From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[jerryd]

Hi jerryd,

He is one of my persons of interest and, like Abby, I would welcome your views on this suspect.

Cheers, George

George and Abby.

I will try later tonight to put something up about Bellsmith and how he potentially fits into this thread topic. In the meantime, there is information about him on both forums. Some interesting reading is a book he authored called, Henry Cadavere.(Henry Cadavere: A Study of Life and Work - Henry Wentworth Bellsmith - Google Books)

[JeffHamm]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

Exactly. In any case one can never know the reasons for specific actions. There are situational events, idiosyncratic thoughts at rhe moment, etc To delve into the realm of "But why exactly there ...." is to go down rabbit holes. It was there because that is where he was when he felt it appropriate to discard it. That is as far as we can go, and even that might be too far!
.
For our interest, it is the matter of when? Meaning did PC Long miss it twice (Trevor's idea is that he did, and maybe even 3 times), or once (as per discarded when leaving the scene) or never (the volt hole).?

- Jeff

[Losmandris]

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

If he had dropped it any where else, we would be asking the same question. Why? And coming up with similar speculation. On the balance of probability and indications from other crimes i.e. a lack of communication I believe the graffiti is a red herring. Though interesting, it has just confused things over the years and allowed for too many wild presumptions to be made, especially when it comes to tying it to particular suspects or agendas.

[GBinOz]

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

Hi jerryd,

He is one of my persons of interest and, like Abby, I would welcome your views on this suspect.

Cheers, George

[Sunny Delight]

I am sorry, but there must have been plenty of dark doorways along that route where he could have dropped the apron piece but chose not to do so.

There was no need even to take it with him.

Wentworth Dwellings was not the only building which had dark doorways.

One of our main problems is that we try to understand why the killer did exactly what he did. It is obvious to me the killer discarded the apron in Goulston Street. Why there? Simple answer is we don't know. Only the killer knew why he dropped it there. My guess is that it was the first spot where he felt secure enough and far enough away from the murder scene to remove it from inside his coat and discard it. I can't answer why he didn't discard it elsewhere. But he did discard it in Goulston Street. That much we do know.

[Abby Normal]

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

thanks. who was he again?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Trevor,

This is a uterus no matter where it would have been positioned it still would have left a heavy blood stain

Which, from the description we have, would be the corner that was wet with blood. Your photo shows that the uterus from the surgery was placed in the centre of the cloth, which means it is already unrelated to the evidence we have. It's not an attempt to see if it is possible for a uterus to have created patterns that might be described as in the testimony, but appears to be an attempt to show it is possible to create a stain pattern different from the one described, but that's not something anyone would dispute in the first place?

I have attempted to answer the blood and faecal matter before by intimating the fact that the description of both being found on one side only and the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped on it indicates to me that the description is consistent with the cloth being between the legs of Eddowes and was used by her as a sanitary device not put to finer point on this issue but the term "skid marks" springs to mind

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, and as you know your hypothesis has been discussed at length in the past and after full consideration, and quite lengthy discussions, it has not come out of the analysis as a viable alternative explanation in my view - it's fine we disagree on that and I'm not expecting you to change your view either. But let's not go down that path again as it has been discussed in depth and at length a few times now. Neither of us is going to come up with any new arguments, so no headway is going to be made on that path. We just need to agree to disagree.

- Jeff

[jerryd]

hey jer
what does GWB stand for?

hi Abby.

G. Wentworth Bellsmith

The name used by suspect Henry Wentworth Bellsmith.

[Abby Normal]

He almost dropped it at the intersection of (G) Goulston, (W)entworth and (B)ell Lane.

hey jer
what does GWB stand for?

[jerryd]

I am sorry, but there must have been plenty of dark doorways along that route where he could have dropped the apron piece but chose not to do so.

He almost dropped it at the intersection of (G) Goulston, (W)entworth and (B)ell Lane.

[Paddy Goose]

Good afternoon Trevor,

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The purpose of my exercise in conjunction with a consultant gynaecologist was to disprove the theory that the killer took the organs away wrapped in the apron. ...

... I am happy to state that the organs were no taken away in the apron piece.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think you misunderstand what I am saying

No we don't understand who or what you are arguing against.

