Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

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

  • pearlyanna
    started a topic The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

    The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

    link to or bookmark this page, use the following url: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache...n&ct=clnk&cd=3

    Google is neither affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
    These search terms have been highlighted: casebook bloody apron

    Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Forums > Ripper Discussions > Victims > Catherine Eddowes > The Bloody Piece of Apron
    This is G o o g l e's cache of http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-5267.html as retrieved on 14 Jan 2008 22:19:53 GMT.
    G o o g l e's cache is the snapshot that we took of the page as we crawled the web.
    The page may have changed since that time. Click here for the current page without highlighting.
    This cached page may reference images which are no longer available. Click here for the cached text only.
    To
    PDA
    View Full Version : The Bloody Piece of Apron

    Pages : [1] 2 3

    ChavaG
    18th December 2007, 05:08 AM
    When he left Catherine Eddowes, our boy cut a piece off her apron to wipe his hands with, and left it below (or wrote, which I doubt) a piece of vague and possibly anti-semitic graffiti. If memory serves, he is also suspected of having washed more blood off his hands at a handy pump on his way through the East End.

    Something that strikes me is that he didn't seem to feel the need to wipe himself off after any of the other murders, even though his hands were probably just as sticky and red from shoving portions of organs in his pockets, fiddling around with intestines etc. We don't hear about him cutting off bits of handy aprons from Chapman or Nichols. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on Stride because he was short of time. And I'm not entirely convinced Kelly was a Ripper victim at all. But he had time and opportunity to clean his hands with Chapman, there was even a handy bowl of water a couple of feet away. But he didn't use it.

    So I'm wondering why he bothered to wipe his hands after leaving Eddowes. Was he perhaps heading home and didn't want to answer any awkward questions from Mrs Ripper or Mother Ripper who might be up and waiting for him. The other murders seem to take place much later on in the night, so perhaps Jack was heading out for work and stopped to kill the occasional tart on his way. Because it seems to me that Jack the Toff or Jack the Sickert wouldn't need to wash or wipe unless he really didn't like the feel of his hands. In which case I would expect to see bloody rags all over the place. A small thing, but to me it suggests Jack the Spitalfields Market porter or fishmonger or (more likely I think) butcher. No one would remark on a butcher with bloodstains on his person heading to work.

    Just a thought...

    GRISTLE
    18th December 2007, 05:58 AM
    I've always been under the impression it was to wipe the feculent (sp?) matter off his hands. He may have liked the feel of blood between his fingers but perhaps the feel and smell of faeces on those same fingers was not as exciting. I'm not entirely sure if the Chapman or Nichols mutilations resulted with the colon being severed and faeces being smeared about. Perhaps that's the difference.

    ChavaG
    18th December 2007, 06:29 AM
    The Ripper was using his knife pretty freely in the abdominal area of all his victims so there would always be a chance that he'd get fecal matter smeared on it or him. The inquest evidence is annoyingly vague about post-mortem mutilation so it's hard to tell. I did wonder if that piece of apron was cut off to clean his knife rather than his hands. But either way there is no evidence of his doing this at the scene or near the scene of any other killing. You may well be right that he got feces on him and wanted to get it off. But I do think the fact that this happens only on one murder--given he used his knife in a similar area on all the victims--is noteworthy.

    Leather_Apron
    18th December 2007, 07:27 AM
    I dont really know where the water tap was behind 29 Hanbury or if JTR even saw it. I do know JTR did not use the same technique He used on Chapman and MJK. He may not have needed to wipe his hands on anything after leaving 29 Hanbury. It all leads me to suspect that Chapman died earlier and that JTR had more time. I also suspect JTR was prepared to mutilate Stride in much the same manner as He did with Chapman and MJK but was interrupted so chose Eddowes and tried the same thing He did with Nichols.

    Its the only thing that makes sense as to why Nichols/Eddowes were mutilated in a different manner than Chapman/MJK.

    monty
    18th December 2007, 10:58 AM
    ChavaG,


    But I do think the fact that this happens only on one murder--given he used his knife in a similar area on all the victims--is noteworthy.


