The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Canucco dei Mergi]

1. Insp Collard would have kown the difference between a cut and a tear someone suggested. Well i would contest that.

[Canucco dei Mergi]

4.As far as the apron piece is concerned we can only try to imagine what state it was by the decsription left to us. That description to me does not conjuour up a heavily blood stained apron quite the contrary. It is suggested that the apron was used for either to take the organs away in or to wipe his hand and the knife on.

As i have stated the tests carried out were done with a view to either proving or disproving the aforementioned scenarios. The photograhic results of both tests go a long way to clearly show both scenarios to not now be relied upon.

It is now up to individuals as to whether they accept of reject the new tests and the results.

For those who will obvioulsy reject them outright i would say come forward and present evidence to support your own theories instead of keep posting wild uncorrobrated wild speculative theories snd dismissing outright what others suggest. Its quite simple put up or shut up !!!!!!!!

That both scenarios are not to be relied upon is certainly a good thing to say.

That the test carried out by Mr Trevor Marriott are necessary or just useful to support it it's a very difficult thing to defend.
Not the least because we do not have a picture of the woman's Eddowes apron but just a mere description that allows for a lot of possible interpretations.
It is unfortunate but likely that Mr Trevor Marriott by stating what it does the way he does it gives more strength to his critics and supporter of the two scenarios aforementioned.

The proposal of Mr Marriott of presenting new evidence or just evidence (what kind of evidence anyway ?) to support a theory is an old trick used in Ripperology to scare away any possibility to reason outside the box and the sempiternal serial killer conception of the affair which has now been destroying the case for more than 30 years (a conception whichj, of course, is not supported by any kind of evidence but by authors selfconfidence and lack of other explanations).

I do not need to make any test in order to reject the two classical scenarios, just reasoning sitting in my living room.
And of course, going for Occam's razor in most logical behavioural possibilities given facts as we know them and accepting them as such.

The possibility that the apron has been used to clean the knife on it is more than that: it is a reality.
We have testimony that there were 'knife bloody smears on it.
But this is accessory since in no way the murderer would have needed to cut half the apron to clean the knife.
He would have done it on site (in Mitre Square) while the apron was on the body of the victim without losing time at cutting it.

Indeed this is what he likely did on the woman Stride body which thing explain the bloody right hand of the woman (in the dark he just thought he was rubbing the knife on her dress).

The possibility that the cut piece of apron was used to transport the organs is not even a speculation.
Is just a mere intellectual ejaculation.
If a priori it could be a possibility (but one has to notice - without nevertheless drawing any definitive conclusion by it - that in the murder of the woman Chapman this did not happen), this fall to piece by the simple fact that the apron is found in Goulston street without any organ inside it and without any residual of them (kind of abdominal fat for example) that could have led the investigators to that surmise.

There are of course people who states that having come to Goulston street the organ-lover decided that after all a kidney and a womb were better in the pocket that in the piece of apron but there are also people that believe beating a rock with a stick is sufficient to get water from it.
They both have in common a lack of basic logical understanding which prevent them from linking a cause to a consequence.
Nothing dangerous anyway but nothing for me to waste time with.

So why the piece oif apron was cut and taken away ?

The only left solution that gives you a rationality behind it, is by thinking the purpose of the piece of apron to link the murder(s) with the Goulston street Graffito.

Incidentally you are brought to ponder that if this was the aim it would have been absolutely necessary for the murderer(s) to be sure that the piece of apron was to be found.
By a policeman on the beat they could not have been sure.
By the bloodhounds of which the newspaper were full they certainly were.
To think then that with this thought in their mind after cutting the piece of apron they purposedly soaked it with blood and faeces to give the bloodhounds a quick olfactuous (is that english ?) trail there is but only few inches.

Does one need evidence to speak ?
No, just good sense and take time to use the little grey cells.

So, apologizing for my impertinence with Mr Trevor Marriott I would say that even with no evidence I will (for the moment) not shut up!!!!!!!!!

[Ben]

The possibility that the cut piece of apron was used to transport the organs is not even a speculation. Is just a mere intellectual ejaculation.

Actually, it's a pretty reasonable deduction given the evidence. I've already suggested why it didn't happen at the Chapman murder; he learned the hard way, discovering that gunk-lined pockets could easily be avoided by making use of free bits of material, and resolved to rectify that oversight at the next murder.

[Monty]

Before i finally opt out of this debate i would reply to a number of issue raised by other memebers.

1. Insp Collard would have kown the difference between a cut and a tear someone suggested. Well i would contest that. He might have if he had been a female who sows a lot or a dress maker but to the ordinary man i would suggest not. i would be honest enough to say i personally would have difficulty its not every day you are involved with handling cut or torn garments and asked to distinguish

2. Someone else stated it would only take 30 seconds to get to Goulston St from Mitre Square i dont somehow think this is correct.

3. As far as the direction of travel of the killer is concerned i have no views on that issue the truth is no one knows for sure like lots of issues everyone just speculates.

