PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Why would he need pristine organs?

Monty

Well you have two trains of thought

1. The motive behind the murders was to kill and remove the organs, in
which case why did the killer go to the trouble of mutilating the
abdomens in such a way as it would damage the organs being sought. If
this had been the case having regards to the anatomical knowledge he is
supposed have shown the killer surely would have simply made the
standard medical incisions and helped himself without any hindrances like
blood filled abdomens etc.

Killers don't suddenly decide halfway through a murder to surgically
remove organs especially when they are in a public place and likely to be
disturbed.

Of course you also have to consider the issue of anatomical knowledge.
How many persons would have sufficient knowledge to remove these
organs in almost total darkness with a six inch knife. Now I know people
keep saying Dr Brown said it could be done in 5 minutes. But that
statement is ambiguous in my opinion, because I believe he was
referring to the murder and the mutilations. This is backed up by his
reluctance to have a go at removing a womb in a later experiment.
Furthermore out of both organs the uterus was the easiest to access and
remove. So can we rely totally on Dr Brown and his timings ?

2. The killer had no design on the organs, either before, or during the
murder, and didn't remove them from the crime scene.

[Trevor Marriott]

Foul! You know the answer already.

Mike

Shame you dont !

[Monty]

Well you have two trains of thought

1. The motive behind the murders was to kill and remove the organs, in
which case why did the killer go to the trouble of mutilating the
abdomens in such a way as it would damage the organs being sought. If
this had been the case having regards to the anatomical knowledge he is
supposed have shown the killer surely would have simply made the
standard medical incisions and helped himself without any hindrances like
blood filled abdomens etc.

Killers don't suddenly decide halfway through a murder to surgically
remove organs especially when they are in a public place and likely to be
disturbed.

Of course you also have to consider the issue of anatomical knowledge.
How many persons would have sufficient knowledge to remove these
organs in almost total darkness with a six inch knife. Now I know people
keep saying Dr Brown said it could be done in 5 minutes. But that
statement is ambiguous in my opinion, because I believe he was
referring to the murder and the mutilations. This is backed up by his
reluctance to have a go at removing a womb in a later experiment.
Furthermore out of both organs the uterus was the easiest to access and
remove. So can we rely totally on Dr Brown and his timings ?

2. The killer had no design on the organs, either before, or during the
murder, and didn't remove them from the crime scene.

It doesn't answer my question though,

Surely you are presuming the killers motive re the organs. What if, say, possesion was the aim, no matter the condition?

You are assuming, yes?

Monty

[Garry Wroe]

Do you know whether Shawcross brought the towel along with him or if he procured it at the murder site?

Trusting to memory, Fish, I believe that Shawcross carried the towel with him on returning to the disposal site of a previously killed victim.

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

If the apron remnant really was wet with blood when Long chanced upon it shortly before three o’clock, Fish, it seems unlikely that the killer had used it merely to wipe his hands and knife. The apron was discovered roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. Had he taken the apron for the specific purpose of removing blood from his hands and knife, common sense dictates that he would have cleaned up at the first available opportunity. The likelihood, then, is that he would have made for Goulston Street immediately upon leaving Mitre Square. So how is it that an apron exposed to the air was found more than an hour later still wet with blood?

This scenario makes no sense. The amount of blood transferred on to the apron through hand and knife wiping would have been minimal. According to Dr Brown the murderer would have had little blood on him. Seemingly, therefore, in order for the cloth to have been wet with blood an hour and a quarter after the murder, it must have absorbed blood from another source. And since we know that the killer was carrying human body parts on his departure from Mitre Square, the most obvious explanation is that the fluid secreted by the organs was responsible for the wet blood discerned by Long. In other words, whilst the killer almost certainly did use the cloth for wiping his hands and knife, the area of the apron that at three o’clock remained wet with blood was that which had been in direct contact with the organs.

This is only an interpretation, I know. But ultimately we have to apply common sense when evaluating crime scene and other evidence. From this perspective alone it makes no sense that the killer would have transported freshly extracted viscera in his pocket when he could have wrapped them in a piece of cloth.

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.

On the contrary, Fish. I addressed this issue in some detail in my book. It relates to the psychological ‘hot zones’ formulated during human cognitive mapping and might be worth a read if you’re interested in what academic studies have revealed about such behaviour. Suffice to say, the killer would have jettisoned the cloth at what he considered to have been a safe distance from his place of safety as a preventative against the police investigation coming too close to home. Careless criminals get caught. Jack the Ripper was not among them.

[Garry Wroe]

But all of this is academic if the killer didn't remove the organs at the crime scene.

