Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If jack never removed the organs then his hands would have had very liitle blood on them and certainly no faecal matter.
    So who do you suggest smeared fæcal matter all over Eddowes' externalised intestines, then, Trev - the Poo Fairy?
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #77
      "Are we honestly expected to belive that jack after killing eddowes cut the apron piece and walked away with it wiping his hands as he went along and then some distance away decided to discard it. Cos if you beleive that then a reality check is needed.

      As has been said before if he had wanted to clean his hands or he knife he would have done so using her apron at the scebe no need for him to cut a piece off and take it away. come on people please think sensibly and logically"

      Clearly, sensibly, logically, and obviously, Dr. Brown would be familiar with what a simple smear mark made by a knife or a hand looked like as he likely made thousands of them himself during the course of his work as a surgeon. Even a casual (but sensible) reading of his inquest testimony reveals that Frederick Gordon Brown was thoroughly observant.

      To me, the smearing indicates that the Ripper became aware that he was not alone in Mitre Square and simply realized that he had to leave. Mitre Square was inhabited. Perhaps he was prompted by the sounds of Morris sweeping his steps near a partially open warehouse door or Watkins returning. Or it could have been something else, but it seems very clear that he felt he had better leave immediately. Wiping his hands as he walked a relatively short distance away between gaslights is a perfectly reasonable supposition that requires no "reality check". As far as leaving the scene without washing up, we only need to point to Mrs. Richardson's untouched "beautiful" pan of clean water at the Chapman crime scene in Hanbury street.

      Cheers,
      Dave
      Last edited by Dave O; 10-27-2008, 03:24 AM.

      Comment


      • #78
        The notion that a poor woman...or any woman, to be blunt, intentionally destroying her apron and consequently making herself look like an absolute freak, because she needed to clean herself after emptying her bowels or attending her menstrual cycle is frankly ridiculous. Only a man would or could concieve of such a scenario. Just my two cents.

        Eddowes was found with over 50 items on her person....and several would have satisfied either the emptying of her bowels or the assumed capability of menstruating. We do not know if Eddowes was still capable of menstruating, living the life she led, having an inferior diet, being an alcoholic, and being superannuated.



        I have experimented with meat...picking up two pounds of fresh, bloody steak with a cloth similar to the apron ( a supermarket apron, but red,not white, to be factual...) and did not leave a lot of staining on the apron. I suggest that someone else try this out at some point and perhaps another result will be found . Maybe it was just the manner in which I wrapped the meat. It is possible that if the organs taken from Mrs. Eddowes did not leak, that staining would be minimal...or at least less than what we expect it would be. The organs removed weighed far less than the two pounds of meat I experimented with 3 years ago.

        When the organs were taken away from Mrs. Eddowes body, the three possibilities are:
        1. They were wrapped in the apron piece
        2. They were held away from his person and in his hands
        3. They were put in his pocket
        4. They were taken by someone else at Golden Lane mortuary.

        Number two is nonsense. Number three is likewise illogical. Why contend with cleaning one's coat pockets afterwards for odor and discoloration ? Its easier,smarter,and safer to use the apron piece for transport. Number four makes no sense. Hospitals didn't need to "steal" organs nor did doctors.

        Comment


        • #79
          Hi Howard,

          For what it's worth, I favour #1 followed by #3.

          Comment


          • #80
            The faecal matter could have been as a result of the colon being cut as part of the abdominal mutilations,allowing faecal matter to spill out onto the intestines. You talk about this faecal mater as if it were large amounts. You have to bear in mind Eddowes was probably undernurished and as a result her body would not have produced much faecal matter in any event to be in the colon. This has also been bore out by my team of medical experts.
            Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-27-2008, 10:56 AM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Howard
              I beg to differ with you on no 4. organs were much sought after for medical research at that time and had been since Burke and Hare some year previous especially fresh organs.

              Comment


              • #82
                Monty writes:
                "How was the clothing on her body found? How did he get to her body? What would he have done?
                The apron was described as smeared, ergo something was smeared upon it. Elementary."

                ...and within these sparse questions and remarks, there is supposedly hidden the answer to why the apron cutting was one of the first things the Ripper did. All very ingenuous, I´m sure - but I am not really sure where it is supposed to take us, and how.

                Anyways, as for the questions:

                1. The clothing was found cut through down the middle.
                2. He got to her body by cutting through the clothing (why do I feel we are going round in circles here..?)
                3. What would he have done? I sense that I am supposed to answer : He would have lifted the apron from the clothing to facilitate the job.

