog or not. I don't see any in-between.

Roy

[Hunter]

But he has developed a theory from another theory to support the original theory. You launch a boat with a hole in it, and instead of taking it back to the bank at the first sign of trouble, you go out in deeper water while grabbing for buckets to bale with.

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;301300]Trevor, where is there any record, written or otherwise to say that they held a contrary belief?[/QUOTE

Here we go again another deflection why cant people on here answer a simple question with a simple answer. The reason is because to answer this specific question in the only way it can be answered would as I said close the door on this part of the mystery for good

Dr Brown in one of his many different quotes said the apron was smeared as if by a hand or knife.

Surely if he had any reason to think the organs had been taken away in it would he not have included that in that statement. Or knowing that the organs were taken the coroner might have followed that up and asked "could the organs have been taken away in the piece?

The reason it wasn't ever mentioned by anyone in that context because no one thought of it because the small amount of blood on the apron did not warrant anyone asking the question.

Now lets close the door on this part and look at closing the door on other parts !

[Trevor Marriott]

Quickly, in referral to your question, Trevor, I see little if anything in the evidence to suggest the killer took the apron to store the organs. He might have, but these organs were very small. Phillips described what was taken from Chapman as fitting in a teacup. And that included more than the uterus. I've taken a deer kidney (the dogs love 'em) put it in a handkerchief and stuck it in a coat pocket until I got out of the woods. Little if any blood seeped through other than a spot where the vessels were severed.

What Brown described as the condition of the piece found in GS is the only real evidence as to what was done with it. Anything more than that is conjecture.

Its not conjecture the photos I posted cant lie can they one pic is worth a thousand words. Four pics irrefutable !

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor's theory is the City of London mortuary is where the bodily organs of Catherine Eddowes were removed.

Think about that.

It means everything, and I mean everything about the City of London mortuary is unreliable. According to Trevor. Because it was at the City of London mortuary the most egregious violation was made. The removal of the body parts of a murder victim brought there by the police for a post mortem and inquest.

Thank about that.

The deal is queered. For all we know it was the doctors themselves who removed the body parts, then wrote up their reports of the body parts missing. Everything about the City of London mortuary and its procedures, and any and all reports emanating from said mortuary, all of it is unreliable. With extreme prejudice.

So folks, arguing with Trevor about the list of possessions, the arpon, and so forth is like you doing a guest appearance on the Twilight Zone. Either you swallow Trevor's theory whole hog or not. I don't see any in-between.

Roy

Roy
I am not going to argue with anyone. The facts speak for themselves, accept them or reject them, personally I don't give a monkeys, but when you do start spouting please get your facts right first

[Cogidubnus]

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

You'd really think women would learn from this fact...the more freedom they're given, the more freely they menstruate...thank you Trevor for this invaluable lesson in Physiology...it's no wonder that Bedford CID is now one of the foremost authorities on murder...

All the best

Dave

[Debra A]

You'd really think women would learn from this fact...the more freedom they're given, the more freely they menstruate...thank you Trevor for this invaluable lesson in Physiology...it's no wonder that Bedford CID is now one of the foremost authorities on murder...

All the best

Dave

Dave, you're fabulous.

[Trevor Marriott]

You'd really think women would learn from this fact...the more freedom they're given, the more freely they menstruate...thank you Trevor for this invaluable lesson in Physiology...it's no wonder that Bedford CID is now one of the foremost authorities on murder...

All the best

Dave

it has now come to the point where you and others are so desperate to discredit what I say in an attempt to prop up the old theory you now want to discredit a medical expert in this field.

Beggars belief !

[Trevor Marriott]

Dave, you're fabulous.

Don't encourage him to make himself look a --///// he is doing a good enough job all on his own !

[Debra A]

Did you not get the joke, Trevor? He wasn't commenting on theories.

[Garry Wroe]

But he has developed a theory from another theory to support the original theory. You launch a boat with a hole in it, and instead of taking it back to the bank at the first sign of trouble, you go out in deeper water while grabbing for buckets to bale with.

Or bash another hole in the hull hoping that the water already flooding the boat will rush out of it.

[Garry Wroe]

But, the facial mutilations were inflicted first, Garry (or just after the throat cut) so by the time he had done "his thing" to the abdomen he may have been acutely aware that he had outdone his stay in the Square.

Sorry, Jon, but I know of no evidence that supports the chronology you suggest. Purely in psychological terms I think it much more likely that the killer focused first on the abdominal mutilations and then turned his attention to the face as an afterthought.

[Garry Wroe]

I believe that some of the points you raise above could provide us with a puzzling factoid about this murder....assuming that the killer chose the venue in this instance, why would he choose a venue that had Morris in the actual square, Pearce who could look out his bedroom window onto the scene, 2 patrol policemen who enter the square multiple times per hour per man, and 3 detectives searching nearby alleys.

Unfortunately, Mike, I don’t subscribe to this assumption. I believe that the killer’s impressive success rate stems in no small measure from the likelihood that the outdoor victims felt comfortable and in control with this man because they led him to a spot of their own choosing. Thus the attack when it came was all the more surprising and consequently a great deal more effective. Sutcliffe is one of many serialists whose modus operandi echoed this approach. Others have described abandoning intended attacks when circumstances weren’t to their liking. From this it might be extrapolated that the Ripper didn’t kill every woman he chanced upon during his night trawls, but that those he did kill died when he felt in control of the victim and crime scene environment.