Kate's Apron

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

This is just a thread to discuss aspects associated with Kate's apron that have come up in the Jack's Escape thread around page 101 through 103 (give or take).

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

So, with regards to the apron, there was a piece found in Goulston Street that matched the missing section of the apron Kate was wearing (it's noted in testimony by DO Halse that he noticed, at the mortuary, that there was a piece missing from Kate's apron). Dr. Brown testifies that the piece found in Goulston street matched the piece attached by the strings to the body (so the found piece matched a missing section of an apron Kate was wearing).

There are 3 lines of thought about the apron:

1) JtR cut a piece out of the apron Kate was wearing and went straight to Goulston Street and dropped that piece, probably somewhere around 1:46-1:48 ish and it was not spotted by PC Long at 2:20 (PC Long had probably just past that location around 1:45)

Because PC Long testifies the piece of apron was not in Goulston Street at 2:20, others have suggested that:
2) JtR went to a bolt hole/home location then re-emerges and drops the apron later, sometime after 2:20 but before 2:55 when PC Long patrols that area again

Trevor, however, has argued in places that Kate was not even wearing an apron, and even if she was, JtR did not have time to cut a piece from it so there is a different explanation for how the piece came to be found in Goulston Street, and this gives us the third idea:

3) JtR did not cut the apron and did not deposit it at Goulston Street (so there's no reason to suggest JtR ever was there)

Options 1 & 2 also allow for, but do not prove, that JtR could be the author of the Goulston Street Graffii. Option 3 means JtR did not write it because he was not there. While I'm mentioning that here, let's keep the discussion about the Graffiti to a minimum, and only use it if it becomes part of your argument about the apron itself.

Anyway, I hope I've set that up with sufficient neutrality. My opinions and views will, no doubt, become clear later, but all 3 options are open for discussion. And, please people, keep it friendly (that doesn't mean you have to agree, and can of course disagree strongly, but try to do so without resorting to personal insults; that's no fun nor is it helpful in getting a point across).


- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

So, with regards to the apron, there was a piece found in Goulston Street that matched the missing section of the apron Kate was wearing (it's noted in testimony by DO Halse that he noticed, at the mortuary, that there was a piece missing from Kate's apron). Dr. Brown testifies that the piece found in Goulston street matched the piece attached by the strings to the body (so the found piece matched a missing section of an apron Kate was wearing).

There are 3 lines of thought about the apron:

1) JtR cut a piece out of the apron Kate was wearing and went straight to Goulston Street and dropped that piece, probably somewhere around 1:46-1:48 ish and it was not spotted by PC Long at 2:20 (PC Long had probably just past that location around 1:45)

Because PC Long testifies the piece of apron was not in Goulston Street at 2:20, others have suggested that:
2) JtR went to a bolt hole/home location then re-emerges and drops the apron later, sometime after 2:20 but before 2:55 when PC Long patrols that area again

Trevor, however, has argued in places that Kate was not even wearing an apron, and even if she was, JtR did not have time to cut a piece from it so there is a different explanation for how the piece came to be found in Goulston Street, and this gives us the third idea:

3) JtR did not cut the apron and did not deposit it at Goulston Street (so there's no reason to suggest JtR ever was there)

Options 1 & 2 also allow for, but do not prove, that JtR could be the author of the Goulston Street Graffii. Option 3 means JtR did not write it because he was not there. While I'm mentioning that here, let's keep the discussion about the Graffiti to a minimum, and only use it if it becomes part of your argument about the apron itself.

Anyway, I hope I've set that up with sufficient neutrality. My opinions and views will, no doubt, become clear later, but all 3 options are open for discussion. And, please people, keep it friendly (that doesn't mean you have to agree, and can of course disagree strongly, but try to do so without resorting to personal insults; that's no fun nor is it helpful in getting a point across).


