PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Bridewell]

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

Here we go again another deflection why cant people on here answer a simple question with a simple answer.

We can, Trevor, but yours wasn't a simple question. It was a loaded one. You asked where there was any record of the police or others in officialdom expressing the view that the apron was used to remove body parts. This implies that, if there isn't an official record of its being put to that use, then such use is ruled out. That argument would hold water only if there was a view expressed to the contrary. If there was no contrary view expressed then no conclusion can be drawn from the silence.

For the record, I share your view that the apron was not used to transport body parts - the portion cut away was excessive for that purpose - but your argument about the absence of an official view doesn't close the door if officialdom recorded no view one way or the other.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

Well you Hunter and all the others can mock and ridicule all you like it has no effect on me especially when you know you are holding all the cards. It all just runs me off like water off a ducks back.

Perhaps you and hunter and others time might be best spent trying to answer the question I posted yesterday- Oh I forgot you cant because there is no answer and that my friends is the deciding factor.

So lets now forget about further discussion about the organs being taken away in the apron piece as it didn't happen shall we, and move onto another part of the apron piece oh I forgot again I already proved that hands or a knife weren't wiped on it. With all this excitement in shattering this part of the myth I almost allowed myself the luxury of a smile.

[Garry Wroe]

It struck me that when Morris opened the back door at 1.42 or thereabouts, light would be emitting from said interior. As I have pointed out previously, depending on which way the door hinges were, and depending on whether the door was an inward or outward swinging door, a certain amount, variable because of the above, of light would then create a shaft, of some description, out into the square ... Additionally, we do not know if the door was silent or creaked ... Given these possibilities of one way or another, it is most possible that said killer would either have seen, heard or his attention been brought to the opening of the door (and the light eminating from it, if only a shaft.)

I think it overwhelmingly likely, Phil, that the killer would have been acutely attuned to sound whilst at the crime scenes, whether this was footsteps, creaking doors, windows opening, approaching carts or even human voices. I consider it no accident that he killed when the streets were largely deserted. Not only were the women he encountered liable to be desperate to earn their lodging money and thus less risk averse, but the quietness of the streets provided the killer with advanced warning of any potential threat.

That could be the reason for him being spooked. It also ties in with the estimated time of death from the FIRST doctor on the scene, Sequiera.

To be honest, Phil, I see no indication of the killer having been spooked at the Mitre Square crime scene. The fact that he took the time to cut away the apron remnant and inflict the delicate cuts about Kate’s eyes signifies to me that there was no hasty retreat from the locus.

[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.

[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]

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.

[Debra A]

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

[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 !

[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 !

[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.

[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

[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

[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]

[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 !

[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.