The Apron Again

[mariab]

One resident of the building where the apron was found is Berner Street Club member, Israel Sunshine, who was arrested along with Louis Diemshitz in 1889 for beating some cop butt when they raided the house. Aside from this, there are numerous connections between the club and Goulston Street in general, though nothing stands out that would cause me to claim any of these connections had to do with either murder or the killer's choice to drop the apron there.

Unless the killer was familiar with Israel Sunshine by being acquainted with the IWEC through the WVC, but it's premature to talk about this at this level. I'm trying to research this.

And let's suppose Eddowes' killer was not a medical man, wouldn't opening up the abdomen be the most logical choice to get at a kidney? For that matter, wouldn't that be the most logical choice for a medical man as well?

Nope. A medical man knows to extract a kidney from behind. But the Ripper wouldn't know that, not even as a butcher. (Cuz animals don't stand on 2 feet, like humans.) On the other side, the possibility that he encountered the intestine while searching for the kidney from in front makes sense.

[Phil Carter]

outside the box?

Hi Chava,

One resident of the building where the apron was found is Berner Street Club member, Israel Sunshine, who was arrested along with Louis Diemshitz in 1889 for beating some cop butt when they raided the house. Aside from this, there are numerous connections between the club and Goulston Street in general, though nothing stands out that would cause me to claim any of these connections had to do with either murder or the killer's choice to drop the apron there.

Trevor,

Of course one would not need to remove intestine to get to a uterus, but what about the kidney? And let's suppose Eddowes' killer was not a medical man, wouldn't opening up the abdomen be the most logical choice to get at a kidney? For that matter, wouldn't that be the most logical choice for a medical man as well?


I've heard Lynn's theory, but I'm curious as to what extent you feel the Mitre Square killer went in the injuries to Eddowes. Do you feel he did everything except extract the organs (i.e. opening her up, marking her face, etc.), and do you think it's possible that he extracted one of the organs but not the other?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hello Tom,

I admit to never having heard the idea of one organ taken by the killer but not the other, i presume this must be a serious question and not a wind up- so may I ask you what idea lays behind tiis idea? Its out of left field as they say.

Also, as we both seem to question the time frame of the murder, mutilations and organ removal, may I ask your views on Sequiera's tine frame of death and how you relate to it vis a vis the other given timed statements?

Thank you in advance.

Best wishes

Phil

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Phil,

No wind up. It's just not clear to me (and, I'm sure, others) if Lynn and Trevor are working on all this together and think along the same lines, or if their versions of what happened differ from each other. Because most of Trevors posts on the matter occur in the form of vitriolic exchanges with others, I thought it best if I ask directly so I can get a better grip on what all is being discussed here.

I'm glad to know that my question about the killer taking only one organ is 'out of left field', because I was beginning to wonder where left field was. According to Lynn's theory, the killer did in fact rip Kate up, and we know he cut off a portion of her intestine and set it aside. To me, this indicates this same man took the kidney. I was wondering if Trevor's theory has the Ripper taking the kidney but not the uterus, or even vice verce. I'm clearly behind you lot because I still think the guy who killed Eddowes is the guy who took her uterus and kidney and the guy who ran off with her apron.

Regarding Sequiera's time of death, I really don't have any thoughts on it. I plan to become very familiar with all this again (and some for the first time) when I reach my chapter on Eddowes. So right now, I'm actually more interested in learning others view points than giving my own. All I will say is that I value the doctors' estimated times of death less than I value all other evidence. It was understood then and is understood now that when such an estimate conflicts with 'hard' evidence, the hard evidence trumps it every time.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Phil Carter]

thanks

Hello Tom,

Thanks for the answer. Appreciated.
For my own part, I am torn between the medics knowing a fresh corpse when they see one and policemen knowing the exact time.
On the one hand Sequiera said t.o.d. was 1.45, and Brown saying between 1.38 and 1.48.. Lined up against Watkins finding the body at 1.44 and Morris having been summoned at 1.45. Additionally, Harvey being at the end of Church passage at 1.41 and 1.42 hearing and seeing nothing.