- Jeff

hi jeff
imho the ripper cut it and then deposited at goulston when he wrote the grafitti. long was adament it wast there first time around. so where was it? with the ripper still as he goes to his bolt hole,cleans up abit, drops off his goodies and knife, grabs some chalk and heads back out to goulston street to write the grafitti and sign it with the apron. getting back at those pesky jews that kept interupting him that night (lipsky! and lawende and co) and throwing the police into a tizzy. worked like a charm.

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s been quite a while since I looked in on the events Mitre Square in any depth for quite a while so I hope you’ll excuse the rust.

I can’t recall the arguments against to be honest but it’s difficult to see how Bond could have been mistaken when he matched up the two apron sections? It always appeared beyond doubt to me as far as I can recall Jeff.

If the Ripper did have a bolt hole (which is plausible of course) and he definitely went there that night and emerged later to dispose of the apron then obviously this would strongly point to the grafitto being genuine but how certain can we really be that Long just didn’t notice the apron on his pass at 2.20?

On the question of the time required to have cut away a piece of apron? How long could this have taken? A matter of a very few seconds I’d have thought and maybe it had already been partly severed by the rippers knife?

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
imho the ripper cut it and then deposited at goulston when he wrote the grafitti. long was adament it wast there first time around. so where was it? with the ripper still as he goes to his bolt hole,cleans up abit, drops off his goodies and knife, grabs some chalk and heads back out to goulston street to write the grafitti and sign it with the apron. getting back at those pesky jews that kept interupting him that night (lipsky! and lawende and co) and throwing the police into a tizzy. worked like a charm.

Hi Abby,

There's nothing in the evidence that contradicts that, so I certainly can't say it's wrong. My opinion, though, is that I do find it a bit difficult to accept that JtR would go back out to a high risk zone after having made it successfully to a bolt hole, where he would be in relative safety. He doesn't have to discard of the apron for fear of it being discovered by a family member, since he's presumably left a uterus and kidney in this safe place. A piece of bloody cloth is even less incriminating.

As you say, PC Long states without qualification that the apron was not there at 2:20. While I wouldn't describe that as adamant, it would equally be unfair to suggest he lacked confidence in his reply. It is, however, a well know fact of human nature that we can be extremely confident about things that are wrong. Confidence does not equal accuracy, and so while we should note he was confident, we should not mistake that as proving he was correct. We know PC Long also gets into a bit of a muddle with regards to the Graffitti, and appears to have copied it down incorrectly (he correctly spells Jews, while others indicate the spelling was Juwes; he also mis-remembers the wording and is sent to get his note book, which doesn't prove to get him out of his predicament). So, given all this, PC Long's confidence is something we really need to question.

And overlooking the apron would not be particularly unlikely. He's on his beat looking for suspicious activity. If, at 2:20, he is unaware of the murder in Mitre Square, then a piece of discarded cloth is not suspicious, nor would it be memorable. I'll come back to this in a bit.

For example, also around 2:20, we have D.O. Halse passing through Goulston street in that location on his way to Mitre Square and he says : "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."

Detective Officer Halse would be a more highly trained individual than PC Long, and so may be more prone to recognizing that "not seeing something doesn't mean it wasn't there", so he's being more conservative in his language while PC Long's confidence may reflect, in part, his lesser experience with giving testimony. (I don't know this for a fact, of course, but a PC is less experienced than a DO, in both investigative techniques and in the giving of evidence. Take note of how PC Long had to go back to get his note book, while a more experienced officer would have known to bring that along). While both Halse and Long say they were in that location at 2:20, DO Halse is making his way to Mitre Square, probably in a hurry, while PC Long is on his beat. It wouldn't take that many seconds difference for them to be separated enough to by pass each other.

So, the question is, at what time was PC Long aware there had been a murder in Mitre Square? We know DO Halse had heard of it just before 2 (He testifies: 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.) So it seems the word was getting around. Unfortunately, the only statement he makes about this was :

Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

However the context of this statement is after he had found the apron at 2:55, so while we know some of the police in the area had heard of the murder by 2 o'clock, we do not have a statement of fact that indicates that PC Long specifically knew of the murder until 2:55, leaving open the possibility that he does not hear of it until later than most (and so possibly after 2:20).

