From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

https://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

[JeffHamm]

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Trevor Marriott]

Think back to your CSI training - how is blood spotting and spatter caused?

Plunge the knife into a body, pull it out and repeat, and repeat...etc.
Spotting (perfectly round dots) is cause when blood hits a surface perpendicular, either from dropping straight down, or from the extended limit of the swing of the arm.
Spatter (oval shaped drops of blood) is caused when blood strikes a surface at an angle.

Daily Telegraph - Dr Gordon-Brown said he fitted the portion that was spotted with blood to the remaining portion (piece remaining on the body).
So, we can take it the G.S. piece was spotted with blood.

and blood spotting is a part of the female menstruation cycle

Times & Morning Advertiser - "the (G.S.) piece of apron had smears of blood".

Morning Post - "the (G.S.) piece had finger marks of blood"

So, testimony can establish that the piece found at G.S. had both spots & smears of blood, plus what looked like finger marks? (the last might be more the result of creative journalistic thinking).
Plus, let us not forget PC Long described a corner "wet with blood".

The modern photo you have entered into evidence does not meet the description given in testimony.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

... The fact is that if the killer had taken the organs from the victim at the crime scene the blood which would have been transferred from the organs to any piece of material would not have been consistent with the description of the apron piece.

Think back to your CSI training - how is blood spotting and spatter caused?

Plunge the knife into a body, pull it out and repeat, and repeat...etc.
Spotting (perfectly round dots) is cause when blood hits a surface perpendicular, either from dropping straight down, or from the extended limit of the swing of the arm.
Spatter (oval shaped drops of blood) is caused when blood strikes a surface at an angle.

Daily Telegraph - Dr Gordon-Brown said he fitted the portion that was spotted with blood to the remaining portion (piece remaining on the body).
So, we can take it the G.S. piece was spotted with blood.

Times & Morning Advertiser - "the (G.S.) piece of apron had smears of blood".

Morning Post - "the (G.S.) piece had finger marks of blood"

So, testimony can establish that the piece found at G.S. had both spots & smears of blood, plus what looked like finger marks? (the last might be more the result of creative journalistic thinking).
Plus, let us not forget PC Long described a corner "wet with blood".

The modern photo you have entered into evidence does not meet the description given in testimony.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I sometimes wonder if it is you that is pulling my leg. We have a verbal description of the stains, which is imprecise information. We don't even have measurements of how large the stains were, or how many separate spots, or what the shape of the stains were, etc. All we have is the opinion of those who actually saw the apron piece (which, just to remind you, does not include either you or me), and they indicate the stains looked like they were produced when a knife or hand(s?) was wiped with it.

It is entirely possible for a cloth used that way to primarily be stained on one side, as has been described many times but you ignore the fact that cloth folds. Given fluid will soak through, it is irrational to presume that the other side was pristine, but from the descriptions we have, it appears that those who saw the cloth drew the conclusion that one side was the primary side of the stains, and either the other had minimal direct transfer stains or only showed stains that appeared to be a result of the blood soaking through the cloth.

As far as I'm aware, the idea the cloth was used to carry organs is a relatively recent suggestion. I could be wrong, and maybe there was a contemporary suggestion for that, but I do not ever recall seeing it. Personally, I don't subscribe to that idea because that is not how the stains were described by those who saw it. Also, that use requires one to presume that JtR first goes "home" before going out again to get rid of the apron piece. If, however, he drops it during his departure from Mitre Square, it would make no sense to unwrap the organs while in transit.

And yes, different materials will produce different patterns of staining depending upon the absorbent qualities of the material. The stains produced on a paper towel will look different from stains on a cloth towel which will look different from stains on canvas, even if you place the same item on each. Given we do not know the material the apron was made from, your photos cannot be said to be relevant to the case because the material used is not representative of the material used in 1888 for aprons. Moreover, there are so many other unknowns, that it is impossible to even approach an informative recreation of the situation. And finally, without the original evidence to compare with directly, to examine the resulting staining patterns, there is no possible way to compare your photos with the evidence to determine if what you've produced is or is not similar to anything; you can simply say that you would not describe your pattern the way the stains on the apron piece were described (which simply means you've not done the same thing as was done). See, showing that you can create a different looking pattern of stains isn't informative, because that is always possible by simply not doing what was done. What you have to do is show that it is impossible to create the stains that were on the actual evidence, leading us once again to the problem that we do not have the actual evidence with which to make that comparison.

This isn't difficult or complicated. To compare two things you have to have both things during the comparison. Verbal descriptions of something as complex as a staining pattern are simply too general to make meaningful comparisons to. We are left with the interpretation of those who saw the actual evidence, and they were of the opinion the stains were produced during the cleaning of a knife or hand(s). That opinion might not fit with your theory, and obviously one could be concerned with the accuracy of that opinion given we cannot independently examine the evidence ourselves (same problem), but when it comes to the information we do have to work with it points to the GSG piece having most likely been used to clean up. That probably suggests it was dropped during his flight from Mitre-Square, but it is also reasonable to consider the possibility that JtR first went to some "bolt-hole", and then wanted to discard of the apron piece and so went out again (generally one favours one over the other based upon whether or not they believe PC Long could have missed the apron piece earlier).