    Why not?

    Monty


    Ben
    18th December 2007, 05:46 PM
    Hi Chava,

    It is quite possible that the killer did take one of Chapman's rags for hand-wiping and/or organ transporting, but rather than disposing of it en-route home, he took it with him. Why didn't he do that with Eddowes' apron? Possibly because an excrement-smeared rag will emit tell-tale smells in the way that a merely bloodstained one wouldn't, or because he sought to implicate the Jews and took advantage of a noted Jewish hotspot en route between the crime scene and home.

    Hi Monty - That song always reminds me of y'know who whenever I hear it, especially when it is combined, as it often is, with Oasis' Wonderwall.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Sam Flynn
    19th December 2007, 12:23 AM
    Hello Chava,
    The Ripper was using his knife pretty freely in the abdominal area of all his victims so there would always be a chance that he'd get fecal matter smeared on it or him. The inquest evidence is annoyingly vague about post-mortem mutilation so it's hard to tell.
    It's pretty easy to tell, actually:

    We know that the Ripper severed Catherine Eddowes' colon near the rectum and detached a piece of it, which he laid next to her body. We also know that Catherine Eddowes' small intestines had been drawn out of her body, laid over her right breast, and were "smeared over with some feculent matter". Unless Jack used a paint-brush (Sickert!!!? ) to do this smearing, it is almost certain that he got whoopsy on at least one of his hands in the process of severing her large intestine.

    This is the only case in which this is known to have happened, as the medical evidence following Annie Chapman's death highlights the fact that Jack left her lower intestine undamaged. Furthermore it was specifically remarked upon that the killer had avoided severing her rectum whilst the killer "cleanly" removed her uterus.

    Annie Chapman's abdomen only sustained sufficient damage to expose the small intestines, some of which bulged through her wounds. It's pretty certain that these wounds, although horrific, did not penetrate all the way through to her colon, where the faeces "live". Indeed, no damage is reported even to her small intestines.

    Adding all that up, it's quite clear that Mitre Square was the first occasion on which Jack the Ripper got faecal matter on his hands. The fact that some of this matter was spread over her small intestines, and got transferred to the apron fragment, is compelling evidence that this was the case. Extending that further, it's pretty clear in my mind that the cutting of a swatch of apron fabric had something to do with this contingency.

    Sam Flynn
    19th December 2007, 02:07 AM
    Mitre Square was the first occasion on which Jack the Ripper got faecal matter on his hands...
    ...during the course of his "canonical" murders, I should have added. He wouldn't have been human if my original sentence were taken literally

    Trevor Marriott
    19th December 2007, 02:57 AM
    Correct me if i am wrong and i sure you will but wasnt the apron piece torn not cut. and wasnt it torn from a repair which had been made to the apron previous.

    In any event the ripper did not tear or cut the apron nor did he take away the organs of Eddowes or any of the other victims.

    tom_wescott
    19th December 2007, 03:03 AM
    Correct me if i am wrong and i sure you will but wasnt the apron piece torn not cut. and wasnt it torn from a repair which had been made to the apron previous.

    There was definitely a patch that was torn/cut through but I don't believe it's known if that was the point of origin of the tear/cut. Your question is a good one though and I can't recall off the top of my head if the records are crystal clear on this point. Hopefully Sam will recall.

    In any event the ripper did not tear or cut the apron nor did he take away the organs of Eddowes or any of the other victims.

    Oh come on now of course he did. No more super rats or lost organs. The Ripper took them. Unless of course you're suggesting a super rat went in to Kelly's apartment and took her heart out with him!

    Yours truly,

    Tom Wescott

    Trevor Marriott
    19th December 2007, 03:10 AM
    i am sure Sam will this is his "Specialised Topic "

    Trevor Marriott
    19th December 2007, 03:21 AM
    I did forget one important issue with regards to Sams and other postings on the topic.

    If the killer had wanted to clean his knife or clean his hands why tera/remove and apron piece. One swift swipe across the apron would clean the knife and would have been much easier to wipe hands on apron without the need to cut/tear.

    Its time for some of the old posters on here to take their heads from out of the sand and look at the overall picture in a logical manner

    Ben
    19th December 2007, 03:26 AM
    If the killer had wanted to clean his knife or clean his hands why tera/remove and apron piece

    Indeed, Trevor, which is why I don't believe the apron was removed for hand/knife wiping purposes, but rather to transport the organs.

    Regards,
    Ben

    sreid
    19th December 2007, 03:55 AM
    Yes if he was wiping his hands, I think he could have accomplished that in the first 20 feet of his escape.

    I've always wondered if he didn't intentionally place the apron there to lay a false trail.

    It has also been posited that something like a dog carried it there.

    Stan

    Pilgrim
    19th December 2007, 04:02 AM
    The Times, Friday, 5 October 1888 (http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881005.html)

    Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood ? Witness*. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

    *Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

    ~~~

    baron
    19th December 2007, 04:08 AM
    The records state that the apron piece was cut. We had a debate about this about a year ago contending that officials wouldn't be able to figure out if something was cut or torn as tearing and cutting may produce the same damage.

    For my part, I thought JTR may have just been holding onto the piece of apron, not actually knowing that he was. Perhaps caught up in the moment, that sort of thing. A very difficult subject to argue for in any direction one wants to take it.

    Mike

    Ben
    19th December 2007, 04:18 AM
    Hi Pilgrim,

    I believe it was PC Long who stated that the apron looked as though it was saturated in one corner. This would be consistent with the organs having been transported in the apron.

    Cheers,
    Ben

    Sam Flynn
    19th December 2007, 05:18 AM
    Hi Pilgrim,

    I believe it was PC Long who stated that the apron looked as though it was saturated in one corner. This would be consistent with the organs having been transported in the apron.
    Hi Ben,

    Quite the reverse. If the organs had been transported in the apron, one would expect a patch of blood in the centre, if anything.
    Its time for some of the old posters on here to take their heads from out of the sand and look at the overall picture in a logical mannerIndeed, Trevor. If Eddowes' small intestines were smeared with feculent matter, then it's 99.9999999999% certain that Jack's hand(s) did the smearing, and that his hand(s) were therefore still carrying residual cack as he left Mitre Square. That stuff's lethally sticky, as I'm sure I don't need to remind anyone.

    Sam Flynn
    19th December 2007, 05:21 AM
    i am sure Sam will this is his "Specialised Topic "
    Yup, I know a fair bit about anatomy, and I'm doubly incontinent.

    "Talk to the hand"

    ...just don't inhale, that's all

    ChavaG
    19th December 2007, 06:06 AM
    If the organs were transported in the cloth, and the cloth was found, where were the organs?

    Also I don't see any mention of fecal matter on the cloth. This being a murder inquiry I would expect that a polite avoidance of mentioning fecal waste would not apply. He wipes his hand or his knife or both after the Eddowes killing, but doesn't appear to have done so after any of the others. Which suggests to me that there was a reason for his wiping off then and that reason didn't apply at any other time. I suspect he was returning to a situation where someone might notice his bloody hands and ask about them. This could be as simple as not wanting to be caught running through the East End with blood on his hands. Which in turn suggests to me that the cop who found Eddowes must have missed the Ripper by seconds. He hears the guy coming, rips/tears a piece of apron to wipe his hands, and takes off sharpish dropping the cloth on his way because he doesn't want to be found with that on his person either.

    GRISTLE
    19th December 2007, 06:38 AM
    Also I don't see any mention of fecal matter on the cloth.

    Dr. Brown, the City Police Surgeon stated during the Inquest:

    "......My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street"

    (emphasis added)

    baron
    19th December 2007, 07:24 AM
    A thought: If the killer needed to take some of the apron just to wipe his hands, and at such a late hour, perhaps he had some work to attend to that brought him into contact with others. He may have even been on break from such work. If he took the cloth for the purpose of transporting organs, why just a piece? If he had the mental acuity to realize he had a soggy mess of bits to carry, surely he would have realized that a double or treble wrapped mess would take longer to soak through.