Quite correct, Trev, if that was indeed the case. Unfortunately you’ve provided nothing in the way of evidence to support any such conclusion.

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.

Forget about the apron remnant, Trev. That’s a largely irrelevant distraction. Your position is that the killer did not plunder the victims’ body parts, and on that count you have failed to present any evidential support for such.

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.

But what are these ‘facts’, Trev? You’ve presented opinions, not facts. Contrary to what you may think, I wouldn’t hesitate to offer my support were you to substantiate your assertions with real evidence, but that’s not what you’ve done. Opinion, no matter how forcefully or eloquently expressed, does not amount to evidence.

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

Then you clearly haven’t read my book, Trev. I’ve been challenging accepted wisdom for decades – that relating to Hutchinson and Stride for starters. Nor do I cling to any idea, old or new, purely for the sake of it. I’m interested in the truth. Pure and simple. So if you or anyone else succeed in exposing any case-related myth I’ll be amongst the first to congratulate you. But please don’t expect me to accept something as factual when it lacks any evidential basis. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works.

[El White Chap]

Amen to that.

I resisted against and was accused of holding a vendetta for disagreeing against such theories, theories that just didn't and still don't stack up. If your will is to take something from the body of your victim, namely a uterus, then you're more than likely in all probability going to ponder removing and taking something else.

Annie and Kate both had their uterus' either missing or taken. Fact.

Another coincidence, both had intestines levered over their shoulders.

Only Kate was after Annie, there was an escalation. He went one further and took something more. Her kidney.

No two more, he marked with her face and cut at her features.

One or more killers?

5 minutes in Mitre Square?...Not on your nelly mate!

[Debra A]

Excellent post #500, Garry.

[Debra A]

It doesn't answer my question though,

Surely you are presuming the killers motive re the organs. What if, say, possesion was the aim, no matter the condition?

You are assuming, yes?

Monty

I asked Trevor about this possibility twice, two days ago, but he didn't answer me either.

[Trevor Marriott]

Well if he simply wanted a part of the body why go to great lengths to take a kidney the most difficult organ in the body to locate and to take hold of and remove. If he wanted a trophy why not take any other part of the body or simply a piece of the body?

[Trevor Marriott]

It doesn't answer my question though,

Surely you are presuming the killers motive re the organs. What if, say, possesion was the aim, no matter the condition?

You are assuming, yes?

Monty

Perhaps you would explain why a killer would want part of an organ and not the whole, when the whole organ was there to be taken given his supposed anatomical knowledge?

You like asking questions but dont seem to want to ansere them

[Trevor Marriott]

Quite correct, Trev, if that was indeed the case. Unfortunately you’ve provided nothing in the way of evidence to support any such conclusion.


Forget about the apron remnant, Trev. That’s a largely irrelevant distraction. Your position is that the killer did not plunder the victims’ body parts, and on that count you have failed to present any evidential support for such.


But what are these ‘facts’, Trev? You’ve presented opinions, not facts. Contrary to what you may think, I wouldn’t hesitate to offer my support were you to substantiate your assertions with real evidence, but that’s not what you’ve done. Opinion, no matter how forcefully or eloquently expressed, does not amount to evidence.


Then you clearly haven’t read my book, Trev. I’ve been challenging accepted wisdom for decades – that relating to Hutchinson and Stride for starters. Nor do I cling to any idea, old or new, purely for the sake of it. I’m interested in the truth. Pure and simple. So if you or anyone else succeed in exposing any case-related myth I’ll be amongst the first to congratulate you. But please don’t expect me to accept something as factual when it lacks any evidential basis. Sorry, but that’s not the way it works.

Hi Garry
Let me play devil’s advocate here not only in relation to this issue being discussed but the whole mystery, and I hope you can see then that there are major flaws in the old accepted theory.

Victims
Most seem to want to accept the 5 and 5 only. Looking at them, clearly a case can be drawn up to suggest Stride wasn’t killed by the same hand. However, the 5 bandwagon keeps rolling along. Kelly`s murder is another, which is interesting for a number of reasons but for this exercise, I will include her.

We know that there were other murders both before and after these 5. One of those being Tabram, which Swanson clearly documents in his “Whitechapel Murders report” as being part of the series. Coles and Mckenzie are murders, which bear the hallmarks of the same killer by reason of throat cutting. This is wrong to automatically link them together for that sole reason because throat cutting was one of the main methods of killing back then. Despite this, researchers don’t seem to want to discuss these murders fully.