PC Long was also on his first patrol of the area (his closing statement from the inquest being: "[Coroner] Did you not know about the back? - No, that was the first time I had been on duty there.") which also leads to the possibility that he might overlook something.

And so, as I said initially, none of this proves the apron was there at 2:20 and just overlooked. Unfortunately, the circumstances do not let us conclude, nor should we be overly confident in, the idea that it was not there at 2:20.

Obviously, if it was overlooked, the most likely interpretation is that JtR fled in a North Easterly direction from Mitre Square and dropped the apron piece "on the fly". Whether or not he also stopped to write the graffiti is another matter.

In my own view, because I find it difficult to imagine JtR leaving a safe location after he safely makes it home, and given the shakiness of the evidence that the apron wasn't there at 2:20, I tend to favour the "on route" idea. This leads to JtR on a continual flight path from the scene of the crime and away, indicating where he's trying to get to, rather than him getting there and here's where he came to.

That said, JtR is a serial killer, and they don't think like the rest of us. So, my objection, while perfectly sound for those of us not in the habit of disemboweling strangers in the street, may be of little substance when considering someone who is. JtR is certainly not adverse to taking large risks, and if that's part of the thrill for him, then perhaps this is just the sort of thing he would do to relive the excitement.

And so, like so many things, I'm finding myself sitting on a fence and in dire fear of impaling myself.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

It’s been quite a while since I looked in on the events Mitre Square in any depth for quite a while so I hope you’ll excuse the rust.

I can’t recall the arguments against to be honest but it’s difficult to see how Bond could have been mistaken when he matched up the two apron sections? It always appeared beyond doubt to me as far as I can recall Jeff.

If the Ripper did have a bolt hole (which is plausible of course) and he definitely went there that night and emerged later to dispose of the apron then obviously this would strongly point to the grafitto being genuine but how certain can we really be that Long just didn’t notice the apron on his pass at 2.20?

On the question of the time required to have cut away a piece of apron? How long could this have taken? A matter of a very few seconds I’d have thought and maybe it had already been partly severed by the rippers knife?

Hi Herlock,

I'm going to let Trevor present his case as I don't want to do it an injustice as that wouldn't be fair given that Trevor and I do not agree (so I would no doubt present it with that difference of opinion influencing how I word things, even if I tried to be objective).

As for the rest, I've just posted a reply to Abby above that may cover much of what you've mentioned.

Have a look in the "Escape from Mitre Square" thread, starting around page 100 or so and scattered on pages up to page 105 I think (at the moment). I've been reworking my simulation program and have found a few things to consider. Much of it is theoretical (a nice way of saying speculative, and "just so stories"), but I do try and build them on the evidence we have and see where it gets us.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

Hi Herlock,

I'm going to let Trevor present his case as I don't want to do it an injustice as that wouldn't be fair given that Trevor and I do not agree (so I would no doubt present it with that difference of opinion influencing how I word things, even if I tried to be objective).

As for the rest, I've just posted a reply to Abby above that may cover much of what you've mentioned.

Have a look in the "Escape from Mitre Square" thread, starting around page 100 or so and scattered on pages up to page 105 I think (at the moment). I've been reworking my simulation program and have found a few things to consider. Much of it is theoretical (a nice way of saying speculative, and "just so stories"), but I do try and build them on the evidence we have and see where it gets us.

- Jeff

hi jeff
yes all that makes perfect sense too, and i dont really have an issue with it. im not married to tje idea the ripper went to his bolt hole first and then came back out, although thats what i think is the most likely. long could have simply missed it,but then again he was the one who actually did find it, so theres that. lol

if you look at all the events that happened that night, it seems like the ripper might have felt he had lost control a bit, gained it back with eddowes and took more control with the apron and grafiti, blaming the jews. manipulating the situation more to throw blame on the jews who were going to be giving HIS description to tje police. and of course trying to also throw off the police.

and comparing what he was used to getting away with, heading back out with only the apron is peanuts to him, compared to acheiving what this little act of obsfucation would create. and as i said it worked like a charm. he was probably giggling to himself all the next day and night over the havoc he made. and as you mention, serial killers are not normal, they take huge risks and get off on it. most are also sociopaths, and dont have the same fear level we have.

