writing on the wall

[Abby Normal]

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!

[Abby Normal]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

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

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

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...

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[Trevor Marriott]

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

[GBinOz]

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

[Wickerman]

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.

[harry]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

Where's the problem with that?

For some reason Trevor seems to think cutting off the apron was an afterthought, well, supposing it wasn't?
He needed something to carry the organs in, he knew that before he began, this night he had a shopping list.....

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

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?

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

The more this topic is discussed the more evidence there is to suggest the killer did not remove these organs from Eddowes or any of the other victims.

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, 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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

Where's the problem with that?

Hi Jon,

The only problem that I see sits typing at Trevor's keyboard. When I suggested the same thing I was informed, without explanation, that I was obviously wrong. With that solution there would then be no need for the apron to be rolled up in the other clothing and Collard's evidence might have to be considered correct.

Best regards, George

[Wickerman]

Lets look at the suggestion that the last thing the killer did,was to cut the apron. As Trevor has pointed out the apron was rolled or bunched up around the upper part of the body,and it would need for the clothing to be unrolled or unbunched to access the apron.
Would the killer, after cutting ,bother to the reroll or rebunch the clothing as found.I do not think so, I am with Trevor on this point.
Rags,as sanitary towels,were a common sight in my younger days.One could find them discarded in public places any day of the week.Alternately one could observe lines of washing of rags in back gardens.They would be used,washed,and reused,and even shared if there were several females in a family.

Once the killer has successfully subdued his victim, he knows what he came to do, so with her lying on her back he sliced her throat, and then sliced off a large section of apron.
Then, he pulls up her clothing to expose the abdomen.....etc.....etc.

Where's the problem with that?

For some reason Trevor seems to think cutting off the apron was an afterthought, well, supposing it wasn't?
He needed something to carry the organs in, he knew that before he began, this night he had a shopping list.....

[harry]

Lets look at the suggestion that the last thing the killer did,was to cut the apron. As Trevor has pointed out the apron was rolled or bunched up around the upper part of the body,and it would need for the clothing to be unrolled or unbunched to access the apron.
Would the killer, after cutting ,bother to the reroll or rebunch the clothing as found.I do not think so, I am with Trevor on this point.
Rags,as sanitary towels,were a common sight in my younger days.One could find them discarded in public places any day of the week.Alternately one could observe lines of washing of rags in back gardens.They would be used,washed,and reused,and even shared if there were several females in a family.

[Wickerman]

I have to put the record straight that aprons were also made out of linen which is much softer on the skin

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Now come on Trevor, you know what kind of apron we are talking about...



and it isn't this...

[Trevor Marriott]

The book does say the 'street cleaners' who picked up rags, bone, rope, even dog dung, would sell it on, but specifically rags were used in the manufacture of paper. So paper mills would buy rags, it doesn't say anything about selling back directly to the public.

Trevor is suggesting something that we cannot confirm or contest, I seem to have missed that particular argument. Aprons, the type worn over clothing were typically made out of calico, a hard wearing material not the type of material anyone would choose to have next to the skin, especially in tender places, it was coarse to the touch.

I have to put the record straight that aprons were also made out of linen which is much softer on the skin

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk