PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Garry Wroe]

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.

I’ve been banging that drum for decades, Trev. To my mind the evidence does not support the notion of Stride as a Ripper victim. I would disagree with you, however, in that I believe an increasing number of people over recent years have begun to question the concept of the double event.

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.

The Whitechapel Murders file, Trev, was merely a documentary repository incorporating information relating to a number of attacks on women committed over a relatively short period of time in a confined geographical area. It was the press rather than investigators, in point of fact, which attributed a link of common authorship across these crimes. If you’d care to read the relevant reports you’ll find that Dr Phillips ruled out several victims on the basis of ‘anatomical and professional grounds’. Anderson even described the McKenzie crime as an ‘ordinary murder’. It is therefore wrong to suppose that investigators believed a single assailant to have been responsible for all of the crimes contained within the Whitechapel Murders file.

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.

The heart was not accounted for, Trev.

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.

The same was said of Eddowes, Trev, which is why Phillips was inclined to exclude it from the series.

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.

Read the reports, Trev. Most of the doctors considered the killer medically maladroit. I explored this issue in my book and presented a list of modern killers who had conducted far more technically demanding procedures than the Ripper ever did, yet not a single one of them had an atom of medical knowledge or experience.

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.

Dr Brown amongst others noted that Eddowes was wearing part of an apron.

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.

The table knife was blunt, Trev. It could not have made the clean cut which separated the two sections of apron.

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.

But she was, Trev. The documentary evidence is incontrovertible.

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.

Refer to Brown. The apron was tied around her neck. No matter how technically demanding you consider the exercise might have been, the simple reality is that the killer cut away part of Kate’s apron, took it away with him, then deposited it in the Goulston Street vestibule. Medical men as well as policemen attested to as much. If you are going to dispute such testimony you’ll have to demonstrate the impossibility of that sequence. Simply saying that it couldn’t have been accomplished isn’t good enough.

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 ...

I wasn’t aware of that, Trev. I thought most had rejected the idea, or were at least ambivalent towards it. If you are correct, however, it demonstrates that people are applying practical thought to such issues rather than simply regurgitating old and untested ideas.

… This cannot be the case, firstly, because no one from 1888 even suggested this …

Aw, now I’m disappointed. Still, since no-one at the time suggested that anyone other than the killer took away the victims’ organs, we can now categorically dismiss your contention to the contrary. Right?

… 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.

Unfortunately, Trev, as I have stated previously, your demonstration was not a valid comparison. Although Eddowes’ apron was officially described as white, it was so old and dirty that those who saw it initially thought it black. Someone, somewhere, as I recall, described it as being ‘filthy grey’. This is important for evaluation purposes because the darker the sample material, the greater is the difficulty in discerning bloodstains with the naked eye – which is why today’s crime scene analysts use luminol for detecting blood evidence. Your experiment, remember, was conducted using a pristine white cloth.

The other problem is that we have no detailed description of the blood and other matter found on the apron. Brown, for example, spoke of smears – as though the killer had wiped his hands and knife on the garment. There was also the suggestion of possible faecal contamination. Contrast this, however, with Long’s contention that the material was wet with blood at three o’clock. This, as I outlined in a previous post, was roughly an hour and a quarter after the killer departed the crime scene. So now we have one of two possibilities. Either the killer left Goulston Street shortly before Long discovered the apron remnant, or he had visited the scene much earlier and Long had failed to spot the garment. If the former, whatever blood remained on the killer’s hands and knife would have dried of its own accord, so there would have been little or no wet blood transference from hands to cloth. If the latter, the cloth would have been exposed to the open air for more than an hour and thus would have dried by natural processes. In other words, irrespective of when the killer deposited the cloth in the vestibule, the blood should have dried by the time Long chanced upon it. Yet Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood at three o’clock. How could this have been so if the material was merely bloodsmeared as a consequence of the killer having wiped his hands and knife upon it?