[JeffHamm]

hi jeff
yes all that makes perfect sense too, and i dont really have an issue with it. im not married to tje idea the ripper went to his bolt hole first and then came back out, although thats what i think is the most likely. long could have simply missed it,but then again he was the one who actually did find it, so theres that. lol

if you look at all the events that happened that night, it seems like the ripper might have felt he had lost control a bit, gained it back with eddowes and took more control with the apron and grafiti, blaming the jews. manipulating the situation more to throw blame on the jews who were going to be giving HIS description to tje police. and of course trying to also throw off the police.

and comparing what he was used to getting away with, heading back out with only the apron is peanuts to him, compared to acheiving what this little act of obsfucation would create. and as i said it worked like a charm. he was probably giggling to himself all the next day and night over the havoc he made. and as you mention, serial killers are not normal, they take huge risks and get off on it. most are also sociopaths, and dont have the same fear level we have.

Yes, all good points. As I say, while I lean one way, I'm not falling over it. There are a number of aspects of the case that we can got only so close to, and the resulting list of "still viable" options is till too large, sometimes allowing for polar opposite theories to co-exist as "could be's".

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I'm just copying a post by Trevor from the Escape Thread to here now that we have a dedicated thread for this discussion.

I've not got my source material with me, and there's a fair bit of content to unpack, so I may have to wait until I get out of quarantine in 2 days (I've returned from abroad and have had to spend the last 12 days in managed isolation. So far 2 covid tests are negative, and my 3rd was done today, so as long as that's clean, I'm good to go).


Today, 12:45 PM
[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n752718]
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Now Trevor, don't be slippery. I'm saying Dr. Brown testified that the blood pattern looked like a knife or hand was wiped on it, and he actually saw the cloth and stains. You are the one claiming that you know he was wrong without you actually seeing the cloth in question. My belief is that Dr. Brown, after looking at the actual stains, decided that the wiping a knife/hand on the cloth could produce them.

Again, there's absolutely no way you can make that claim because you do not know what the original stains looked like, all we have are cursory descriptions of a cloth with blood on it, with only two statements that get a bit more speciifc, that of PC Long saying one corner was wet with blood during his sworn inquest testimony, and one from Dr. Brown who indicates the blood pattern appeared consistent with someone wiping a hand or knife on it.

Now, without knowing what the actual cloth looked like, how do you know if your recreations are using too much blood or too little and so forth? You don't, so you can't draw much of an inference.

Nowhere in the inquest statements does anyone describe the blood pattern as looking like it resulted from organs being wrapped up in the cloth. That, I think, is a more recent suggestion. Like you, I don't put much weight in that as I can't see why JtR would unwrap the organs in transit, nor do I see him re-emerging to discard of it after having made it home.

Well, I guess that means that your next target of the old accepted theories to overturn is the accepted notion there were any murders at all! Clearly, it was just a conspiracy between the police and press to get more money - the police could call in additional funds for the increased patrols and the press could sell more papers.

- Jeff
And the apron piece was also described as being spotted with blood as you can see the test shows that the knife wiping or the hand wiping would cause more than blood spotting.

You are right he did make that statement but that is not in line with a killer having blood on his hands and a bloodied knife and using the apron piece to clean either, or both. As I keep saying if that had been the case then there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece, so how do you explain that away?

But lets look at what Brown did say because it seems he has been reported wrongly somewhere along the way

Dr Brown signed inquest testimony

"The blood spots were of recent origin"

The Times Inquest testimony

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a knife or a hand had been wiped on it"

The Telegraph Inquest testimony

"And the apron piece was also described as being spotted with blood as you can see the test shows that the knife wiping or the hand wiping would cause more than blood spotting.

