PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Fisherman]

The relevant information pertaining to the apron and the blood can be found in the Times, Friday the 12:th of October 1888:

By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

So here it is in black and white. The apron corner was wet with blood.

The official report, written by Long himself and filed on November 6 1888, reads:

I found a portion of an apron covered in blood lying in the passage …

Here, it is not mentioned where the apron was covered in blood, but we know it from the inquest: it was one of the corners of the apron that was. The expression ”covered in blood” goes to show us that it was not just a small amount of wet blood on the rag – it was a significant measure of it.

Once it has been established that the apron corner was covered in wet blood, we must ask ourselves who that blood came from, seventy minutes plus after the Eddowes slaying. And we need to ask ourselves why that wet blood was present in the corner of the apron only.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Bridewell]

And we need to ask ourselves why that wet blood was present in the corner of the apron only.

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

[Fisherman]

If the apron piece was used to transport organs it would follow that the corner was in immediate contact with the organs and the remainder formed the outer layers. It would be logical, I think, that if a large piece of material was used to wrap a small volume of excised organs there would not be blood contamination of the entirety.

If so, then the killer laid out the apron on the ground, placed the innards neatly up in one corner, and then he wrapped the apron around the contents.

Could that have happened? Yes, it could.

But would the killer suddenly stop and change the container for something else, if it was working fine and dandy, not allowing any of the blood to seep through? That´s what I am questioning.

Moreover, if the killer dropped the apron at, say 1.50-1.55, would the corner still be wet with blood more than an hour later? That´s very doubtful to my mind.

We need an explanation for the wet state of the blood at 2.55. The cut hand, the visit to Broad Street, the apron not being in place in Goulston Street at 2.20, the long hiatus before Kelly - these matters all work together with the scenario of a cut hand. I fail to see that any other scenario has as much going for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Hi Christer.

If so, then the killer laid out the apron on the ground, placed the innards neatly up in one corner, and then he wrapped the apron around the contents.

And we still see this method of wrapping meat today at your local butchers.
That is not to say that 'the killer' was so meticulous, but it does explain why one corner was 'wet' compared with the rest of the apron.

As for the corner of the piece still being 'wet with blood', it may only have been dropped minutes before it was found - that is something we cannot possibly know.

[Fisherman]

Wickerman:

Hi Christer.

And we still see this method of wrapping meat today at your local butchers.
That is not to say that 'the killer' was so meticulous, but it does explain why one corner was 'wet' compared with the rest of the apron.

I know, Jon, since you have posted that experience of yours before. It is interesting, and it could have happened, although just like you say, it would predispose a very neat and meticulous killer.

As for the corner of the piece still being 'wet with blood', it may only have been dropped minutes before it was found - that is something we cannot possibly know.

Would the innards have kept the apron wet with blood for seventy minutes? I don´t know. I favour the suggestion that the killer cut himself since that WOULD provide us with wet blood.
I also think it would be strange if the killer hung on to an organcarrier for seventy minutes, seven minutes from the crime scene.
Once again, I like the Lechmere proposal with Broad Street figuring on this issue.

But there are many unanswered questions here, and no certainty can be reached. You explanation that butchers do employ that corner very much belongs to the overall picture, anyhow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

You're welcome Garry.

Fisherman,

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

Additionally...

It was cold that morning,how much did that affected the drying time of the blood.Also the amount would have affected it.
As far as the quality of the wetness was it a little/so/kinda wet?

If the dirty apron was wet/partly from rain water would it have affected how PC Long would have seen/describe the blood.

In this instance was Long referring to wet with blood ,in general terms,as any cloth with that liquid in it.

All I'm saying is the blood could have come from the crime scene itself and Long's description/statement does not really help in determining the main argument.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wickerman,

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

Regards,

Simon

Thankyou Simon.

For some reason I cannot see it via Google, nor on Bookfinder.com.

[Fisherman]

You're welcome Garry.

