The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Trevor Marriott]

A 3/4" blade (by example) stabbed through her clothing will produce a 3/4" cut in her clothing, likely ringed with blood.
Such a cut will line up with the same size puncture in her skin, that would be evidence of her being stabbed.
There are no such cuts or wounds to her clothes or body.

But a 3-4 inch knife drawn down 10ins will produce a 10inch cut to the clothing which is what we have !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

The medical evidence indicates some internal organs were punctured by the point of a knife, yes, as the killer removed organs he accidentally cut the liver with the point of his knife. There is no evidence to support the idea the killer stabbed her body through her clothing.

There is a difference between cutting/slicing, and puncturing, and you dont know he accidentally cut the liver, the doctors states the liver was stabbed through, thats not cutting is it?

Her skirts have slices, cuts near the waist bad, once again, produced by him cutting into her abdomen through the skirts.

But he would not have needed to cut through her skirts if he had lifted them up because the abdomen and the lower part would have already been exposed

A 3/4" blade (by example) stabbed through her clothing will produce a 3/4" cut in her clothing, likely ringed with blood.
Such a cut will line up with the same size puncture in her skin, that would be evidence of her being stabbed.
There are no such cuts or wounds to her clothes or body.

If a person is lying flat on the ground facing up, and you stab that person through their clothing and draw the knife down or across, you will make a cut in that clothing the length of whatever distance you draw the knife, and if she had been wearing an apron then that would also have had the same cuts to it

“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

There are 2 different sets of cuts which match up.

There was a stab wound to the groin, the pic clearly show that the knife was drawn down after she was stabbed so that goes a long way to suggest that sh was stabbed thorugh her clothing, there would have been no need for the killer to inflict a wound to that part of the body after pulling the clothes up and targetting the abdomen.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

The liver wound may have been a biopsy.

[Wickerman]

All those internal wounds, to her peritoneum, to her liver, aorta, etc. are not the result of stab wounds. There are no piercings on the skin in line with these wounds. It would seem they came as a result of him mutilating her organs after the abdomen was opened.
She was not stabbed in the abdomen at all.

Well Brown describes them as stabs after all he was there not you ! So Brown is wrong when he describes those stab wounds? what is an incision if it is not an opening there is a differnev betrween an incision and a cut as Brown desrcibes

Def of incision
an opening that is made in something with a sharp tool, especially in someone's body during an operation:

So why would the killer mutilate the organs if he wanted to harvest them doesnt make sense?

There are NO stab wounds through her clothing, her clothes were all thrown UP!

Trevor.

We know her liver was stabbed, that is not the issue.
The liver was likely stabbed due to the knife lunged into her breast to begin opening the abdomen, the liver is directly behind the start point for that incision. So there is the reason for that single stab, and it was made through her skirts, that much is evident.
You have said she was stabbed through her clothing, that the cuts in her clothing line up with stab wounds.
Where are these other stab wounds that line up with cuts in her clothing?

The medical evidence indicates some internal organs were punctured by the point of a knife, yes, as the killer removed organs he accidentally cut the liver with the point of his knife. There is no evidence to support the idea the killer stabbed her body through her clothing.

Her skirts have slices, cuts near the waist bad, once again, produced by him cutting into her abdomen through the skirts.

A 3/4" blade (by example) stabbed through her clothing will produce a 3/4" cut in her clothing, likely ringed with blood.
Such a cut will line up with the same size puncture in her skin, that would be evidence of her being stabbed.
There are no such cuts or wounds to her clothes or body.

[Wickerman]

So according to you Collard was sharp enough to notice this mythical Z slash in her chemise, but not sharp enough to notice whether or not she was wearing an apron !

Just for your info Collards official inquest testimony makes no mention of a Z slash " White calico chemise very much blood stained all over, apparently torn thus in middle of front"

Just a minute....you don't even have the original inquest papers!

Here you are contesting the press versions, that you can only trust the original record, and you don't even possess the original record!

Consider your deceptive self thoroughly exposed!