4.As far as the apron piece is concerned we can only try to imagine what state it was by the decsription left to us. That description to me does not conjuour up a heavily blood stained apron quite the contrary. It is suggested that the apron was used for either to take the organs away in or to wipe his hand and the knife on.

As i have stated the tests carried out were done with a view to either proving or disproving the aforementioned scenarios. The photograhic results of both tests go a long way to clearly show both scenarios to not now be relied upon.

It is now up to individuals as to whether they accept of reject the new tests and the results.

For those who will obvioulsy reject them outright i would say come forward and present evidence to support your own theories instead of keep posting wild uncorrobrated wild speculative theories snd dismissing outright what others suggest. Its quite simple put up or shut up !!!!!!!!

Anyone would think youre trying to sell a book Trevor.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

No not trying to sell a book just suggesting people consider modern day expert testimony backed up with photos which tend to negate the accepted theories which some of you still seem to rely on

[Ally]

The argument of whether it was cut or torn is irrelevant. Eddowes did not cut or tear her own apron, so whether it was cut or torn, it was done by Jack.

Every single woman on the planet has been caught flat-footed at some time or another. The idea that a woman would slice or tear up her skirt when she had a stack of washcloths available to use is absolutely asinine and only could be proposed by a man. And in modern equivalents that's what we are talking about: a woman choosing to tear up her clothing (one of the few meager possessions she has) to use, when she's got a pile of rags that she could use instead. And even if, if, she had somehow been caught flatfooted in the police station and been deprived of her possessions in the scant few hours she was incarcerated, I am fairly sure all she'd have had to do was ASK for one of her cloths and it would have been presented to her if they'd actually bothered to divest her of them in the first place, which I HIGHLY doubt. And she had handkerchiefs in her pockets as well and I am fairly sure they didn't strip search her, even if they took away the bags the cloths were in. We are talking about a couple hours in the drunk tank, not a strip you of your worldly goods and incarcerate you indefinitely scenario.

It's ridiculous. All the tests in the world aren't going to mitigate the ludicrous nature of the basic presumption: No woman is ever going to start slicing up an important article of clothing to use in that manner under that scenario. It isn't dire enough.

Jack cut the apron. Jack carried it away with him for whatever reason; most logically to clean himself/the knife. Jack dropped it.

[c.d.]

As far as the cut/tear debate goes, why does it have to be either/or? Perhaps the apron was cut as Jack did his thing. When done, he decides he needs the piece of apron and rips the piece that had already been cut.

Works for me.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

Hi Sam and Wick

Long was not aware at the time (upon finding the apron section 2:55) that any murder had been commited, and yet a piece of cloth in a darkened steet aroused his attention, not only that, his behavior upon finding the apron clearly shows that he suspected foul play. It seems so unlikely to me.

What possibly concerns you is that within the five minutes of finding a bloodstained apron, only then, that is after he saw the apron, but before he left to report his finding at the Station, this is when he heard of another murder.
He does say that he left to find another constable to stand watch for him, therefore, we might be allowed to assume that this other PC was the source of Long's information that another murder had been committed.

There's nothing mysterious about this.

[Supe]

Observer,

To follow up on Wickerman's observation, you should beasr in my that PC Long had been drafted in from A division because of a serires of murders that plagued the area and were already exciting people around the globe. This was his first night on his new beat and he finds part of a woman's apron with fresh blood. Rather doubtrful he would think "bloody nose" or a menstrual flow expedient. Indeed, iit is hard not to believe he thought of anything but murder and, if he had any ambition at all, just possibly a promotion shortcut.

Don.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ally
its been said before that Eddowes would have had her property taken from her when she arrived at the police station and not had it given back to her until she left so during that time in custody she would not have had access to her property.

Now i dont want to get to personal but i will be expletive.
If that aperon piece had been used as a temporary mentsrual rag the description of how it was found is consitent with this.

1. A smearing of faecal matter and blood spotted and wet.

all consitent with having been placed between her legs. part touching her anus. [part touching her vagina where blood spooting could have eminated from. Being wet conistent with her being incontinent at some point. and being screwed up and discarded therafter.

As far as the apron piece and jack are concerned they are quite simple, working back on the accpeted scenarios.

Q. Did Jack remove the organs as has been suggested
A Experts and tests tend to show this to have been unlikely by reason of the degree of difficulty involved in removing the organs given the crime scene the light available and also the degree of difficulty involved in removing the organs in particular the kidney. Now anyone wants to argue this point fine because its not all me championing this issue the experts i used are all in agreement they have studied the post mortem reports and the doctors testimony so if 3 respected medical experts confirm what i have suggested and backed it up with signed statements its not for me to question.

Q Did Jack cut the apron piece to wipe his hands and or his knife on.
A. Again the tests and photographs also tend to disprove this by the way the apron piece was desribed. if he had used the apron piece to wipe his hands on and the knife surely one side would have been the mark of the knife being cleaned and on the other a bloody hand mark where he had held the apron piece while cleaning the knife.None of the reports from 1888 to me suggest the apron piece was used in either way. Had that been the case i am sure it would have been so described. It still remains being described as spotted with blood with a smearing of faecal matter and wet on one corner. Not a mention of being blood soaked or heavily blood stained which is what the tests showed re creating the removal of the organs.

