The Apron Again

[Trevor Marriott]

Curious

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

There is no documentation its a question of how you interpret Sequerias 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."

To enable the murder amd mutilations to take place not the removal of the organs

[/B]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.

Well there had to have been some anatomical knowledge because Brown stated there was. In the Chapman murder Phillips said the same. And my experts concur having read the Doctors inquest testimony.
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

[lynn cates]

dullard

Hello Chava. Indeed. But he later admitted that it did not get the job done and he had to use another.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

placement

Hello Trevor.

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

Could be. Wonder why he placed it outside the abdomen on the ground?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Maria. Thanks for that.

Cheers.
LC

[Chava]

Well she had a white-handled table knife with her for a start. And if you're wondering how sharp it could be, I'd like to reference the following from John Richardson's evidence at the Annie Chapman inquest:

"Did you go into the yard? - No, the yard door was shut. I opened it and sat on the doorstep, and cut a piece of leather off my boot with an old table-knife, about five inches long."

[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

[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

[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

[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.)

[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

[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]

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]

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

[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

[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