It couldn’t. Which suggests that the apron remnant was used to wrap the organs.

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.

I take it, Trev, that you are here referring to the Eddowes murder. If so Dr Brown stated that the mutilations could have been completed in five minutes. That said, I tend to agree that the killer would have required more time than is generally accepted to complete the crime in its entirety. By this I mean walking along Church Passage, reaching the south-east corner of the square, subduing Kate, cutting her throat, performing the mutilations, cutting away the apron remnant and making his getaway. For this reason I disagree that the killer was disturbed by Harvey. Trusting to the timetable that emerged through the various testimonies, I remain convinced that Harvey didn’t visit the square as claimed. But that’s another issue.

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

Not if the killer groped around in the abdominal cavity until he found something of interest, then held the organ in his left hand whilst he cut it away with the knife he held in his right hand. Other serialists have accomplished similar tasks under similar lighting conditions without too many problems.

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

I suppose that depends on the expert, Trev. Nick Warren doesn’t appear to see this as much of an issue.

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

Grope, grasp, pull, cut. He did it. And so have many others.

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

Well, he hardly needed to phone Pickford’s. (Whoa, there, Fish.) In the case of Chapman he probably wrapped the organs in a handkerchief. Having learned from that crime he placed Eddowes’ body parts in the apron remnant. Kelly’s heart may either have been eaten at the crime scene or wrapped in part of the material left by Maria Harvey. I really don’t understand the perceived difficulty, Trev. Other killers have wrapped up and taken away genitalia, hearts, buttocks, breasts, strips of thigh and so forth. This was a man who eluded the best efforts of two police forces, the might of the press, vigilance committees, the general public. Are you seriously suggesting that taking away a few human organs was beyond his wit?

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

With respect, Trev, you have demonstrated only that you have failed to take on board the evidence handed down to us through the various police statements, press reports and inquest depositions. On top of this you have neglected the case histories of those whose criminal activities provide an invaluable insight into the behaviours and psychology of the Whitechapel Murderer.

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

Read my book, Trev, as well as my posting history on Casebook. I question everything and accept nothing on trust. What I don’t do is reject traditional thinking purely for the sake of it. If the evidence is unconvincing, I’ll challenge it. If not, I’ll add it to the store of knowledge which adds to our better understanding of the case. And that, given the passage of time and consequent loss of important information, is the best that most of us can hope to achieve.

[Garry Wroe]

Excellent post #500, Garry.

Thanks, Debs.

[El White Chap]

Post no.511 is pretty much TKO, lights out, goodnight

Have a great weekend everyone, you too Trev.

[Bridewell]

If he had left having done all of that as you suggest wasn't he lucky in not picking an exit route where he would have met an oncoming police officer ?

Perhaps, but not necessarily. The same officer (Watkin) was responsible for both the Mitre Street and St James Passage exits. If the killer saw Watkin exit the square he would have a reasonable idea of how much time was available - i.e. until he heard Watkins approach along Mitre Square around 14 minutes later - at which point he would know that St James Passage was clear.

[Bridewell]

Hi Garry

So if she wasn't wearing an apron the killer could not have cut it or tore it in any event and therefore could not have taken the organs away.

And nor could a large portion of it have remained with the body. Yet it did. Your theory, which you claim to be the most likely explanation, requires that Eddowes used a portion of her apron for sanitary purposes, despite having a dozen or so pieces of cloth she could have used instead. It also relies on the assumption that she spent the evening in possession of half an apron with one string attached and without anybody ever noticing.

[Bridewell]

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.

Interesting assertion, Trevor. Do you have any evidence to support it?

[Fisherman]

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

So a small but vital difference, then. He brought his organ bag with him.

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.

Agreed. I think we can bank on that.

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.

Yes, that makes sense to me too.

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?

