Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kates Cuts

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    So now in addition to having the time to walk into the square with the victim, kill, and mutilate her abdomen, remove a kidney and uterus, then rifle her pockets, and then cut a piece of her apron, finishing up by artistically carving out her face. all in under 5 mins.

    Come on wake up to reality !!!!!!!!!!!!

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    Perhaps you should take a look at what the inquest actually said, specifically surgeon Frederick Gordon Brown

    [Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

    That's a minimum, not a maximum of 5 minutes for the mutilations. It does not count the time "to walk into the square with the victim" or to "rifle her pockets" or to "cut a piece of her apron". That 5 minute minimum also doesn't include the time for wrapping up removed organs or the killer wiping off blood and fecal matter.
    Last edited by Fiver; 11-06-2019, 08:01 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

      The truth hurts doesnt it ?

      Dr Brown
      "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk
      You appear to be misremembering Dr. Brown's report.

      "My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."


      Comment


      • #48
        i dont think the ripper cut kates apron to wipe his hands. he could have just done it on her clothes then and there and saved himself time and the risk of being caught with clear cut evidence (the bloody apron) later away from the crime scene when all he had to do was wipe his hands on her clothes before he bolted.

        and considering where the apron was found-underneath the GSG, and other circs of that night point IMHO that he cut and took the apron away for other reasons.

        Probably to carry her organs in and or to use to sign the GSG.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          i dont think the ripper cut kates apron to wipe his hands. he could have just done it on her clothes then and there and saved himself time and the risk of being caught with clear cut evidence (the bloody apron) later away from the crime scene when all he had to do was wipe his hands on her clothes before he bolted.

          and considering where the apron was found-underneath the GSG, and other circs of that night point IMHO that he cut and took the apron away for other reasons.

          Probably to carry her organs in and or to use to sign the GSG.
          Hi Abby Normal,

          He could have cut it to carry the organs I suppose, but my problem with that line is it becomes odd for him to throw it away before he got home (he's not done carrying the organs after all). On the other hand, there is testimony that suggests he may have already got home, and then went out again to discard the apron piece, so that can be reconciled of course. Taking it "in order to sigh the graffiti" presumes he had the notion of leaving a message at the time he killed her. If he did write the graffiti, and it is certainly not a proven fact that he did, that seems more likely to have been a spontaneous thought at the time he got rid of the apron; meaning, while the apron might link the graffiti to him, I don't think JtR was intentionally leaving the apron as a "signature" to the graffiti.

          Also, to copy/paste from Steve's previous post (below in quotes), the stains are described as appearing to be from either hands or a knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not consistent with them being used as a wrapper but as being used to clean up.

          "Inquest report in The Times, 5th October:

          Mr. Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
          Witness: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought in there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

          The witness in question was Dr Brown.
          "

          Offenders do learn from previous crimes, and modify their actions as a result. He may very well have recognized the benefit of having a piece of cloth other than his own clothing to clean up after he finished. I don't think anything more complicated than that is necessary to explain why he took it. Certainly there might have been more complicated notions going on in JtR's head at the time, but if so, the evidence we have is insufficient for us to work out what those might have been. And, in the end, they may be nothing more than a convoluted set of notions which, in the end, also just allow him to clean up and so, in his mind, reduce the risk of being spotted with blood and such on his hands that might be visible to others.

          - Jeff

          Comment


          • #50
            Why would Crawford ask "is it impossible to assert that it's human blood?" What tests existed at the time that could have determined that?
            Thems the Vagaries.....

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
              Why would Crawford ask "is it impossible to assert that it's human blood?" What tests existed at the time that could have determined that?
              The first test to determine if blood was human appears to have been developed in 1901.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                You appear to be misremembering Dr. Brown's report.

                "My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

                No what I posted was from the Times Inquest testimony

                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                  Using an apron piece as a makeshift towel is a reasonable explanation, but in that case wouldn't the killer discard the blood and faeces covered apron piece at the scene rather than carrying it around for at least half an hour.

