PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Wickerman]

Then it would have been listed as one white apron with piece missing.

Isn't "1 Piece of old white apron" good enough for you?

Can you explain the difference in the following?

1 - 1 Piece of apron.
2 - 1 Apron with piece missing.

Are we dabbling in semantics now?

[Garry Wroe]

I am not basing my arguments on that fact alone but on a combination of facts that put together would suggest that the organs were not taken away in the piece, along with the facts that suggest she wasn't wearing an apron.

Then how do you account for the descriptions of the apron provided by various crime scene attendees, Trev, medical men amongst them?

Just as a matter of interest why do you think the police did not consider the fact that the apron piece was used to take the organs away in ?

I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t considered, Trev. The fact that we have no written record of such shouldn’t be taken as proof that no-one thought it a possibility at the time. For the record, here’s the relevant passage from my book:-

‘Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

The killer had plenty of options available to him had he merely wished to clean his hands and knife. Taps and water butts were readily available in the area, as were horse troughs. The fact too that the night in question had been punctuated by heavy rainfall means that there would have been puddles and possibly larger sources of standing water that could have been used for washing away blood and other evidence of the Eddowes murder. More to the point, water would have removed unwanted bloodstains far more efficiently than would the dry and possibly contaminated apron taken from Mitre Square. With this in mind I think it likely that the theft of the apron remnant was motivated by some other factor. If so, the most obvious conclusion is that the killer used it to wrap the body parts, thus protecting his clothing whilst he put what he felt was a safe distance between himself and the crime scene.

Think about it in more quotidian terms. No-one in their right mind would consider leaving a butcher’s shop with unwrapped raw meat placed in a pocket for a journey home. So why should Jack the Ripper have been any different? It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.

[Fisherman]

It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.[/FONT][/COLOR]

A question if I may, Garry: Do you know whether Shawcross brought the towel along with him or if he procured it at the murder site?

As for the apron piece cut away in Mitre Square, I think that the suggestion that he carried the organs has a good deal going for it - up til the point when we realize that the fluid blood there is, is just present in a corner of the apron.
Why, if he placed a uterus and a kidney inside the apron piece, would he have placed it up in one corner?
Furthermore, what would the "purpose" as such have been for the apron? To carry the organs with him to his bolthole? Then we must assume that he lived in Wentworth Model buildings - and was careless enough to drop a vital clue on his own doorstep.

If he lived somewhere else, why change a perfectly functionable carrying bag for a handkerchief? That would entail him putting the apron on the ground, unrolling it, displaying the innards, whereupon he pulled a handkerchief out - a piece of cloth that would easily have the innards bleeding through it and smearing his clothes - and put the organs inside that handkerchief and went on his way.

Would it not be very much easier to just proceed with the apron piece? The innards had not bled through it if he DID use it as a carrying bag - the only piece that was wet with blood was the corner, and if he had rolled the innards up by placing them on that corner, then there would have been layer upon layer of cloth that was still dry outside the corner core.

To my mind, the apron was not used as a means to carry any organs. If it was, my hunch is that he would have taken the organs in it to where he was going to stow them away, instead of discarding a useful carrying bag halfways there.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

So now it's Trevor Gandhi!

Ah, so he died in 1948. That's explains everything. He's haunting us.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Isn't "1 Piece of old white apron" good enough for you?

Can you explain the difference in the following?

1 - 1 Piece of apron.
2 - 1 Apron with piece missing.

Are we dabbling in semantics now?

No dabbling in two different entities

1 as you say piece of apron

2. Apron with piece missing

In this case both appeared to have come for the same original apron at some time not necessarily the murder scene

Both have to be different otherwise both might have been described as old white aprons, which in effect none of them were as they were two different apron pieces,

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=Garry Wroe;302569]Then how do you account for the descriptions of the apron provided by various crime scene attendees, Trev, medical men amongst them?


I’m not entirely sure that it wasn’t considered, Trev. The fact that we have no written record of such shouldn’t be taken as proof that no-one thought it a possibility at the time. For the record, here’s the relevant passage from my book:-

‘Setting aside any potentiality that the remnant was taken in order to authenticate the Goulston Street message, it might be borne in mind that a kidney and uterus were abducted. This, of course, was by no means the first time the Ripper had taken away souvenir body parts. Hence it seems logical to assume that his previous experience with Annie Chapman had alerted him to the danger that freshly extracted viscera are prone to fluid seepage – leakage that in turn transmits trace evidence on to clothing. This naturally invites the possibility that the remnant was used to wrap up the internal organs, providing his apparel with an element of protection as he made his getaway. Once in Goulston Street the organs were probably transferred to a handkerchief, while the remnant, having served its purpose, was discarded in a convenient doorway.’