If Sequiera is correct, and Brown is correct in saying that the whole murder scenario would take at least 5 mins, then the killer slit Kate's throat at 1.40.
Even if Sequiera is wrong and Brown (killed between 1.38-1.48) is right, Harvey, Watkins and Morris' times are questionable.
So IF you and I (and others) have difficulty with the time it took to kill, mutilate and remove organs, either the testimony is wrong or Trevor's thoughts of organ removal elsewhere is considered, as it makes the above times given possible.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Chava,

One resident of the building where the apron was found is Berner Street Club member, Israel Sunshine, who was arrested along with Louis Diemshitz in 1889 for beating some cop butt when they raided the house. Aside from this, there are numerous connections between the club and Goulston Street in general, though nothing stands out that would cause me to claim any of these connections had to do with either murder or the killer's choice to drop the apron there.

Trevor,

Of course one would not need to remove intestine to get to a uterus, but what about the kidney? And let's suppose Eddowes' killer was not a medical man, wouldn't opening up the abdomen be the most logical choice to get at a kidney? For that matter, wouldn't that be the most logical choice for a medical man as well?

I've heard Lynn's theory, but I'm curious as to what extent you feel the Mitre Square killer went in the injuries to Eddowes. Do you feel he did everything except extract the organs (i.e. opening her up, marking her face, etc.), and do you think it's possible that he extracted one of the organs but not the other?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom

I think without a doubt the majority of the abdominal injuries were caused by the killer. However if the organs were removed by person or persons unknown at the mortuary then those injuries described relative to the removal of the organs could be attributed to whoever removed them at the mortuary especiall if they were wprking quickly.

As far as the intestines are concerned I have given one explanation the other is the fact that because the killer was carrying out such a frenzied attack he could quite easily have simply played around with them after they had recoiled out I dont subscribe to the "being placed" idea

Both victims were decsribed as having their legs drawn up which is how the killer left the bodies. It would be almost impossibe for anyone to remove oragns with the legs in those positions it would prevent full access to the abdomen the legs would need to be flat

Again there appears to be a a conflict between the doctor and another witness in the Chapman murder Dr Philips stated "part of the stomach was on the shoulder" James Kent "The entrails were protruding, and were lying across her left side"

You have to look at what the motive was for the killing of Eddowes. If part of that motive was to harvest organs then why carry out a ferocious and frenzied attack ripping open the abdomen thereby making it diffiuclt to effect easy removals.

You also have to look at the actual removal of the organs both Chapman and Eddowes had their uteri removed differently. Both were taken to different mortuaries.

Chapman Uterus and appendages Edddowes just the uterus

If the killer had removed Chapmans uterus why would he want another from Eddowes.

If Kelly was killed by the same hand then her murder adds weight to the removal of the organs from Chapman and Eddowes at the mortuary, because none of her organs were taken away and in her case the killer could have removed everey vital organ from the crime scene.

Ypu also have to ask if any of the other victims were kiled by the same hand why were no organs removed from them at the mortuary well the answer to that is that no other victim had their abdomens ripped open in the same way Chaman and Eddowes did. Therefore any attempt by anyone to remove organs at the mortuary would have been easily noticed by the doctors.

[curious]

I don't agree with this, Curious.

You can only value an option by comparison with other options.

She had pawned a pair of boots with Kelly. She had the pawn ticket.

So, which is of more value:

1) An apron; possibly dirty.

2) Getting a client, and it follows the money, to retrieve the boots or get a drink.

I imagine that the boots or a drink were of more value than an apron, to Eddowes.

Hi, Fleetwood Mac,

I'll agree with you that the boots or a drink were perhaps more valuable to Eddowes than was her apron.

On the other hand, using your own scale: You can only value an option by comparison with other options.

Eddowes was wearing numerous other layers of clothing, including an old ragged . . .
Had to go hunt the description: "Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)"

Her apron had enough value to her that she had patched it and was wearing it as an outer garment. Testimony has her wearing it when she was arrested and when she was released from jail . . .

It is my opinion that an undergarment would have been used before her outermost garment, if she had been forced to use her clothing. BUT she had numerous other pieces of cloth and pockets, WHY use a wearable garment at all?

