PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Where's the embellishment? Bond's remarks concerning the heart are ambiguous. Nobody disputes this. The heart was absent, but whether absent solely from the pericardium or from the scene entirely is not known. I tend towards the latter view because Bond accounts for the whereabouts of other excised body parts but the matter cannot be proved conclusively either way.

Exactly but you have to consider why Bond didn't mention it and why no one else did after that and why the papers originally sided with the organs being taken and then were told he contarry

And that ambiguous remark by Bond has led to many believing that it was taken away.

[Trevor Marriott]

iguous

The Times, Friday, 5 October. Inquest testimony of Inspector Edward Collard.

No money was found on the deceased. A portion of the apron produced was found on her, and the other portion, which was picked up in Goulston-street, would also be produced.

The Times, Fri, 12 October. Inquest testimony of PC Robinson.

Mr. Crawford. - Do you recollect whether she was wearing an apron. - Yes, she was.
Mr. Crawford. - Could you identify it? - I could if I saw the whole of it. A brown paper parcel was produced, from which two pieces of apron were taken and shown to the witness, who said, - To the best of my knowledge and belief that is the apron.


Inquest testimony of PC Hutt (op cit).

About two minutes before 1 o'clock, when bringing her out of the cell, she asked witness the time, and he replied, "Too late for you to get any more drink." … He noticed that she was wearing an apron, and to the best of his belief the apron shown to the last witness was the one.


Inquest testimony of DC Halse (op cit).

He came through Goulston-street about 20 minutes past 2, at the spot where the apron was found, and he then went back to Mitre-square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. He there saw the deceased undressed, noticing that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.

From which may be drawn several definite conclusions. Kate was wearing an apron in the hours preceding her death. Robinson and Hutt noted that she was wearing the apron on her arrest and subsequent release from Bishopsgate Police Station. Collard saw part of the apron attached to Kate’s body in Mitre Square. Collard and Halse together observed the same garment before Kate was undressed. Two pieces of the apron were presented before the inquest. One was the remnant found by Long in Goulston Street, the other the section left behind in Mitre Square. The inquest depositions make it clear, moreover, that the two pieces constituted the apron in its entirety.

The police evidence is unsafe, having regards to how the questions were put to them. How could anyone positively identify a piece of apron produced out of a brown parcel in court and say it was the one she was wearing two weeks previous. It was a dirty white apron piece. White aprons dirty or clean were part of the dress code then everyone wore one what made that piece identifiable? Its useless evidence.

And the other two officers what was so special about her apron that they remembered she was wearing one two weeks later when asked when every woman in Whitechapel was wearing one ?

Notice Sgt Byfield was non committal he booked her in, and later released her why didn't he remember when the others apparently did.

Some of this you seem to be making up as you go along. The two pieces did not make a full apron. The mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached that had to be top left or top right corner. The GS piece matched it so that had to be either bottom left or right,You cant get a full apron out of those two pieces.

The statement of Collard and Halse are unsafe because they can be interpreted either way if you read how they are worded. " I saw the deceased undressed" naked or dressed? "Apparently wearing"? "found outside her dress"? The statements are ambiguous

Besides there is no evidence to show they accompanied the body to the mortuary and the mortuary attendant could have stripped the body and then the lists prepared from there. When they arrived in which case it would explain the term piece of apron being found and Collards comment "Apparently wearing"

But then you get back to the mortuary lists which tip the scales in favor of her not wearing one and Dr Brown stating the mortuary piece was a corner piece with a string attached.

[Jon Guy]

Besides there is no evidence to show they accompanied the body to the mortuary and the mortuary attendant could have stripped the body and then the lists prepared from there. When they arrived in which case it would explain the term piece of apron being found and Collards comment "Apparently wearing"

Insp Collard : The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself

[Debra A]

You are right I read it wrong, but it doesn't detract from the fact that Hebbert wasn't present when they went back to the room and they went back to look for the remaining parts. Which is in line with what is in the newspaper and what the newspapers reported that all parts accounted for.

So I am afraid Dr Hebbert is not someone to be totally relied on in the light of Dr Bond not mentioning it in his report to Anderson, and as i said earlier no no one else mentions it was taken away.

