The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Tom.
You must leave the mortuary attendant aside with Kelly's murder, she was 're-assembled' by the doctors in Millers Court.
As for Chapman & Eddowes yes, I believe the killer removed the organs in situ.

Regards, Jon S.

Just to correct you I have not suggested a mortuary attendant I have suggested persons connected to the medical profession. A mortuary attendant would not have sufficient medical knowledge to have performed the removals.

[Trevor Marriott]

We also have Marriotts brain.

Toms suggestion of the coner collecting blood at the scene works for me.

Monty

Here we go again there beliveing what the cartel tell us.

There is no direct evidence that the heart was missing from the room in fact newspaper articles an other comments of the day suggest that all the parts were accounted for.

In which case it adds more corrobotattion to the fact that the organs from Edowwes and Chapman were not removed by the killer.Or that Kelly was not killed by the same killer as Chapman and Eddowes.

The Times 10th November

The latest account states upon what professes to be indisputable authority that no portion of the woman's body was taken away by the murderer. As already stated, the post-mortem examination was of the most exhaustive character, and surgeons did not quit their work until every organ had been accounted for and placed as closely as possible in its natural position.

The Echo 12th November

Nothing of any importance was discovered in the ashes at the deceased's house. A small portion only of the remains is missing, while it is noticeable as a special incident in the barbarous murder that the organ hitherto taken away at the mutilations was found in the room, although it had been cut out of the body...

The Times 12th November

As early as half past 7 on Saturday morning, Dr. Phillips, assisted by Dr. Bond (Westminster), Dr. Gordon Brown (City), Dr. Duke (Spitalfields) and his (Dr. Phillips') assistant, made an exhaustive post-mortem examination of the body at the mortuary adjoining Whitechapel Church. It is known that after Dr. Phillips "fitted" the cut portions of the body into their proper places no portion was missing. At the first examination which was only of a cursory character, it was thought that a portion of the body had gone, but this is not the case. The examination was most minutely made, and lasted upwards of 2 ½ hours after which the mutilated portions were sewn to the body, and therefore the coroner's jury will be spared the unpleasant duty of witnessing the horrible spectacle presented to those who discovered the murder. The ashes found in the fireplace of the room rented by the deceased woman were also submitted to a searching examination, but nothing likely to throw any light on this shocking case could be gleaned from them.

[Monty]

Hi Wick,

Thanks for that. But actually, it's rather accepted now that Kelly's heart was taken away by her killer. I believe the cartel made it official a couple of years ago, but you should double-check that with Monty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

We also have Marriotts brain.

Toms suggestion of the coner collecting blood at the scene works for me.

Monty

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Wick,

Thanks for that. But actually, it's rather accepted now that Kelly's heart was taken away by her killer. I believe the cartel made it official a couple of years ago, but you should double-check that with Monty.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[niko]

rumour's

The piece of apron would have made a suitable tourniqet, any other suggestions

This is a bit farfetched but here goes "back to the Royal's". I found this in Paul's book "the fact's", Dr Stowell's claim's that it was rumoured that Dr Gull was in the East End in search of (s) and had a bloodstained shirt because he had attended (s). It is also rumoured that Dr Gull was seen the night of the MURDER'S (interesting, plural) in Whitechapel. I supose this is not true, BUT, there's a saying in Spanish "cuando el rio suena aqua lleva", more or less it mean's "when the river makes noise it's because it's carrying water". All the best, Agur.

niko

[Wickerman]

Wickerman,

Just so I know where you're coming from, do you think Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were the same man and that he did indeed take the organs with him, as opposed to an opportunistic mortuary attendant?

Tom.
You must leave the mortuary attendant aside with Kelly's murder, she was 're-assembled' by the doctors in Millers Court.
As for Chapman & Eddowes yes, I believe the killer removed the organs in situ.

Regards, Jon S.

[Tom_Wescott]

Wickerman,

Just so I know where you're coming from, do you think Chapman, Eddowes, and Kelly were the same man and that he did indeed take the organs with him, as opposed to an opportunistic mortuary attendant?

Chava,

Good to see you around!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Wickerman]

Hi, Wickerman, maybe he hid away to mend his wound, a torniquete or something.