    It all seems like such an afterthought to me. That's why the piece of cloth may have been a bit of absent mindedness rather than a planned action. Why not just cut the apron strings? It would have been quicker than sawing and tearing through an entire width of cloth. The idea of a frenzied tearing of the apron seems much more likely than something more calculated, as calculation should show a result that is a bot more thoughtful.

    Then again, who can understand the workings of a madman? Rhetorical of course. Gareth surely could understand

    Mike

    monty
    19th December 2007, 11:49 AM
    Correct me if i am wrong and i sure you will but wasnt the apron piece torn not cut. and wasnt it torn from a repair which had been made to the apron previous.

    In any event the ripper did not tear or cut the apron nor did he take away the organs of Eddowes or any of the other victims.

    and they I get told that....

    Its time for some of the old posters on here to take their heads from out of the sand and look at the overall picture in a logical manner

    Am I the only one that sees the irony?

    DC Halse testimony.

    'When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut. When I got back to Mitre Square I heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston Street. I went there with Detective Hunt to the spot where the apron had been discovered. There I saw some chalk writing on the wall. I stayed there and I sent Hunt to find Mr McWilliam

    From Jon Smyths "A piece of apron, some chalk graffiti and a lost hour.

    http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

    Monty


    Fisherman
    19th December 2007, 12:44 PM
    ChavaG asks:
    "If the organs were transported in the cloth, and the cloth was found, where were the organs?"

    ...and I feel that this is the pertinent question here. If the Ripper found it necessary to transport the organs he had taken away in the apron, he would not have reconsidered halfways to home, would he? It would have meant taking a huge risk.

    This leaves us with two possibilities:

    1. He was actually living in Goulston Street.

    2. He did not use the apron for carrying the organs.

    I myself would opt for the second alternative. I think that he used it as a rag to wipe off the feculent matter from his hands.
    But why, might one ask, did he not rid himself of it until he reached Goulston Street?
    And believe it or not, I have an answer for that one too...!

    My guess is that he was in a hurry to leave Mitre Square - no need to loiter there and wait for the PC:s. So when he cut the apron, he immediately started out on his journey from the square. Regardless of which of the three exits he used, he would turn into a street, wiping his hands, and risking to meet somebody. And soon as he saw that somebody, what would he do? He would stop wiping his hands, and shove the apron into his pocket. He would not throw it away, risking that the other person/persons on the street took a look at it.

    After that, he would await a possibility to rid himself of the piece of apron some place when nobody could see it, and that some place was Goulston Street. My suggestion is that he delved further into the east afterwards, on his way home.

    All the best,

    Fisherman

    Sam Flynn
    19th December 2007, 12:53 PM
    Hi Chava,
    If the organs were transported in the cloth, and the cloth was found, where were the organs?
    In his pockets, perhaps, where I strongly suspect they were ever since he left Mitre Square. And Hanbury Street, or Miller's Court...

    The uterus and kidney are comparatively small, and the heart is no bigger than a large orange.

    Jez
    19th December 2007, 02:01 PM
    I think Ben's earlier suggestion makes sense. It is quite possible that Jack also took one of many of Eddowes' loose rags home as well as the portion of apron with him. If the objects found near her body [buttons, thimble, mustard tin] indicate that he had gone through her pockets, he would likely have also found a spare rag. We know that the inventory of her possessions still included two handkerchiefs, a piece of silk, a shirt remnant, a piece of linen etc etc. This would support the theory that the matching apron piece was deliberately cut off to be left as a clue in Goulston Street. But, as always, this can be argued from many angles as Catharine had spare rags.

    Leather_Apron
    19th December 2007, 02:30 PM
    Im still scratching my head as to what "One Red Mitten" means?

    ChavaG
    19th December 2007, 02:51 PM
    Do we know how women of that class dealt with menstruation? In those days people used rewashable cloths, so I wonder if an itinerant prostitute always kept pieces of old material around for 'that time of the month'. If that's the case, no need to cut any apron. Although I agree, he wasn't thinking clearly at that point. I still think that he wiped his hands because he expected to see people who might ask awkward questions. Heading home rather than heading out.