So the against`s far outweigh the for`s I think you can even see that.

Hebbert was present at the post mortem as Dr Bond's assistant and SG Ryan made a good case that Bond's post mortem notes areactually in Hebbert's handwriting and not Bond's.
How many doctors does it take to search ashes from a fire? The post mortem was done, Hebbert was there, something was missing that Bond and another doctor went back to search the ashes for, that was reported extensively. Several newspaper accounts say they found nothing. They didn't find what was missing in that case?

The difference between the Miller's Court murder and the others is that no details of organ removal were given at the official inquest. Some papers go as far as to state that on the day of the murder Dr Philips wouldn't make a statement to confirm that there were no organs missing and so it was inferred from that that there were none missing. It depends which paper you read.

The details in this case were kept well under wraps.
What motive would Hebbert have in claiming that the heart was taken away if it wasn't?

[Trevor Marriott]

Hebbert was present at the post mortem as Dr Bond's assistant and SG Ryan made a good case that Bond's post mortem notes areactually in Hebbert's handwriting and not Bond's.
How many doctors does it take to search ashes from a fire? The post mortem was done, Hebbert was there, something was missing that Bond and another doctor went back to search the ashes for, that was reported extensively. Several newspaper accounts say they found nothing. They didn't find what was missing in that case?

The difference between the Miller's Court murder and the others is that no details of organ removal were given at the official inquest. Some papers go as far as to state that on the day of the murder Dr Philips wouldn't make a statement to confirm that there were no organs missing and so it was inferred from that that there were none missing. It depends which paper you read.

The details in this case were kept well under wraps.
What motive would Hebbert have in claiming that the heart was taken away if it wasn't?

Perhaps no motive because technically what he said was correct when they did the post mortem organs were found missing, and no doubt the notes taken at that time were taken by him. He was present. I don't dispute that fact

But that is where his report or his writings would have ended would it not ? Because anything he said or wrote about the re visit thereafter would be hearsay, and again there is no corroboration.

It would be down to Dr Bond to continue the evidence of continuity, But he doesn't does he? He mentions nothing after his ambiguous statement.

[Trevor Marriott]

Insp Collard : The doctors remained until the arrival of the ambulance, and saw the body placed in the conveyance. It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself

Perhaps you could quote that source ? or are you cherry picking again ?

Well something cannot be right as Halse says he went with Collard to the mortuary no mention of him being present in what you quote.

I suggest you read up on the other testimonies of both Halse and Collard where we get back to conflicts in the reports and inquest testimony

[Debra A]

Perhaps no motive because technically what he said was correct when they did the post mortem organs were found missing, and no doubt the notes taken at that time were taken by him. He was present. I don't dispute that fact

But that is where his report or his writings would have ended would it not ? Because anything he said or wrote about the re visit thereafter would be hearsay, and again there is no corroboration.

It would be down to Dr Bond to continue the evidence of continuity, But he doesn't does he? He mentions nothing after his ambiguous statement.

Bond says the heart was absent. Bond then goes on to gives the position of other organs found in the room but fails to mention the heart. Why?
Taking what Hebbert said in a medical jurisprudence text in conjunction with Bond's statements strongly suggests the heart was missing from the room.

The newspapers reported that no organs were found in the ashes. If a newspaper report that no organs were taken is enough evidence for you on that question, then why doesn't the same apply in relation to the report that the doctors didn't find any organs or remains in the ashes of the fire?

[Trevor Marriott]

Bond says the heart was absent. Bond then goes on to gives the position of other organs found in the room but fails to mention the heart. Why?

The newspapers reported that no organs were found in the ashes. If a newspaper report that no organs were taken is enough evidence for you on that question, then why doesn't the same apply in relation to the report that the doctors didn't find any organs or remains in the ashes of the fire?

Why particularly the ashes? they state that they were not able to do a full examination. The ashes search was just a small part of the re examination.

The newspapers are correct nothing was found in the ashes but that doesn't mean to say nothing else was found somewhere else still in the room does it ?