You are right he did make that statement but that is not in line with a killer having blood on his hands and a bloodied knife and using the apron piece to clean either, or both. As I keep saying if that had been the case then there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece, so how do you explain that away?

But lets look at what Brown did say

Dr Brown signed inquest testimony

"The blood spots were of recent origin"

Then we add the Telegraph report to the mix

"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 have 2 reports that the apron piece was spotted with blood then we add strings to the apron and a suggestion that the apron was still attached to the body but that is proved to be wrong in Browns inquest testimony

"It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.The Blood spots were of recent origin"

The Times Inquest testimony

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a knife or a hand had been wiped on it"

Again we see a conflict in the evidence which version is correct and we go from spots of blood to smears

The test were carried out to prove or disprove the theories that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece and that he used the piece to wipe his bloody hands and his knife. There is no need to view the original to make a concerted decision. The test shows that wiping a bloody knife, or bloodstained hands on a cloth would not leave blood spots, and blood spots seems to be what was described

I also notice you make no comment about the documenting of the victims clothes by Collard and his subsequent ambiguous inquest testimony, and how residue was only seen on one side of the piece, and I am dying to see how you explain that one away seeing as you are so fixated in the belief that the killer cut the apron and used it to wipe his bloody hands and his knife

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

[QUOTE=JeffHamm;n752741]
I'm just copying a post by Trevor from the Escape Thread to here now that we have a dedicated thread for this discussion.

I've not got my source material with me, and there's a fair bit of content to unpack, so I may have to wait until I get out of quarantine in 2 days (I've returned from abroad and have had to spend the last 12 days in managed isolation. So far 2 covid tests are negative, and my 3rd was done today, so as long as that's clean, I'm good to go).


Today, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Now Trevor, don't be slippery. I'm saying Dr. Brown testified that the blood pattern looked like a knife or hand was wiped on it, and he actually saw the cloth and stains. You are the one claiming that you know he was wrong without you actually seeing the cloth in question. My belief is that Dr. Brown, after looking at the actual stains, decided that the wiping a knife/hand on the cloth could produce them.

Again, there's absolutely no way you can make that claim because you do not know what the original stains looked like, all we have are cursory descriptions of a cloth with blood on it, with only two statements that get a bit more speciifc, that of PC Long saying one corner was wet with blood during his sworn inquest testimony, and one from Dr. Brown who indicates the blood pattern appeared consistent with someone wiping a hand or knife on it.

Now, without knowing what the actual cloth looked like, how do you know if your recreations are using too much blood or too little and so forth? You don't, so you can't draw much of an inference.

Nowhere in the inquest statements does anyone describe the blood pattern as looking like it resulted from organs being wrapped up in the cloth. That, I think, is a more recent suggestion. Like you, I don't put much weight in that as I can't see why JtR would unwrap the organs in transit, nor do I see him re-emerging to discard of it after having made it home.

Well, I guess that means that your next target of the old accepted theories to overturn is the accepted notion there were any murders at all! Clearly, it was just a conspiracy between the police and press to get more money - the police could call in additional funds for the increased patrols and the press could sell more papers.

- Jeff
And the apron piece was also described as being spotted with blood as you can see the test shows that the knife wiping or the hand wiping would cause more than blood spotting.

You are right he did make that statement but that is not in line with a killer having blood on his hands and a bloodied knife and using the apron piece to clean either, or both. As I keep saying if that had been the case then there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece, so how do you explain that away?

But lets look at what Brown did say because it seems he has been reported wrongly somewhere along the way

Dr Brown signed inquest testimony

"The blood spots were of recent origin"

The Times Inquest testimony

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a knife or a hand had been wiped on it"

The Telegraph Inquest testimony

"And the apron piece was also described as being spotted with blood as you can see the test shows that the knife wiping or the hand wiping would cause more than blood spotting.

