Kidney

[bolo]

Hi Trevor,

And the portion of the apron was no where near 4 feet long or wide it wouldnt have been a portion then it would have been almost half the apron.

I've just read the dissertation Diddles mentioned (thank you!). It seems that the piece of apron may have been larger than we think if this statement of Detective Sergeant Halse is to be believed: "When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut." (my emphasis, taken from A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour, by Jon Smyth.

Other sources mention a "corner of an apron" but as far as I know, none of them tells us its exact size, hence my question because the size could tell us more about its purpose.

Regards,

Boris

[Trevor Marriott]

Cadavors that were used for study were injected with formaline or a similar substance to slow decomposition. This would have been done soon after the body was received at the mortuary. The Lusk kidney was preserved in spirits.

Didddles,

I believe you will find the " did Jack show anatomical knowledge" thread very interesting.

And the one that shows he didnt remove the organs also as interesting ! [U]"Touche"[/U]

And the portion of the apron was no where near 4 feet long or wide it wouldnt have been a portion then it would have been almost half the apron.

But hey ho here we go again lets all get the gloves off

[Hunter]

I'm not sure that I understand this, are you able to enlarge on it?

Cadavors that were used for study were injected with formaline or a similar substance to slow decomposition. This would have been done soon after the body was received at the mortuary. The Lusk kidney was preserved in spirits.

Didddles,

I believe you will find the " did Jack show anatomical knowledge" thread very interesting.

[Diddles]

Hi all,


By the way, do we have reliable information about the size of the piece of apron?

According to this interesting dissertation the piece of apron would have been atleast 3-4 square feet. But I don't know if that's verified.

Also interesting is that:
P.C. Long reported ' ....about 2.55am I found a portion of a womans apron which I produced, there appeared blood stains on it one portion was wet lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 - 119 model dwelling house. "
So the apron was stained and apparantly wet from something..

[bolo]

Hi all,

Dr Brown stated at the inquest that, quote, "some blood and apparently faecal matter" had been found on it (my emphasis). This tells me that a) the piece of apron was not soaked in blood and thus was not used to carry organs around and b) the killer used it to clean his hands and knife.

By the way, do we have reliable information about the size of the piece of apron?

As for the Lusk letter, there are a few peculiarities that make it more interesting than the rest of the Ripper-related communication but I still don't know what to make of it. Would it open up a whole new vista on the case if it was real? I don't really think so.

Regards,

Boris

[Diddles]

However I do not intend to argue these points yet again if you want to be fully up to speed in relation to both sets of arguments you should go back and read and digest the various postal arguments there have been on the topic.

Thank you, I certainly will..

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks Trevor, that's very interesting!
I guess I was misinformed about the apron being soaked rather than stained. I'm curious to why jtr wouldn't use the apron if i he in fact brought some of the organs with him..
Can't see him using his pockets

Well thats a question that has two answers depending on your thought process.

1. JTR did remove the organs ?

2. JTR Did not remove the organs ?

In my professional opinion as I have stated many time on here there is more eveidence to show he did not remove the organs than there is to show he did.

However I do not intend to argue these points yet again if you want to be fully up to speed in relation to both sets of arguments you should go back and read and digest the various postal arguments there have been on the topic.

[Diddles]

Thanks Trevor, that's very interesting!
I guess I was misinformed about the apron being soaked rather than stained. I'm curious to why jtr wouldn't use the apron if i he in fact brought some of the organs with him..
Can't see him using his pockets

[Trevor Marriott]

Hm, I thought the fact that the apron was SOAKED in blood would suggest that it was used for more than just wiping his hands after the deed..

The apron piece was desrcibed as being only spotted with blood

What kind of tests can verify if an apron has been used to carry organs?

In an effort to re create the scenario you have commented on. A uterus was taken from a live donor and wrapped in a piece of white cloth then photographing the cloth a short time later. The cloth came up heavily bloodstained as you would expect as the organ was full of oxygenated blood.

[Diddles]

Recent tests carried out would suggest that the condition of the apron piece is not consitent with the organs being carried away in it.

Hm, I thought the fact that the apron was SOAKED in blood would suggest that it was used for more than just wiping his hands after the deed..

What kind of tests can verify if an apron has been used to carry organs?

[Trevor Marriott]

I deem it more likely that JtR removed the organs himself and carried them away in the torn apron, rather than the kidneys being removed by some medical student at the mortuary.
However, if the From Hell letter was a hoax, there is nothing to suggest that the kidney came from Eddowes body at the mortuary, and not some random corpse from another mortuary?
But I think it's a good point AGAINST the letter being a hoax that the author didn't sign it Jack the Ripper...

Recent tests carried out would suggest that the condition of the apron piece is not consitent with the organs being carried away in it.

[Diddles]

I deem it more likely that JtR removed the organs himself and carried them away in the torn apron, rather than the kidneys being removed by some medical student at the mortuary.
However, if the From Hell letter was a hoax, there is nothing to suggest that the kidney came from Eddowes body at the mortuary, and not some random corpse from another mortuary?
But I think it's a good point AGAINST the letter being a hoax that the author didn't sign it Jack the Ripper...

[Trevor Marriott]

The kidney would have had to come from some where. Lo an behold like the phoenix from the ashes rises up the question (yet again) of the removal of the organs from the victims from the mortuaries.

medical students and others who i am not going to name again would have had free and unrestricted access as I have previoulsy stated.

Other posters in the past long before my new theory came into the Ripper domain have sugggested this was a prank carried out by a medical student. I firmly beleive this to be correct and that the kidney was more than likely Eddowes.

[Stewart P Evans]

Not Sure

...
The kidney was not preserved in formaline so it had to come from a body that had not yet reached the examining table.

I'm not sure that I understand this, are you able to enlarge on it?

[Hunter]

I believe the letter and the kidney have to be considered together. The letter didn't seem to be contrived as a literate person emulating a semi-literate person. It was brief and personal to Lusk and I think he took it that way, otherwise he would have dumped it right off the bat. It troubled him because he had to think about it for a while before mentioning it to someone. The kidney was not preserved in formaline so it had to come from a body that had not yet reached the examining table.