PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[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 ?

[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.

[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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor, was one of your experts quoted in your latest book under the impression that there was a photograph of the actual blood stained apron piece in existence?
One of his comments is that he can't make a definite conclusion about the blood spotting on the apron as he hasn't seen a photograph of the spotting as described to see if it is consistent with menstrual spotting.

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.

[Debra A]

Trevor, was one of your experts quoted in your latest book under the impression that there was a photograph of the actual blood stained apron piece in existence?
One of his comments is that he can't make a definite conclusion about the blood spotting on the apron as he hasn't seen a photograph of the spotting as described to see if it is consistent with menstrual spotting.

[Trevor Marriott]

This has all been gone through before I am sure if you go back and read all the posts you will find the right answer

[GUT]

G'day Trevor

I know I can be a bit thick but when I read the reports the blood spotting appears to be on the part found with the body, that part of apron found in Goulston Street does not appear to have any mention of spotting, just wet [in the corner] and having blood and faecal matter on it.

And how do you explain this evidence from Dr Brown:

Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

How is she not wearing the apron in light of the Dr's answer, it just doesn't add up to me.

[Trevor Marriott]

You are interpreting the description given at the Inquest as suggesting little blood was present on the piece of apron?

But, you conducted a test where a uterus was taken directly from a body and placed into a cloth?
Is that what the killer did?

Well of course he did if the old theory is to believed

Remember how this killer 'placed' intestines beside the body of Chapman?

What you do not know is if the killer removed the uterus and placed it on the pavement while he then removed the kidney. Then sliced off a piece of apron, wiped his knife & hands. Then picked up the uterus (and kidney?), then wrapped them all up together.
How much blood loss was there from the uterus while it sat on the pavement?

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

Even taking into account your hypothetical blood loss, there would have still been sufficient blood on the organ and seeping from the organ to stain the apron piece in the way the photo shows it.

The fact is Trevor, we cannot possibly know what the sequence of events were, and what actions he took, yet you choose to guess what he might have done and base your conclusions on that guesswork.
And, on that basis you dismiss anything suggested to you that conflicts with your belief.

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


How original...

I have not guessed anything it is you that is coming out with guess work. 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.

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.


Where is there one witness from way back then who suggests the GS piece was used for organ removal?

[Wickerman]

The GS piece as describe does not show anything like the photo as posted

You are interpreting the description given at the Inquest as suggesting little blood was present on the piece of apron?

But, you conducted a test where a uterus was taken directly from a body and placed into a cloth?
Is that what the killer did?

Remember how this killer 'placed' intestines beside the body of Chapman?

What you do not know is if the killer removed the uterus and placed it on the pavement while he then removed the kidney. Then sliced off a piece of apron, wiped his knife & hands. Then picked up the uterus (and kidney?), then wrapped them all up together.
How much blood loss was there from the uterus while it sat on the pavement?

The fact is Trevor, we cannot possibly know what the sequence of events were, and what actions he took, yet you choose to guess what he might have done and base your conclusions on that guesswork.
And, on that basis you dismiss anything suggested to you that conflicts with your belief.

How original...

[Trevor Marriott]

Your medical team should have advised you that the presence of the kidney adds nothing with respect to additional blood.

The kidney is contained within a fatty membrane. The detail provided by Dr Brown does not help us determine whether the kidney was removed along with the fatty membrane, or removed from within the fatty membrane.
As it happens neither scenario helps your theory.

If the fatty membrane was removed containing the kidney, there will be no appreciable blood added to the apron as blood does not adhere to fat.
If, the kidney was extracted from inside the fatty membrane, then the kidney is not immersed in blood as there is no blood inside the membrane.




That is correct.
The first time the idea was ever aired was in 1999, in this dissertation:
http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

So what explanation do you want to put forward to try to discredit the fact that the photo shows the transference of blood from a utetus direct from a live person

I don't think even you will be able to come up with one as they say one pic is worth a thousand words in this case the words are much shorter "the organs were not taken away from mitre sq in the apron piece"

The GS piece as describe does not show anything like the photo as posted

[Monty]

Now I have all the naysayers on the run its in for the kill now. This is your last chance to surrender and admit defeat

El white crap will be no 1

Open this post up, saw it was nothig of importance, gone back sleep.

Wake me up when you have something of worth Trevor, instead of mere opinion and unsound connjecture.

Now go away boy...you bother me.

Monty

[El White Chap]

Now I have all the naysayers on the run its in for the kill now. This is your last chance to surrender and admit defeat

El white crap will be no 1

Only in your dreams old man

[Trevor Marriott]

Phew...panic over then.

Monty

Now I have all the naysayers on the run its in for the kill now. This is your last chance to surrender and admit defeat

El white crap will be no 1

[Monty]

Phew...panic over then.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

The post mortem was not carried out at 2 p.m. the following day. It was carried out at 2 p.m. that same day, Sunday. Brown didn't even wait to notify the coroner. The apron piece was brought by Phillips and examined with the other within two hours of the body arriving at the morgue.

What I should have said was almost 12 hours later !

Thank you for pointing out my Freudian slip