The killer had plenty of options available to him had he merely wished to clean his hands and knife. Taps and water butts were readily available in the area, as were horse troughs. The fact too that the night in question had been punctuated by heavy rainfall means that there would have been puddles and possibly larger sources of standing water that could have been used for washing away blood and other evidence of the Eddowes murder. More to the point, water would have removed unwanted bloodstains far more efficiently than would the dry and possibly contaminated apron taken from Mitre Square. With this in mind I think it likely that the theft of the apron remnant was motivated by some other factor. If so, the most obvious conclusion is that the killer used it to wrap the body parts, thus protecting his clothing whilst he put what he felt was a safe distance between himself and the crime scene.

Think about it in more quotidian terms. No-one in their right mind would consider leaving a butcher’s shop with unwrapped raw meat placed in a pocket for a journey home. So why should Jack the Ripper have been any different? It might also be worth mentioning Arthur Shawcross in this context. We know courtesy of Shawcross’s confession that he excised and took away the genitalia of one female victim, an organ that he later cannibalised whilst sitting in his car. Did he place the organ directly into his pocket? No. He wrapped it in a bar towel before departing the crime scene. And since we have similar revelations from a number of similar such killers we ought to be looking at the Goulston Street apron remnant through slightly more educated eyes.

/QUOTE]

But all of this is academic if the killer didn't remove the organs at the crime scene. Can you not see how all the different scenarios now dovetail into each other to dispel the theory of the killer removing the organs and then taking them away with him in the apron piece.

If she wasnt wearing an apron he couldn't have cut or tore it could he

Popular to contrary belief it not me making it up to fit a theory its the combination of the new facts which when put together suggest what you and others have relied upon may not have been correct.

Its a fact of modern day investigative work that new facts and new evidence are constantly being uncovered in old cases, which casts doubt about what has previously been accepted. Why should the Ripper case be any different simply because you and others who have invested a lot of time and effort into research and writing books etc for obvious reasons don't want it changing and wont accept new facts etc

[Hunter]

When you reproduce the quote of another, make sure the word "quote" is all capital letters - that and the "=" symbol, and the poster's name or pseudonym is enclosed in brackets "[ ]"
Then end with bracket, slash, the word "quote" in capital letters, then closed bracket.

Click "preview post" to make sure everything is correct before you press "send."

Quotation marks are my emphasis only and not necessary.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Trevor,

Please consider your wrist to have been well and truly slapped by Casebook's resident Guardian of Propriety.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

My apologies.

I should have had the insight to realize that any attempt at propriety and more cognazant communication is a futile effort here.

[Trevor Marriott]

My apologies.

I should have had the insight to realize that any attempt at propriety and more cognazant communication is a futile effort here.

I do humbly apologize to all for my lack of punctuation and grammar in these posts but what I lack in that department I make up for with my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts which have led to the dispelling of a major part of this mystery.

So you may have the punctuation and grammar skills, but its for sure you will never have the latter.

[Wickerman]

I do humbly apologize to all for my lack of punctuation and grammar in these posts but what I lack in that department I make up for with my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts which have led to the dispelling of a major part of this mystery.

So you may have the punctuation and grammar skills, but its for sure you will never have the latter.

I sense a contradiction here.
Does "Humble" actually belong in the same sentence as "my investigative skills, coupled with the ability to assess and evaluate evidence and facts."?

[Carol]

The Ripper could have used a waterproof sponge bag to take the kidney and uterus away. Please see my post number 81 on page 9 of this thread.



I think it possible he would have left home prepared to take away one or two 'souvenirs' if his luck held out that night. After all, he had already taken a 'souvenir' before. A waterproof sponge bag would have been an ideal container and very readily available to anyone in London - at a low cost.

Your thoughts, please!

Carol

[Trevor Marriott]

The Ripper could have used a waterproof sponge bag to take the kidney and uterus away. Please see my post number 81 on page 9 of this thread.

[ATTACH]16104[/ATTACH]

I think it possible he would have left home prepared to take away one or two 'souvenirs' if his luck held out that night. After all, he had already taken a 'souvenir' before. A waterproof sponge bag would have been an ideal container and very readily available to anyone in London - at a low cost.

Your thoughts, please!

Carol

Hi Carol
His actions at the crime scene suggest that there was no premeditation and no design on the organs. The stabbing and mutilating of the abdomen in such a way that it would damage any organs he may have been seeking.

[Monty]

Hi Carol
His actions at the crime scene suggest that there was no premeditation and no design on the organs. The stabbing and mutilating of the abdomen in such a way that it would damage any organs he may have been seeking.

Why would he need pristine organs?

Monty

[The Good Michael]

Why would he need pristine organs?

Foul! You know the answer already.

Mike