                  Also, what witness described the bloodstain as a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it".

                  That is simply an opinion not fact
                  But of course you are all presuming he got blood and faeces on his hands, that is not an ascertained fact, but simply speculation by those who look for an explanation which props up the old theories of the killer cutting and taking away the apron piece, but none of those accepted theories stand up to close scrutiny.

                  he could not have taken the organs away in it because it was not sufficiently bloodstained in a way in which would suggest it was used to wrap organs freshly removed from a recently murdered victim.

                  If the killer used it wipe his blood stained hands there would be blood on both sides of the apron piece

                  If he used it to wipe his knife then holding the knife with bloodstained hands would still transfer blood onto the side he was holding, and when the knife was wiped that would transfer blood from the knife onto the other side.

                  Further quote from Dr Brown which conflict with what he said in another statement and if true throws a much differenet perspectine on the apon piece

                  Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston Street?

                  Dr. 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.

                  As to the two apron pieces which were matched there is no evidence to show that the two pieces made up a full apron, and therefore adds weight to the suggestion that she wasn't wearing an apron, but simply been in possession of two old pieces of white apron which at some point had come from a full apron.

                  There is no apron listed on the list of her clothing taken from her at the mortuary. There is on the list of her possessions mention of a piece of old white apron. Now to me that's prime evidence, from notes taken down at the time by a police by Insp Collard, who presented that list in evidence at the inquest, and the list is still with us today, and you cant get better than that.

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Al Bundy's Eyes View Post
                    Why would Crawford ask "is it impossible to assert that it's human blood?" What tests existed at the time that could have determined that?
                    It's important to have things recorded in testimony, so having it recorded that 1) it is definately blood and 2) it cannot be determined if it was human blood are two important points "for the record". Also, the jury would not necessarily be up on what could and could not be tested, so it's important for the jury to know that it cannot be stated that the blood on the apron was proven to be human blood, though it's a pretty safe inference in this case.

                    - Jeff

                    Comment


                    • #55

                      Dr. 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.

                      Seriously Trevor, how can you post that quote and still argue that she wasn't wearing it? It's stated clearly the remaining portion of the apron was still tied to her, that's how aprons are worn. What do you imagine that means?

                      - Jeff

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
                        Dr. 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.

                        Seriously Trevor, how can you post that quote and still argue that she wasn't wearing it? It's stated clearly the remaining portion of the apron was still tied to her, that's how aprons are worn. What do you imagine that means?

                        - Jeff
                        If she was still wearing it how come it got left of the list if the clothing was being listed as it was being taken off the body. If you look at the list, had she been wearing an apron it would have been found under her jacket, but on top of her dress. It is conspicuous by its absence from where it should have been.

                        Its a question of interpretation of all the facts surrounding the apron. That statement you refer to relates to Dr Browns The Telegraph report

                        His official signed inquest testimony is different. "My attention was called to the apron it was the "corner "of the apron with the "string" attached.Emphasis on corner and string !!!!!!!!!!!

                        Now you know you cant tie an apron up with just one string, and as there is no evidence to show the other piece had a string attached. I think it is right to assume that she was not wearing one.

                        As Dr Brown would have read his official statement before signing it, It is right to accept that version as being the correct one.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk







                        Last edited by Trevor Marriott; 11-07-2019, 12:09 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          If she was still wearing it how come it got left of the list if the clothing was being listed as it was being taken off the body. If you look at the list, had she been wearing an apron it would have been found under her jacket, but on top of her dress. It is conspicuous by its absence from where it should have been.

                          Its a question of interpretation of all the facts surrounding the apron. That statement you refer to relates to Dr Browns The Telegraph report

                          His official signed inquest testimony is different. "My attention was called to the apron it was the "corner "of the apron with the "string" attached.Emphasis on corner and string !!!!!!!!!!!

                          Now you know you cant tie an apron up with just one string, and as there is no evidence to show the other piece had a string attached. I think it is right to assume that she was not wearing one.

