Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Ok, I've been working on my simulation program some more, and it's coming along nicely, thank you very much. Anyway, I've been toying with the idea that starts with the Church Passage Couple (CPC) being Eddowes and JtR. This is not a proven fact, so we're just considering one of multiple possibilities here. Also, I'm working on the idea that Eddowes, after being released from the police station, headed to St. Botolph's Church as this was an area known to be frequented by women engaging in prostitution, which the circumstances suggest she was doing (it was out of necessity that this was a very common practice for women in the area at the time). So that gives us a possible location for Eddowes and JtR to meet.

Now, PC Harvey passes the post office at 1:28. Based upon his estimated patrol speed, he had previously passed Church Passage at 1:23. He states he had seen nothing suspicious, and the police were to be on the look out for couples. I think it's safe to say, therefore, the CPC were not there at 1:23. They are there when Lawende and company leave the club. They get up to leave at 1:30 by Lawende's watch, but don't leave until 1:33-1:34 (Leve) or 1:35 (Lawende), and they see the CPC standing there. So, they must have arrived sometime after 1:23 and before 1:33 (possibly shortly after 1:30, if Lawende and co waited outside the club before leaving, but there's no shelter there so that seems counter productive).

Now, if the CPC get to Church Passage, given PC Harvey doesn't report seeing them, I was wondering if there is a time window when they might be able to move from St. Botolph's and get to Duke Street and up to Church Passage without PC Harvey noticing them. And, it looks like there is a good candidate, that makes a nice "just so" story that we all so love to hear.

Ok, at roughly 1:25:36, PC Harvey (Blue at the bottom) has just patrolled Church Passage and now has come out of Duke Street and has turned up towards Mitre Street. That puts his back towards St. Botolph's and let's consider the idea that Eddowes and JtR are there (Green; CPC). Things look like this:


It's possible that they see PC Harvey head away after coming out of Duke Street (by coincidence, they're not "scoping the area"). But, having agreed to a transaction, they slip in behind him. At an average walking pace, they would get to the entrance of Duke Street at 1:26:10, so in about 34 seconds. PC Harvey would still be heading towards Mitre Street, still with his back to them. So now things are like this:



From there, it's a short stroll to Church Passage, which they would reach at 1:27:02 (don't pay too much attention to the precision of these, I know I'm reporting to the second, but that's just how the simulation works. Obviously, people don't move at a constant speed, so there's going to be some wiggle room. However, notice that one could allow for quite large margins of error here and get effectively the same result).

So now, things look like this:
And now PC Harvey is on his return leg, away from Mitre Street and heading towards the Post Office. The CPC are still out of sight, and he's not seen them enter Duke Street. While we don't really know if this is when, or how they arrived at that location, we do know they are there at 1:33 (Leve) or 1:35 (Lawende), who give those times as to when they left the club.

But for now, PC Harvey is heading to the Post Office, where he'll check the time and it will be 1:28. We know that on his next round when he reaches Church Passage (1:41) the couple spotted by Lawende and company are no longer there. And we know the next time he's roughly in this spot, Eddowes will have been murdered, and PC Harvey will be responding to Morris's whistle.

No, I'm not claiming I know this happened. It's just one scenario that doesn't require anything magical to happen. In fact, it all looks a bit ordinary and mundane, and you know, life is generally pretty ordinary and mundane.

But, to be fair, I've not tried setting up other possibilities yet as I was mostly interested in seeing if the idea I've been mulling over about them meeting at St. Botolph's became difficult (i.e. no way for them to get there without being spotted). However, it's also possible that the CPC is Eddowes and JtR but they met north of Church Passage, and came down Duke Street following after PC Harvey, and that is easy to work as well (PC Watkins, while he pops out onto Duke Street briefly when he exits St James Place, isn't there for long, so he's easy enough to by pass). And of course, if the CPC isn't Eddowes and JtR, then none of this matters. However, the story I've just told does fit what we know, and seems to me to be reasonable, and so is probably worth taking the time to have a beer over and ponder.

- Jeff

[Varqm]

And your point is ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There were blood spots and bloodstains on it.He used it to wipe his knife and some fecal matter but how much
extent is not clear.By cutting the apron in the first place,he used the knife and hands so the apron will
be stained,maybe this was mostly the reason for the blood/fecal matter in the apron.
I happen to believe that after Chapman's murder he learned what he was dealing with,opening the body and messing
with the organs and obtaining,and came prepared.