If you rule out the aforementioned accpetd scenarios relating to 1888 the question is who cut/tore the apron piece and how did it get to where it was found.

[Ally]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;51630]Ally

ts been said before that Eddowes would have had her property taken from her when she arrived at the police station and not had it given back to her until she left so during that time in custody she would not have had access to her property.

And considering they didn't divest her of her numerous skirts and other apparel I sincerely doubt they went into her pockets and took her handkerchiefs.

And if she'd suddenly started bleeding and yelled for a rag, I am pretty sure they would have given it to her. She was not incommunicado during the period. We have testimony of her talking to the police and being a bit saucy with them. If she'd needed a rag, she could have asked for one. And you don't think she'd have said something if she'd needed to damage her apron while being held? Given them grief? Every cop in the world knew that apron was being considered evidence. You don't think with all the other testimony about her incarceration one wouldn't have mentioned she'd ripped her own apron while in the cell? She didn't have a problem talking back to the cops. If she'd needed a rag, she surely would have ASKED for one first, before damaging a valuable possession.

Now i dont want to get to personal but i will be expletive.
If that aperon piece had been used as a temporary mentsrual rag the description of how it was found is consitent with this.

Okay. I don't mind being personal and I'll be expletive. Trevor, have you ever in your entire life been on the rag?

1. A smearing of faecal matter and blood spotted and wet.
all consitent with having been placed between her legs. part touching her anus. [part touching her vagina where blood spooting could have eminated from. Being wet conistent with her being incontinent at some point. and being screwed up and discarded therafter.

In those 250 times, I have never once crapped myself and ended up with both blood and fecal matter on my pad or undergarments. Contrary to your apparent belief, women don't leak from every orifice while menstruating. But considering the fact that Eddowes had no undergarments, this entire thing is absolutely ridiculous because she would have had no way of supporting a folded up pad in the manner you describe except to use it as a make shift tampon in which case it wouldn't have come in contact with any fecal matter And I think the coppers might have noticed if she'd walked out holding a wadded up rag between her legs to staunch the flow.

So what is the more likely scenario? That the blood and fecal matter got on her apron when she was viciously disemboweled, or she just happened to go on the rag, AND become incontinent while in prison somewhere between sleeping, singing and snapping at the officers? And that bleeding and incontinent, she leaves the police station in apparent good spirits and rather than hotfooting it back home, no, bleeding and crapping herself, she goes off in the opposite direction?

[Dave O]

Hi Trevor and Ally,

Well, there are people more qualified than I am to answer this, but I believe that in the Metropolitan force, regulations forbad searching the pockets of intoxicated people, or anyone else that wasn't charged with a felony (according to inquest testimony from 1864, related to A division).

Trevor, do you have a source that procedure in the City of London was different in Victorian times?

Cheers,
Dave

[perrymason]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;51538]

2. Someone else stated it would only take 30 seconds to get to Goulston St from Mitre Square i dont somehow think this is correct.

3. As far as the direction of travel of the killer is concerned i have no views on that issue the truth is no one knows for sure like lots of issues everyone just speculates.

QUOTE]

Those were technically mine, although point two only if dyslexic. I said give me one logical explanation for him holding a hand wipe like the apron section for more than 30 seconds...the implication was of course that Goulston was much father than 30 seconds would get him.

The second point you dismiss casually as another issue full of opinion and folly, when in fact that question has direct bearing on the issue of the timing of the placement, and therefore the nature of it. And a potential for a message nearby to be one that was intentionally close to the apron.

Thanks Jane, I wasnt looking for bravos, just wanted to re-iterate that the killer in all liklihood, if planning on doing something similar to Annie, would have given it forethought. And again, if you like a poor local man for Jack, then you like a man with very probably one coat.

Its nice to have you posting Jane, missed ya.

[perrymason]

Hi Dave O,

If I may take a shot at that, as Ally said, or was it Jane, forgive me ladies, that Catherine had on her a kitchen knife, I believe bone or similar type grip. I cannot see letting an intoxicated person into a solitary holding cell with the means to threaten a guard or kill herself.

Ergo, I would imagine that they did in fact search D & D's, particularly in a very dangerous time.

Cheers.

[Howard Brown]

Its been said before that Eddowes would have had her property taken from her when she arrived at the police station and not had it given back to her until she left so during that time in custody she would not have had access to her property. -Trevor

Are we sure that that would include non-threatening items,such as strips of cloth and a thimble? And by the way, if she did begin to menstruate,which of course we don't know one way or the other if she could...and since she had her possessions taken from her...how the heck did she cut her apron? With what amounts to a butter knife ( white handled table knife) ? She might as well have used her socks by the time she cut through an apron with a dull instrument.



Every single woman on the planet has been caught flat-footed at some time or another. The idea that a woman would slice or tear up her skirt when she had a stack of washcloths available to use is absolutely asinine and only could be proposed by a man. --Ally

I want to report a plagiarism to the management of this here establishment by Ally. I had already said that before and I AM a man. And she's right on both counts