- Jeff

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 was fully aware of how the apron piece was described with traces of blood and faecal matter only found on one side of the apron piece, or another description said wet with blood on one corner. Both those descriptions contradict each other for a start.

As can be seen from the photo and having a uterus taken from a live donor and wrapped in a cloth the results clearly do not support any one of the two descriptions of the apron piece and so I am happy to state that the organs were no taken away in the apron piece. In fact as I have said previously I fail to see if the killer cut a piece from her apron how he failed to transfer blood or faecal matter onto both sides of the apron piece bearing in mind he would had to have both hands in her abdomen to take hold of the organs so both his hands were bloodied- and please don't anyone come back with the suggestion that he was wearing gloves, because if the killer had have removed the organs it would have been almost impossible to take hold of the organs and find his way round a blood filled abdomen in almost total darkness

It should be noted that there is no evidence to show the killer cut any item from any of the other victim's clothing

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[JeffHamm]

Are you for real? we have a description of how the apron piece was described, that description is said by some to be as a result of taking the organs away. I dispute that the killer did not remove the organs in any event, and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece. You are talking out of your backside when you refer to patterns and different cloths. The fact is that if the killer had taken the organs from the victim at the crime scene the blood which would have been transferred from the organs to any piece of material would not have been consistent with the description of the apron piece.

For a start, the killer would have had to have had both hands inside the abdomen and would therefore have blood on both his hands if he had cut the apron piece in advance of the mutilations then when he used the apron piece and with both hands being bloodied a certain amount of blood would be transferred to the apron piece on both sides even before he wraps the organs up in it. There was a minimal amount of staining on one side. If the killer had have taken the organs out there would be a significant amount of blood transferred to the apron piece which likely as not would have been on both sides or by the amount of blood still on the organs as can be seen from the photo I posted seeped through to the other side if the apron piece was thin material.

Again another example of you using any excuse to prop up the old previously accepted theory, because I can't win if I argue against the written evidence I am wrong, if I go to the next level and produce photographic evidence to prove a point I am still wrong. I think you and several others on here need to wake up to the reality of what happened in 1888 and what was written in 1888 may not be as accurate as you seem to want to accept without question.

I have one question for you what facts or evidence do you personally dispute from 1888

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I sometimes wonder if it is you that is pulling my leg. We have a verbal description of the stains, which is imprecise information. We don't even have measurements of how large the stains were, or how many separate spots, or what the shape of the stains were, etc. All we have is the opinion of those who actually saw the apron piece (which, just to remind you, does not include either you or me), and they indicate the stains looked like they were produced when a knife or hand(s?) was wiped with it.

It is entirely possible for a cloth used that way to primarily be stained on one side, as has been described many times but you ignore the fact that cloth folds. Given fluid will soak through, it is irrational to presume that the other side was pristine, but from the descriptions we have, it appears that those who saw the cloth drew the conclusion that one side was the primary side of the stains, and either the other had minimal direct transfer stains or only showed stains that appeared to be a result of the blood soaking through the cloth.

As far as I'm aware, the idea the cloth was used to carry organs is a relatively recent suggestion. I could be wrong, and maybe there was a contemporary suggestion for that, but I do not ever recall seeing it. Personally, I don't subscribe to that idea because that is not how the stains were described by those who saw it. Also, that use requires one to presume that JtR first goes "home" before going out again to get rid of the apron piece. If, however, he drops it during his departure from Mitre Square, it would make no sense to unwrap the organs while in transit.

And yes, different materials will produce different patterns of staining depending upon the absorbent qualities of the material. The stains produced on a paper towel will look different from stains on a cloth towel which will look different from stains on canvas, even if you place the same item on each. Given we do not know the material the apron was made from, your photos cannot be said to be relevant to the case because the material used is not representative of the material used in 1888 for aprons. Moreover, there are so many other unknowns, that it is impossible to even approach an informative recreation of the situation. And finally, without the original evidence to compare with directly, to examine the resulting staining patterns, there is no possible way to compare your photos with the evidence to determine if what you've produced is or is not similar to anything; you can simply say that you would not describe your pattern the way the stains on the apron piece were described (which simply means you've not done the same thing as was done). See, showing that you can create a different looking pattern of stains isn't informative, because that is always possible by simply not doing what was done. What you have to do is show that it is impossible to create the stains that were on the actual evidence, leading us once again to the problem that we do not have the actual evidence with which to make that comparison.