Why do you think Bond didn't mention it in his report to Anderson because when you read that it is a detailed report, and why did no one mention it in later years, Abberline, Reid etc etc when they were all openly talking about the murders and likely suspects?

[Debra A]

Why particularly the ashes? they state that they were not able to do a full examination. The ashes search was just a small part of the re examination.

The newspapers are correct nothing was found in the ashes but that doesn't mean to say nothing else was found somewhere else still in the room does it ?

Why do you think Bond didn't mention it in his report to Anderson because when you read that it is a detailed report, and why did no one mention it in later years, Abberline, Reid etc etc when they were all openly talking about the murders and likely suspects?

So are you suggesting that Bond's report for Anderson was handed in before the re-examination of Miller's Court and that the heart was originally missing but was found again later when the doctors went back and that this isn't recorded because we only have Bond's original early report which is the one Hebbert was only privy to as well?

We are off massively off topic with this btw.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Dr. Thomas Bond was first to cast the C5 in stone. Following the Kelly PM, he wrote to Robert Anderson on 10th November 1888—

“In the four murders of which I have seen the notes only I cannot form a very definite opinion as to the time that had elapsed between the murder and the discovering of the body.

“In one case, that of Berner Street, the discovery appears to have been made immediately after the deed — In Buck's Row, Hanbury Street, and Mitre Square three or four hours only could have elapsed” [my italics].

Dr. Bond had obviously not been apprised of Jack the Ripper’s legendary signature—that Nichols, Chapman and Eddowes had been discovered just minutes after their dispatch.

Yet he was nonetheless able to assure Robert Anderson and history that “All five murders were no doubt committed by the same hand.”

How much faith should we place in Dr. Thomas Bond?

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

It would have been six if he was allowed to carry on and maybe more if he was even asked about pre-Nichols?

[Simon Wood]

Hi Debra,

Ah, but [as far as we know] Dr. Bond wasn't asked about pre-Nichols, so we can only guess as to what his answer may have been.

We can only play the cards we've been dealt.

Regards,

Simon

[Debra A]

Hi Debra,

Ah, but [as far as we know] Dr. Bond wasn't asked about pre-Nichols, so we can only guess as to what his answer may have been.

We can only play the cards we've been dealt.

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon
Okay, taking into account he wasn't asked about pre Nichols , he would have included McKenzie?

[Trevor Marriott]

So are you suggesting that Bond's report for Anderson was handed in before the re-examination of Miller's Court and that the heart was originally missing but was found again later when the doctors went back and that this isn't recorded because we only have Bond's original early report which is the one Hebbert was only privy to as well?

We are off massively off topic with this btw.

You don't listen and read the posts do you. I previously said that the ashes searched was just part of the re examination of the room. As a result of that fuller examination the following was reported

"the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room"

"It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing"

"surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position"


The details of the re examination of the room as reported in the press are in such great detail you cant ignore that. They didn't make it up, If they had wanted to make it up they would have sold more papers with the heart missing that not.

As to Hebbert I am given to understand but I do stand to be corrected here but you even went as far as saying he was writing down at the time they did the post mortem. If that be the case then his writings would have ended there when the post mortem concluded. He didn't go with them back to the room. He probably went for his tea and never took any further involvement.

There is no record of anything further occurring whereby he needed to write down anything. Dr Bond would have been the person to document any further events. He didn't, why because all was accounted for.

Now I am not going to continue to argue over the same issues. It is clear for all to see even you? Personally I don't give a dam I have presented the facts and a good case to argue against the killer taking away the heart.

Again as I have said before this could have a massive impact on this case. Because it now brings into question the fact that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman did not remove the organs at the crime scenes, because as has been suggested by many it was the same killer for all three.

[Wickerman]

Hi All,

Dr. Thomas Bond was first to cast the C5 in stone.

If we follow the paper trail that led to Dr. Bond's enlistment, it appears the criteria had already been established for him.
Dr. Bond was requested to offer opinion on those murders for which the question of "surgical skill" or "anatomical knowledge" was debated.
This pretty much excluded Tabram, Smith and prior cases, so his choice was limited to those five murders for which the knife had been used as a slicing weapon.