Apron placement as intimidation?

[Trevor Marriott]

After I responded to the above question, I had to wonder how would you expect a pathologist today, to remove the clothes of a victim who has their abdomen totally laid open, as with Eddowes?

Carrying her in to the mortuary on her back is fine, but how do you remove her jacket, her bodice, three skirts, a petticoat, a chemise and the mans vest?
How do you do that without turning her over, or sitting her upright, and letting all her internal organs & intestines spill out all over the floor?

The clothes are cut off, I know it, you know it, and anyone who has witnessed this procedure knows it.
So, why are you so concerned about no mention of cutting the apron off?

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Variations include:
- The clothes were taken off carefully
- The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.
- The clothes were carefully taken off the body.
- the clothes were carefully removed,
- The clothes were removed from the body carefully.

There's nothing there which excludes careful removal via a knife.
Why 'carefully', didn't the doctors want to damage her well-worn clothes, or maybe they didn't want to loose any organs?

I sense you are trying to avoid explaining how they could have removed her clothes intact, without loosing any internal organs, and why - when it is necessary to preserve evidence, it isn't done today.

[Hunter]

I see nothing has changed here.

[Trevor Marriott]

Variations include:
- The clothes were taken off carefully
- The clothes were removed from the deceased carefully.
- The clothes were carefully taken off the body.
- the clothes were carefully removed,
- The clothes were removed from the body carefully.

There's nothing there which excludes careful removal via a knife.
Why 'carefully', didn't the doctors want to damage her well-worn clothes, or maybe they didn't want to loose any organs?

I sense you are trying to avoid explaining how they could have removed her clothes intact, without loosing any internal organs, and why - when it is necessary to preserve evidence, it isn't done today.

I wasn't there nor were you, but if the clothes had been cut off Dr Brown would not have said they were carefully removed. Look at her clothes she was wearing very easy to remove them, no need to cut at all.

Accept it and move on !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

The term used by Dr Brown in his officially signed inquest deposition was "the clothes were carefully taken off" If they had been cut off would he not have said so? If the apron had been cut then so would the rest of her clothes. Cut one cut all ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You are wrong, Trevor.

The purpose of the post mortem examination was to determine the nature of the wounds and to generate knowledge about the wounds and make possible knowledge of the murder.

Therefore the wounds were not allowed to be affected by the procedure of taking off the clothes from the body.

Therefore the access to the wounds must be reached through the smallest possible risk in the whole procedure of taking all the clothes off.

Therefore the clothes must have been taken off carefully.

The reason why Brown mentioned this is that he wanted to make clear that the procedure of taking the clothes off did not affect the results of the post mortem.

To reach this result they may very well have made the choice to cut of clothes and part of the clothes.

Evidence could otherwise be destroyed.

You should know this, Trevor. You have been working as a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

You are wrong, Trevor.

The purpose of the post mortem examination was to determine the nature of the wounds and to generate knowledge about the wounds and make possible knowledge of the murder.

Therefore the wounds were not allowed to be affected by the procedure of taking off the clothes from the body.

Therefore the access to the wounds must be reached through the smallest possible risk in the whole procedure of taking all the clothes off.

Therefore the clothes must have been taken off carefully.

The reason why Brown mentioned this is that he wanted to make clear that the procedure of taking the clothes off did not affect the results of the post mortem.

To reach this result they may very well have made the choice to cut of clothes and part of the clothes.

Evidence could otherwise be destroyed.

You should know this, Trevor. You have been working as a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

What on earth are you rambling on about?

How difficult is it to slip skirts and petticoats off a body when they are affixed around the waist you simply have to raise the body up slightly and pull them down. "CAREFULLY" as Dr Brown tells us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bodice was buttoned down the front so no problem there either

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Pierre]

What on earth are you rambling on about?