She had more viable options that would rule out destroying her clothing.

curious

[curious]

Gordon Brown only said that the piece remaining with the victim was spotted. He clearly stated that the piece retrieved in the archway was smeared as if by hand or knife.

Not that presenting the actual evidence as it was presented matters here anymore, except for the few who peruse these boards for information. ...And there is a better way for them to do that.

Good luck folks. I've got a deer to field dress in the dark and I can do it in 5 minutes... kidney, uterus and all.

Interesting that is the same amount of time that Dr. Brown considered to be the least amount of time that Eddowes mutilations could have been accomplished . . .

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, agreed with his testimony, only he did not detect "any great anatomical skill."

Dr. Sequeira also stated: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.

There was enough time and enough light according to contemporary experts . . .

Why all this wallering around today?

curious

[lynn cates]

catch as catch can

Hello Maria.

"A medical man knows to extract a kidney from behind. But the Ripper wouldn't know that, not even as a butcher. (Cuz animals don't stand on 2 feet, like humans.) On the other side, the possibility that he encountered the intestine while searching for the kidney from in front makes sense."

I have heard the theory advanced that the kidney was not targeted, only some organ or other.

What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

views

Hello Tom.

"if Lynn and Trevor are working on all this together and think along the same lines, or if their versions of what happened differ from each other"

Actually, no, not at all. Except for broad contours, I do not know Trevor's theory.

"According to Lynn's theory, the killer did in fact rip Kate up, and we know he cut off a portion of her intestine and set it aside."

Yes, this is my view. Organs and apron pieces? Not firmly decided. If the killer wishes to emulate Chapman's killer, I think he MUST take an organ (notice that this would be true merely given the newspaper accounts of Chapman's death--whomever took Annie's uterus). Of course, his technique was FAR inferior to Jacob's, er, Annie's assailant's.

Good luck on the chapter about Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Harvey

Hello Phil. Yes, and, in particular, Harvey's timing has been brought into question.

The crucial point involves whether he went ALL the way down Church Passage.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. Thanks. This helps.

I think the biggest problem concerning placement involves the one completely severed piece lying next the body. I have to think assailant here.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

I have heard the theory advanced that the kidney was not targeted, only some organ or other. What do you think?

I don't know, Lynn, but the stomach would have been too big to carry around. I'm going to sound totally gross now, but a kidney is not only small and compact, but probably one of the few organs to fulfill, well, cannibalistic purposes. Not that I'm claiming that this was the killer's intention, just possibly. And of course then came the Lusk letter...

(PS.: I'm working on ordering the AFs from N.Y. and had a stressful, exhausting day dealing with stupid American bureaucracy, so possibly I'm not thinking at my straightest right now.)

[Trevor Marriott]

Interesting that is the same amount of time that Dr. Brown considered to be the least amount of time that Eddowes mutilations could have been accomplished . . .

Dr. G. W. Sequeira, surgeon, agreed with his testimony, only he did not detect "any great anatomical skill."

Dr. Sequeira also stated: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed.

There was enough time and enough light according to contemporary experts . . .

Why all this wallering around today?

curious

Because Sequera was referring to the murder and the mutilations not the time it would have taken to remove the organs

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks. This helps.

I think the biggest problem concerning placement involves the one completely severed piece lying next the body. I have to think assailant here.

Cheers.
LC

Well you would have expcted that with the killer cutting and slashing away at the abdomen with a six inch sharp knife

[curious]

Because Sequera was referring to the murder and the mutilations not the time it would have taken to remove the organs

Can you please furnish some documentation to back up that statement?

From what I'm finding: Sequera specifically mentioned the light: "Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill."

The information here on Casebook, under Witnesses continues: "He agreed with the findings of Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown, but disagreed with Brown's belief that the killer displayed anatomical knowledge.

It appears that in any area Sequera disagreed with Brown, it was mentioned. Since Brown thought 5 minutes was the minimum amount of time required for the mutilations, the information posted here indicates that Sequera agrees.

What documenation is there for your statement about what Sequera agreed with?

Also, while we're on the subject: What instrument did Eddowes have available with which to CUT her apron, since testimony states that it was cut, not torn?

Thank you,

curious