Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

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

  • Originally posted by Ben View Post
    I don't think I'll ever accept that the killer spurned the easy availability of a free organ transporter
    He had one, Ben. It's called a pocket.
    in favour of dumping them directly into his pockets
    ...oops.

    If escaping through the streets with pockets apparently dripping with blood was a no-no in darkness, how did he cope in daylight after the Hanbury Street murder?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • He had one, Ben. It's called a pocket
      Why dump freshly extracted viscera into his pocket when there was a free rag to protect his garments though, Gareth?

      If escaping through the streets with pockets apparently dripping with blood was a no-no in darkness, how did he cope in daylight after the Hanbury Street murder?
      Hanbury Street was probably very instructive in that regard. He probably didn't take precautions on that occasion, learned the hard way, and decided to rectify matters next time around.

      Best regards,
      Ben
      Last edited by Ben; 10-29-2008, 03:16 AM.

      Comment


      • Hi again,

        Pardon my disbelief that these "studies" accurately reflect what a freshly excised kidney from a woman likely still technically alive and bleeding would leave in terms of stains, I really think that those of the opinion that there was not any concentrated staining on the piece...which as Ben and I pointed out was an opinion offered on its state regarding one corner section, should be able to explain how Kates organs had little or no blood in them if they were taken from the body no later than within 2 or 3 minutes from the timing of the throat cut.

        As I said before which no-one countered, I have at least one medical opinion that says Liz would have bled out in 5 to 10 minutes, and Kates throat cut was more severe, but only by the slim margin of artery that was uncut on Liz. Comparing only those two injuries, it would seem that Kate should bleed out faster, then I added the mutilations which would release more blood, and came up with an approximate time for her to be "bled out" as 50% of Liz's estimated bleed out time...its is a fair accomodation I think. So you have a total time over the body of what.....a minute to get to the location, 30 seconds to a minute to have her unconscious and on the ground, then the throat cut happens at around 1:37 or 1:38 at the earliest. He is gone from the scene at 1:43 if Harvey looked in and he was gone, or by 1:44 when Watkins enters on his left hand beat. So you have 6 minutes total for all the rest of the activities including the departure. He cuts the kidney out before ripping and cutting the cloth I would think, and he doesnt get to the kidney until he has removed intestines and severed the colon section, which is placed between her arm and body. So he is cutting out organs at around what, 1:40 ish? That is just 3 minutes after the throat cut, and at the low end of the estimate. If I have been to generous in allowing her half the time of Liz, then it is even more apparent....that blood was in her major organs when they were removed, and they would contain blood when being wrapped, and they would leak that into whatever the carryall was. And because it is a ridiculous notion frankly,....If Jack was a poor man he did not keep sticking organs and bloody hands in the pockets of likely the only coat he owns. The ONLY way that would occur is if he is feebleminded, and I personally dont see evidence of that at all. Nuts,...yes. But a genius can be nuts too. Most are...but not violently.

        Cheers all.
        Last edited by perrymason; 10-29-2008, 03:14 AM.

        Comment


        • The reason i instumented these tests was to prove or disprove the various theories surrounding the removal of the organs and the apron piece. There are too many on here who for whatever reason are prepared to easily dismiss new evidence when any is presented and are not prepared to look at it logically.

          The tests were conducted by a forensic pathologist and a consultant gynecologist and an exepreineced enviscerator and for goood measures i also involved a master butcher. All have studied the various murders and the post mortem and doctors reports and have given statements.The gynecologist even states that the way the uterus and its appendages removed from Eddowes looks as though it was done professionally and in a way someone would remove it for medical research

          The marjority of the tests save for the removal of the uterus were carried out under mortuary conditions with bodies that had been opened up and had inestines etc removed in an attempt to re create the crime scene scenario.

          I can do no more than recreate the removal of the organs and wrap them up as it was suggested the killer had done and then photograph the results. The experts all say that it would have been almost impossible for the killer to have removed the kidney under those circumstances, and had the killer removed the organs and used the cloth we show how hevaily bloodstained a cloth would have been.

          Some of the photos I have presented on here and in the book. As a result what i now beleive as do many others that there are now serious doubts about the MO surrounding the murders of Chapman. Eddowes and Kelly.