You are right he did make that statement but that is not in line with a killer having blood on his hands and a bloodied knife and using the apron piece to clean either, or both. As I keep saying if that had been the case then there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece, so how do you explain that away?

But lets look at what Brown did say

Dr Brown signed inquest testimony

"The blood spots were of recent origin"

Then we add the Telegraph report to the mix

"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 have 2 reports that the apron piece was spotted with blood then we add strings to the apron and a suggestion that the apron was still attached to the body but that is proved to be wrong in Browns inquest testimony

"It was the corner of the apron with a string attached.The Blood spots were of recent origin"

The Times Inquest testimony

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a knife or a hand had been wiped on it"

Again we see a conflict in the evidence which version is correct and we go from spots of blood to smears

The test were carried out to prove or disprove the theories that the killer took away the organs in the apron piece and that he used the piece to wipe his bloody hands and his knife. There is no need to view the original to make a concerted decision. The test shows that wiping a bloody knife, or bloodstained hands on a cloth would not leave blood spots, and blood spots seems to be what was described

I also notice you make no comment about the documenting of the victims clothes by Collard and his subsequent ambiguous inquest testimony, and how residue was only seen on one side of the piece, and I am dying to see how you explain that one away seeing as you are so fixated in the belief that the killer cut the apron and used it to wipe his bloody hands and his knife

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Jeff
Thank you for posting this reply but I hadn't finished writing it

Another point I wanted to mention is that Brown mentions fecal matter being found on the apron piece, now if the killer had have put his hands inside the abdomen which had the bowel damaged allowing fecal matter to flow into the abdomen and mix with the blood then what would have been on the killers hands would have been a mixture of blood and fecal matter and if he then wiped his hands on the apron piece both would perhaps have been mixed and the fecal matter not so readily identifiable.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

From Dr. Brown's Time's Inquest Statement (Oct 5, 1888), the only statements he makes concerning the apron are in one section, which reads:

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

Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin?
Witness. - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.

Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on 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.

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

And again, the two pieces matched/fit together.

And as for the wiping, all he's saying is that one side of the piece appeared to have the knife or a hand wiped on it, he doesn't say the other side is absent of any stains at all. There could be spots and smears on both sides, but one side appears to have had something wiped upon it.

As for your hand wiping experiment, the fact the person is wearing latex gloves would hugely invalidate those findings. The gloves would transfer far more blood than skin would. And you can't say your result is similar or different from the original apron without having the original to compare with, that's manifestly obvious. The Police Constables were not trained forensic investigators, so their description of a piece of cloth with blood on it will not conform to the type of careful jargon used today to describe blood patterns. Smears, stains, spots, etc, are all just words used by lay people to indicate "there was blood on the cloth."

Dr. Brown, however, is a professional medical practitioner who testifies at inquests, and he's going to be more careful with his language, and more precise. And he tells us that the stains looked like a knife or hand was wiped on the cloth. Without the original, we simply cannot reinterpret what he said as that is him stating a fact in his area of knowledge.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;n752742]

I'm just copying a post by Trevor from the Escape Thread to here now that we have a dedicated thread for this discussion.

I've not got my source material with me, and there's a fair bit of content to unpack, so I may have to wait until I get out of quarantine in 2 days (I've returned from abroad and have had to spend the last 12 days in managed isolation. So far 2 covid tests are negative, and my 3rd was done today, so as long as that's clean, I'm good to go).


Today, 12:45 PM


Jeff
Thank you for posting this reply but I hadn't finished writing it

Another point I wanted to mention is that Brown mentions fecal matter being found on the apron piece, now if the killer had have put his hands inside the abdomen which had the bowel damaged allowing fecal matter to flow into the abdomen and mix with the blood then what would have been on the killers hands would have been a mixture of blood and fecal matter and if he then wiped his hands on the apron piece both would perhaps have been mixed and the fecal matter not so readily identifiable.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

Sorry, I didn't realize. Anyway, I'll have a good look at the points you raise once I have full access to all of my materials. I want to make sure I've got the surrounding contexts, and so forth.