You seem to have made up a theory:

... the theory that the killer took the organs away wrapped in the apron. ...

Trevor, what is the origin of the theory? Did a doctor, coroner, policeman, witness, anyone in 1888 or thereafter state the theory? Who? Where and when did they state the theory?

Or has it been stated since? By whom? Was it in a book, a documentary, magazine article, podcast, web post? Can you be specific please.

Because you seem to be arguing against yourself.

Paddy

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

He was fleeing a crime scene. It was in all probability the first place he felt secure enough to discard the Apron with no one around.

I am sorry, but there must have been plenty of dark doorways along that route where he could have dropped the apron piece but chose not to do so.

There was no need even to take it with him.

Wentworth Dwellings was not the only building which had dark doorways.

[Sunny Delight]

Why then had he taken the piece of apron with him in the first place and why had he carried it such a great distance?

He was fleeing a crime scene. It was in all probability the first place he felt secure enough to discard the Apron with no one around. We can argue why he took it in the first place. Only the killer knows why. MU hunch is that it was to clean his hands and knife when the opportunity arose. But that is just my hunch. Not a definite of course.

[Wickerman]

That is my point all of the articles you mentioned all conflict with each other. and for a start and none are consistent with freshly removed organs still wet with blood being carried away in it. The organs were not carried away in the apron piece.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I think the question must be asked, if you think a modern photo of a blood stain from an excised uterus can prove the G.S. piece of apron did not hold excised organs (my claim), then why have you not provided a photo in support of your claim?

I think you cannot provide a photo of a blood stain that both matches the inquest testimony AND supports your own explanation.
Until you do, you have only offered half an argument, the rest we are supposed to take on trust?
No, it doesn't work that way.

Nowhere in contemporary writings do we read of anyone in 1888 suggesting the killer carried the organs away in the piece of apron. That would be a distasteful suggestion, it is only to be expected that if a bloodstained rag is found somewhere, demonstrably connected with the case, then it will be assumed it was only used to wipe hands, etc. It's a default explanation, not that anyone saw fingermarks. Wiping blood off our own hands does not leave fingermarks (not your suggestion, I know), nor would it leave the pattern of a blade if used to wipe a knife.
Try it yourself, cover your hands & a kitchen knife with ketchup, then take a cloth and wipe them clean - guaranteed, you will not see the shape of fingers or a blade - that is just nonsense.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

Hmmm, if the uterus in your demonstration was placed at a corner (as per the description of the evidence), wouldn't the corner have been "wet with blood" (like the centre of your cloth is wet with blood). And if the apron were then rolled up, might not the blood soaking through the cloth cause random "spots and smears" on other portions on the same side.

While I don't hold to the use of the apron piece to transport the organs, if I were trying to show that the apron piece couldn't have been used that way i would try my best to at least do what appears would have been necessary (i.e., make sure the uterus is placed at the corner of the cloth, since that is where the apron was described as being most wet with blood, then based upon that positioning, proceed to wrap the uterus - I would think just rolling the cloth around it would be the most likely way one would proceed, like they were wrapping meat in butcher's paper). That would transfer your main stain to the corner (as per the GS piece), and then we could see how much transfer there is to other parts of the cloth due to the method of wrapping.

Of course, given your cloth looks more absorbent than I would expect an apron to be, I'm not sure even that would tell us much. For example, if your more absorbent material produces a staining pattern that could be described as spots and smears on other parts on the same side, one might argue that the less absorbent apron material wouldn't have responded that way, etc.

Also, we would still be left to explain the faecal matter and the fact that the smears were described as looking like a knife and/or hand were wiped upon the cloth.

But setting those issues aside, at least the recreation attempt would have positioned the uterus in a location that would correspond to aspects of the evidence. As it stands, there appears no attempt was made to recreate the staining pattern, so the fact yours doesn't look like what was described is hardly surprising.

- Jeff

This is a uterus no matter where it would have been positioned it still would have left a heavy blood stain

I have attempted to answer the blood and faecal matter before by intimating the fact that the description of both being found on one side only and the appearance of a hand or knife being wiped on it indicates to me that the description is consistent with the cloth being between the legs of Eddowes and was used by her as a sanitary device not put to finer point on this issue but the term "skid marks" springs to mind

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk