The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Monty]

Hi Monty and Natalie

Further to your post, there is a passage in " Scotland Yard Investigates " that states that each beat would have a " beat note-book ". Each officer would be given a copy in which it would highlight vulnerable premises etc etc
It would be logical to summise that the nearest Doctors to that beat would be listed.

Jon,

And, as a side note, it seems PC Harveys beat was in the midst of the Jewish Jewellers quarter which would have had an impact on his beat.

Monty


PS Q- Who wears a blue and white scarf and sings with the Miami Sound Machine?

A - Gloria Leicesterfan - Wha hay !

[Jon Guy]

...that'd be the original "Doc doc doc doc doctor beat", then, Jon.

You`d think that with all the technology available in the recording studio they could have overcome Estefan`s stutter.

[Sam Flynn]

It would be logical to summise that the nearest Doctors to that beat would be listed.

...that'd be the original "Doc doc doc doc doctor beat", then, Jon.

[Jon Guy]

One thing that's always puzzled me is why, early Sunday, the police didn't consider that the Mitre Square victim might have been Emily Burrell.Simon

Hi Simon

They did.

The police checked out the addresses on the pawn tickets and then took Jones the Pawnbroker to the mortuary to see if he could identify Eddowes.

He could not.

[Jon Guy]

Ive read somewhere, and for the life of me I cannot remember where, that the Beat PCs were given contact details of the nearest Doctor to their beat or particular points on their beats.Monty

Hi Monty and Natalie

Further to your post, there is a passage in " Scotland Yard Investigates " that states that each beat would have a " beat note-book ". Each officer would be given a copy in which it would highlight vulnerable premises etc etc
It would be logical to summise that the nearest Doctors to that beat would be listed.

[Natalie Severn]

Hey Norma,




Ive read somewhere, and for the life of me I cannot remember where, that the Beat PCs were given contact details of the nearest Doctor to their beat or particular points on their beats.

I suspect Sequeria was the nearest known Doctor.

Monty

Thanks Monty,I reckon that sounds about right!

Norma

Hi Sam,

I was'nt sure if you had heard of these alarm boxes by your answer, so I thought Id add a bit....If I recall this appeared in Mr Sugden's fine book.....I believe something like 10 or 12 alarm boxes were installed around the East End, to allow police to immediately notify the local station of major concerns. I would imagine that they were hardwired to a station, I don't know if then they would "network" the signal by hardwiring the stations to each other. I do not believe that this had anything to do with the Ripper cases, but I do wonder if they were used. It could be the indicator that I alluded to earlier...that the local beat cops could be appraised of events that were transpiring at other local stations.....like the one that responded to Dutfields Yard.

Best regards Sam

[Monty]

PC Long's words at the inquest might mean that it was the bloodstains on the cloth that drew his attention, "that a murder had been committed".
In a Home Office letter he writes; "I found a piece of apron covered in blood". Apparently we are to deduce that it was the bloodstained cloth that caught his attention, that a murder might have been committed in the building in question, he knew nothing of events in Mitre Sq. or Berner St at that point.
Then, he goes to find another beat constable, which may have been his source for the Mitre Sq murder.
He does say that before he left the scene to go to the station, to make his report, he heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre Sq., it must have been from the beat PC.

Just an add on to yours and Sams posts, the Met were telegraphing all stations upon the news of Strides murder. News was getting out rapidly amongst the Police. Its possible the beat sergeants passed on details of Strides death as he was doing his rounds, and its just as possible the PC190H (maybe William Bettles) had been inform of this also. And he, in turn, informed Long after the latter had conducted his search and came to the conclusion that a crime may have taken place.

Monty

[Nimrod]

Hi Norma, hi Michael,

Many thanks for your welcome and replies. How incredible, to lose what I imagine to be the most valuable item of evidence in such a high profile case, as if it wasn t already tough going! They wouldn t have realised it at the time but with today s technology who knows what could ve been revealed or disproven. Sorry for stating the obvious.

Best Regards

Nimrod

[Monty]

Hey Norma,

Thanks for this reference Ben,but I dont have access to it and it definitely contradicts the inquest testimony in the Source Book.Would it be possible for you to copy out the relevant para verbatim?
I am not saying one doctor was more competent than the other at all.All I am saying is that it was Dr Brown"s brief---presumably because he was the City "s Police Surgeon for Mitre Square?

Ive read somewhere, and for the life of me I cannot remember where, that the Beat PCs were given contact details of the nearest Doctor to their beat or particular points on their beats.