As suggested many times,using the apron solely to wrap the organs does not make sense,same as to solely wipe the knife.
So it came down to holding on to the apron to send some kind of message together with the graffito or "just because" - his own sense/calculations.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I think you're well aware that evidence cannot be treated as black and white, as either "accept all" or "reject entirely". There is no verbal testimony that is 100% accurate, simply because some of the words we use are by their very nature subjective. On person may describe a blood pattern as "spots" others use the word "smear", others "stained", etc. That doesn't mean it's contradictory and has to be thrown out. Some people give more specific details and others are more cursory in their descriptions, that too doesn't make them contradictory to the point of throw it all away and conclude something entirely unlike what any of them are saying.

But it is important simply because spots of blood are very different from blood smears. Someone wiping their bloody hands or a knife would not create blood spots, equally someone wrapping up organs in it would create a heavy staining of blood. We dont have the apron piece so we can only speculate based on the reports, and those reports do not suggest the apron piece was used by the killer to wipe his hands or his knife, or take away the organs. If he had wanted to do either he could have done it with ease and quickly at the crime scene on her clothes, if he had have cut the apron piece for the reasons you suggest he could have accomplished both within a short distance of Mitre Square, and then discarded it long before he got to Goulston Street

Now there are those who argue on that point that he was disturbed and had to make a quick exit before he had time to do that. But of course that explanation then brings us back to the cutting of the apron piece and the killer needing to do that. Now again some will say that he cut the apron piece before he set about the mutilations but thats just an excuse in my opinion for them to justify the fact that the killer did cut a piece from the apron.

So if he was disturbed by Harvey when did he have the opportunity to cut the apron piece?

PC Long may not mention in his signed deposition that it was wet with blood, but he does indicate it was wet. Moreover, he testifies under oath it was wet with blood, so you can't ignore that.

The fact is that he did say it was simply wet, if it was wet with blood why did he not say so because that is important and I cant see the person taking down the deposition missing that out and besides Long was most likely giving his testimony from notes recorded in his pocket book.

As him then saying it was wet with blood I am not sure where this is recorded was it in the official testimony or reported in a newspaper?

Also, given Dr. Brown's testimony as to the appearance, he's there to give forensic testimony, so he's going to be more specific, and he has the knowledge to do this, and he tells us it looks like hands or a knife was wiped on them.

I am aware of what is written but that is just his opinion and as I have stated before that is not in line as to how the apron piece is described, and if the killer had bloody hands why is the residue of blood and fecal matter only on one side of the apron, the killer if doing to the body all that he is supposed to have done would have two bloody hands and so I would expect to see traces of this residue on both sides

While I whole heartedly agree with you that the evidence has to be questioned, where I disagree with you is the idea that questioning always means rejecting. In this instance, there is nothing that suggests this inference made by the police at the time was a mistake.

I am not suggesting rejecting it I am questioning its accuracy and can it be safely relied on?

Now, you can question whether or not JtR used it to carry the organs (which is not something I've said, but I know that idea is out there). And personally, I don't think he used it to carry the organs (though as you know I think he took some) unless I'm wrong and he did go to a bolt hole first. It doesn't make sense to me that he would wrap organs, then discard the wrapper before he got home. But neither does it make sense to me that once he got home that he would then go back out to toss away a bloody piece of cloth. Rather, I would think he could dispose of that later, well after things have calmed down and it's not so risky. Hence, I think the apron piece was taken so he could clean his hands, and possibly his knife, given he damaged her bowel.

- Jeff

There is only one possible explanation with regards to the apron piece, and that is the killer did not cut it and take it away and did not deposit it in Goulston Street. We see no evidence of the killer doing this in any of the other murders so the old accepted theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the evidence to show she was wearing an apron prior to her murder is also not to be relied upon for the reasons I have already highlighted in previous posts.

You are right we have discussed this previous and you and others seem set in your belief in the old accepted theories which is your choice, but 130 years later should we be accepting without question all of these old accepted facst that go back 130 years. I dont think we should

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hmmm, ok. I've just been trying out a few tests on another idea, namely, estimating the rain duration. We have Lawende and Leve getting up to leave the club at 1:30. Leve estimates they waited 3-4 minutes to leave as they were waiting for the rain to stop, while Lawende estimated 5 minutes. This leads to our last (actually only) sighting of the CPC to be between 1:33 and 1:35.

