The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Ben]

The murder of Catherine Eddowes being in the City of London meant ofcourse that it was Dr Brown, the City police surgeon ,whose testimony was the most important on this occasion.

I wouldn't say that, Norma.

Phillips, Sequeria and Saunders were all equally competent medical officials, and they all detected appreciably less skill than Brown did. If you examine the preponderance of medical evidence from the Eddowes inquest, there is a great deal more to be said for an operator without much anatomical knowledge, and certainly not "surgical skill".

[Sam Flynn]

I believe that Stewart was referring to the pathologist Dr Iain West (correct me if I'm wrong, SPE) who was one of the more brilliant and celebrated exponents of his profession. Dr West's view was basically that the killer might have known roughly where the organs were located, but that was about it. The evisceration was crude and, in West's opinion, all of it could have been accomplished in two, perhaps three minutes.

Frankly, anyone who believes that reaching into an almost empty stomach cavity, grabbing a lumpy, wobbly thing and pulling it out requires great knowledge (let alone skill) has clearly never been allowed anywhere near the office brantub.

[Natalie Severn]

Ben,
The information I am using is the "Inquest" testimony from Stewart Evans "Ultimate Source book"-there are four pages of evidence from Dr Brown,see pages 247-251, compared with less than a half page each for both Drs Sequeira and Sedgewick Saunders.[see pages 252 and 253] Moreover,Dr Sedgewick Saunders "specialism "is chemical analysis ---in this case checking for poison or narcotics in Eddowes"s stomach contents,-although he is clearly qualified to give a medical opinion on the injuries.
Dr Sequeira is quite emphatic that he is in "complete agreement "with Dr Brown"s evidence.
Norma

[Ben]

Hi Norma,

The length of testimony cannot be used as a barometer of medical competence. The doctor with more "pages of evidence" isn't necessarily the one with the most insight, nor does it make him more likely to be correct. Sequeira obviously can't have been in complete agreement with Brown, or else he would not have gone on record as stating that the perpetrator was not particularly skilled, and that the kidney was probably located by chance (etc).

Best regards,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Why on earth would Stewart be going off on a tangent ,citing someone who had nothing to do with the "Inquest "testimony? Especially----when Stewart himself cites the appropriate medical testimony of two trained police surgeons---all three doctors fresh from the crime scene?

[Natalie Severn]

I need to be given a page number to read up on this last point you make Ben ie that Dr Sequeira said the kidney was removed "by chance".
I myself do not read it like that from the inquest testimony provided by Stewart.I read it as Dr Sequeira,the less important doctor on that particular night,and given only a very brief opportunity to confirm Dr Brown"s lengthy report,SUPPORTS Dr Brown in his belief that the Ripper was not "removing organs for professional purposes-viz selling on wombs/internal organs.When asked specifically about the question of the possession of any "GREAT"anatomical skill by the ripper,he says,he does not think so,he doesnt
think he was doing it out for a business reason for example,and in all this he is in complete agreement with Dr Brown etc.
But if he added,in another document for example,that he thought the kidney removal was a "by chance" thing,then yes,I think thats quite important and contradicts Dr Brown"s inquest report Dr Sequeira said he was in complete agreement with----

[perrymason]

Hello all,

It would seem that many prefer the slash and grab explanation, which then doesnt have to disssolve into arguing varying degrees of surgical skill and/or knowledge.

Ill note that when Mr Evans referred to the organs, he was careful to say "There is no proof that the killer was targeting any internal organ other than the uterus". Pardon my use of just some of your words Stewart, but I think that sentence is sufficient in and of itself, myself. There is implied skill and knowledge in the act itself, but no need to debate it if a, or the target was a uterus. If it was, then he could do it, because he succeeded impressively once.... and failed once. Its the only organ taken in some form twice. We can only assume that he may have tried something like that with Mary Ann, or with Liz, and had some issues regarding privacy or visibility or timing, theres not really enough there to speculate about that though,...but we cannot say with any certainty what the killer of Mary Jane wanted. Just what he took, and it wasnt a uterus. Just wanted that two cents in. ......(by the way, how come the "wink" smilie is so far down the list, surely its used more frequently than "oops" or two thumbs up").

On the apron, since Monty posted that overview of the responsibilities of the Beat Policeman, has anyone reconsidered how serious a look into the Model Homes entranceway off Gouston our beat policeman might have taken? Almost completely Jewish, and many investigators were leaning towards a Jewish killer. Does he quickly glance, or is this entranceway one he might be wary of?

