Pc Long and the piece of rag.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Paul

I think there are some mis-timings here. I can't think of any statement that PC Long noted down the writing on the wall in his notebook before searching the stairs and landing. The only comments about that, that I recall offhand, was when Long returned to Goulston Street with the inspector. .

Yes, he made the note in his notebook at 5am when he returned to Goulston Street, but he first (mentally) noted the GSG when he found the rag.

I don't think Long said it was common knowledge that two murders had been committed - in fact, he actually stated that it was rumoured that there had been another murder - but was asked at the inquest that as was common knowedge that there had been two murders that night, which had he heard about, and he replied the one in Mitre Square.

Agreed, my error. The coroner put it to Long that it was common knowledge.

[Kattrup]

"The organs were not taken away".

Actually have a look at the sketch.
This is ridiculous.

I agree. I think it's been Trevor Marriott's theory for years that no organs were taken by the killer. It has been discussed before and as theory has no merit whatsoever.

Personally, I think Trevor Marriott's opposition to the apron piece being deposited by the killer stems from the idea that the killer used it to carry the organs (a theory I personally disagree with): "Disproving" the apron "proves" no organs were taken.

All in direct conflict with the sources, of course.

[Jon Guy]

Personally, I think Trevor Marriott's opposition to the apron piece being deposited by the killer stems from the idea that the killer used it to carry the organs (a theory I personally disagree with): "Disproving" the apron "proves" no organs were taken.

Agreed.
It also appears that as well as Eddowes apron, the killer took Annie Chapman`s woolly scarf from the crime scene too.

[DJA]

We have the same initials and it looks like Monty presumed I was now posting using this as a username.

Just like to thank Debra for the help she has given over the last couple of hours.

[Debra A]

Just like to thank Debra for the help she has given over the last couple of hours.

No worries, Dave. I felt sorry for you being mistaken for me!

[PaulB]

I dismiss it because we have primary evidence in the form of a list compiled at the time the clothes were taken off her body. That is good evidence, what we have thereafter are a number of ambiguous statements suggesting she was wearing an apron and no chance to clear up those ambiguities. So which do we accept the primary evidence or the ambiguous ones, or do we sit in the fence and look for other forms of evidence to prove or disprove whether or not she was wearing an apron

No, Trevor. What you have - or, to be accurate, what you think you have - is a primary piece of evidence and a number of statements that are ambiguous to you. Those statements were not ambiguous to anybody else. Everyone else accepted that Eddowes was wearing the apron from which the piece found in Goulston Street was cut or torn.

You also assume that the list of Eddowes' possessions and clothes was made 'at the time the clothes were taken off'. If the list was made after the apon was taken for comparison with the piece found in Goulston Street, it wouldn't have been on the list. So what is your evidence for when the list was compiled?

In fact, the 'full official description' published in several newspapers on 1 October 1888 contained the sentence: 'She wore a pair of men's old lace‑up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron.' You will note that the words are 'she wore'. See the Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Irish Times, and so on.

As a matter of supporting interest, a eport in the Irish Times, which appears to have had its own correspondent present at the inquest reported that after Inspector Collard gave his testimony, 'A list of the deceased's clothes was then put in and read by the Coroner. She had not money about her. A portion of the apron of the deceased was also produced, much torn and bloodstained, which was said to correspond to another portion found in Goldson street. (Irish Times, 5 October 1888); a list of Eddowes' clothes was read by the coroner, and then the apron was produced (not the piece found in Goulston Street, you will note, but corresponding with it). So the possibility exists that there are two lists, one with the apron missing and one with it listed. I mention this because the list in the official inquest papers lists at the end the apron, perhaps appended to a list on which it was not mentioned. I therefore state again that your iece of primary evidence is based on an assumption by you.

I dismiss it because no one has come up with any plausible provable explanation as to how or why the apron piece was cut or torn if it ever was. The organs were not taken away in it thats for sure.So why would the killer deposit it there? There is no logical reason as to why, never find all the clap trap that he went home and came out again, even if he was on his way home why there? If he wanted to wipe his hands or knife it would not have taken him all that way to do that before disposing of the piece.