Now, I've got a simulation that all the testified times and places (meaning, people end up where they say they were at the time they said they were there). In particular, it's PC Harvey that can be tested because all we have for PC Watkins is that he patrolled Mitre Square at 1:30 and again at 1:44, so we have to set his patrol time to meet those, which leaves us nothing to test him with. However, PC Harvey gives us:
1) he's at the post office at 1:28
2) he patrols Church Passage about 3-4 minutes before he hears Morris's whistle (which is shortly after PC Watkins finds Eddowes at 1:44, so the whistle is between 1:44 and 1:45), making his patrol of Church Passage around 1:41 (though I've seen others suggest 1:42).
3) And he says that when he hears the whistle (between 1:44 and 1:45), he's heading back on Algate from Mitre Street towards Duke Street. I forget his exact words, but they've always struck me as him being nearer Mitre Street than Duke.

Anyway, that means, if I set his speed to get him to patrol Church Passage at 1:41, then I can see where he ends up between 1:44 and 1:45 and see if that fits (or set it so he ends up in Algate in roughly the right place I can check to see what time he would have patrolled Church Passage) . At the moment, I've got a simulation that does that, which I posted a few pages back.

Now, in that version, PC Harvey is patrolling at well below regulation speed, but never halts his patrol. But, what if I speed him up but have him take shelter for the duration of the rain? At full regulation patrol speed, it can't work, because from Church Passage a 3 minute travel (1:44) already puts him way too far along to be between Mitre Street and Duke. However, at 2.1 MPH then from 1:44 and allowing 30-45 seconds for PC Watkins to alert Morris and for Morris to start running, and another 15 seconds for Morris to get into Mitre Street and blow his whistle, which alerts PC Harvey, then PC Harvey is at that time still between Mitre Street and Duke Street.

Now he wouldn't be there if he patrolled his beat continuously at 2.1 mph, I have to pause him. So, if we assume the rain started at about the time Lawende and company get up (so start the rain at 1:30), then I pause PC Harvey at that time. And he's here:


What's interesting is that straight above him you can see a small part of the buildings marked with an X, and that's a covered entry! Perfect shelter. If I have him stay there for 3 minutes, he doesn't get to Church Passage until 1:41:25, and that's close enough to be worthy of consideration. Also, at 1:45, which 1 minute after PC Watkins has found Eddowes, and so probably enough time for Morris to have been alerted and to blow his whistle, PC Harvey is also where he says he was 3-4 minutes after patrolling Church Passage! Note, in this scenario, JtR has an additional 25 seconds as he's not spooked until 1:41:25, rather than at 1:41. Meaning, he's in Mitre Square from roughly 1:33:30 until 1:41:25, which is 6 minutes and 55 seconds.


So the "PC Harvey takes shelter for 3 minutes" idea works just as well as "slow Plodding PC Harvey who braves the rain.", but the former gives JtR an additional 25 seconds at the crime scene.

Now, if I set PC Harvey to wait 5 minutes, I have to speed him up to 2.54 mph, which is pretty much bang on regulation speed (2.5 mph). But, now, he doesn't reach Church Passage until 1:41:40 (giving JtR an extra 40 seconds before he's spooked by PC Harvey's arrival, so he's potentially there from 1:35:30 until 1:41:40, which is 6 minutes and 10 seconds, still above 5 minutes, and not all that much less than the 3 minute rain version). 3 minutes later, at 1:44:40, PC Harvey is about where he's indicated above, but now there's only 40 seconds for PC Watkins to alert Morris and for Morris to blow his whistle and for PC Harvey to hear it - the inquest statements, as I recall them, have Morris in Mitre Street, so that's only 40 seconds for PC Watkins to run over, alert Morris, for Morris to view the body, and then run out and blow his whistle. That seems like not enough time, and typically I've been working on 45 seconds for Morris to start his run, and 15 seconds later he's in Mitre Street blowing his whistle. So if I give PC Harvey another 20 seconds, where is he?

He's just at Duke Street. He's not just rounded the corner at Mitre Street and heading to Duke Street, so it's not quite fitting anymore but probably right on the edge of acceptable, given this is a simulation after all.

