From Mitre Square to Goulston Street - Some thoughts.

[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.

[JeffHamm]

It shows that if the killer had removed the organs from the victim at the crime as is suggested and then placed them in the apron piece this is how it would have looked because the surgeon did just that took the uterus out of a live donor and wrapped it in the cloth and then photographed the cloth. So it is clear that the killer did not take the organs away in the apron piece, and notwithstanding how it would have looked had a kidney been added to the cloth.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

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

[Darryl Kenyon]

Please see my replies below.

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 ?

[Wickerman]

My professional source to which you refer was a consultant gynaecologist who removed a uterus from a live patient while performing a hysterectomy. The uterus was immediately after removal wrapped in a white cloth and the cloth was photographed a short time later giving a heavily bloodstained effect.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, I recall you explaining this at the time.
But, what is the point when we have no photograph of the original piece of apron with which to make a comparison?
You are comparing a photo with written testimony that has been edited, and trying to make a case out of the fact they are not the same?
Seriously, what kind of argument is that?

PC Long said:
"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood....", also, if I recall correctly you tried to make a case about the removed piece being described as "spotted" with blood, as opposed to "stained" with blood.
These are not reliable details with which to base an argument. All are too subjective.

All that said, how would you prove the above stains (in your pic.) were not made by wiping the blood off the hands?