PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Garry Wroe]

And I assume you'll never read any of the ripper books I listed above, so you'll have to take my word for it that carrying the organs away in the apron piece is not and never was "an important and integral part of the case." Because it's NOT IN A SINGLE ONE of those books.

So, according to your logic, then, Roy, the only authors who have contributed anything of value to the Ripper case are those listed earlier in your post.

That’s an insult, I would suggest, to those who over many years have worked quietly yet tirelessly in the pursuit of new case-related information. What about Neal Shelden? Or Richard Whittington-Egan? Robin Odell? Colin Wilson? Stephen Ryder? Robert McLaughlin? Dan Farson? Viper? Alexander Kelly? Chris Scott? There are many more. And this is to say nothing of the legion of researchers who have contributed articles, dissertations or even Casebook posts down the years.

It’s the quality of the information or idea that counts, not the perceived status of the person who offers it up.

[Trevor Marriott]

Once again, Trev, you appear to have misunderstood the evidence.

No its you that cannot understand the evidence !

Brown did not state that a corner of the apron was taken away. He stated that a corner of the remnant discovered in Goulston Street bore signs of bloodstaining. No mention of a ‘corner piece’.

He says no such thing read pages 231 250 sourcebook

What has been suggested, Trev, is that a simple transcriptional error could have led the plural ‘strings’ being recorded as the singular ‘string’. Somewhat predictably, you dismiss this out of hand.

You seem to be forgetting that on the night of the Eddowes murder the Goulston Street message was copied by policemen, a task that resulted in at least five spelling variants of the word ‘Jews’.

We are not talking about this issue are we

Here’s how the Daily Telegraph of Friday, 5 October, recorded Brown’s inquest deposition: ‘Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.’

Strings. Plural.

Well, here’s what Brown said, again sourced from the Daily Telegraph. ‘Before we removed the body Dr. Phillips was sent for, as I wished him to see the wounds, he having been engaged in a case of a similar kind previously. He saw the body at the mortuary. The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.’

Dr Phillips didn't arrive at the mortuary until many hours later with the GS piece

So Brown was present when Eddowes was undressed.

This isnt in question

And then: ‘Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.’

Thus Eddowes was wearing the apron in the mortuary.

You are another one who doesn't read all the posts thoroughly. When the body was stripped at the mortuary the GS piece hadn't even been found. The GS piece was no taken to the mortuary for several hours later so the above statement is wrong.

If she was wearing it then why did Collards lists fail to show that ?

Also note that the term string appears in Browns inquest testimony which after making his statement before the coroner he would have been asked to read and then sign. If there had been any errors they would have been rectified

Beyond any shadow of doubt.

Yes that she wasn't wearing an apron.

Now unless you and others have anything new to add to all of this I would suggest that you desist from keep posting the same old same, its getting boring now. You believe what you want to believe. I am sure the unbiased members of this forum who have no hidden agendas will come to their own conclusions based on what has been put before them as evidence, and by evidence I don't just mean newspaper reports which you seem to hold in high esteem.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not we. You discussed. We knew no official raised the issue of the organs being taken away in the apron piece back then. We knew the idea doesn't appear in any of the major rippers books. Here's the list again of books where that idea is not mentioned. Cullen, Knight, Rumbelow, Howell & Skinner, Fido, Begg, Sugden, Evans & Gainey, Tully, Evans & Rumbelow.

You're the one discussing it as if it matters one way or the other. That the idea even existed. Trevor, you're the one who said and I quote " the apron piece being used to carry the organs is an important and integral part of the case."

But you won't say where you got that idea. I've asked you and you won't answer. Because I think its dawned on you now, you've been arguing against something which never existed.

To tie in with your theory the killer did not remove the body parts, you made up this 'extension' to the apron caper. That the police and everyone since suggested it was used to carry the organs. You imagined in your mind that this happened in order for you to dispel it to make your theory work.

Then, we saw right here on this thread that, oops it dawned on you, no the police didn't say that. You figured that out. Good on you.

And I assume you'll never read any of the ripper books I listed above, so you'll have to take my word for it that carrying the organs away in the apron piece is not and never was "an important and integral part of the case." Because it's NOT IN A SINGLE ONE of those books.

So where does that leave us. You 'imagined' or 'dreamed up' something to argue against because you thought that would help your theory. Now I think you're finally realizing the whole bit didn't exist.

Kind of an empty feeling. Come on Trev, let's all go to Denny's for breakfast.

Roy

It is a very integral part of this mystery

Prove that Eddowes was not wearing an apron then it dispels the theory that the killer cut or tore it to either take away the organs in ,wipe his hands or knife on it. Therefore there then has to be other plausible explanations as to how it got to GS.

The description of the GS piece in any event is not consistent with organs being carried away in it, nor is it consistent with hands being wiped on it, with smears only on one side of the piece. So that casts a doubt about the killer removing the organs at the crime scene.

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,

Then we go to Kellys murder same killer, different killer? If the same then as no organs were removed for her and taken away that kind of adds more weight to believing the organs of Chapman and Eddowes were not taken away by the killer.

Take a look at what the public perceptions have been over the years based on these previously accepted facts. A man in a black hat, black cape carrying a bag, murdering and mutilating women in the dead of night and harvesting organs.

What are we left with if all those integral parts are dispelled. Nothing more than a series of similar unsolved murders, which had it not been for the aforementioned, coupled with the name Jack the Ripper would have drifted into obscurity years ago.

[Roy Corduroy]

Garry I am not insulting anyone and you know that.

Since last week, when you mentioned you had broached the idea in your book of the apron piece being used to carry the body parts, then ...aha ... starting now, Trevor Marriott finally has a name of someone who said that. Trevor goes on to claim that since you wrote your book, "from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,"

So yeah, we're all hunky dory now.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

It is a very integral part of this mystery

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,

So let me get this straight, Trevor, you are telling me what I think. You are telling us all what we think. We all think the organs were taken away in the apron piece. Then you proceed to argue against that. Argue against what you told us we think. You argue the organs were not taken away in the apron piece and here's why.

Imagine you are in a bar, or a coffee house or a donut shop. Anywhere. A man walks in and proceeds, out of nowhere, to tell you what you think about something. What your opinion of it is, your stance on the issue. He tells you. Then, he proceeds to argue with you. He debates with you about what he had told you you think.

Its mental

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

I may have mentioned before that I think you're a patronizing prick.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Then perhaps I'm only following your script Simon.

Roy

[Simon Wood]

Hi Roy,

Come on, surely you can do better than that.

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Simon, I was trying to be subtle.

Surely Trevor had to get the idea somewhere or from someone that we all think the body parts were carried away in the apron.

I dunno who

Roy

[Wickerman]

The description of the GS piece in any event is not consistent with organs being carried away in it, nor is it consistent with hands being wiped on it, with smears only on one side of the piece...

"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
Daily Telegraph.

"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."
Times.

This belief is something that has surfaced in modern time I believe Garry Wroe laid claim to being the first to suggest the organs were taken away in it and from then on as is the case the snowball effect took off and it has been widely accepted that this what the killer did,..

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.
Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.

[Monty]

Was Simon on the Stella last night?

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Simon, I was trying to be subtle.

Surely Trevor had to get the idea somewhere or from someone that we all think the body parts were carried away in the apron.

I dunno who

Roy

I cannot see what your argument here is. I have already told you but you.

If you think you know the answer as to where this belief that the organs were taken away by the killer in the apron piece came from, then please share it with us all. Because whoever came up with did so with very little forethought and even with even less research, that person has a lot to answer for all, beacuse since then many have followed like sheep thereafter.

[Trevor Marriott]

"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood."
Daily Telegraph.

"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."
Times.

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.

Of course there was no source before then because in 1888 no one came to that conclusion. That source whoever started it off was presumably Gray Wroe.


Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.

Not universally accepted. You really are something else. Go back and read the many posts and discussion over the years all refer to the organs being taken away by the killer in the apron piece and then discarding it in GS.

The only straw man in this argument I fear is you

Now do you want me to throw a hand grenade into the hand wiping explanation and give you more sleepless nights ?

[Carol]

[QUOTE=Wickerman;304285

The idea never "took off", it was nothing more than a suggestion which first saw light of day in 1998 in a dissertation here on Casebook. There was no published source available prior to that date which contained the idea - I know, because I checked them all at the time.
Be that as it may, the idea was never universally accepted for a number of reason's, so it appears you may have set up a straw-man with this argument.[/QUOTE]

Hi everyone,

Auntie Carol would just like to point out that the idea DID take off as I thought this was actually the case until this thread was started. I know I'm getting on a bit (68 last June) but I'm not that ga-ga. I think Trevor is actually talking a lot of sense and how he manages to keep his 'end' up in the face of all the opposition to EVERYTHING he says is remarkable to me.

I haven't made my mind up yet one way or the other, but I can't understand the attitude of many on Casebook who seem to think that we must automatically accept everything that has been written/said before. I really can't get my head around this. My father was a ghost-hunter/writer (amateur) and a member of the Society for Psychical Research. He was very well known in those circles back in his hey-day. A Ripper author, Peter Underwood, even dedicated one of his own books to him ('Ghosts of Kent'). Dad's name was Frederick Sanders. He always taught my brother and myself NEVER to take anyone else's word as 'gospel' (especially with regard to ghosts!) until you had looked into it yourself.

Carol

[Bridewell]

Ah Trevor.
So PC Hutt did see her wearing an apron, but it wasn't the same apron introduced at the Inquest?

Curiouser and curiouser...



But of course, with the illusive Bishopsgate apron thief on the loose, no woman was safe.

Here's a thought, do you think its possible the apron thief and the kidney thief knew each other?

You do have a way with words, Jon!