How difficult is it to slip skirts and petticoats off a body when they are affixed around the waist you simply have to raise the body up slightly and pull them down. "CAREFULLY" as Dr Brown tells us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

The bodice was buttoned down the front so no problem there either

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

That was not a normal body, Trevor. It was a disembowelled body with very large wounds. This made the process of taking off the clothes without destroying evidence risky and difficult.

Brown also stated the consequences of removing the body and the clothes. He did it for the purpose I have explained to you.

But then again, you should be the one explaining such things to us. You were a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

[Trevor Marriott]

That was not a normal body, Trevor. It was a disembowelled body with very large wounds. This made the process of taking off the clothes without destroying evidence risky and difficult.

Brown also stated the consequences of removing the body and the clothes. He did it for the purpose I have explained to you.

But then again, you should be the one explaining such things to us. You were a policeman.

Regards, Pierre

You haven't a clue do you? What evidence do you think would have been found on the body in 1888 that might have been destroyed by taking the clothes off in a careful way, as against cutting them off?

If there had have been any evidence to be found, careful would be a better way of preservation than the forceful approach you and another seem to suggest they adopted.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

I wasn't there nor were you, but if the clothes had been cut off Dr Brown would not have said they were carefully removed. Look at her clothes she was wearing very easy to remove them, no need to cut at all.

Accept it and move on !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you are missing the point Trevor, a piece of apron was removed from her body which had a string attached. Because it takes two strings to attach the piece to the body, then clearly it had two strings - and they were tied together.
As it only takes the cutting of one of these strings, to both preserve the knot and, to loosen the piece of apron, then this piece as it was entered into evidence still had a string attached.
It's really that simple.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think you are missing the point Trevor, a piece of apron was removed from her body which had a string attached. Because it takes two strings to attach the piece to the body, then clearly it had two strings - and they were tied together.
As it only takes the cutting of one of these strings, to both preserve the knot and, to loosen the piece of apron, then this piece as it was entered into evidence still had a string attached.
It's really that simple.

And you are missing the point in as much as had she been wearing an apron with a piece missing, it would have been clearly visible as such and would have had to have been removed before any of the other clothing came off the body and would have been recorded as an item of clothing she was wearing and not a piece of old white apron listed amongst her possessions.

You are yet again changing your explanation to fit what you want it to fit. In one breath you are saying the clothes were cut off including the apron, now you are just plumping for the apron.

The desperation shown in your posts to preserve the old status quo is priceless !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Jon Guy]

Hi Trevor

I don`t think they cut the clothing off Eddowes body because it would have confused matters when making a note of the condition of the clothing.

Chandlers lists the cuts to the clothing, which would be pointless if the clothes had been cut off the body at the mortuary.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor

I don`t think they cut the clothing off Eddowes body because it would have confused matters when making a note of the condition of the clothing.

Chandlers lists the cuts to the clothing, which would be pointless if the clothes had been cut off the body at the mortuary.

A wise observation, and you will note it is not I that made the cutting of the clothes suggestion !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Penhalion]

Doesn't this also depend on whether the body was in rigor at the time? While pulling off the skirts might not have been that hard, I can guarantee that getting the upper body clothing off would have been a serious challenge if the arms were locked in rigor.

[Jon Guy]

Doesn't this also depend on whether the body was in rigor at the time? While pulling off the skirts might not have been that hard, I can guarantee that getting the upper body clothing off would have been a serious challenge if the arms were locked in rigor.

To be honest I don`t know if there was a standard procedure to stripping corpses. I imagine, that they did what was necessary at the time.

[Pcdunn]

forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=9989&page=15

See the sketch in post #149 in this thread for the answer.

The clothing in front was already cut or torn open completely, to judge from the drawing of the body in situ.

I'd think that the lower body clothing could be pulled downwards and off by lifting the body slightly and pulling on the back waistbands of the skirts. As for the bodice, again, lifting the body might allow the remains of the bodice to be pulled down and a slit made to remove it in halves.