          I can add no more as i said last night i am not a medical expert but it would seem there are a number on here. If anyone want any clarification into the medical aspects of these tests then if they e mail me their questions i will pass them onto the experts i used and post both the questions and the answers on here. Perhaps hearing and reading the truth from the experts may change the view of the handful of disbelievers.

          FAO Perry Mason
          when the throat is cut i agreee blood would spurt out but death would follow shortly and as you know once the heart stops pumping hardly any more blood would be released so there would still be a lot of blood in the victims body especially in and around the abdomen. The test involving the kidney which had been in a dead body for 48 hours adss testament to the fact that this also heavily stained a cloth. There are photos which show this
          Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-29-2008, 03:22 AM.

          Comment


          • Trevor,

            Just so you are aware, I have asked an Internal Specialist from Spain who was a member here before the "crash", about the skill of removing a kidney through the front, about circulatory rates and bleed out times, about the wounds on Kelly or Kate as compared with Annie and Polly, and about the organs retention of blood when severe trauma has opened major arteries.

            I feel very confident with the position that the organs would have held blood and leaked, and that he would have known that. He had at least one extraction under his belt already.

            Best regards.

            Comment


            • Make sure you ask him how difficult it would be under non hospital conditions with no proper incision to the abdomen and no clamps or retractors and having to work in almost total darkness in an abdomen filled with blood and using a six inch bladed knife. The ask him the same question about the kidney because Eddowes murder is not just about the uterus its the kidney as well.
              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-29-2008, 03:35 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                Make sure you ask him how difficult it would be under non hospital conditions with no proper incision to the abdomen and no clamps or retractors and having to work in almost total darkness in an abdomen filled with blood and using a six inch bladed knife. The ask him the same question about the kidney because Eddowes murder is not just about the uterus its the kidney as well.
                So you're on the same page as I, I never intimated that the uterus was "the" object, or "the" action that would show whether or not he had an skill or knowledge of extractions and anatomy with Kate....but I do say, and so did the doctor, that taking a kidney out through the front in the conditions you point out was nearly miraculous. Annie was said to have her uterus targetted by an attending physician at her Inquest...which alligns fairly well with the comments like "one clean sweep/swoop of the knife". I do not believe anyone has said or suggested that Kate's uterus was the primary target there...and I would disagree probably.

                I personally subscribe to the "I can see three, 5's less likely" mantra, so you know where the comments come from.

                What this says to me is that even with similarities in style and action, these may be very different motivations, or his working his way through a shopping list perhaps. But I dont see the casual cut and grab in either of those two murders myself. In fact, I dont see that in any....the last in the series was wallowing, not coveting or targetting.

                It would have been interesting to have seen what these murders would have been thought of had Polly been in a dark corner, with her liver and partial uterus extracted.

                All the best.

                So Sam doesnt kill me........the organs had blood in em, they leaked into whatever he carried 'em in, and a poor bloke cant soil his coat carrying organs unwrapped in 'em. It aint in the economics of his situation, as it were, to be shopping for coats 3 or 4 times in 3 months, nor can he answer to those who would question why his coat seems to get more stained every murder.

                So...he wrapped them in something, or he discarded the coat after, which would not be in keeping with extreme poverty as winter approached. Think of Kate wearing everything she owned to keep it all safe, but how little it all added up to.

                If not a smeared and stained piece of cloth from the victims body, then what? Another carry-all or hanky...learning or continuing from his experience with Annie? I would buy that. So why does he need the apron, he wipes his hands on his hanky, and places the organs inside after. Why cut and rip an apron in the middle of a deserted court that would have echoed the sounds if not for more important reasons than wiping his hands. And why would he still have it all the way to Goulston? And why wasnt it seen at 2:20 ish?

                Cheers.
                Last edited by perrymason; 10-29-2008, 04:36 AM.

                Comment


                • Blood stinks like hell after it's left lying around for a while. He is not going to stuff some bloody piece of offal directly into his pocket. However I don't understand why he had to cut Eddowes's apron when there were twelve handy menstrual cloths around which would have been more use to him. Menstrual rags on those days were voluminous. A woman folded and refolded them to make sure that all drips were trapped in the cloth. (Yes, I have done my research!) Then they were pinned onto drawers or petticoat. One of those cloths could have wrapped up the uterus very prettily and conveniently for transport. I have to believe he got some faecal matter on his hand and just sliced off something quickly and without thinking to get rid of the disgusting stuff. It might also be possible that a corner drooped into a blood puddle and that's why there is such a concentration of blood there.

