PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Monty]

Have you seen the original? Or a second/third generation copy?

Monty

No? Not gonna aswer that huh?

Monty

[Debra A]

This myth about the killer taking the organs away follows on from the false perception of a man in a black hat wearing a black cape carrying a black back.
.

Trevor, are you sure you aren't actually the one promoting this myth every time you attempt to destroy it? Do people on yours tours ask if the apron was used to transport the organs? Is that where this idea of yours that it is a widely promoted theory comes from?
Do you know specifically of any posters or authors who actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece? Or actively promote the belief that the organs were carried in the apron piece as a means to support the idea that JTR was an organ stealer? It's an interesting point Roy made.

[Monty]

What you state as 'facts', are merely theories in most Ripperoloists eyes.

You aren't the first to challenge them, they were debated on these boards since 2000, and they are not accepted 'fact'.

And let's be clear, you have dispelled nothing, merely added to the murk.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Good evening Trevor,



No. Not a word about the organs being taken away in the apron piece. Nothing. Not ever. Zero. You don't know who or what you are arguing against. You can't give me one example of a ripper book where the idea is entertained.

Just name one book please with this idea. Just one. That's all.

Roy

ps, if you can name just one, Trevor, I promise I'll get a Mohawk

There isn't one mention because as I said previous the extent of the spotting/staining/smearing did not lend itself for them to even consider that fact.

This myth about the killer taking the organs away follows on from the false perception of a man in a black hat wearing a black cape carrying a black back. Entwined with the doctors saying that there was anatomical knowledge used all pointing to a doctor and that is what the public have come to accept that is what you and others have come to accept.

There is thing nowadays where the evidence in old unsolved cases is reviewed its called "A Cold Case Investigation" which is what I have done reviewed the old previously accepted facts and finding out that what has previously been accepted may not be the case.

[TomTomKent]

Good evening Trevor,



No. Not a word about the organs being taken away in the apron piece. Nothing. Not ever. Zero. You don't know who or what you are arguing against. You can't give me one example of a ripper book where the idea is entertained.

Just name one book please with this idea. Just one. That's all.

Roy

ps, if you can name just one, Trevor, I promise I'll get a Mohawk

The closest this comes to ringing a bell for me would be the claims of the "Black Magician" to have stolen away the organs of his victims to grant him powers of invisibility. But that was under his necktie, not in an apron, and was an absurd fraud.

[The Good Michael]

Hi Lynn.

We could also ask why Sutcliffe tried to saw the head off one of his victims, but only one.
Or, why he stabbed one victim in the eye, and only one.

Are we asking the right questions?

Yes, and I'm tired of these questions because they can't be answered. There are too many factors such as mood, mania, state of inebriation, lighting, surroundings, victim struggles, stray dogs, sudden doubts, weather including: wind, rain, heat, etc.. So many factors tend to make the concepts of ritual and signature rather vague and even non-existent to us or the killer himself. After more than 125 years, it's impossible to play more than 'what if' scenarios that create intellectual doubts regarding the demise of one or more victims, and I suspect much of them are self-imagined rather than the reality of things.

MIke

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Trevor,

this belief that the killer cut and tore the apron piece for taking away the organs in has been an important and integral part of this mystery.

No. Not a word about the organs being taken away in the apron piece. Nothing. Not ever. Zero. You don't know who or what you are arguing against. You can't give me one example of a ripper book where the idea is entertained.

Just name one book please with this idea. Just one. That's all.

Roy

ps, if you can name just one, Trevor, I promise I'll get a Mohawk

[Varqm]

I remember some of the old debates.
Using the apron to carry organs was the least likeliest.If the killer did carry organs whatever he used he would have used it all the way home.It did'nt make sense to just drop it. Wiping and discarding at such a distance
also did'nt make sense.
Impossible to prove but the more likelier and more interesting reasons were
the apron was purposely placed near the graffito in reaction to the
anti-jewish sentiments/hysteria after the Chapman murder ( I sway to this) and the other was to confuse police as to where the killer was headed home.
It seems risky to carry that apron to that location and there had to be a compelling reason. Of course he could have acted stupid or differently or for some unknown reason.
Trevor's menstruation idea/view is unique and in such an old case cannot be discounted.
Some went so far as to suspect PC Long.

[Monty]

Hi Lynn.

We could also ask why Sutcliffe tried to saw the head off one of his victims, but only one.
Or, why he stabbed one victim in the eye, and only one.

Are we asking the right questions?

Now YOU are asking the right questions Jon.

Monty

[Monty]

I don't think so. As I said before the line on her right cheek looks like a cut in line with the other facial cuts going across at the same angle.

Have you seen the original? Or a second/third generation copy?

Monty

[Wickerman]

Hello Trevor.

"What was the relevance of those cuts and if it were the same killer why were none found on any of the other victims?"

Oh, ho! NOW you're asking the right question.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

We could also ask why Sutcliffe tried to saw the head off one of his victims, but only one.
Or, why he stabbed one victim in the eye, and only one.

Are we asking the right questions?

[Trevor Marriott]

The V upon the right cheek is visible. And is upon the original.

You need stronger glasses Marriott.

Monty

I don't think so. As I said before the line on her right cheek looks like a cut in line with the other facial cuts going across at the same angle.

[Trevor Marriott]

And that's what one of the other knowledgeable and intelligent guys on here has been saying for pages now, Jon. Roy made an excellent point; who is Trevor actually arguing with? Who thinks the organs were carried in the apron piece and what difference does it make on whether the killer stole organs or not?!

It makes a big difference because this belief that the killer cut and tore the apron piece for taking away the organs in has been an important and integral part of this mystery. Disprove this and you bring into question other issues regarding the apron and the apron piece, such as

Did the killer really remove the organs from the body at all?

If he did how did he take them away?

Was she actually wearing an apron at the time of the murder? Because if she wasn't then that impacts on all the other suggestions that the killer cut or tore The GS piece to wipe his hands or his knife or to stem blood form a cut but researchers will still now want to suggest these as alternatives now we can safely say the organs were not taken away in the GS piece.

There has to be an explanation for the apron piece being found at GS sadly we are never going to be able to come up with a definitive answer, and in view of that all the various scenarios should be looked at in a sensible way and not dismiss some outright because one particular suggestion doesn't sit well with that persons belief.

[lynn cates]

disparity

Hello Phil. Thanks.

In particular, that disparity moves me.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

..And is there an 'official' description of the blood spots/ marks that were made on the apron?