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

has anyone reconsidered how serious a look into the Model Homes entranceway off Gouston our beat policeman might have taken? Almost completely Jewish, and many investigators were leaning towards a Jewish killer. Does he quickly glance, or is this entranceway one he might be wary of?

Long had no particular reason to be particularly attentive of the doorway at all, Mike - after all, he didn't hear of the Eddowes murder until after he found the apron, so why should he have been? (Judging by his actions and what he said at the Inquest, might he not yet have heard of the Stride murder, either? Just a thought.)

[Ben]

I myself do not read it like that from the inquest testimony provided by Stewart.I read it as Dr Sequeira,the less important doctor on that particular night

I don't know what you mean by "less important", Norma.

There's certainly no evidence that Sequeira was any less competent a doctor than Brown, and since the former's views are in allignment with the preponderance of medical opinion in relation to the Eddowes inquest, I feel it's only responsible to accord his views equal weight. The reference you seek is the depositions of G.W. Sequeira and W.S. Saunders, 11th October 1888, CPL ff. 24, 25. Obviously neither man was in "complete agreement" with Dr. Brown.

Hope this helps,
Ben

[Natalie Severn]

Monty,
Thanks for your reply.You are quite right.Dr Brown and Sequeira believed the murder took place about 40 minutes before they arrived.Today,views on when the body cools after death have altered slightly as I understand,and can vary a little from individual to individual?
Norma

[Natalie Severn]

I don't know what you mean by "less important", Norma.

There's certainly no evidence that Sequeira was any less competent a doctor than Brown, and since the former's views are in allignment with the preponderance of medical opinion in relation to the Eddowes inquest, I feel it's only responsible to accord his views equal weight. The reference you seek is the depositions of G.W. Sequeira and W.S. Saunders, 11th October 1888, CPL ff. 24, 25. Obviously neither man was in "complete agreement" with Dr. Brown.

Hope this helps,

Ben

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?

[Nimrod]

Hi Everybody,

What a great place this is. I ve been hopping about everywhere trying to get the lay out and workings. This is my first post. Forgive me if I m doing it all wrong and interupting the thread but you have to start somewhere. I ve no doubt the answers to my two questions are here somewhere and I ve been captivated by the plethora of suggestions and ideas concerning this aspect of the case but I m beginning to lose the plot a bit. So, I m going to be lazy and ask outright. Firstly, was it ever proved without doubt that the rag/apron was in fact that belonging to Kathirine Eddowes?? Secondly, does this piece of evidence still exist hidden away in Police files or was it lost/destroyed or other??

Best Regards

Nimrod

[perrymason]

Long had no particular reason to be particularly attentive of the doorway at all, Mike - after all, he didn't hear of the Eddowes murder until after he found the apron, so why should he have been? (Judging by his actions and what he said at the Inquest, might he not yet have heard of the Stride murder, either? Just a thought.)

Hi Sam,

Although I doubt followed to the letter by every man that walked a beat, that overview does require that the man check all lanes and passages on his beat, as well as the regular thoroughfares, and since we know that the Leather Apron mumbles in September leaned towards occupations that many European Jews were involved in locally, I would think an entrance way to Jewish occupied Model Dwellings might be of interest on a normal pass,....let alone one that has him with knowledge of at least one killing that night. He is out past that spot around 2:20am, Liz is attended by Police and Medical Officials at approx 1:16am......would news filter to other local stations within an hour? The apron is in the same jurisdiction as the the first killing only.

Best regards Sam.

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Everybody,

What a great place this is. I ve been hopping about everywhere trying to get the lay out and workings. This is my first post. Forgive me if I m doing it all wrong and interupting the thread but you have to start somewhere. I ve no doubt the answers to my two questions are here somewhere and I ve been captivated by the plethora of suggestions and ideas concerning this aspect of the case but I m beginning to lose the plot a bit. So, I m going to be lazy and ask outright. Firstly, was it ever proved without doubt that the rag/apron was in fact that belonging to Kathirine Eddowes?? Secondly, does this piece of evidence still exist hidden away in Police files or was it lost/destroyed or other??

Best Regards

Nimrod

Welcome Nimrod,
Yes,Dr Brown tells Mr Crawford at the Inquest on Catherine Eddowes that Dr Phillips had brought the other piece of apron and they matched [page 250 "The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Sourcebook",by Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner.]
The apron piece has been lost,
All the Best
Norma

[perrymason]

Hi Nimrod,

Yeah, like Nats says .....but just wanted to add that the apron had a recent repair done to it, and the repair was severed when the section was cut from it, so they could effectively match the two pieces.

Cheers