The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Sam Flynn]

There is no indication at all in this murder that the killer showed us that he intended to take anything, in fact the apron section might well represent that. Only the organs taken from Annie Chapman were apparently targeted according to the opinion of the man who conducted the autopsy, (who is also the ONLY physician who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death), and he did not see the same hand at wok with Kate. To assume she was killed for an organ harvest, as its evident Annie was, and just as evident that Liz was NOT, is a mistake. The organ theft may well have to do with creating perceptions that satisfying desires.

Good grief! The discussion was recently moved to this thread because the Goulston Street Graffiti thread had started to disappear down an Eddowes' Apron rabbit hole. Now you've brought up your favourite topic of whether Chapman, Eddowes and Stride were killed by different people... which is a very different, and much bigger, topic than Eddowes' apron.

Why can't people exercise a little bit of self-control and try to remain at least vaguely on-topic?

[Michael W Richards]

You come up with explanations but you have no proof. The doctor references stabs, now a stab is stab, not a cut !

The cuts in the clothing were not made after the clothes were pulled up, what would be the point if the killer was trying to get access to the abdomen, and why would he stab the abdomen if harvesting organs were his motive that would likely as not damage any organs he might be seeking.

The theory that the killer took the organs is dwindling rapidly each time this topic is discussed as are the action of the killer at the crime scene.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There is no indication at all in this murder that the killer showed us that he intended to take anything, in fact the apron section might well represent that. Only the organs taken from Annie Chapman were apparently targeted according to the opinion of the man who conducted the autopsy, (who is also the ONLY physician who saw 4 of 5 Canonicals in death), and he did not see the same hand at wok with Kate. To assume she was killed for an organ harvest, as its evident Annie was, and just as evident that Liz was NOT, is a mistake. The organ theft may well have to do with creating perceptions that satisfying desires.

[Sam Flynn]

You come up with explanations but you have no proof. The doctor references stabs, now a stab is stab, not a cut !

Strawman argument - I never denied they were stabs. I pointed out that these two, and only two, stabs were (a) probably accidental, the one to the liver almost certainly so because it's encased inside a body cavity; and (b) because of where they were located - liver and genitals - they were extremely unlikely to have come about due to the killer's cutting her garments.

[Joshua Rogan]

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.

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

I am respecting the evidence, and the definition of "stabbed several times", which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be used to describe a mere two stabs - one of which happened INSIDE a body cavity and thus couldn't have been caused as a result of cutting the clothing. The other was in the genital area, so - given that Eddowes was wearing no underwear - is unlikely to be have cut through her clothing either.

And please stop trotting out that tiresome "accepting old accepted theories" mantra. I don't work like that.

You come up with explanations but you have no proof. The doctor references stabs, now a stab is stab, not a cut !

The cuts in the clothing were not made after the clothes were pulled up, what would be the point if the killer was trying to get access to the abdomen, and why would he stab the abdomen if harvesting organs were his motive that would likely as not damage any organs he might be seeking.

The theory that the killer took the organs is dwindling rapidly each time this topic is discussed as are the action of the killer at the crime scene.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

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

I am respecting the evidence, and the definition of "stabbed several times", which cannot by any stretch of the imagination be used to describe a mere two stabs - one of which happened INSIDE a body cavity and thus couldn't have been caused as a result of cutting the clothing. The other was in the genital area, so - given that Eddowes was wearing no underwear - is unlikely to be have cut through her clothing either.

And please stop trotting out that tiresome "accepting old accepted theories" mantra. I don't work like that.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

The stab to the liver was most certainly accidental. Certainly, one cannot stab the liver without puncturing the skin and, as no stab to the skin was recorded in that area, the wound to the liver was probably a byproduct of the killer inserting the knife to make the long cut that opened the abdominal wall.

Apart from all that, it's quite possible that these stabs were made after Eddowes' clothing had been lifted out of the way.

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

[Sam Flynn]

Well even the best can make mistakes but it makes no difference here is Dr Browns testimony which in my opinion corroborates the fact that she was stabbed several times...

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.

The stab to the liver was most certainly accidental. Certainly, one cannot stab the liver without puncturing the skin and, as no stab to the skin was recorded in that area, the wound to the liver was probably a byproduct of the killer inserting the knife to make the long cut that opened the abdominal wall.

Apart from all that, it's quite possible that these stabs were made after Eddowes' clothing had been lifted out of the way.

[Joshua Rogan]

The original hand written description has an elongated Z after "thus", like a Zorro slash

Thanks Jon. That's very interesting!

So all this time we should really have been after Zack the Ripper?

[Trevor Marriott]

That's from a report of Llewellyn's testimony at the Nichols inquest. See: https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880903.html

Well even the best can make mistakes but it makes no difference here is Dr Browns testimony which in my opinion corroborates the fact that she was stabbed several times

“The abdominal walls were divided in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel. The cut then took a horizontal course for two inches and a half towards the right side. It then divided round the navel on the left side, and made a parallel incision to the former horizontal incision, zig zag ? leaving the navel on a tongue of skin. Attached to the navel was two and a half inches of the lower part of the rectus muscle on the left side of the abdomen. The incision then took an oblique direction to the right and was shelving. (zig zag) The incision went down the right side of the vagina and rectum for half an inch behind the rectum.

“There was a stab of about an inch on the left groin. This was done by a pointed instrument. Below this was a cut of three inches going through all tissues making a wound of the peritoneum about the same extent.

“An inch below the crease of the thigh was a cut extending from the anterior spine of the ilium obliquely down the inner side of the left thigh and separating the left labium, forming a flap of skin up to the groin. The left rectus muscle was not detached.

"There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium. The muscles on the right side inserted into the frontal ligaments were cut through. (by the knife being drawn down and across)

“Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument

Thats two specific stab wounds referred to !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

I suppose this is from another newspaper? 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.

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 [B]caused by a knife, which had been used violently and downwards

I think this shows she was stabbed through her outer clothing ! He uses the term incisions not cuts as you would have us believe, they are in line with the cuts in the clothing.

That's from a report of Llewellyn's testimony at the Nichols inquest. See: https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../18880903.html

[Joshua Rogan]

I suppose this is from another newspaper? 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.

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 ! He uses the term incisions not cuts as you would have us believe, they are in line with the cuts in the clothing.

Isn't this Dr Llewellyn's description of Polly Nichol's wounds?

[Trevor Marriott]

Don't pretend you struggle with the English language, you know perfectly well how "apparently" can be used.

In fact, I just posted an example by Collard himself!

"White Calico Chemise, very much blood much stained all over, apparently torn thus Z in middle of front"

So, do you think Collard had any doubt about that detail?

I suppose this is from another newspaper? 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.

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 ! He uses the term incisions not cuts as you would have us believe, they are in line with the cuts in the clothing.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Don't pretend you struggle with the English language, you know perfectly well how "apparently" can be used.

In fact, I just posted an example by Collard himself!

"White Calico Chemise, very much blood much stained all over, apparently torn thus Z in middle of front"

So, do you think Collard had any doubt about that detail?

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" not just "one old piece of white apron" they were quite descriptive about the clothing and the cuts when the list was compiled

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?

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 !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

yes apparently wearing that means there was doubt !

Don't pretend you struggle with the English language, you know perfectly well how "apparently" can be used.

In fact, I just posted an example by Collard himself!

"White Calico Chemise, very much blood much stained all over, apparently torn thus Z in middle of front"

So, do you think Collard had any doubt about that detail?