Fisherman,

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

Additionally...

It was cold that morning,how much did that affected the drying time of the blood.Also the amount would have affected it.
As far as the quality of the wetness was it a little/so/kinda wet?

If the dirty apron was wet/partly from rain water would it have affected how PC Long would have seen/describe the blood.

In this instance was Long referring to wet with blood ,in general terms,as any cloth with that liquid in it.

All I'm saying is the blood could have come from the crime scene itself and Long's description/statement does not really help in determining the main argument.

To me, wet with blood is wet with blood. To me, covered in blood is covered in blood.
I try always to go with the evidence, and factoring in that the wet blood could have been rainwater does not belong to that equation.

That does not mean that I am somehow excluding that the blood could have come from the crime scene - but I do think that it is our second best guess.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

We'll covered in blood and wet with blood are different.It's absolutely clear to me you cannot determine within an hour when the blood was deposited by Long's description.

[Fisherman]

We'll covered in blood and wet with blood are different.It's absolutely clear to me you cannot determine within an hour when the blood was deposited by Long's description.

Wet with blood and covered in blood MAY be different - but they may also correspond totally. And I suspect that is exactly what they do here - one corner of the apron was covered in blood, if the apron was unrolled and then dropped to the ground in one movement, then the corner would have ended up on top, giving the impressio that the rag was covered in blood. Plus the blood was wet.

It all works eminently.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

The main argument is whether the organs have to have been the cause of the blood on the apron,that if something else it would have been dried and would not have fit the description by Long.

That Goulston piece was described differently by several reporters present at the Inquest.

The Official record tells us:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

Daily Telegraph.
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Times:
"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."

Daily News:
"It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."

Morning Post:
"There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it,.."

PC Long:
"There were recent stains of blood on it."
"..one corner of which was wet with blood."

As some of the smears were only on one side, that suggests a wiping action. But apparently there were also spots of blood and a wet portion at the corner.
I think it is erroneous to adopt one description over another, it is more likely that this apron displayed a variety of marks, suggested by the testimony.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry, may I ask, when was your book published?

The manuscript was completed in 1995, Jon. I believe that it was published on Casebook in 2000, maybe 2001. PM me with your e-mail address if you'd like a more user friendly version of the original.

[Wickerman]

The manuscript was completed in 1995, Jon. I believe that it was published on Casebook in 2000, maybe 2001. PM me with your e-mail address if you'd like a more user friendly version of the original.

Hi Garry.
Thankyou for the offer.

My interest was due to the fact that I had researched all the available published material up to 1998 to see if any author had suggested that this portion of apron might have been used to carry away organs - no-one had. Not even the likes of Stewart, Paul & Martin who among others were all Casebook contributors at the time had ever heard of the idea.
This seemed strange to me as my impression was that it was so obvious a possibility that someone must have given thought to the idea.
Hence my dissertation on the subject in late 1998.

Recently you mentioned that you suggested this in 1995 I wondered how I could have missed a source. Given the fact your manuscript was not publicly available until about 2000 then that answers my question.

[Trevor Marriott]

That Goulston piece was described differently by several reporters present at the Inquest.

The Official record tells us:
"Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street."

Daily Telegraph.
"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Times:
"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."

Daily News:
"It looks as if it had had a bloody hand or a bloody knife wiped upon it."

Morning Post:
"There was a piece of apron found in Goulston-street, with finger marks of blood upon it,.."

PC Long:
"There were recent stains of blood on it."
"..one corner of which was wet with blood."

As some of the smears were only on one side, that suggests a wiping action. But apparently there were also spots of blood and a wet portion at the corner.
I think it is erroneous to adopt one description over another, it is more likely that this apron displayed a variety of marks, suggested by the testimony.

Excellent post and it prove that in order for some to prop up the old theory they cherry pick the parts which suit.

[Wickerman]

Trevor, then please supply any descriptions I left out.