Serious researchers make an effort to obtain the original documents.

Read, and weep....

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, we all should be aware of that solitary stab to her pubic area, but the Z cut in her chemise is not specifically located; top, bottom, side, front or back, we simply don't know. So, you are in no position to argue that this slash Z lines up with any cuts to her body.

So according to you Collard was sharp enough to notice this mythical Z slash in her chemise, but not sharp enough to notice whether or not she was wearing an apron !

Just for your info Collards official inquest testimony makes no mention of a Z slash " White calico chemise very much blood stained all over, apparently torn thus in middle of front"

Dr. Brown also tells us there were no blood stains on the front of her clothes, that her clothes had been thrown up to expose the lower abdomen.

The blood stains were linked to the cuts in her clothing read the descriptions again and suggest blood seeing through from the wounds !

All those internal wounds, to her peritoneum, to her liver, aorta, etc. are not the result of stab wounds. There are no piercings on the skin in line with these wounds. It would seem they came as a result of him mutilating her organs after the abdomen was opened.
She was not stabbed in the abdomen at all.

Well Brown describes them as stabs after all he was there not you ! So Brown is wrong when he describes those stab wounds? what is an incision if it is not an opening there is a differnev betrween an incision and a cut as Brown desrcibes

Def of incision
an opening that is made in something with a sharp tool, especially in someone's body during an operation:

So why would the killer mutilate the organs if he wanted to harvest them doesnt make sense?

There are NO stab wounds through her clothing, her clothes were all thrown UP!

I am not disputing that, so if they were all thrown up presumably for the killer to see what he was doing or to make the mutilations easier there would be no need for the killer to make the cuts to her clothing. If the clothing was drawn up then I would expect to see the same length of cuts all going in the same direction, but that is not the case.

I have previoulsy posted report about Halse where he is not mentioned as being presnet at the mortuary when the body was stripped and that I belive is correct. His statement is ambiguous "I saw deceased stripped" he arrived after the body had been stripped. I just thought I would clear up that ambiguity

You are hard work

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

No it wouldn't, because it wasn't.
Contrary to your apparent belief, these officers of the law in the late 19th century did not think the way you do.



According to me, that is precisely what we should expect to see. Because, according to me, the apron was removed before the mutilations began.
I can only suggest what the evidence indicates, and it indicates the piece of apron was sliced off before he mutilated her abdomen.



Halse told us that the remaining piece was not noticed until she was laid out at the mortuary, so if Dr Brown had noticed it at the murder scene, that would contest Halse, so this observation alone tends to support what Halse said.
We do not know how large that remaining piece was, didn't major Smith say something about it was a bib?
Well, a bib both in size & shape resembles a handkerchief, a bit large perhaps, but Collard did say what was around her neck looked like a large white handkerchief.

So, Brown didn't see it, or he would have drawn it. Halse didn't see it until the mortuary. Collard didn't recognise it because he had no idea she had been wearing an apron.

Why doesn't any of this make sense to you?

Because you are making up as you go along to suit your own agenda !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

Well you stick with that, anything to avoid accepting the obvious based on the real evidence

Some people do just not want to accept anything that deviates from the old accepted theories even though they are proven to be to be now unsafe. Time and time again certain posters, and you included keep coming back with explanations as to why the old accepted theories are right and anything new is not. It called desperate tactics

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

It's all right there in the original inquest record.
It seems like you are getting a little confused.

[Wickerman]

I suppose this is from another newspaper?

No Trevor, it was straight from the original handwritten list by Collard.
And, it was from the Eddowes inquest, not Chapman, not Stride, and certainly not Polly Nichols !

If it was said then it goes to support the belief that she was stabbed through her outer clothing as the wound that opened the abdomen would have formed a Z shaped jagged incision and made through the clothing.

Yes, we all should be aware of that solitary stab to her pubic area, but the Z cut in her chemise is not specifically located; top, bottom, side, front or back, we simply don't know. So, you are in no position to argue that this slash Z lines up with any cuts to her body.