Now, if I speed up PC Harvey even more to 2.75 mph, he now gets to Church Passage at 1:41:00 with the 5 minute pause, negating the 40 extra seconds JtR has in Mitre Square (bringing us back to the 5 minutes 30 seconds that I've mentioned as the bare minimum he can have). However, 3 minutes later, at 1:44 when PC Watkins has only just found Eddowes, PC Harvey is already at Duke Street. And, when Morris blows his whistle a minute later at 1:45, PC Harvey is now heading up Houndsditch. That clearly doesn't work.

Ok, what I'm getting at is this. While we shouldn't over think these simulations, they are useful. We can start sorting ideas into plausible and implausible ones. So far, there are 2 scenarios that survive testing easily:

1) a slow and steady PC Harvey, who ignores the rain; this leaves between 6 and 8 minutes unaccounted for, 30 seconds of which would be used up by the CPC walking to the crime scene, leaving between 5 m 30 s and 7 m 30 s for the crime.

2) a fairly steady paced PC Harvey (2.1 mph) who shelters during a 3 minute rain and ends up where he says he was at 1:45; this one leaves 6 m 55 s for the crime and he patrols Church Passage at 1:41:25, which is right in the 1:41-1:42 range that we've always talked about.

and a third which just could be argued to squeak in:
3) a regulation speed PC Harvey (2.54 mph) who shelters during a 5 minute rain; this one leaves 6 m 10 s for the crime

And a 4th that I think we can reject
4) a speedy PC Harvey (2.75 mph) who shelters during a 5 minute rain; this one puts him in Houndsditch when the whistle is blown, and he should be between Mitre Street and Duke Street. This is ruled out.

and another one that doesn't quite work either is
5) having him shelter for 3 minutes, and get to Church Passage at 1:41 exactly. Now he patrols at 2.2 mph, but when the whistle blows he's at the post office again, which is too far from where he reports being.


Anyway, the important thing here is, there are multiple ideas that work, and we cannot differentiate between them (the first 2). However, there are also set ups that do not work, which we can reject (the 4th and 5th options), and others which are borderline (the 3rd one) and where accepting or rejecting it would reflect individual decision criterion. But, what we can do, is put ideas to the test, we can question our ideas and see if they fit the testimony. We have to allow some leeway, because the testimony involves estimations of time, and descriptions of places rather than time stamped data and geo coordinates. But even then, we can start to throw out configurations that don't work, reducing the viable options to a limited set. What I find interesting, though, that a lot of the viable options end up with JtR having a bit more time at the crime scene than we've often assumed. I wasn't expecting that, but that's why we must test our ideas.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

There is only one possible explanation with regards to the apron piece, and that is the killer did not cut it and take it away and did not deposit it in Goulston Street. We see no evidence of the killer doing this in any of the other murders so the old accepted theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the evidence to show she was wearing an apron prior to her murder is also not to be relied upon for the reasons I have already highlighted in previous posts.

You are right we have discussed this previous and you and others seem set in your belief in the old accepted theories which is your choice, but 130 years later should we be accepting without question all of these old accepted facst that go back 130 years. I dont think we should

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Ok, while we really should leave this to a dedicated thread concerning the apron, I'll just post this from DJA's post back on page 101:

-----------------------------------

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall. Instructions were given to have the writing photographed, but before it could be done the Metropolitan police stated that they thought the writing might cause a riot or outbreak against the Jews, and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street. When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer.
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

------------------------------------------

Note the bolded section. DO Halse indicates he went to the mortuary where he saw the deceased (Eddowes) and noted that a portion of her apron was missing.

So, we know for a fact that Eddowes had an apron, and we know for a fact a portion was missing from it.

Now, from PC Long's Inquest testimony, found here on Casebook under the official files, we have this:

Coroner] Which did you notice first - the piece of apron or the writing on the wall? - The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood.

So PC Long, under oath, testifies that one corner of the apron was wet with blood. So we know one corner of that piece of material was wet with blood.

And from Dr. Brown's inquest testimony, we have:

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

So we know the portion of apron, with one corner wet with blood, fit Eddowes apron that had a piece missing, and that Eddowes apron was still attached to the body, so she was wearing it when she was murdered.

Ergo, Eddowes was wearing an apron, a piece of it was missing when she was taken to the mortuary, and that missing piece was found in Goulston Street with one corner wet with blood.

There is absolutely nothing that even sparks of opinion here, those are statements of fact.

Questioning the police interpretations is a good thing. But questioning does not always mean rejecting what they concluded. It's simply going back over the evidence and re-evaluating it, and sometimes during that questioning we find the original interpretation is sound. In this case, it is sound.