Utterly irrelevant, Trevor. I'm sorry, Trevor, what sort of copper were you - a member of the time travelling psychic elite? How else can anyone provide a 'plausible, proveable explanation' explanation for something someone didwell over a century ago? Nobody was there, nobody knows what the murderer's intentions were, nobody knows precisely what things may have prompted what he did. Jeez, the murderer probably didn't know why he did what he did!

So, what we have is everybody at the time agreed that Eddowes was wearing an apron, but you dispute this unanimity because nobody today can explain what went on in an unidentified murderer's head a century ago.

As said, irrelevant.

As to wiping hands I put that to the test with a pathologist wiping blood stained hands on a piece of white material hands that had just come out of a body. So a good example as you can see. Now if the killer hands were not that blood stained why would he need to wipe them and then no need for a piece of apron.

We don't know what sort of material the apron was made from, nor do I know the kind of material your friendly pathologist wiped his hands on, so I can't say whether it was a fair comparison or not. The apron found of Eddowes body was described as a "coarse white apron", from which I assume it was akin to a butchers' apron. How bloody the killer's hands were is open to question, the doctor said he didn't think the murderer would have been particularly bloody. Anyway, as said, the blood and faecal matter staining was on one side of the material only, so it was insufficient to penetrate the material. The implication is that it was used to clean the residue from a hand or knife that had already been cleaned, not to wipe a hand that just been pulled from within a corpse.

With regards to the pic I wil say it is a little exaggerated in as much as the pathologist was weaering surgical gloves, and blood will stick to the gloves more so than to hands, but the pic has the desired effect of showing how much blood would be deposited on a cloth under those circumstances and the GS piece I doubt was so covered with blood.www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm sure your photograph shows very clearly how much blood would be left by hands just pulled from a corpse, but why did you assume that the murderer wiped his hands on that apron piece immediately after he'd taken them out of Eddowes's body? Why didn't you assume that he had simply cleaned the residue from his hands or knife? After all, that is what the light staining suggested. You hardly conducted a like-for-like experiment.

Now then, let's try and put this whole thing to bed once and for all. We have witness testimony that Eddowes was wearing an apron when she went out that day, we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron when she was found drunk and taken to Bishopsgate, we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron when in the cells at Bishopsgate and when she left Bishopsgate, there is evidence that she was wearing the spron when found dead, there is witness testimony that she was wearing the apron when seen in the mortuary and there is evidence that there was a piece missing from it. The piece found in Goulston Street perfectly matched the apron Eddowes was wearing. Both pieces were stained with blood. Nobody, not a single person, disputed in any way that Eddowes was wearing an apron. But you dont accept that because you think the apron isn't mentioned on a list of her possessions and because nobody can prove what was going on in the murderer's head.

You'll pardon me if I guffaw up my sleeve. You've been having us on. Surely there is more than that?

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree. I think it's been Trevor Marriott's theory for years that no organs were taken by the killer. It has been discussed before and as theory has no merit whatsoever.

Personally, I think Trevor Marriott's opposition to the apron piece being deposited by the killer stems from the idea that the killer used it to carry the organs (a theory I personally disagree with): "Disproving" the apron "proves" no organs were taken.

All in direct conflict with the sources, of course.

Well it was not my suggestion ever that the organs were taken away in it and I have now proved that that came for Wickerman many years ago. But this theory seems to have formed an integral part of the mystery. on the basis that the killer took away the organs from th crime scene and must have taken them away in the apron piece.

Now there is a grave doubt that the killer ever took lway the organs from the crime scenes

However there are other suggestions that the killer cut or tore the apron piece to wipe his hands or his knife on, and the only evidence to support that is an ambiguous comment from Dr Brown coupled with vary descriptions of the apron piece, and the belief that she was not wearing an apron but i possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point had formed parts of a full apron.

If you removed those suggestions from the mystery where doe this leave the apron piece nowhere other than linking Eddowes to The GS archway.

As to sources its naieve to think that all of these are accurate.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No, Trevor. What you have - or, to be accurate, what you think you have - is a primary piece of evidence and a number of statements that are ambiguous to you. Those statements were not ambiguous to anybody else. Everyone else accepted that Eddowes was wearing the apron from which the piece found in Goulston Street was cut or torn.

Well they are ambiguous to all those who are unbiased and to us now trying to asses and evaluate those statements etc

You also assume that the list of Eddowes' possessions and clothes was made 'at the time the clothes were taken off'. If the list was made after the apon was taken for comparison with the piece found in Goulston Street, it wouldn't have been on the list. So what is your evidence for when the list was compiled?

The procedures for dealing with homicide victims at mortuaries has hardly changed since 1888. Three courses of action

1. Removal of clothing carefully from top to bottoms listing all clothing individuall as it come off the body

2. Listing any cuts or marks on the clothing as can be seen

3. Listing all possessions in possession of that person.
Thats wwhat they did and thats how the lists were made up

Thats primary evidence. The body was stripped and the list made up soon after the body reached the mortuary. The apron piece didnt arrive at the mortuary until the next morning.

In fact, the 'full official description' published in several newspapers on 1 October 1888 contained the sentence: 'She wore a pair of men's old lace‑up boots, and a piece of coarse white apron.' You will note that the words are 'she wore'. See the Daily Telegraph, Daily News, Irish Times, and so on.

Newspaper articles you have been told before -SECONDARY evidence

As a matter of supporting interest, a eport in the Irish Times, which appears to have had its own correspondent present at the inquest reported that after Inspector Collard gave his testimony, 'A list of the deceased's clothes was then put in and read by the Coroner. She had not money about her. A portion of the apron of the deceased was also produced, much torn and bloodstained, which was said to correspond to another portion found in Goldson street. (Irish Times, 5 October 1888); a list of Eddowes' clothes was read by the coroner, and then the apron was produced (not the piece found in Goulston Street, you will note, but corresponding with it). So the possibility exists that there are two lists, one with the apron missing and one with it listed. I mention this because the list in the official inquest papers lists at the end the apron, perhaps appended to a list on which it was not mentioned. I therefore state again that your piece of primary evidence is based on an assumption by you.

No assumptions, you show what there is as hard evidence to show I am not right about the lists being prepared at the time the body was stripped. In fact when Halse went to the mortuary his ambiguous comment reads "I saw the body stripped" that could mean he was there when it was stripped, or the body had been stripped prior to his arrival


Utterly irrelevant, Trevor. I'm sorry, Trevor, what sort of copper were you - a member of the time travelling psychic elite? How else can anyone provide a 'plausible, proveable explanation' explanation for something someone didwell over a century ago? Nobody was there, nobody knows what the murderer's intentions were, nobody knows precisely what things may have prompted what he did. Jeez, the murderer probably didn't know why he did what he did!

It all come down to proving or disproving the evidence, and facts left behind from 1888 and having access to modern day experts to prove or disprove this.

So, what we have is everybody at the time agreed that Eddowes was wearing an apron, but you dispute this unanimity because nobody today can explain what went on in an unidentified murderer's head a century ago.

As said, irrelevant.

Irrelevant to you but not to those who understand and will accept new facts which dispel the old ones.

We don't know what sort of material the apron was made from, nor do I know the kind of material your friendly pathologist wiped his hands on, so I can't say whether it was a fair comparison or not. The apron found of Eddowes body was described as a "coarse white apron", from which I assume it was akin to a butchers' apron. How bloody the killer's hands were is open to question, the doctor said he didn't think the murderer would have been particularly bloody. Anyway, as said, the blood and faecal matter staining was on one side of the material only, so it was insufficient to penetrate the material. The implication is that it was used to clean the residue from a hand or knife that had already been cleaned, not to wipe a hand that just been pulled from within a corpse.

So if it was only on one side does that not make you think? implications, my arse, again you are making it up. If you have blood on your hands and want to wipe them on a cloth how do you not get blood on both sides? You are going to leave marks on both sides

I'm sure your photograph shows very clearly how much blood would be left by hands just pulled from a corpse, but why did you assume that the murderer wiped his hands on that apron piece immediately after he'd taken them out of Eddowes's body? Why didn't you assume that he had simply cleaned the residue from his hands or knife? After all, that is what the light staining suggested. You hardly conducted a like-for-like experiment.

