PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Go on, then,Trev, educate me.

It seems others have already tried and failed, you are a lot cause

[Bridewell]

Standing Corrected

In fact I stand to be corrected here but I don't off the top of my head recall any official who was part of the initial investigation even suggesting that the killer was responsible for cutting or tearing the apron in any event.

It would seem that your recall is awry. According to your own book this is exactly what the police suggested!

From page 163 of "Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation":

"At the time the police put forward several theories. One suggestion was that the killer had cut the piece from the apron to wipe away the blood from his hands and/or the knife, and that he may even have used it to carry her organs away. The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped, regardless of whether he deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it".

You stand corrected by no less an authority than your good self, Trevor.

[Wickerman]

Ouch!

[El White Chap]

Memorable book by the sounds of it

[Garry Wroe]

From page 163 of "Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation":

"At the time the police put forward several theories. One suggestion was that the killer had cut the piece from the apron to wipe away the blood from his hands and/or the knife, and that he may even have used it to carry her organs away ..."

Er, hang on a minute, Colin. Hasn't someone repeatedly stated on this thread that no-one at the time of the murders ever suggested that the organs might have been taken away in the apron?

[Wickerman]

Perhaps the author of that book & Mr. Marriott need to get their heads together and come up with a consistent story....

[Bridewell]

Memorable book by the sounds of it

It's quite a good read actually. It just becomes a problem when the author can't remember what he wrote in it.

[Garry Wroe]

So, any volunteer to pull the plug on the life support machine?

[Abby Normal]

It seems others have already tried and failed, you are a lot cause

Id like to know your thoughts on it. If the killer did not remove organs, who did? When? And for what purpose?

[Cogidubnus]

I'm honestly surprised that any of you chaps would stoop to quote Mr Mariott's own words against him...it's totally unfair, especially as some other poor unaccredited bugger probably wrote at least one half of Trevor's argument...

[m_w_r]

I'm honestly surprised that any of you chaps would stoop to quote Mr Mariott's own words against him...it's totally unfair, especially as some other poor unaccredited bugger probably wrote at least one half of Trevor's argument...

From http://www.casebook.org/about_the_casebook/faq.html:

Did Jack the Ripper write taunting letters to the press and police?
Added: 2003-03-13 17:55:53

One of the interesting phenomena of this case is the copious correspondence received by the press, police and even private citizens, from authors claiming to be “Jack the Ripper.” The name “Jack the Ripper” itself was derived from the signature on a letter sent to the Central News Agency, in which the author threatened to “clip the ladys ears off” during his next murder. When part of a victim’s earlobe was sliced through only three days later, the police had no choice but to consider the possibility that the letter was from the true killer.

Police officials later stated categorically that this letter – termed the “Dear Boss” letter – was a hoax perpetrated by an overzealous newspaper reporter, and most researchers tend to agree with that analysis. The letter was, however, published in every major newspaper in the early days of October 1888, and it began a veritable storm of hoax letters. In all, over six hundred letters were received by the press and police from people claiming to be “The Ripper.” Several individuals, including two women, were arrested and charged for hoaxing Ripper letters.

One letter, however, is more difficult to discard. It was received on 16 October 1888 by George Akin Lusk, president of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee. The letter contained many spelling and grammatical errors, and was not signed “Jack the Ripper.” It was sent in a small, paper box, along with a portion of a human kidney. The most recent victim at that time was Catherine Eddowes, killed on 30 September – and one of her kidneys was removed by the killer. Whether the kidney received by Lusk was indeed the one taken from Eddowes is impossible to tell. Some consider this letter to be from the true killer. Others contend that it was a prank pulled by a morbid medical student.

All in all the jury is still out on whether any of the Ripper letters were truly penned by the killer. The consensus among modern researchers is that the vast majority of the Ripper letters are hoaxes. Most consider all of them to be hoaxes.


From Trevor Marriott, Jack the Ripper: The 21st Century Investigation, 2005, pp.224-5:

One of the interesting aspects of this case is the copious amount of correspondence received by the press, police and even private citizens from a sender or senders claiming to be 'Jack the Ripper.' In all, the press and police received over six hundred 'Ripper' letters. Several individuals, including two women, were arrested and charged with hoaxing. The 'Dear Boss' letter, since discredited, as we have seen, was published in every major newspaper in the early days of October 1888 and sparked a storm of hoax letters.