                  Comment


                  • but we stil get back to the suggestions that the apron piece was used as a menstrual rag.

                    It is standard practice that when persons are arrsted their property is taken from then documented and kept till they leave the police station. So she would noy have had access to her property.

                    Could it not be feasable that when Eddowes was locked in her cell for many hours she tore the apron piece herself and used it as a menstrual rag discarding it in the archway after she left the police station before meeting her killer.

                    After all it was found screwed up and in a position where you would expect someone would go out of the public view to releive themselves

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                      Could it not be feasable that when Eddowes was locked in her cell for many hours she tore the apron piece herself...
                      As far as we know - and we do not know more or otherwise than it - as to the way the apron was split in two pieces is by the direct testimony of one person who saw it: Major Smith.

                      In his book he is adamant and specific: the apron was cleanly cut and divided in half. Difficult not to notice the clear suggestion that it had been so cut with a knife and by no one else than the killer(s) him(them)self(ves).

                      But here we have Mr Trevor Marriott who conducts very interesting forensics tests of which we should be grateful and which no doubt have absorbed a lot of energy and resources and then procede unfortunately to mutilate facts and butcher truth in saying that the apron was torn instead of leaning on Major Smith visual experience.

                      So the question is not only why the apron was cut but why it was cut in such a symmetrical way. You will have certainly noticed that the 2 inverted 'Vs' were done by the knife each in one cheeck. We could say that the face was carved symmetrically from each side of the nose.

                      The difficulty that Ripperologists encounter in explaining factuals and well documented elements on the crime scene turns them often in some kind of counter-Houdini.
                      Houdini usually let a little rabbit appear out of his hat.
                      Ripperologists let little elements disappear into the realm of the serial killer fairy tale.

                      Following the track of the serial killer has led nowhere for 120 years. There is no reason to think that it will lead somewhere in the next 120.

                      It is my contention that this case might only be solved by Hercule Poirot.
                      He is dead it is true but his nephew still lives in Ellezelles, a little village between the Flanders and Wallonia.
                      He swears me that his great uncle has indeed solved the case.
                      He just didn't let the truth trough at the time of his living because he did not want to hurt his friend Japp of Scotland Yard nor shake his other friend Captain Hastings belief and respect in authority.
                      I believe him.

                      Thx for...well, as usual.
                      Canucco dei Mergi.

                      Comment


                      • Tenacious

                        Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
                        but we stil get back to the suggestions that the apron piece was used as a menstrual rag.
                        It is standard practice that when persons are arrsted their property is taken from then documented and kept till they leave the police station. So she would noy have had access to her property.
                        Could it not be feasable that when Eddowes was locked in her cell for many hours she tore the apron piece herself and used it as a menstrual rag discarding it in the archway after she left the police station before meeting her killer.
                        After all it was found screwed up and in a position where you would expect someone would go out of the public view to releive themselves
                        You are certainly tenacious with your odd idea Trevor. However, it's a nonsense to suggest that Eddowes would have used half of a large apron as a 'menstrual rag'. You only have to look at her property list to see other items that would have served the same purpose such as a large white handkerchief (which was bloodstained), a piece of white coarse linen, a piece of blue and white shirting, 12 pieces of white rag etc., any of which would have served the purpose. It is very unlikely that all those, especially the handkerchief, would have been taken off her at the police station.

                        But the argument that she could have utilised the apron in the cells is a non-starter anyway. First it depends on the unlikely coincidence that the need for a 'menstrual rag' would have arisen during her 4 hours in the cells. It also depends on the unlikely idea that she would ruin a large apron for that purpose but, and this is the killer to your idea, the apron piece was cut and not torn off! She certainly wouldn't have had a knife in the cell. You really do need to re-think this reasoning Trevor, and to master the facts before doing so.
                        Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-29-2008, 02:18 PM.
                        SPE

                        Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                        Comment


                        • Major Smith

                          Originally posted by Canucco dei Mergi View Post
                          But here we have Mr Trevor Marriott who conducts very interesting forensics tests of which we should be grateful and which no doubt have absorbed a lot of energy and resources and then procede unfortunately to mutilate facts and butcher truth in saying that the apron was torn instead of leaning on Major Smith visual experience.
                          The difficulty that Ripperologists encounter in explaining factuals and well documented elements on the crime scene turns them often in some kind of counter-Houdini.
                          Houdini usually let a little rabbit appear out of his hat.
                          Ripperologists let little elements disappear into the realm of the serial killer fairy tale.
                          Following the track of the serial killer has led nowhere for 120 years. There is no reason to think that it will lead somewhere in the next 120.
                          Canucco dei Mergi.
                          No need to quote the often unreliable Major Smith here, for the inquest evidence (see Inspector Collard's evidence) shows that the apron was cut and not torn.