Now then, let's try and put this whole thing to bed once and for all. We have witness testimony that Eddowes was wearing an apron when she went out that day, we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron when she was found drunk and taken to Bishopsgate, we have witness testimony that she was wearing an apron when in the cells at Bishopsgate and when she left Bishopsgate, there is evidence that she was wearing the spron when found dead, there is witness testimony that she was wearing the apron when seen in the mortuary and there is evidence that there was a piece missing from it. The piece found in Goulston Street perfectly matched the apron Eddowes was wearing. Both pieces were stained with blood. Nobody, not a single person, disputed in any way that Eddowes was wearing an apron. But you dont accept that because you think the apron isn't mentioned on a list of her possessions and because nobody can prove what was going on in the murderer's head.

The inquest testimony relative to the apron ID is somewhat of a joke. Not all the witnesses in any event mention her wearing an apron. I have previously discussed at length the misgivings about the aforementioned testimony and I am not going over it again

You'll pardon me if I guffaw up my sleeve. You've been having us on. Surely there is more than that?

There is only one who is having us on here and that is you, with your made up explanations

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Now there is a grave doubt that the killer ever took lway the organs from the crime scenes

Trevor,


Please be accurate about the things you post.


It is wrong to make the statement above which gives the impression this is a view which is accepted by many, when of course it is just you who have the grave doubts, very few others do.

Despite the claims you have not been able to establish that the organs were removed offsite, after many years of trying.

Indeed the case you do make is at best a vague possibility which is based on little but your own belief.


regards

Steve








Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor,


Please be accurate about the things you post.


It is wrong to make the statement above which gives the impression this is a view which is accepted by many, when of course it is just you who have the grave doubts, very few others do.

Despite the claims you have not been able to establish that the organs were removed offsite, after many years of trying.

Indeed the case you do make is at best a vague possibility which is based on little but your own belief.


regards

Steve

Steve

If you want to believe he did then you are fully entitled to do so. But in my opinion there is enough evidence both from then and now, to suggest he didn't. We have argued this before and I dont intend to do so again.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Harry D]

If you want to believe he did then you are fully entitled to do so. But in my opinion there is enough evidence both from then and now, to suggest he didn't. We have argued this before and I dont intend to do so again.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Let's assume you are right, Trevor, and the murderer(s) did not remove any of the organs. What would this prove in the grand scheme of things? We would still have a series of violent murders in a localized area where the victims were extensively mutilated.

[Robert St Devil]

However there are other suggestions that the killer cut or tore the apron piece to wipe his hands or his knife on

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor.

Considering Catherine Eddowes, face was NOT covered in faecal matter (or large gobs of gore werent splattered on her face either), there,s a good chance that he may have wiped his blade before cutting into her face.

However, if he cut her face first, all bets are off, and we are presented with a thoroughly relaxed, completely insane (moreso!) person.

I would think he cut the apron prior to making many of the cuts. Not to say it s an impossobilty but.. cutting her apron AFTER her intestines were strung out from her abdomen across to her shoulder would create a ,cutting complication,.



Also. Were the tinbox and thimble kept in her apron? There was no mention of blood on the box to my recollection.

And. Why not write his sentence above Catherine,s head? Why Goulston?

[Elamarna]

If you want to believe he did then you are fully entitled to do so. But in my opinion there is enough evidence both from then and now, to suggest he didn't. We have argued this before and I dont intend to do so again.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Trevor

I know that, and you were unable to convince and win the debate then, as of course you are now.


Just like others here, you will not debate issues you know you cannot convince others on, of course you will give us your views but that is not debate.


Steve

[Trevor Marriott]

Let's assume you are right, Trevor, and the murderer(s) did not remove any of the organs. What would this prove in the grand scheme of things? We would still have a series of violent murders in a localized area where the victims were extensively mutilated.

You are right, there are three pillars which have kept this mystery propped up all these years

1. All of the women were murdered by a single killer

2. There was in reality a killer called JTR

3. The organs of the victims were taken by the killer.

Dispel one or more of these then the mystery loses its appeal

Dispel them all, and you are right, all that is left is a series of unsolved murders, that had it not been for those pillars propping it up, they would have drifted into almost oblivion many years ago. So as you see, why it is important for some to try whatever, come what may to keep it alive and to reject anything that goes against the status quo, but thankfully they are but a small minority.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor

I know that, and you were unable to convince and win the debate then, as of course you are now.


Just like others here, you will not debate issues you know you cannot convince others on, of course you will give us your views but that is not debate.


Steve

See post 824