    By the way, do we know if any or all of the victims were having their periods at the time of the attack? I've come across an article that suggests the mean age for last birth in the lower English socio-economic groups during the 19th Century was 41.7 years. Which means the average woman probably hit menopause in the mid-40s. Our victims were in the mid to late 40s range but it's statistically possible that some or all of them still were capable of menstruation. I always wondered if that was what set him off.

    Fisherman
    19th December 2007, 02:58 PM
    Let´s not forget the importance of the timeline here! If the chronology shows contacting - accompanying - attacking/subduing - cutting throat - mutilating - rifling through the pockets - leaving, then the Ripper was not aware of the belongings in her pockets as he got smeared with faeces. And if such was the case, the apron was the handiest bid around at the time. It also was sufficient to meet his needs, since it was a large piece of cloth he cut of.
    The other rags and bits of cloth, he would not have seen until later.

    The best!
    Fisherman

    monty
    19th December 2007, 03:10 PM
    Fisherman,


    Let´s not forget the importance of the timeline here! If the chronology shows contacting - accompanying - attacking/subduing - cutting throat - mutilating - rifling through the pockets - leaving, then the Ripper was not aware of the belongings in her pockets as he got smeared with faeces.


    Think you may have the order of events slightly out, but thats only my opinion.

    Monty


    Pilgrim
    19th December 2007, 03:17 PM
    The Times, Friday, 5 October 1888 (http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881005.html)

    Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood ? Witness*. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

    *Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown

    ~~~

    Hi Pilgrim,

    I believe it was PC Long who stated that the apron looked as though it was saturated in one corner. This would be consistent with the organs having been transported in the apron.

    Cheers,
    Ben The Times, Friday, 12 October 1888 : (http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881012.html)

    By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

    (...)

    The juryman. - You did not search the rooms, but left a man to watch the building, and the whole clue seems to have passed away. I do not wish to say anything harsh, as I consider that the evidence of yourself and of the other members of the police redounds to the credit of all of you; but this does seem a point that requires a little investigation. You find a piece of apron wet with blood; you search all the passages, and then you leave the building in the care of a man to watch the front. Witness. - I thought the best thing I could do was to go to the station and report the matter to the inspector on duty.

    ~~~

    Stewart P. Evans & Keith Skinner, The Ultimate JACK THE RIPPER SOURCEBOOK; p.222, p.238 :

    For greater detail on the Eddowes murder reference may be made to the Inquest reports filed in the Corporation of London Records Office. These records include the written statements of witnesses at the Eddowes Inquest:

    (...)

    Alfred Long 254 A, Metropolitan Police Force, being sworn saith - "I was on duty in Goulston street, Whitechapel on the 30th September, about 2.55 AM. I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce. There appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet, lying in a passage leading to the staircases of 108 to 119 Model Dwelling House."

    ~~~

    Wondering. (http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...ring#post92352)

    Ben
    19th December 2007, 03:23 PM
    Hi Gareth,

    If the organs had been transported in the apron, one would expect a patch of blood in the centre, if anything.

    Unless he simply bunged them in the corner and "wrapped around", bandage style.

    Hi Fisheman - As for the issue of his "reconsidering" at Goulston Street, I don't believe he did. He simply surrendered the rag closer to home, after they'd "dried off" somewhat, so as to prevent his garments being sullied by feshly extracted innards. The fact that a Jewish hotspot lay en route may also have been a consideration in the disposal location. I don't believe for a minute that he wiped "en route". It would take as much time to get the worst of the gunk off, there and then at Mitre Square, as it would to remove a segment of the apron in the first place. Nor can I picture him stuffing organs into his overcoat when there was a handy rag to prevent his garments from getting yuckier than they needed to.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    P.S. Thanks for that, Pilgrim

  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    The medical evidence indicates some internal organs were punctured by the point of a knife, yes, as the killer removed organs he accidentally cut the liver with the point of his knife. There is no evidence to support the idea the killer stabbed her body through her clothing.