This isn't difficult or complicated. To compare two things you have to have both things during the comparison. Verbal descriptions of something as complex as a staining pattern are simply too general to make meaningful comparisons to. We are left with the interpretation of those who saw the actual evidence, and they were of the opinion the stains were produced during the cleaning of a knife or hand(s). That opinion might not fit with your theory, and obviously one could be concerned with the accuracy of that opinion given we cannot independently examine the evidence ourselves (same problem), but when it comes to the information we do have to work with it points to the GSG piece having most likely been used to clean up. That probably suggests it was dropped during his flight from Mitre-Square, but it is also reasonable to consider the possibility that JtR first went to some "bolt-hole", and then wanted to discard of the apron piece and so went out again (generally one favours one over the other based upon whether or not they believe PC Long could have missed the apron piece earlier).

- Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Provided, of course, the uterus was placed in the middle of the cloth, and not at a corner and then rolled up that way. Provided also that the material of the cloth used by the surgeon is the same as the apron material, provided also that the material in your photo was to some degree already wet (as the apron would likely have been, given the rain). Provided, of course, the killer didn't first put the uterus down on the ground, while cutting away the apron to carry it, and as such the uterus would have had some blood removed (again, the rain), and I'm sure there are other assumptions that have to be made in order to reach the conclusion you've pro-offered.

It's not as simple as that, I'm afraid. Even showing that it is possible to wipe bloody hands on a cloth and produce a pattern that doesn't correspond to one's own subjective satisfaction to the written descriptions we have doesn't mean anything. It's just demonstrating that one can produce a pattern they don't like. What one has to do is demonstrate it is impossible to create a pattern that looks like a hand or knife was wiped upon the cloth by actually wiping hands and knives over a cloth. And that to me just seems unlikely to be possible.

We do not have the original apron piece, so we cannot evaluate or make any meaningful comparison between the evidence and any of the staining patterns you have. These photos, which you've shown before, are incapable of being used in the way you are trying to use them. To do so requires having the original evidence, and even then, it is not enough to show that one can make a stain that looks different, but that it is impossible to make stains that looks similar. The idea that the apron piece was used to transport organs is not a contemporary idea (as far as I'm aware), rather, the stains were thought to reflect wiping of hands and/or knife (used for cleaning up). Staining patterns will depend on the material, and you've used something completely unlike a Victorian apron's material, making these even less informative.

You've just shown that if you do something completely unlike that which was described at the time using materials completely different from the piece of evidence in question, you can create a stain that in your view doesn't match a vague and subjective verbal description.


- Jeff

Are you for real? we have a description of how the apron piece was described, that description is said by some to be as a result of taking the organs away. I dispute that the killer did not remove the organs in any event, and therefore could not have taken them away in the apron piece. You are talking out of your backside when you refer to patterns and different cloths. The fact is that if the killer had taken the organs from the victim at the crime scene the blood which would have been transferred from the organs to any piece of material would not have been consistent with the description of the apron piece.

For a start, the killer would have had to have had both hands inside the abdomen and would therefore have blood on both his hands if he had cut the apron piece in advance of the mutilations then when he used the apron piece and with both hands being bloodied a certain amount of blood would be transferred to the apron piece on both sides even before he wraps the organs up in it. There was a minimal amount of staining on one side. If the killer had have taken the organs out there would be a significant amount of blood transferred to the apron piece which likely as not would have been on both sides or by the amount of blood still on the organs as can be seen from the photo I posted seeped through to the other side if the apron piece was thin material.

Again another example of you using any excuse to prop up the old previously accepted theory, because I can't win if I argue against the written evidence I am wrong, if I go to the next level and produce photographic evidence to prove a point I am still wrong. I think you and several others on here need to wake up to the reality of what happened in 1888 and what was written in 1888 may not be as accurate as you seem to want to accept without question.

I have one question for you what facts or evidence do you personally dispute from 1888

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

He was an opportunist and he committed a murder in Berner Street because the opportunity presented itself there.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston Street.

He didn't know about the apron till he saw it, but he was on the lookout for something that he could use in that way.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston st to leave the apron at Wentworth dwellings which he had already selected as a place to leave his message, as you say . The closer the better as far as I can see. So if he mutilated Liz he would have still walked from east to west to leave the apron at Wentworth dwellings ? instead of what he actually did, put some distance between himself and Berner st to find another victim to satisfy his cravings , as most people would think. And just suppose a policeman had been on Goulston st when he wanted to deposit the apron ? What was Jack going to do, just hang around ?

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

I believe he had already selected Wentworth Dwellings as the place where he would leave the message.

So what was he doing in Berner st murdering Liz ? And how did he know he would find a victim near Goulston st ? And for that matter , how did he know the victim would have something he could take with him to link him to the murder ?

He was an opportunist and he committed a murder in Berner Street because the opportunity presented itself there.

He did not need to find a victim near Goulston Street.

He didn't know about the apron till he saw it, but he was on the lookout for something that he could use in that way.