I suspect Sequeria was the nearest known Doctor.

Monty

[Fisherman]

This issue will never be settled, obviously. I think that we must always critically examine how the doctors put their respective wiews semantically, and focus on what we actually KNOW that the Ripper did, to get as close as we can to something we can call the truth.

Take, for example, the sentence Natalie quotes in her post, by Dr Brown, telling us that the Ripper had "a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity".

If we scrutinize such a sentence we soon realize that this is an assertion that could not be made. The reason is that Brown very obviously works from the assumption that the Ripper cut Eddowes up to get at her uterus and kidney. And so the reasoning goes: 1. He wanted a uterus and a kidney. 2. He found himself a woman. 3. He cut her up, opening the abdominal wall. 4. He localized the uterus and the kidney, and cut them out. 5. Mission accomplished.

If that is what happened, then Brown is correct. But how are we to know that the Ripper had this agenda? How are we to know that he did not just take what offered itself as he was cutting?
The answer is simple: We canīt know that, and therefore we cannot award Brown any credibility at all for his statement. There is nothing at all compelling us to believe that the Ripper had beforehand knowledge of any organ at all inside the abdominal cavity, just as there is of course nothing speaking against the possibility that he MAY have had such knowledge.

He cut out the intestines, leaving them attached in one end, and threw them out, over his victims shoulders. Does that not show that he wanted them out of the way, to get at the organs he knew were there?
No, it does not. It only goes to show that he chose to bring them out of their cavity, and NOT that he did so beacuse of beforehand knowledge of any organ underneath them. And once again, it cannot be argued that he could not have had that knowledge.

Making the assumption that his aim was to procure organs is opting for a wiew that most researchers agree is a logical one. I subscribe to that wiew myself. But the possibility that he had no idea of what he would find as he laid open Chapmans abdominal cavity must always remain there.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

What of those mysterious alarm boxes that were being evaluated at that time, did they connect to the most local station, or were signals sent to all jurisdictional stations, or were they ever used in these crimes?

I can't recall reading of anything of that nature in connection with the Ripper case, Mike.

Sam, your comments to Jon....the first murder and the apron piece share jurisdictions, the second murder doesnt. I think thats why "a", not "another"....he may well have been aware of only the first.

But if he'd known only of the first (i.e. Stride) then this would be "another" anyway - and he admits that the hadn't heard of the Mitre Square murder until after he'd found the apron.

I don't think that judicial boundaries would have necessarily prevented (or facilitated) his hearing about a murder, in any case. It may have been a simple matter of how far he was away from the "action", in which case it's worth noting that Dutfield's Yard was roughly twice the distance away from Goulston Street than Goulston Street is from Mitre Square.

Hi Gareth,

What of those mysterious alarm boxes that were being evaluated at that time, did they connect to the most local station, or were signals sent to all jurisdictional stations, or were they ever used in these crimes?

Sam, your comments to Jon....the first murder and the apron piece share jurisdictions, the second murder doesnt. I think thats why "a", not "another"....he may well have been aware of only the first. The apron section, until matched as the one taken from Kate, is only Metro's problem.

My best regards Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

PC Long's words at the inquest might mean that it was the bloodstains on the cloth that drew his attention, "that a murder had been committed".

Indeed, Jon - although why did he say that he thought "a" murder had been committed, rather "another" murder? I might just be reading too much into it, but given that he hadn't heard of the (much closer) Mitre Square murder until after he'd found the apron, one has to wonder whether the news from St George's East hadn't yet reached him either.

[Wickerman]

As I suggested (and I'll be more explicit now), Long's words at the inquest might indicate that he hadn't heard of any murder at that point. After being asked why he thought of searching the Model Dwellings, Long says something along the lines of: "I thought that a murder had been committed, and that the body might have been inside". Doesn't sound like the words of someone who knew for certain, at the point he recce'd the dwelling, that any murder had occurred that night.

PC Long's words at the inquest might mean that it was the bloodstains on the cloth that drew his attention, "that a murder had been committed".
In a Home Office letter he writes; "I found a piece of apron covered in blood". Apparently we are to deduce that it was the bloodstained cloth that caught his attention, that a murder might have been committed in the building in question, he knew nothing of events in Mitre Sq. or Berner St at that point.
Then, he goes to find another beat constable, which may have been his source for the Mitre Sq murder.
He does say that before he left the scene to go to the station, to make his report, he heard that a murder had been committed in Mitre Sq., it must have been from the beat PC.