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

From Dr. Brown's Time's Inquest Statement (Oct 5, 1888), the only statements he makes concerning the apron are in one section, which reads:

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

Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin?
Witness. - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.

Mr. Crawford. - Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on 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.

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

And again, the two pieces matched/fit together.

And as for the wiping, all he's saying is that one side of the piece appeared to have the knife or a hand wiped on it, he doesn't say the other side is absent of any stains at all. There could be spots and smears on both sides, but one side appears to have had something wiped upon it.

As for your hand wiping experiment, the fact the person is wearing latex gloves would hugely invalidate those findings. The gloves would transfer far more blood than skin would. And you can't say your result is similar or different from the original apron without having the original to compare with, that's manifestly obvious. The Police Constables were not trained forensic investigators, so their description of a piece of cloth with blood on it will not conform to the type of careful jargon used today to describe blood patterns. Smears, stains, spots, etc, are all just words used by lay people to indicate "there was blood on the cloth."

Dr. Brown, however, is a professional medical practitioner who testifies at inquests, and he's going to be more careful with his language, and more precise. And he tells us that the stains looked like a knife or hand was wiped on the cloth. Without the original, we simply cannot reinterpret what he said as that is him stating a fact in his area of knowledge.

- Jeff

You are cherry picking the inquest testimony I have quoted all the references that Brown made in relation the the decsription of the apron piece

As to the latex glove pics if you read the post that goes with it you will see I make a comment about the amount of blood on the gloves which would not be found on a persons hands under normal circumstances.

But how have the blood spots suddenly turned into smears?

And surely anyone would know the difference between spots of blood and blood smears/ and Brown who you hold in high esteem for some reason goes from Blood spots to smears. So your jargon argument as stated falls flat. It all so unreliable and certainly does not go to prove the killer wiped his hands or his knife on that apron piece.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

You are cherry picking the inquest testimony I have quoted all the references that Brown made in relation the the decsription of the apron piece

As to the latex glove pics if you read the post that goes with it you will see I make a comment about the amount of blood on the gloves which would not be found on a persons hands under normal circumstances.

But how have the blood spots suddenly turned into smears?

And surely anyone would know the difference between spots of blood and blood smears/ and Brown who you hold in high esteem for some reason goes from Blood spots to smears. So your jargon argument as stated falls flat. It all so unreliable and certainly does not go to prove the killer wiped his hands or his knife on that apron piece.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

You're quibbling over spots vs smears, when most likely there were spots, and smears, and stains, and creating ambiguity where none exists. What is undeniable is Dr. Brown explicitly tells us it looked like a hand or knife was wiped on the cloth. You can go on all you want about the use of different words, all of which describe a cloth with blood on it, as if that makes a difference to the undeniable fact we are explicitly told one side looked like a hand or knife was wiped upon it.

And without the actual article for us to examine ourselves, we are in no position to say that was wrong.

As for Dr. Brown, you are his champion when it comes to the time estimate for the injuries, and yet now you abandon him? Why is that? Could it be you who is cherry picking?

- Jeff

[Kattrup]

So, the question is, at what time was PC Long aware there had been a murder in Mitre Square? We know DO Halse had heard of it just before 2 (He testifies: 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.) So it seems the word was getting around. Unfortunately, the only statement he makes about this was :

Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.

Hi Jeff

just a small comment: it is commonly assumed that the second sentence is part of the coroner's next question, mistakely placed as Long's response by the paper.

So the correct order, as given in Daily News and Daily Telegraph, is:

Coroner: Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed?
Long: Yes.
Coroner: It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated. Which did you hear of?
Long: I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.


On the subject of the apron, I believe Eddowes was the first victim to wear one. I think it makes sense for killer to have cut it off first, as it is the outermost garment, and easy to cut when stretched out, unlike the clothes, which would be much more difficult to remove. In fact we only see the killer pushing up the dresses and cutting through the clothes, not removing large portions of them, which would take too long.