The piece of apron would have made a suitable tourniqet, any other suggestions

[niko]

Are you suggesting this cut stopped bleeding by the time he got to Goulston St.?[/QUOTE]

Hi, Wickerman, maybe he hid away to mend his wound, a torniquete or something. There's the thirty five minute's he had to play with. Which is what pc Long's statement gives me to think. If it was an artery he would of surely bleed to death without medical assistance. All the best, Agur.

niko

[Wickerman]

(4) To wrap around his hand because he cut himself (logical on useing a sharp knife in pitch darkness and under the circumstances) and did not want to leave a trail of blood, this explaining why the cloth was wet with blood on the corner, hmm, "interesting".

That was way too much cloth to wrap around a cut, he must have sliced an artery to need that much bandage, then he wouldn't have made it to Goulston St..

Are you suggesting this cut stopped bleeding by the time he got to Goulston St.?

[niko]

Hi everyone, I personally think he took the piece of apron because he really needed it.

What for ?

(1) To wrap up the organ's, "nah"

(2) To clean his hand's and knife, "nah" I think he would of done the same on the previous murder's.

(3) To highlight the graffito "maybe" all depend's if he wrote the graffito.

(4) To wrap around his hand because he cut himself (logical on useing a sharp knife in pitch darkness and under the circumstances) and did not want to leave a trail of blood, this explaining why the cloth was wet with blood on the corner, hmm, "interesting". All the best, Agur.

niko

[Wickerman]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade.

Yes the (one?) corner of the cloth was "wet with blood". You don't 'wet' a cloth by wiping your hands on it, neither, as you say, a knife blade. The wiping theory would only account for bloodstains, there was more blood on this cloth than mere stains.

An organ like a uterus, about the size of a small orange, would still contain blood, which would be ooozing out of it for several minutes after being extracted.
Any cloth used to wrap up a freshly removed uterus would leave a wet spot on the cloth, and you would need a sizable cloth to help contain the blood.
Alternately, the corner of the cloth might have been wet before the cloth was cut, perhaps that corner was nearer to her throat before he cut it away?

An internal organ is not the kind of article you would want to drop in your pocket, and the sizable piece of cloth might be too large to wrap up a uterus & kidney then fit into a coat pocket.

On the other hand, it's prettymuch taboo on here to suggest the killer might have come prepared with a bag to carry it away. So if we can't entertain a killer with his own bag, what did he carry it away in?

Sometimes our inhibitions just create more problems for ourselves.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I love the knife-drying theory, but it doesn't jibe with the description of the bloodstains on the cloth. If he wiped his knife on the cloth there would be a line of blood where the edge of the knife is drawn against the blade. The description of the blood, which I believe is mainly in one corner, suggests to me more that he wound it round a wound to stop it bleeding. It's a big swatch of cloth but he may not have realized, in the darkness, how much he was cutting off.

In terms of the organs causing the stain in the corner, it would depend upon method of wrapping the organs in the cloth. Trevor's theory assumes he places them in the middle; it's not beyond the realm of reason that he places it in the corner and wraps from there. It does the beg the question, however: when wrapped or rolled into a ball, will this fit into his pocket? If not, does he have a bag? If not does he just walk down the street with this thing slung over his shoulder?

My reading of the earlier murder where he took organs, is that there was no trail of blood, and no cloth taken: this would suggest that he had means of carrying the organs without need for the victims' cloth.

So, what happens that would cause him to take the cloth? A cut perhaps, as you state? Or the one thing that we do know that was different about that night - two murders. Does something happen with the Stride murder that makes taking the cloth a good idea? I'm struggling to come up with something approaching reasonable cause and effect, though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yeah, outlandish. Woefully unbelievable and wholly implausible.


As for personal insults, I shall treat with contempt the hypocrasy you have always maintained.

Monty

Your comments have been duly noted and filed under "bin"

[Monty]

The only outlandish theory here is the one you subscribe to and that is the fact that the killer of Chapman and Edddowes removed the organs after killing them.

And I will treat with contempt the personal insults you have now resorted to you are really showing your true colours now shame on you.

Yeah, outlandish. Woefully unbelievable and wholly implausible.


As for personal insults, I shall treat with contempt the hypocrasy you have always maintained.

Monty