Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

writing on the wall

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    But if that be the case why do we not see signs of that occurring with any of the other victims having chunks of their clothing being cut or any aprons they were wearing having chunks taken out of them to take away organs...
    Chapman was missing her scarf.
    She was described as wearing a scarf before she was murdered, but it was not mentioned as among her clothing at the mortuary. So, possibly he took the scarf to wrap the uterus in.
    We do not know if any of the other victims were missing any clothing.

    On another point if what you say, if the taking of the organs was that premeditated as you suggest would you not have thought that the killer would have taken something with him to take away the organs in?
    He didn't need to, his victims supplied him with the necessary materials to wrap an organ in.
    Even, if in some cases where he is described as carrying a bag, the bag would be messed up inside if he just placed an unwrapped organ in the bag. So, he would wrap it in something anyway.

    But may I remind you again that the description of the apron piece is not consistent with freshly cut organs taken out of a human body and wrapped in it...
    In the Daily Telegraph we are told "one corner was wet with blood", several other accounts report a corner was "wet". Naturally a hollow organ like a uterus will drain into the cloth after an immediate extraction.


    On that note I have noticed that when discussing this topic and the topic of Druitt not one of the senior officers referred to makes any mention of the killer taking organs,....
    Not sure what you mean. Police officials are not qualified to say if a body on it's discovery, is missing organs. That can only be determined after an autopsy.

    Now I find that strange bearing in mind something of this nature in a series of murders would have been most unusual and I would have expected it to have been documented by one of them. So I have to wonder why? did they know that the killer did not take them but for obvious reasons kept if from the general public because I would suggest that if it hade been made public that organs were being taken for financial gain from mortuaries I would suspect that the press would have had a field day.
    I'm not sure what you mean here, the press did announce organs were removed.

    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by harry View Post
      The problem as I see it Jon,is supposing it was an afterthought. Suposing as one poster believes,cutting the apron didn't happen. I believe his mind would have been concentrated on the death and mutilation of the body,and needs such as carrying body parts and cleaning hands etc,a forethought that had been catered for before even setting out to find a victim, but each to his/her own supposition.
      Hi Harry,

      Do you suppose that he would have anticipated and catered for accidentally cutting himself, and brought bandages with him?

      The Star, 12 October, 1888

      "A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.

      A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behaviour their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

      Binding a cut would produce a corner of the apron piece wet with blood.

      Cheers, George
      Last edited by GBinOz; 07-06-2022, 01:06 PM.
      “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

      “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

        Hi Harry,

        Do you suppose that he would have anticipated and catered for accidentally cutting himself, and brought bandages with him?

        The Star, 12 October, 1888

        "A Suspicious Infirmary Patient.

        A report was current late last night that the police suspect a man who is at present a patient in an East-end infirmary. He has been admitted since the commission of the last murder. Owing to his suspicious behaviour their attention was directed to him. Detectives are making inquiries, and he is kept under surveillance."

        Binding a cut would produce a corner of the apron piece wet with blood.

        Cheers, George
        But what you suggest is dependant on which description of the apron piece you choose to accept ?

        Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?
        Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion.

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

          Chapman was missing her scarf.
          She was described as wearing a scarf before she was murdered, but it was not mentioned as among her clothing at the mortuary. So, possibly he took the scarf to wrap the uterus in.
          So the killer wrapped the organs in her scarf, and then decided to cut a piece of her apron and take both away with him

          i am glad that you finally accpet the killer did not take away the organs in the apron piece

          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            But what you suggest is dependant on which description of the apron piece you choose to accept ?

            Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?
            Dr. Brown: Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion.

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Sworn deposition of Alfred Long: There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet...
            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

              Sworn deposition of Alfred Long: There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet...
              What one person sees as stains, another sees as spots. I am more likely to believe the doctor who is more qualified than Pc Plod

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                So the killer wrapped the organs in her scarf, and then decided to cut a piece of her apron and take both away with him

                i am glad that you finally accpet the killer did not take away the organs in the apron piece

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                i beleive wick was talking about chapman not eddowes.

                its totally possible, maybe even more probable, that the killer took items of clothing from victims to use to put organs in and/or take away as trophies.

                In eddowes case, I think its very possible he did the same. he cut her apron to put the internal organs in.
                he may have brought something with him out that night to put organs in but had to use that to clean his hands after the failed stride attempt(the church street sighting of the suspicious cap wearing man wiping his hands) which he then discarded(and never found) before the eddowes encounter. now not having that rag anymore he cut her apron to do it. later using it to sign his graffitti disparaging jews, who had interupted him that night.
                "Is all that we see or seem
                but a dream within a dream?"

                -Edgar Allan Poe


                "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                -Frederick G. Abberline

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                  What one person sees as stains, another sees as spots. I am more likely to believe the doctor who is more qualified than Pc Plod

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                  yeah PC Plod-you mean the PC who found the only clue the ripper ever left? lol good lord trevor.

                  The ripper would have had a field day with you. and actually still is!
                  "Is all that we see or seem
                  but a dream within a dream?"

                  -Edgar Allan Poe


                  "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                  quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                  -Frederick G. Abberline

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    So the killer wrapped the organs in her scarf, and then decided to cut a piece of her apron and take both away with him

                    i am glad that you finally accpet the killer did not take away the organs in the apron piece

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    As Abby noticed, I wrote it was Chapman who was missing her scarf, not Eddowes.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      What one person sees as stains, another sees as spots. I am more likely to believe the doctor who is more qualified than Pc Plod

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                      Absolutely Trevor, a constable was never trained to recognize wet blood when he see's it.....

                      (good grief!)
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                        yeah PC Plod-you mean the PC who found the only clue the ripper ever left? lol good lord trevor.

                        The ripper would have had a field day with you. and actually still is!
                        Was it a clue ? some might not think so

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                          Absolutely Trevor, a constable was never trained to recognize wet blood when he see's it.....

                          (good grief!)
                          No one was talking about wet blood the topic was blood stains or blood spots, in case you dont know there is a difference

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                            As Abby noticed, I wrote it was Chapman who was missing her scarf, not Eddowes.
                            well does it matter the killer did not remove her organs either

                            www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                              No one was talking about wet blood the topic was blood stains or blood spots, in case you dont know there is a difference

                              www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                              Call me "no-one" if it makes you feel better, but it was in my reply to you in post #196, "the corner of the apron was wet with blood".
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • Although the lVP medical profession couldn't test for differences in blood forensically (wether animal or human etc). I'm sure they would have spotted (excuse the pun) the difference between menstrual and veinal/arterial blood. As such if we are to rely on the medicos they would have made note accordingly. Menstrual blood particularly at the end of a cycle exhibits completely different qualities to veinal/arterial blood and is obvious to the layman's untrained but accustomed eye let alone a trained medical man this is without any forensic testing.

                                So depending on which side of the fence you sit.... if she was menstruating then the medical men were either negligent or ignorant for not bringing it to attention. And if she wasn't menstruating the medical men were correct by default by not mentioning a thing that was not in existence. I believe lack of reported menstruation was the same with all the C5...however I am happy to stand corrected if it was reported that any were in mensis.
                                Hope that make sense.

                                Ooooh ....just a thought, as an aside (and OT sorry) can we read anything into the fact that that none of the ladies were reported as menstruating ? If any were then slap my wrists and I'll sit in the naughty corner for a day lol.

                                Helen x

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X