Anyway, let's park this for now, and if you want to discuss it further then I'm happy to join you in a thread dedicated to this topic, although I rather suspect we'll just both repeat ourselves like two stubborn old men.

- Jeff

[DJA]

One corner being wet with blood indicates the two items were placed on that corner and folded and rolled,thus preventing any blood droplets leading towards and through the gate to number 6 Mitre Street.
The organs would be left to drain/dry out before being immersed in ethanol.
Daniel Halse supplied us with the actual escape time frame.

[DJA]

in the 1910 memoirs of former City Police Commissioner Major Sir Henry Smith. Within the pages of his From Constable to Commissioner, he purports to settle the matter of the Lusk Kidney once and for all:

1. I made over the kidney to the police surgeon, instructing him to consult with the most eminent men in the Profession, and to send me a report without delay. I give the substance of it. The renal artery is about three inches long. Two inches remained in the corpse, one inch was attached to the kidney. The kidney left in the corpse was in an advanced state of Bright's Disease; the kidney sent me was in an exactly similar state. But what was of far more importance, Mr Sutton, one of the senior surgeons at the London Hospital, whom Gordon Brown asked to meet him and another surgeon in consultation, and who was one of the greatest authorities living on the kidney and its diseases, said he would pledge his reputation that the kidney submitted to them had been put in spirits within a few hours of its removal from the body thus effec-ually disposing of all hoaxes in connection with it.

[Elamarna]

That any artery remained on the kidney is disputed by Brown.
The degree of Brights disease was also disputed.

Smith is well known for exaggeration.

[Trevor Marriott]

Ok, while we really should leave this to a dedicated thread concerning the apron, I'll just post this from DJA's post back on page 101:

-----------------------------------

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall. Instructions were given to have the writing photographed, but before it could be done the Metropolitan police stated that they thought the writing might cause a riot or outbreak against the Jews, and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street. When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer.
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

------------------------------------------

Note the bolded section. DO Halse indicates he went to the mortuary where he saw the deceased (Eddowes) and noted that a portion of her apron was missing.

So, we know for a fact that Eddowes had an apron, and we know for a fact a portion was missing from it.

Yes but we dont know if that apron referred to was an apron or an apron piece that she was "apparently" wearing I use the term apparently because Insp Collard uses that term in his inquest testimony which I find strange because we see Insp Collard who was also present when the body was stripped making lists of clothing she was wearing and property in her possession. Those lists would have been prepared as the body was being stripped. So if she had have been wearing an apron and still attached to the body it would have been easily seen and listed accordingly, but its not there with her clothing and if she had been wearing one I would have expected it to been included in the list of clothing.

But it is in her list of possessions we see listed "One piece of old white apron" now if she had been wearing an apron and the killer had cut a piece I would have expected it to have been listed as "Old white apron with piece missing" now there is a big difference between the two descriptions. My belief is that she was not wearing an apron but simply been in possession of two old pieces of apron that at some time had perhaps had come from a full apron, one of which was found in GS.

And from Dr. Brown's inquest testimony, we have:

[Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

I hope you wont mind me correcting you yet again but the quote you posted regarding the apron is wrong because it was from The Telgraph Inquest report. In the official signed statement of Dr. Brown which I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron he states “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with "the" string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.

- Jeff

I am going to conclude on this topic by posting the results of controlled tests under medical conditions carried out on a piece of material consistent with the GS apron, piece to test the different theories regarding the apron piece. The first set of images shows a long bladed knife with blood on its blade it is real blood and how it is suggested the killer used the apron piece to wipe his bloodied knife.

It should be noted that the results show significant smearing. It should also be noted that if the killer had both his hands bloodied then there would be residue on the piece of the material he would have been holding. As stated the GS apron piece had residue only on one side.

the second image show a uterus having been removed from a live donor and wrapped up for a short time. This clearly shows heavy blood staining, not blood spotting or blood smears. so I think it is safe to say this test clearly show that the organs were not carried away in it.

The third shows the effect on a cloth having had bloodied hands wiped on it. I accept that this photo is slightly exaggerated due to the amount of blood seen on the surgical gloves but nevertheless I believe it proves the point that the killer did not wipe his bloody hands on the apron piece

I ma sure these results will not sit well with you and all the others who still subscribe to the killer doing all that he is supposed of have done in Mitre Square. But as the saying goes one picture is worth a thousand words or in this case 6 pics

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

That any artery remained on the kidney is disputed by Brown.
The degree of Brights disease was also disputed.