                The apron was smeared, yes. With blood and faecal matter, as it happens. But I´ll be damned if I can see if all of this leads me down an elementary way to wisdom and insights including that he would have cut the apron first.
                You speak in riddles, Monty. And much as I am an elementary man - or perhaps because of that - I sometimes fail to pick up on what other posters call elementary.
                Unless you are suggesting that the apron, helped by the knife, travelled down into the abdomen as he cut, and was smeared that way?

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • #83
                  FAO Ben
                  I think the results of the tests and controlled experiments carried out by my team of medical experts clearly show that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece,

                  So that only leaves two options now as far as the apron piece. Guess you pays your money and you take your choice which one you stick with. i know where my hard earned money is heading.

                  The size of the apron piece has been described as quite significant. having regard to this would he be walking along with a large white apron piece wiping his hands as he went along smearing it with blood for all to see.
                  Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 10-27-2008, 11:47 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Trevor, I'm intrigued by your comment, "I think the results of the tests and controlled experiments carried out by my team of medical experts clearly show that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece." Would you care to elaborate on that at all as I'm not sure how this could possibly be tested and proven. And if your answer to this is "Buy my book," then, alas, we shall both be disappointed for the time being.

                    B.
                    Bailey
                    Wellington, New Zealand
                    hoodoo@xtra.co.nz
                    www.flickr.com/photos/eclipsephotographic/

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Well whether you buy the book is a matter for you if i had wanted to plug the book i would have done so but notice no mention of it.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Mr. Marriott,sor...

                        What are the odds that an attendant at both the Whitechapel Mortuary ( Chapman )and at Golden Lane ( Eddowes) were involved in the market of stealing organs, when doctors and hospitals could simply take organs from deceased individuals without any issue? In all likelihood,the organs which were taken during the massacres of the eviscerated victims had damage done to them in the first place,considering the condition of organs not taken which rendered their "value" nil.... I do know that just recently in Philadelphia, several undertakers were involved with bone and organ theft...but thats now and we are talking about then...



                        I like "thinking outside the box" myself,Mr. Marriot and have a copy of your first edition of the 21st Century Investigation, so my comments weren't or aren't personal, but I have yet to see any articles or references to the practice of organ theft during the 1880's. If you could provide one,one way or the other, would you please do so?

                        Dear Ben:

                        I concur with you on your choices too. Obviously, the Ripper wasn't leading the league in rationality...so its not too far a stretch to think he put the organs in his pocket.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Howard Brown writes:

                          "Obviously, the Ripper wasn't leading the league in rationality...so its not too far a stretch to think he put the organs in his pocket."

                          Any which way, he would have had a methodology worked out by the time he cut Eddowes. We know that he transported an organ away from Hanbury Street too, and so he would be aware of the practical issues involved in it. Interestingly, it seems the woolen muffler that Chapman wore as she left her lodgings that evening was not found on her in the backyard of Hanbury Street. Connection, anybody?

                          The best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Some peaople on here for whatever reason choose not to accept rational and plausible explanations. That fine your choice.

                            if we disprove the fact that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece. You come back and say Ok but we npw suggest the organs were taken away in his pocket.

                            The same with the wiping of the hands issue

                            If someoone would be good enough to tell me how i attach photos to these posts then i wil post photos which in my opinion and exeprets show that the apron piece was not used for wiping hands on either.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Dear Trevor:

                              I listed the ( virtually) only four means in which her organs were handled after Eddowes murder. No one can be certain that the organs were taken away in one specific or definite mode ...and of the 4 listed, the two most likely are those which Ben and I concur with.... unless we assume that he walked from Mitre Square all the way to wherever he went before he went to Goulston Street. I for one would appreciate seeing some tangible evidence that organ theft by mortuary attendants was en vogue in 1888...as in someone being apprehended for this practice. If none is available in other cases,then I wonder why the concept of organ theft becomes applicable in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes ?

                              Without the actual apron piece to peruse, we cannot determine to what extent the apron piece was used in the cleaning of the knife or his hands. We can only assume to what extent it was soiled by either the hands or knife. Using another apron piece of the same size to illustrate a position that the apron was soiled this way or that way, is still not the same as the actual apron piece and we are still going to be incapable of making a solid determination.

                              I hope someone will facilitate you in uploading what you intended to demonstrate,nonetheless.
                              Last edited by Howard Brown; 10-27-2008, 03:18 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Hi Howard - Good points. Just to clarify, I envisage the killer wrapping the organs and then putting the wrapped organ bundle in his pocket.

                                I think the results of the tests and controlled experiments carried out by my team of medical experts clearly show that the organs were not taken away in the apron piece
                                Sorry, Trevor, but without the apron piece available to hand, I can't see how your team could have arrived at an informed conclusion on the subject.

                                Best regards,
                                Ben

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X