The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Two thimbles? You're one up on me. I can only find one mentioned in dispatches.

But, hey, maybe she played washboard.

I reckon the mustard tin containing pawn tickets was placed, and the other stuff strewn about to make it look like they'd all fallen out of her pockets.

Without it—and it was a clue as big as the Ritz—we'd have had no Kelly, no Emily Burrell, no hopping in Hunton, no Arthur Pash, no walking home, no pawned boots, no final breakfast together and none of the other assorted BS John Kelly told anyone who'd listen.

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.

Regards,

Simon

[Monty]

Simon

Read Collards report regarding Jones. Then read Browns report about how he found Eddowes. They talk of opposite sides.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Yep, you're right. Collard said Jones found the thimble by her left side, while Dr Brown said it was "lying off the finger on the right side."

As Jones didn't examine the body until Dr Brown's arrival, I would suggest one of them was wrong.

Interesting, too, that the thimble(s) and mustard tin didn't appear in Eddowes' list of clothing and possessions.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

As Jones didn't examine the body until Dr Brown's arrival, I would suggest one of them was wrong.

Collard also states that the body was not touched until after the doctors had been summoned and had completed their examination. Perhaps Brown or one of the other medics moved the thimble in the interim? I somehow doubt that, but it's a possibility. It's also possible that Collard/Jones were referring to "conventional left", which to a medic would have been "conventional right".

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
In this case when the colon was cut and possibly the small intestine there would have been obvious faecal leakage into the abdomen which no doubt would have filled up with blood so the there would have been a mish mash of blood and faecal matter in the abdomen and any traces left on the apron piece would also have shown the same misg mash not a sperate smearimg of faecal matter and if i can get the size of the photos reduced i wil post the result of the tests which i would suggest clearly show the apron piece was not used to wipe the knife or the killers hands on.

For your information the other tests carried out included wrapping a uterus from a living donor in a cloth and leaving for 20 mins and then showing the results of how the blood had stained the cloth. The same test was carried out using a kidney in the same way and belive me the results are the complete opposite as to how the apron piece was described. Now to me that clearly shows the organs were not taken away in the apron piece. Furthermore this old clap trap about the killer either taking away the organs in his pocket is ridiculous.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam
In this case when the colon was cut and possibly the small intestine there would have been obvious faecal leakage

Fæces don't exist in the small intestine, Trevor - but that's beside the point, for Dr Brown is quite clear: "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder; they were smeared over with some feculent matter". Leaked fæces do not, of their own accord, end up being transferred from the abdomen and smeared over intestines that have been extracted and placed over the shoulder. They require a helping hand to get there.

[perrymason]

Hello all,

A few things occurred to me while I was catching up on posts here.....one is that with the discussion that slants towards his using the cloth as a hand wipe, we should remember that he has done this before.....and either didnt need one, brought one himself, or perhaps wore gloves,...the last doesnt address bloody organ transport though.

And two, If he is poor, and has one coat, then he does not pop organs and viscera into his pockets on three separate occassions. Its just not a reasonable suggestion.....we have cumulative staining to consider, plus the fact if poor, he likely only has one coat to wear, and must wear that one on cold days, not just in the darkness at night, where blood just looks like grease or ink stains on dark cloth.

I think this time it was bloodier and yuckier than expected, because he had to reach into her very quickly to meet the 6-8 minute overall time he had alone with the victim and since he cut the colon, so since he needed to take a piece of cloth, he also used it to carry the organs away, and perhaps left the hanky or cloth he likely brought with him in his pocket. Why would he use one piece of cloth to wipe his hands, and something else to carry the organs? Doesnt make sense. If he used it to wipe, then it was likely after he had moved the organs from the hanky somewhere else....and again, the pocket idea for a poor fellow is untenable.

And we do have the possibility that the apron piece may not have arrived at its location until some 70 minutes after the killing. So moving the organs somewhere and taking the cloth back out from a location indoors is still on the table. Which of course would rule out his dropping it casually at the scene on his way home directly from Mitre. He could have left the organs in spirits at a bolt hole, then taken the cloth to clean his hands and get rid of when he leaves...to go to his real home.

Best regards all.

[perrymason]

Im curious about a side issue to this case, do we know whether the search of manholes and sewers around Mitre was restricted to the Post Office Robbery investigation,....or was it primarily Mitre killer related?

Best regards


edit: to add........Today it is a known fact that some homeless people in New York City live underground, in adabondoned rail and subway lines, some still on veterans or social benifits. London had one of the first Underground Rail Systems, the Underground was being extended through the East End that same year. Could he have been one of the first "moles"?

[Sam Flynn]

Why would he use one piece of cloth to wipe his hands, and something else to carry the organs? Doesnt make sense.

It makes perfect sense, Mike, given that the organs themselves would have leeched very little blood after so much had been voided from the neck. His pockets would have been a perfectly reasonable vehicle in which to transport the organs, as they evidently had been at Hanbury Street, in almost-daylight.