    There is a difference between cutting/slicing, and puncturing, and you dont know he accidentally cut the liver, the doctors states the liver was stabbed through, thats not cutting is it?


    If you want to know what Dr Brown told the inquest, I'll quote from the inquest papers.
    After describing the initial incision at the sternum, he talks about the liver...

    "Behind this the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument...."

    So, not stabbed through as you seem to think.


    "Below this was another incision into the liver of about 2 1/2 inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut"

    This is the damage done to the liver by the slice downwards opening up her abdomen.


    Her skirts have slices, cuts near the waist bad, once again, produced by him cutting into her abdomen through the skirts.

    But he would not have needed to cut through her skirts if he had lifted them up because the abdomen and the lower part would have already been exposed


    She wore skirts, not dresses. Skirts fit at the waist, if you turn her skirt up her chest is still covered - why do you struggle to grasp this?


    If a person is lying flat on the ground facing up, and you stab that person through their clothing and draw the knife down or across, you will make a cut in that clothing the length of whatever distance you draw the knife, and if she had been wearing an apron then that would also have had the same cuts to it

    “Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt “Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

    “Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

    “Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

    “Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

    There are 2 different sets of cuts which match up.
    Yes, these are the skirts which were cut through after they were turned upside down.

    There was a stab wound to the groin, the pic clearly show that the knife was drawn down after she was stabbed so that goes a long way to suggest that sh was stabbed thorugh her clothing, there would have been no need for the killer to inflict a wound to that part of the body after pulling the clothes up and targetting the abdomen.[/B]

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    The stab to her groin was 1", there were no 1" holes in any of her clothing noted by Collard or Dr. Brown.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    "Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards... “Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards"

    A longitudinal cut starting at the xiphoid process of the breastbone, such as that which opened Eddowes' abdomen, is unlikely to have been made by cutting from the waist downwards. Indeed, from the waist to the lowest extent of Eddowes' abdominal wound (i.e. the pubis) is rather less than ten and a half inches, so it's tricky to see how the cuts to the clothing could even have been made as a continuation of a wound starting higher up the body.
    I think we must imagine her skirts turned up from the waist, they were all upside down.
    So an incision into the breast would cut through the skirt above the waist band. The knife was dragged down cutting through the waist band.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Thats your opinion and you are fully entitled to it the facts do not support that opinion
    It's not so much an opinion as common sense. And the facts, contained both in the photograph (you know, the one where you mixed up left and right) and in Brown's notes, fully support what I said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    The LEFT groin was stabbed, Trevor, and the stab itself was only 1" long. What you're referring to in the picture is the CUT to the RIGHT thigh that formed a flap of skin "extending up the spine of the ilium", which is precisely as Dr Brown described it.
    Yes, I know that (as I've repeatedly said), but the stab to the liver happened as a byproduct of the killer plunging his knife into the abdomen to commence the long abdominal cut, and/or by the tip of his knife when he was poking around in the process of extracting the kidney.

    Neither stab wound, whether to the groin or the liver, could have been caused by the killer cutting through her clothing.
    Thats your opinion and you are fully entitled to it the facts do not support that opinion

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    Long enough and deep enough to be stitched up ! and Brown distinctly stated there was a stab to the groin and its there in the pic
    The LEFT groin was stabbed, Trevor, and the stab itself was only 1" long. What you're referring to in the picture is the CUT to the RIGHT thigh that formed a flap of skin "extending up the spine of the ilium", which is precisely as Dr Brown described it.
    he also states the liver was stabbed with a pointed instrument, so there are two stab wounds.
    Yes, I know that (as I've repeatedly said), but the stab to the liver happened as a byproduct of the killer plunging his knife into the abdomen to commence the long abdominal cut, and/or by the tip of his knife when he was poking around in the process of extracting the kidney.