                          I find the general reference to 'Ripperologists' here slightly insulting, as not all of them fit this description. As for the case never being solved, I have stated this for many years, my argument being that if the evidence to prove who the killer was didn't exist in 1888, then it is certainly is not going to be found today.

                          As for Hercule Poirot, well I don't think that that dapper little gent would get involved in a case like this.
                          Last edited by Stewart P Evans; 10-29-2008, 02:24 PM.
                          SPE

                          Treat me gently I'm a newbie.

                          Comment


                          • Good point about the twelve additional rags, Chava, but it's worth bearing in mind that he may not of known of their existence in the darkness of Mitre Square, or if he did, whether they absorbant enough to take on the job.

                            Comment


                            • is it possible to distinguish with the naked eye the difference between a cut and a tear involving a apron piece of this size. I think not and to prove that point i have done some tests on a white apron.

                              One part of the apron was cut with a sharp knife the other with tearing. Almost identical to the naked eye. These photos were taken close up

                              Stewart you know as well as i do that when drunken persons are placed in cells they invaribale shout and scream asking to get out and are usually ignored for long periods of time. So there could have come a point in time when Eddowes needed the use of such a rag and physically tore a piece of her own apron off.

                              The problem i am having is that having if we rule out the possibilty that the organs were taken away in the apron piece and that jack did not use it to wipe his hands on what are we left with ?
                              Attached Files
                              Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-29-2008, 05:23 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Oh but yes Stewart, Hercule Poirot had been once involved in a case like the one here.
                                It all happened in the 30s I guess while he was living in your country.
                                He got involved in a series of crimes in the company of his longstanding friend Captain Hastings (who came back from Argentina to give him a visit).
                                A killer eliminated his victims with the help of the alphabet (the press at the time called this affair: the ABC murders) somewhere along the south coast of Britain.
                                Monsieur Poirot found the case extremely captivating and he used a lot when he went back for period of vacations in Ellezelles - where Monsieur Poirot was born in 1850 -to tell his brother about it, comparing it with the 'Jack the Ripper' case.
                                It was at that time that he began to think about 'Jack'.

                                I apologize for not having remembered Inspr Collard but one can't remember everything (except if the one in question is Stewart Evans ) in this affair so full of elements to be remembered (and replaced together as Monsieur Poirot used to say ).
                                But Major Smith is before any other in my mind concerning this detail because he was the only one to underline the fact that the apron was cut exactly in half.
                                If sometimes Major Smith may be considered unreliable (the episode of the bloody water in the Dorset street sink is a bit stretched I concede) he often is such when he adds dramatization to events in order to propell its own action.
                                In the case of the apron, he states about the cutting in half just as to say a mere curiosity, he has nothing to gain from it.
                                Your point is well done nevertheless since in this case Major Smith description is confirmed and thus rendered more credible by Insp. Collard testimony.
                                All in all I would say that we may be quite certain that the apron:
                                - was cut (and not torn);
                                - was cut in two pieces that more or less could be considered having the same surface.

                                I apologize even more if I sounded insulting.
                                It was only but a bit of irony.
                                Of course I know that one Ripperologist is not another.
                                But if I had to do a list to distinguish the good from the bad it would have been so boring only second to the one of the fathers of Jesus in three of the Ghospels.
                                And who am I anyway to believe myself to be capable of distinguishing the good from the bad ?
                                And I would like here to thank you for all the good work you do for this case.
                                And I do not refer here to the books you wrote but also to the constant abnegation, seriousness and sense of the honour and sincerity with which you face everlasting criticism.
                                A lesson of life in itself.
                                Not to speak about the way you treat subject: many college professors should ask advice to you believe me.
                                Not kidding when I got knowledge that you have been a provincial police officer all the english police got a promotion in my mind.
                                Once again, thank you for all to you, Mr Fido, Mr Begg (then in second but only in second to Mr Sugden and Mr Skinner and all others that have written and spoken about the subject).
                                If I know something today on the subject is thanks to you.