Many researchers consider the letter sent to George Lusk, which contained many spelling and grammatical errors and was not signed 'Jack the Ripper', more difficult to reject as a hoax. Some experts consider the Lusk letter to be from the killer. Others contend that it was a prank pulled by a medical student. Whether the half kidney that accompanied the letter in a small paper box was the one taken from Eddowes is impossible to tell. However, if, as I suggested earlier, Eddowes's kidney and uterus were not removed by the killer, this letter is definitely a hoax. As I also suggested, it may have been written by the same medical student who was involved in taking the organs from the body in the mortuary.

The jury is still out on whether any of the Ripper letters were written by the killer, although there is a consensus among modern researchers that the vast majority are hoaxes.

[Wickerman]

Okay, Trev, let’s try this one more time. Dr Brown was asked about the spots of blood found on the apron he’d examined at the mortuary. He stated that the bloodstains were in the corner by the string.

There is just one point for caution. None of press sources use the word 'corner', what we read is 'portion'.
Due to a phonetic similarity between 'corner' and 'portion' it might be a simple mishearing by the court recorder.

Examples:
(Original Inquest)
My attention was called to the apron – It was the corner of the apron with a string attached - The blood spots were of recent origin

(Daily News)
My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent.

(Morning Advertiser)
Was your attention called to this portion of an apron which was found upon the woman?-It was. There were stains of blood upon the apron.
Are the stains of recent origin?-They are.

In the next sentence the Official record then does use 'portion'.

I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulstone Street

Which was also rendered as 'portion' or 'piece' in the various press sources.

So possibly this debate over the 'corner' is a red herring, the actual word used may have been 'portion'.

[Garry Wroe]

I realize that certain arguments on this thread are a little difficult to follow, Jon, but if you run back a little you’ll see that Trev was citing the ‘string’ and ‘corner’ from the official inquest document held at the Corporation of London Records. This, he maintained, was the definitive text, representing as it does a far more reliable account of Dr Brown’s evidence than those carried by the press. On this basis Trev contended that one corner of the apron was said to have been taken away, and that that portion which remained contained only one string. My argument was that he had developed an entire hypothesis predicated on a misreading (or misunderstanding) of the documentary evidence. Here’s the relevant passage as contained within the A-Z:-

‘My attention was called to the apron. It was the corner of the apron, with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say it is human blood. I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have, the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and, apparently, faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street.’

Initially, then, Brown was speaking of the blood spots found on the upper portion of apron. He identified their location by stating that they were in the corner adjacent to the string. Contrary to Trevor’s argument, Brown was not implying that a corner had been taken from the apron, and nor was he stating that the apron contained only one string. Mention of the corner and string was made solely to identify the area of cloth containing the blood spots he had examined. Only then, having discussed the upper portion of apron, did he go on to speak of the remnant found in Goulston Street.

In other words, not only does the press coverage confound Trevor’s apron hypothesis, but the official record does too.

[Wickerman]

Initially, then, Brown was speaking of the blood spots found on the upper portion of apron.

Yes indeed, Brown opened his testimony by talking about the upper portion.

He identified their location by stating that they were in the corner adjacent to the string.

Well that's the issue I was trying to draw attention to. He didn't say "corner", so he isn't trying to locate the spots.

If you recall both halves of the apron were entered into evidence (exhibits 'A' and 'B'?), all Brown was doing was identifying which piece he was talking about, ie;
"...it was the portion of the apron with the string attached...".

Therefore, the other piece found in Goulston St. had no strings attached but as both were in full view of the juror's Dr Brown was helping them understand which half he was talking about.

Equally therefore, the blood spots were not in a corner they were just on the upper half - somewhere.

In Collards testimony too we read "portion" and the press confirmed that by mostly repeating "portion" in their coverage, except a few who used "piece".

In other words, not only does the press coverage confound Trevor’s apron hypothesis, but the official record does too.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes indeed, Brown opened his testimony by talking about the upper portion.

Well that's the issue I was trying to draw attention to. He didn't say "corner", so he isn't trying to locate the spots.

If you recall both halves of the apron were entered into evidence (exhibits 'A' and 'B'?), all Brown was doing was identifying which piece he was talking about, ie;
"...it was the portion of the apron with the string attached...".

Therefore, the other piece found in Goulston St. had no strings attached but as both were in full view of the juror's Dr Brown was helping them understand which half he was talking about.

Equally therefore, the blood spots were not in a corner they were just on the upper half - somewhere.

In Collards testimony too we read "portion" and the press confirmed that by mostly repeating "portion" in their coverage, except a few who used "piece".

Your posts on this topic are becoming more deluded with each one. Where do you get all this crap from you are making it up as you go along and encouraging the sheep to follow

Portion and piece are one and the same

Defintion of portion "a part of a whole; an amount, section, or piece of something"


Attach a portion to a piece and you still don't get a full apron