So is there a common factor in all the remaining 4 taking, Stride out of the equation. Yes, that being the ferocity of the attacks. However, Tabram was simply stabbed, and therefore this could set her murder aside from the others. And then there were three, which could have been killed by the same hand, and these show a level of escalation in the mutilations culminating in all of Kelly`s body being eviscerated. However, unlike the previous two murders, it appears that nobody parts were taken away.
Does this show a pattern, does it show the killer mindset? Yes, could be the answer, and yet another possible explanation for the killer's actions at the crime scene, in the removal of the intestines. What if the killer had a morbid curiosity to see and explore the makeup of the insides of a human body? Taking this a stage further this could be additionally highlighted by the taking out of all Kellys organs and none being taken away. The doctors said that in her murder, no anatomical knowledge was shown.

So, if Kelly was killed by the same hand, and no anatomical knowledge shown, then that must cast a doubt about the anatomical knowledge shown by the killer at the Chapman and Eddowes crime scenes, when with Kelly, he could have taken the whole body away in bits.

Apron
Well, the official lists clearly show that when the body was stripped and the clothes examined for cuts. there was no mention of her wearing an apron.
The evidence of the police officers who say they saw her wearing one is questionable in any event. However, again for this exercise accepting she was wearing one when she left the police station. We know there is a 44-minute window so if she was, then anything could have happened to that apron in that time period. It should be noted that she did have a table knife in her possessions and could have cut it herself.

If she was not wearing an apron, then the killer could not have cut it If she had been in possession of two old pieces of an apron, which had originally come from the same piece, then that puts a different light on it. That light is somewhat dimmed by the fact that the two pieces in an event did not make up a full apron, and tends to negate the fact that she was wearing an apron and cut it herself. The other problem with the killer cutting it is the position of the apron had she been wearing it. The clothes were drawn up above the waist putting the apron closest to the body and furthest away from the killer being able to get hold of it.

Clearly, the GS piece matched the remaining piece found at the mortuary and hereby hangs the backbone of the arguments for and against as to how it got there, and who left it there and when? It has been described in different ways, and it seems those who favor one theory will use one of the different descriptions to back it up. The main theory seems to be that the organs were taken away in it. This cannot be the case, firstly, because no one from 1888 even suggested this, and had this been the case then it would have been heavily bloodstained as my experiment and photograph clearly show and would have been so described at the time. Knife wiping and hand wiping by the killer have also been suggested but again logical thinking might suggest that if these had been the case, the killer might have disposed of the piece long before he got to GS. It’s a question as to whether researchers want to apply that logical thinking?

The other explanations have been documented, and in the light of question marks hanging over the previously accepted theories should not be discounted.

Organ Removal
I have touched on this above, and I will simply highlight the flaws in the old theory.

1. Time, there is approx a 5-minute window for the killer to carry out all he is supposed to have done. I maintain that was not long enough to incorporate the removal of the organs. However, long enough to murder mutilate and satisfy his curiosity. Likely, as not he was disturbed by Harvey.

2. Light not sufficient light to be able to see to remove these organs.

3. Knife, could he have performed those removals using a long bladed knife? Experts say no.

4. Degree of difficulty in finding and taking hold of organs in the blood-filled abdomen.

5. If able to remove organs how did he transport them away?

So Garry, all in all, I think I have more than demonstrated a case to corroborate what I have previously stated. Its not always about concrete evidence sometimes disproving facts is sufficient to cause questions to be asked

Perhaps you would be so kind now as to demonstrate the evidence to
support the old theories?

[Monty]

I asked Trevor about this possibility twice, two days ago, but he didn't answer me either.

He still hasn't answered Debs.

Cheers
Monty

[Monty]

Well if he simply wanted a part of the body why go to great lengths to take a kidney the most difficult organ in the body to locate and to take hold of and remove. If he wanted a trophy why not take any other part of the body or simply a piece of the body?

What, if he wanted a kidney, he shoulda just pulled it out?

What if the kidney was the aim? Maybe no other piece would do?

Monty

[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.

Hi Trevor,

Is it possible that the Ripper could have opened up the body and removed the organs BEFORE he did anything else?

Carol

[Monty]

Perhaps you would explain why a killer would want part of an organ and not the whole, when the whole organ was there to be taken given his supposed anatomical knowledge?

You like asking questions but dont seem to want to ansere them

OK, I can understand how this may be difficult for you to understand, as you are so entrenched in your own opinions, you cannot grasp this new way of thinking, however....

I do not know why a killer would want part of an organ.

Why did Dahmer keep heads? Why did Christie collect pubic hair? Why did Hansen collect his victims jewellery?

Your closed mindedness is telling.

Monty