                                But I try to be a reasonable man.
                                I must put doubt in front of what I consider granted and accept it only if experience does not contradict it.
                                I must consider that all police officers in England are not Stewart Evans.
                                I must consider that 'Ripperology' could have been completely fooled off by its own selfconfidence in the way it has considered the 'Whitechapel murders case' (notice that I say the 'Whitechapel murder case' and not the 'Jack the Ripper case').
                                And there is where I use irony (or try to).
                                Not to insult but as a way to transmit a message.

                                Stewart Evans, I have no doubt that you are a genuine researcher and very competent but as a reasonable man and a genuine investigator myself (whatever my degree of competence) I had to put in doubt everything you say not for the fun but because this is a normal first step to begin a research: sweeping away any preconception.

                                By this simple first move I avoid the mistake of many authors.
                                If I may I will use the case of Mr Trevor Marriott who is graciously offering his presence on these boards and might (with no obligation) be able to answer.
                                I could do the same for any other author excepted no one.
                                Mr Trevor Marriott has not long ago written a very interesting book on the subject beginning a new line of investigation.
                                He offers the reader unexplored ways and uses new methods of investigation which brings him to interesting solutions as to where to look for the serial killer 'Jack the Ripper', this mysterious guy who raised from nowhere and disappeared nowhere 120 years ago seemingly having come to existence in this world only to have a good lough at killing a bunch of deteriorated prostitutes.

                                And this is the mistake of Mr Trevor Marriott which has been also yours and of all other 'Ripperologists' - and there is where I put all 'Ripperologists' in the same basket, not to insult or not because I am not aware of the difference in value (so huge that you can't even measure it with a telescope) between you and the guy who found 'Jack' to be his uncle.
                                The mistake consisting in the belief that ones begins a new investigation when the same one doesn't begin it at all: he starts it half the way down a road (accepting that the whole of the search is for a man who was a serial killer) that not even half a clue can assure it is the good one.
                                Authors begin an investigation by taking as granted that we have to look for the name of a serial killer (acting alone or not doesn't matter, it's only a detail) without even warning the reader that it is nothing less than a theory.

                                Ripperology is today (and has ever been from the Masonic theory fiasco) selfembedded and embroiled in the preconceived idea not supported by any factual element that the 'Whitechapel murders' and the 'Jack the Ripper crimes' are two different things.
                                But this comes only because it has been decided, put forward as a dogma not worth to be discussed anymore that this affair is a serial killer affair.
                                Indeed this conception deserves the same rightheous criticism that has been spread on the Masonic one: distorting the facts to fit the theory.

                                Conceptually speaking you can even start by believing it but if you write a book on the subject you should never, never begin by stating it as a fact.
                                Because there is absolutely no element to support this splitting of the case and if this is done and accepted it is only in order to have something to say (developing the affair by the serial killer perspective).
                                But you say it based on a preconceived idea: the serial killer model integrated in the Whitechapel murders.

                                Is it not the consequent butchery of the facts - the dismissal of more than half of the victims, the elimination of the letters from the pertinence of the case, the non consideration of the trunck found on the second of October at Whitehall, the lowergrading status of the Goulston street graffito to the level of mere coincidence not to speak about the case that it's done (indeed not done) with the kidney sent to Lusk and the avoidance from any rational explanation of all the little mysteries of the crime scenes (shall I name the two weapons used to kill the woman Tabram, the cachous, the grapes, the apron, the Maxwell sight or the stick used to split the woman Smith) - is it not this butchery enough to ironize (as I do or try to do) the conclusion of the work of the 'Ripperologists' ?

                                It is not the work, Stewart, that I ironize.
                                This has been extraordinary to a very large extent.
                                It is the conclusion it has led to.
                                Still, I would never dare to insult it.

                                As for solving the case: we agree that no serial killer's name will ever fit the case.
                                We probably do not agree on the why.
                                For me, because there has never been a serial killer preying prostitutes in Whitechapel in 1888.
                                Oh I say no.

                                Thx, thx, thx Stewart for having managed to come till this point of my post.
                                Canucco dei Mergi
                                Last edited by Canucco dei Mergi; 10-29-2008, 07:35 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X