Dr. Brown also tells us there were no blood stains on the front of her clothes, that her clothes had been thrown up to expose the lower abdomen.
Isn't this what I've been telling you, and I'm talking about Eddowes here, not Nichols

All those internal wounds, to her peritoneum, to her liver, aorta, etc. are not the result of stab wounds. There are no piercings on the skin in line with these wounds. It would seem they came as a result of him mutilating her organs after the abdomen was opened.
She was not stabbed in the abdomen at all.

Dr Browns testimony on the topic

There were no injuries about the body until just about the lower part of the abdomen. Two or three inches from the left side was a wound running in a jagged manner. The wound was a very deep one, and the tissues were cut through. There were several incisions running across the abdomen. There were three or four similar cuts running downwards, on the right side, all of which had been caused by a knife, which had been used violently and downwards.

I think this shows she was stabbed through her outer clothing !

There are NO stab wounds through her clothing, her clothes were all thrown UP!

[Wickerman]

If she had been wearing an apron, or been found with an apron with a piece missing it would have been recorded as "One old white apron with piece missing"....

No it wouldn't, because it wasn't.
Contrary to your apparent belief, these officers of the law in the late 19th century did not think the way you do.

Also take note that there were no cuts described in either the GS piece or the mortuary piece other than the parts where the two had been joined at one point in time. If he cut the clothing around the abdomen as you suggest why was there no cuts to this mammoth apron she was wearing according to you?

According to me, that is precisely what we should expect to see. Because, according to me, the apron was removed before the mutilations began.
I can only suggest what the evidence indicates, and it indicates the piece of apron was sliced off before he mutilated her abdomen.

......and i notice you make no mention of my observations on your suggestion that apron being found up around her neck, when the sketch clearly shows nothing of the sortb ut does highlight the neck wound

One pic is worth a thousand words !

Halse told us that the remaining piece was not noticed until she was laid out at the mortuary, so if Dr Brown had noticed it at the murder scene, that would contest Halse, so this observation alone tends to support what Halse said.
We do not know how large that remaining piece was, didn't major Smith say something about it was a bib?
Well, a bib both in size & shape resembles a handkerchief, a bit large perhaps, but Collard did say what was around her neck looked like a large white handkerchief.

So, Brown didn't see it, or he would have drawn it. Halse didn't see it until the mortuary. Collard didn't recognise it because he had no idea she had been wearing an apron.

Why doesn't any of this make sense to you?

[DJA]

A mere two stabs does not mean that she was "stabbed several times". Quite the contrary; indeed, only the stab on the left groin could conceivably be considered deliberate, and even that was quite possibly a slip of the knife.

Looks like Jack might have removed inguinal lymph nodes.

[Trevor Marriott]

One day, should the worst happen, your theory may become old and accepted (it's already half way there), and you'll be forced to abandon it for any old new theory that comes along.

The truth will never die, but old accepted theories will not live forever

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Well Sam, responding to a post here, and addressing the content of it, with an explanation as to why there can be no assumption that Kates killer intended to take anything.

Fine, Michael, but you could have left it focused on Eddowes, without bringing the other victims into the discussion. Comparison between victims is only germane to what happened across the series as a whole, not to the specific matter of how Eddowes' apron was acquired and what the killer might or might not have done with it.

[Abby Normal]

One day, should the worst happen, your theory may become old and accepted (it's already half way there), and you'll be forced to abandon it for any old new theory that comes along.

Hi Joshua
Theres no way in hell this "theory" will ever become accepted. Its just another desperate and misguided attempt by the jealous tin foil hat crack pot crowd to rock the boat and try to come up with something new and different no matter how ridiculous. something that, unfortunately, has been clogging and polluting these boards with alarming frequency lately.

[Michael W Richards]

Well Sam, responding to a post here, and addressing the content of it, with an explanation as to why there can be no assumption that Kates killer intended to take anything. Which in turn is related to the thread premise.