The Apron Again

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[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.

[Tom_Wescott]

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

[curious]

I think you wil find it is possible to tear a piece off and if i am not mistaken the two pieces were matched and identified via a repair is that not significant

Trevor,
You can not tear through hems and waistbands without some sharp object to get started.

Besides, there is a statement in "A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour" by Jon Smyth "We happen to have one account of a statement by Detective Sergeant Halse: '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."

A CLEAN CUT, Trevor.

Add that to Dr Frederick Gordon Brown's description of a PATCHED apron:

"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" -

If a piece of material is patched and you attempt to tear the main piece, the stitches holding the patch will break from one or the other and the patch will be on one piece only.

A CUT is necessary to divide the patch on the same lines as the "tear" of the main cloth. (It seems to me that Brown is saying that the edges, or seams, of the patch lined up, therefore it HAD to have been cut, not torn.)

Trevor, what did Eddowes possess that she could CUT with?

[Phil Carter]

thanks

Hello Chava,

Thank you for some sensible comments in your last post,

One stands out.. Graffiti-Red herring.
My take is that in an area teeming with Jews in abode as GS was, the comment is merely a shout- ""whatever we do we will be blamed anyway" or by an anti-jew saying " look at the Jews, its them who cause the trouble"
Nothìng to do with a kiiler writing it.
Whoever dumped the apron piece MAY have known of the existance of the writing. We just dont know. The transportation of the rag will always be speculative so plausiailities should be considered. i agree. The killer of Catherine Eddowes is unknown by name, race, creed or profession, could have been anyone. It includes a Jew. And a Doctor. And a surgeon, and a butcher. As long as medical knowledge is included. Sort of rules out Kosminsky, Druitt and Ostrog though.
I come back to Sequiera's words. Dead 15mins only. 1.45. He would know how fresh a corpse was. But lets give him a 30% chance of extension. Thats ca. 5mins. either 1.40 or 1.50. Time to ask about Watkins, Morris and Harvey. They ALL maintain exact times.
Conclusion? Something is very wrong.

Best wishes

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Hunter

You are another who is clearly confrontational and have the facts distorted

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?

Brown - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

Mind you dont cut your fingers or even your throat

[Hunter]

The same Dr Brown who described the apron piece as being spotted with blood (emphasis on spotted) big diffrenece to bloodstained and if you wipe a bloodstained knife you dont get spots you get a smearing or a stain where the knife is drawn across.

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

do you really believe a woman would destroy a garment she was wearing in such a manner? Especially when she had so many other choices. A destitute woman who might never be able to replace that garment.

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.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Trevor. I see, when the knife was originally wielded.

Thanks.

Wonder if the knife went that deep?

Oh. perhaps as part of the long north/south cut?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

resident

Hello Chava. I think Tom Wescott has a lad from the buildings that he has researched. Why not chat him up? Nathan something or other.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks. Perhaps the assailant was unaware of that fact?

Any idea why the intestine was cut?

Cheers.
LC

No doubt in the frenzied and ferocious attack.

You have to ask if the killer would then suddenly be able to compose himself sufficiently to be able to extract those organs with what has been described.

Dr Sequeria stated that he from what he saw at the crime scene and thre state of the body he didnt think the killer had any design on the organs.

Yet 12 hours later they are missing remove with some anatomical knowledge

[Chava]

OK, please put down the entrenched positions for a second and listen to yourselves. If this was a real investigation and we were all real coppers we would be screwed from the get-go and our perp would be skipping merrily down the road to forever free. Because we're all assuming too much and we're not looking at the obvious explanations.

- We have no proof whatsoever that the graffito was written by the murderer. We know that the local super thought it was inflammatory and ordered it rubbed out. But we don't know that the Ripper wrote it. If you look at that map a few pages back you will see Jewish references all over the place. There were Jewish schools, synagogues, yeshivas. The Jews lived all over that section of London. It's not even slightly surprising that there would be anti-semitic graffiti everywhere in that area all the time so why are we ascribing this piece of crap to the Ripper?

- Well, because of the undeniably-Ripper-related piece of cloth. That came from the victim. So many of us are assuming that it's linked to the graffito and that both are linked to the Ripper intending to blame someone in the Goulston Street tenements.

OK, where does this get us? So far no one seems to consider it possible that the Ripper lived in the tenements and accidentally dropped that piece of cloth on his way back home. That idea simply hasn't surfaced. But as a Jew I will tell you that it's just as possible that a Jew living in Goulston Street killed those women that it's possible that an evil-genius killer took a detour from his route home to leave incriminating evidence to point away from himself.

I'll say this: I don't have a theory because I have no entrenched position. I do think we should consider the possibility of that rag having been picked up by some animal third party and dropped, because it's not impossible that it happened. There were plenty of stray dogs around there and a whole lot of rats. I do think it's possible that Eddowes may have used that bit of apron to clean herself up a bit. (Wasn't it stitched to the rest of the apron in a repair? In which case it would have been easy to rip off through the stiches.) I do think it's possible that the killer took the material for whatever purpose--although I'll stick to my guns here and say he took it before he started work because otherwise I can't explain why he tossed her skirts forward again to get at it given that when he pulled her clothes back, that apron would have been lying on the bottom of the pile next to the ground. I do think it's possible that the rag was left in order to incriminate the inhabitants of Goulston. But if it was, it was a dismal failure because I have seen no record that the cops spent a lot of time taking the tenants of Goulston Street apart.

So here's (yet) another question: why didn't they do just that? Why didn't they believe that the rag was dropped by the killer on his way into his home? I imagine it was because of the graffito. And here we are on the merry-go-round again. The graffito was done by the killer because the cloth was dropped by the graffito so the graffito was done by the killer on his way to somewhere else. It's circular thinking at its worst and it will get us nowhere. That graffito is the reddest of red herrings. But the cloth isn't. We know the cloth belongs with the Eddowes murder. However there's no suggestion that the killer did anything like this at any of the other murders and he certainly would have been able to do something with stuff from the MJK killing if he'd wanted to do so.

Anyone know who was living in Goulston Street at that time? I wouldn't mind checking that out--which the police clearly didn't attempt to do. Because the Ripper was nothing if not direct and straightforward. I don't get the impression that he over-thought his murders. And neither should we. The obvious--therefore ignored--possibility is that he used it for some purpose and then either discarded it or accidentally lost it on his way back home. Possibly right into the Goulston Street tenement.