Smith is well known for exaggeration.

Try reading the last sentence.

[DJA]

I am going to conclude on this topic by posting the results of controlled tests under medical conditions carried out on a piece of material consistent with the GS apron, piece to test the different theories regarding the apron piece. The first set of images shows a long bladed knife with blood on its blade it is real blood and how it is suggested the killer used the apron piece to wipe his bloodied knife.

It should be noted that the results show significant smearing. It should also be noted that if the killer had both his hands bloodied then there would be residue on the piece of the material he would have been holding. As stated the GS apron piece had residue only on one side.

the second image show a uterus having been removed from a live donor and wrapped up for a short time. This clearly shows heavy blood staining, not blood spotting or blood smears. so I think it is safe to say this test clearly show that the organs were not carried away in it.

The third shows the effect on a cloth having had bloodied hands wiped on it. I accept that this photo is slightly exaggerated due to the amount of blood seen on the surgical gloves but nevertheless I believe it proves the point that the killer did not wipe his bloody hands on the apron piece

I ma sure these results will not sit well with you and all the others who still subscribe to the killer doing all that he is supposed of have done in Mitre Square. But as the saying goes one picture is worth a thousand words or in this case 6 pics

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You have someone wearing chemotherapy gloves and someone holding a kitchen knife.
The cloth does not appear to be of the type commonly worn circa 1888,in fact nothing like apron material of that time.

Crikey,I could do better than that.

[JeffHamm]

I am going to conclude on this topic by posting the results of controlled tests under medical conditions carried out on a piece of material consistent with the GS apron, piece to test the different theories regarding the apron piece. The first set of images shows a long bladed knife with blood on its blade it is real blood and how it is suggested the killer used the apron piece to wipe his bloodied knife.

It should be noted that the results show significant smearing. It should also be noted that if the killer had both his hands bloodied then there would be residue on the piece of the material he would have been holding. As stated the GS apron piece had residue only on one side.

the second image show a uterus having been removed from a live donor and wrapped up for a short time. This clearly shows heavy blood staining, not blood spotting or blood smears. so I think it is safe to say this test clearly show that the organs were not carried away in it.

The third shows the effect on a cloth having had bloodied hands wiped on it. I accept that this photo is slightly exaggerated due to the amount of blood seen on the surgical gloves but nevertheless I believe it proves the point that the killer did not wipe his bloody hands on the apron piece

I ma sure these results will not sit well with you and all the others who still subscribe to the killer doing all that he is supposed of have done in Mitre Square. But as the saying goes one picture is worth a thousand words or in this case 6 pics

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

While I appreciate your efforts at recreation, the problem is we do not have the original piece of material with it's blood pattern to compare to, so how do you know if your blood patterns are similar or different from those found on the Goulston Street Apron? Deciding you would use different words to describe your patterns isn't exactly evidence you know. And, the use of gloves, the type of knife, and material (type and cleanliness, etc) will all make these results less than an ideal comparison.

Anyway, I agree, let's move on from this, or take it to it's own thread. I think there's enough in it for the latter, but I'll leave it to you to decide if you think it's worth continuing. Cheers, as always.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

You have someone wearing chemotherapy gloves and someone holding a kitchen knife.
The cloth does not appear to be of the type commonly worn circa 1888,in fact nothing like apron material of that time.

Crikey,I could do better than that.

Clearly you are one who won’t let go of the old accepted theory by you unwarranted remarks

for your information with the exception of the knife wiping the rest of the tests were carried out under medical conditions in a hospital using standard hospital equipment.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n752702]

Hi Trevor,

While I appreciate your efforts at recreation, the problem is we do not have the original piece of material with it's blood pattern to compare to, so how do you know if your blood patterns are similar or different from those found on the Goulston Street Apron? Deciding you would use different words to describe your patterns isn't exactly evidence you know. And, the use of gloves, the type of knife, and material (type and cleanliness, etc) will all make these results less than an ideal comparison.

Anyway, I agree, let's move on from this, or take it to it's own thread. I think there's enough in it for the latter, but I'll leave it to you to decide if you think it's worth continuing. Cheers, as always


- Jeff[/QUOTE

[Christian]

Looking at this image is that Mitre Street in the foreground?? Trying to get my bearings and what are the concrete structures below square level ??