                          As Dr Brown would have read his official statement before signing it, It is right to accept that version as being the correct one.

                          www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                          Ah fair enough, although the statement is technically me quoting you and the evidence you put forth for your claims, and it was you who were referring to the statement from the The Telegraph. But, as I'm sure you know, that's an ambiguous statement, at least on par with the autopsy report that states Kelly's heart was missing because it could be said it is not clear if it means the corner of the apron-with-the-string-attached (so string attached to the apron) or, if it means the string was attached to the corner piece from the apron? (which apparently did exist after all). Given the ambiguity of that statement, combined with the non-ambiguous statement, doesn't that suggest a resolution? Or, if you would prefer, if we don't go with that as a resolution, given the conflict between those statements, shouldn't we just ignore all of Dr. Brown's testimony as "unsafe"?

                          - Jeff
                          Last edited by JeffHamm; 11-07-2019, 02:58 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                            But of course you are all presuming he got blood and faeces on his hands, that is not an ascertained fact, but simply speculation by those who look for an explanation which props up the old theories of the killer cutting and taking away the apron piece, but none of those accepted theories stand up to close scrutiny.
                            Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown - "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter."

                            Just how could the killer pull out Eddowes intestines and place them over her right shoulder without getting that "feculent matter" on his hands?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Fiver View Post

                              Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown - "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder -- they were smeared over with some feculent matter."

                              Just how could the killer pull out Eddowes intestines and place them over her right shoulder without getting that "feculent matter" on his hands?
                              ...and what did the smearing? A passing cat? No, it is highly probable that, when he cut and removed the section of colon (which would have been done after the rest of the intestines had been yanked out of the body), the killer got faeces on one or more of his hands, some of which he tried to get rid of by wiping - smearing - his hand(s) on the exposed viscera.
                              Last edited by Sam Flynn; 11-07-2019, 07:55 AM.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Here's what I could find concerning whether or not she was wearing an apron. The following comes from the Eddowes Inquest testimonies, as resported in Evans & Skinner (2000). “The Ultimate Jack the Ripper Companion”, and can be found on pages 200-215.

                                I haven't bothered with a few bits of testimony that refer to the finding of the apron piece in Goulston Street, though some of that relates to issues concerning when that piece was deposited there, but as that is a different issue, I've not included it.

                                So, from the Inquest reports filed in the Corporation of London Records Office:

                                Frederick William Wilkison 55 Flower and Dean Street, Brick Lane, Spitalfields, Deputy of the Lodging House, was sworn and stated – “I have known deceased and Kelly for the last 7 or 8 years, …
                                On the Saturday morning she was wearing an apron, she was not dressed in anything particular. …”

                                Edward Collard Inspector, City Police, being sworn said – “…I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress – I took immediate steps to have the neighbourhood searched.

                                The official list of Eddowes’s clothes and possessions is as follows:
                                … the last item listed is
                                1 Piece of old White apron

                                Frederick Gordon Brown: …”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 Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is 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 swen on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding – some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street.”

                                Louis Robinson City Police Constable 931”…I sawthere a woman whom I have since recognized as the Deceased lying on the footway drunk. I asked if there was one that knew her or knew where she lived but I got no answer. …
                                By Mr. Crawford – The last time I saw her in the Police Cell was at 10 to 9. She was wearing an apron. I believe the apron produced was the one she was wearing.”

                                George Henry Hutt Police Constable 968 “…I noticed she was wearing an apron. I believe the one produced was the one she was wearing when she left the Station….”

                                Basically, she's reported as wearing the apron from morning, through the day, and right up to the point she was released from the gaol. Even if the piece found had string on it, so what? So he cut the corner and the string was attached to the piece he takes, how that disproves she was wearing it at the time he cut it is beyond me.

                                Basically, it is pretty clear and obvious once one looks at all the evidence that she was wearing the apron. It is even identified as the one that fits the piece found in Goulston Street, and people identify the apron produced as the one they saw her wearing.


                                - Jeff

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X