I have suggested that he may have cut himself in the left hand (if he was righthanded) when killing and cutting up Eddowes - a very hasty affair in extremly low light. I think he may have taken the rag to use as a makeshift bandage.
Such a bandage would be put on the hand by grabbing on to one corner of it, and then wrapping it around the hand. That´s why the corner only was wet with blood.
The reason for hanging on to the rag would be the need to stem the blood and not produce a trail of blood for the police to follow.

My suggestion is that he went to Broad Street after the killing, deposited his trophies and cleaned up as best as he could. However, if the wound had not stopped bleeding, he would need to hang on to his bandage when leaving. Then, on his way home, he stepped into that doorway, unrolled the bandage, noticed that the bleeding had stopped, and threw the rag away before he left.

This, I reason, takes care of why Long did not see the rag at 2.20, and it also explains why it was wet with apparently fresh blood in one corner. It also helps to understand - if I am right, of course! - why there was such a long hiatus before Kelly.

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.

Not in any way impossible or very improbable, of course - but I still think that he would have bought that derailing at a potentially very dear cost. He needed to expose his trophies there and then before he could hide them again. I find that a bit reckless, to say the least.
And on the whole, I don´t think he had much to win by depositing the rag at a safe distance from home. He would have had a lot more to win by not depositing it at all - then there would have been no clue at all, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

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?

Perhaps because he specifically wanted a kidney?

[Wickerman]

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.

I think we can agree that two minutes was not sufficient time.
So as Harvey arrived at the square by 1:41-42, and Watkins returned by 1:44, and found the body. Then clearly the body was also there at 1:42, so the murder took place between 1:30 and 1:44, a maximum window time of 14 minutes.
P l e n t y of time.

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

"There would have been sufficient light to enable the perpetrator of the deed to have committed the deed without the addition of any extra light"
Dr. G. W. Sequeira.

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

"The wounds were inflicted with a sharp pointed knife, with a blade at least six inches long."
Dr F. G. Brown.

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

Which means what, exactly?

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

The apron Trevor, the apron!

All you have managed to do Trevor is get a handful of members who normally would not agree on anything, to actually arrive at a consensus, that being, they think you are wrong.

[Varqm]

Post #511

Good post Garry.

Just thoughts.

'Long stated that the cloth was wet with blood"
'Which suggests that the apron remnant was used to wrap the organs'

It's not safe to accept Long's description as describing the freshness/recentness or condition of the blood.

Depending on a witness's own way/level of describing things at the time of the statement we do not know if it was meant to be 'cloth with wet blood on it' or a wet cloth (from water) with blood on it. It had rain until midnight the previous day and the hallway could have been wet.The apron could have been wet from the rain or hallway floor and had blood on it and Long describe it as such.

As far as I remember there is no corroboration to Long's statement if it is to be taken as cloth with wet blood on it.

[Debra A]

Post no.511 is pretty much TKO, lights out, goodnight

Have a great weekend everyone, you too Trev.

This would have been the perfect ending..

[Garry Wroe]

Depending on a witness's own way/level of describing things at the time of the statement we do not know if it was meant to be 'cloth with wet blood on it' or a wet cloth (from water) with blood on it. It had rain until midnight the previous day and the hallway could have been wet.The apron could have been wet from the rain or hallway floor and had blood on it and Long describe it as such.

Precisely, Varqm. This is exactly the counterargument I was intending to include in two of my previous posts, but the posts ended up by being way too long so I decided to leave it for further discussion. Thanks. Now you've saved me the trouble.

[Wickerman]

... I explored this issue in my book and presented a list of modern killers who had conducted far more technically demanding procedures than the Ripper ever did, yet not a single one of them had an atom of medical knowledge or experience.

Garry, may I ask, when was your book published?, I can't find any record of when it was first made publicly available.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Wickerman,

The date on my copy of Garry's book is 2006.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Precisely, Varqm. This is exactly the counterargument I was intending to include in two of my previous posts, but the posts ended up by being way too long so I decided to leave it for further discussion. Thanks. Now you've saved me the trouble.

It clearly states "wet with blood", so that is a given.

The best,
Fisherman