    Neither stab wound, whether to the groin or the liver, could have been caused by the killer cutting through her clothing.
    Last edited by Sam Flynn; 07-11-2019, 03:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Besides, Trevor, that long, stitched wound we see in the mortuary photo is the more extensive cut on the right hand side, the trajectory of which is precisely described by Brown:

    "There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium"
    Long enough and deep enough to be stitched up ! and Brown distinctly stated there was a stab to the groin and its there in the pic, no matter how you dress it up that isnt going to change, and he also states the liver was stabbed with a pointed instrument, so there are two stab wounds.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Besides, Trevor, that long, stitched wound we see in the mortuary photo is the more extensive cut on the right hand side, the trajectory of which is precisely described by Brown:

    "There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium"

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Brown clearly describes a 1" stab wound, with a 3" cut below it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Again, I'm not denying that there was a stab wound - it's how it was done that interests me. Given that the killer was actively using a knife to make cuts in the pelvic area, peeling up flaps of skin from thighs to labia in the process, it is almost certain that the 1" stab to the groin was caused whilst this activity was going on - NOT as a byproduct of cutting through her clothes. You try cutting flaps of flesh from thighs to the groin and the ilium of the pelvis when there are two or three layers of clothing in the way, and you'll fail miserably. Those wounds were undoubtedly inflicted with no clothing in the way at all.
    But Sam, the pic shows a wound much longer that one inch, up to at least 5 inches, they had to stitch it up, she was stabbed that is an undeniable fact, and the knife drawn down that is also an undeniable fact, there can be no other explanation, and the groin being away from the main abdominal area adds even more weight. Dont forget this killer carried out a frenzied attack, the pic you paint is that of someone cool calm and collective, with all the time in the world to do what he did. Its not for real

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    take a look at the mortuary photo, the wound to the groin is a stab wound with out a doubt, and the knife was drawn down. If he had already lifted the clothes up there would have been no real reason to inflict that wound.
    Again, I'm not denying that there was a stab wound - it's how it was done that interests me. Given that the killer was actively using a knife to make cuts in the pelvic area, peeling up flaps of skin from thighs to labia in the process, it is almost certain that the 1" stab to the groin was caused whilst this activity was going on - NOT as a byproduct of cutting through her clothes. You try cutting flaps of flesh from thighs to the groin and the ilium of the pelvis when there are two or three layers of clothing in the way, and you'll fail miserably. Those wounds were undoubtedly inflicted with no clothing in the way at all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    If for example the killer still had the knife in one hand and was using both hands to raise the skirts, isn't it possible the knife tip just sliced some of that fabric?

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    He wielded his knife in the pelvic area, too; on both sides, damaging the thighs and genitalia. The stab-wound to the groin was almost certainly made in the course of inflicting these wounds:

    "Below [the 1" stab in the left groin] 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.

    There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium"
    One pic is worth a thousand words !

    we are talking about the cuts to her clothing all of which went off in different directions and at different lengths they were done with the knife and not through her clothing when it was all pulled up

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    He wielded his knife in the pelvic area, too; on both sides, damaging the thighs and genitalia. The stab-wound to the groin was almost certainly made in the course of inflicting these wounds:

    "Below [the 1" stab in the left groin] 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.

    There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium"
    take a look at the mortuary photo, the wound to the groin is a stab wound with out a doubt, and the knife was drawn down. If he had already lifted the clothes up there would have been no real reason to inflict that wound. So if you accept that was done through the clothing then you must accept that others were also done in the same way.
    The mortuary photo doesn't really help in many ways because it shows the body after it had been put back together and the wounds sealed. But the groin wound is there or all to see.

    Try another experiment bundle some clothes up and stick a knife in them draw it down and across see if you are able to get the same length of cuts in all the material. The answer is you wont because its been tried.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    There was a stab wound to the groin... there would have been no need for the killer to inflict a wound to that part of the body after pulling the clothes up and targetting the abdomen.
    He wielded his knife in the pelvic area, too; on both sides, damaging the thighs and genitalia. The stab-wound to the groin was almost certainly made in the course of inflicting these wounds:

    "Below [the 1" stab in the left groin] 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.

    There was a flap of skin formed by the right thigh, attaching the right labium, and extending up to the spine of the ilium"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X