The reason he'd need a cloth to wipe his hands surely has something to do with the fact that on this occasion - uniquely - he'd transferred fæcal matter from the victim's lower abdomen and smeared it over her intestines, which had been extruded and laid over her shoulder.

I really don't understand why such difficulty exists with these concepts.

[Trevor Marriott]

i have now managed to reduce the size of the photos. These are the results of the tests carried out into the possibilty of the killer using the apron piece to wipe his hands on.

The first test was to wipe blood stained hands on an open white cloth using the movement a person would use when drying hands on a towel.

The second was similar except this time the white cloth was screwed up first and then the bloody hands were wiped on it. i think these tests clearly show that the apron piece was not used by the killer to take away the organs or to wipe his bloody knife on.

These are the second set of tests the first series was to use a uterus from a living donor and wrap it up in a white cloth for 20 mins and then photograph how the uterus had stained the cloth. The results showed that the uterus heavily blood stained the cloth. The same test was done with a kidney in the same way and again showed heavy blood staining.(not spotting )

I think these first tests also clearly show that the killer could not have taken the organs away in the apron piece had he done so then the apron piece would have been desribed as heavily blood stained.

And forget about all this old clap trap about the killer taking away the organs in his pocket.

[Howard Brown]

In addition to Mr. Marriott's theorization and desired display of an example of mortuary attendants taking organs from victims in mortuaries in the 1880's, could anyone else provide an example for those of us who have been unsuccessful?

Back in the bad old days,when I was under the impression that former suspect D'Onston was a viable suspect,I spent a lot of time looking up organs and black magic and all that fun stuff on the web and definitely do not remember any mention of this practice in any newspaper or article in the effort.

So,if anyone here could provide an example, please do so. Thank you.

[Wickerman]

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?

Hey Howard!
Way back in a previous incarnation of Casebook (#2 or #3?), there was a long thread on this bodysnatching (organ-snatching) theory.
The reason Burke and Hare (and numerous others) could profit so well was because of the law which would not allow enough bodies to be used for medical research. Due to the bodysnatching craze of the early 1800's the law had to be changed to allow more bodies to become available.
I'm sorry I can't remember names and dates this moment but the bodysnatching era died out by the 1820's or thereabouts. The medical need simply was not there anymore.
I can't see stealing organs for profit being the motive for the Ripper murders, by then there was no appreciable market.

Now, many will recall an argument about Tumblety and his collection of uterii as maybe one of the reasons he came to London. Well, thats still conjecture. We obviously cannot rule out a freaky obsession by some unique individual.

One thing was certain, medical universities were able to provide organs for research in the late 19th century. This is known, but the purchaser had to be an accredited surgeon or physician, a member of the British Medical Association. Foreign doctors who were not a member of the BMA presumably would not be allowed to purchase those organs (recall the Wynne-Baxter theory?).

How many foreign (psuedo)doctors do we have in the Ripper suspect file?

[Trevor Marriott]

To correct you what I said that the organs could have been removed at rthe mortuaries (inside or outside) by either person or persons unknow or someone paying a mortuary attenedant to turne a blind eye. Or with the knowledege of anyone as it is a know fact that the bodies of Eddowes and Chapman were lefet un attended for mnay hours before rthe post mortems were carried out.

Perhaps medical students would not have come into the catergory of authorised recipetents if thats the route you choose to go down.

[Howard Brown]

Dear Jon:

Hope all is going well for you too,buddy.

There( I'd have to go over and check out the name of the Act regarding organs and all that as Mr. Begg put it up on JTRForums...) was no need for British surgeons or doctors to have to depend on attendants for their ill-gotten supply of organs by the 1880's. You are correct,sor.

The question which comes to mind about the foreigners is why they would take the trip across the Channel just to get what they could find in their own countries? Why would a Belgian doctor or Portugese doctor need some creep in a Whitechapel mortuary for a uterus or liver?

[Sam Flynn]

Great photos Trevor - seriously. However, for it to be anything like a valid test, a number of experimental conditions should have been carefully controlled:

Firstly, you should not have soaked your gloves in blood, but grasped at one or two organs with your bare hands before cutting them out, using whatever blood that transferred to your hands from the organ(s) to conduct the "smear test";

Secondly, the living donor should had been well bled to the extent of losing at least a couple of pints (ideally via her throat) before you removed the organ(s) in question;

Thirdly, you should have smeared some fæces (or at least gravy-browning) onto a yielding, slippery and impermeable surface for a little while and then wiped your hands in the cloth at some point;

Fourth, 20 minutes' delay is perhaps a tad too long - you should have tried different lengths of time between exposing your (bare) hands to the blood (after handling an organ cut from a well-bled patient) to see more accurately how the results compared.

Full credit for trying to demonstrate your point, however.