Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by FrankO 29 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 45 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Jon Guy 1 hour and 15 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Sam Flynn 4 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 10 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by Joshua Rogan 11 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (18 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (16 posts)
Maybrick, James: One Incontrovertible, Unequivocal, Undeniable Fact Which Refutes the Diary - (5 posts)
General Discussion: Mystery photographs found in car-boot sale box - (3 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (2 posts)
Witnesses: Sarah and Maurice Lewis - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161  
Old 11-29-2016, 12:35 PM
Fisherman Fisherman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 17,351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Hi Fish,

In actuality there are examples of Victorian era aprons that show the neck string is not tied, it is attached to both upper sides...the wearer slips the neck portion over their head, and then fastens the waist by tying the strings that are attached individually to each side of the apron.


This is why I believe "attached" refers to the neck portion being intact and that string still round her neck. She is not wearing it, but it is attached to her.
Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 11-29-2016, 12:55 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman View Post
Yes, I know this, Michael - you put your head through sort of a noose. But that does not mean that the waist strings go away, other than - apparently - in the written record.

One must ask oneself what happened to them.
Yes, do ask yourself some questions about it. For example:

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron, and it was not a skirt or a shirt or a jacket or a shawl - why was it an apron and not another item?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from the apron and the strings, and if you do, do you know any symbolic language connected to such an act?

How can this act be connected to Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:30 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Lets stick with what was produced as evidence Collards list of clothing she was wearing and what she had as her possessions.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Let's use all the evidence at our disposal, you know, as if we were real policemen conducting an investigation....
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:39 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elamarna View Post
Trevor,

Please explain how you arrive at the conclusion that the pieces were matched by the edge seams, that is not what the inquest testimony says:


"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding –"
[/b]

That to me suggests he is matching the new material on the two apron pieces, not the original seams.

That is how it reads Trevor, if not, there is no reason to mention the NEW Material (patch?)at all in this context.

Steve
Hi Steve,

Trying to analyze this.

I fitted

A) the piece of apron which

A 1) had (still A, belonging to A)

B) a new piece of material

on it (it = A)

B1) which (new piece of material) had been evidently sewn on to (history of it, its provenance)

C) the piece I have (another piece) or A (the same piece) ?

D) The seams of

E) the borders of

A + C the two (the piece of apron which) + (the piece I have) ?

/ OR the seems of the borders on the patch / material

actually corresponding

and therefore B) is the link to the correspondence?

Steve - is there any way can we exclude that we are not talking about the seems of A and C instead of, as in your hypothesis, B?

Regards, Pierre

Last edited by Pierre : 11-29-2016 at 01:42 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 11-29-2016, 01:53 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Collards additional list of clothing shows the long cuts to the clothing around the waist and abdominal area, and blood staining, which indicates she was stabbed through the outer clothing several times.

“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.

“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.

“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.

“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 11-29-2016, 02:04 PM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,244
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
These cuts in the clothing make sense to me if you visualize her clothes thrown up over her chest/head.
Take for instance the last item, the blue skirt.
If this skirt was thrown up over her head and the knife plunged into the upper chest, then dragged down. The cut will begin in the skirt, and run down through the waist band - because the skirt(s) were all upside down.

The bodice was on her body in its normal position, but the three skirts (above) were just upside-down when the killer began slicing her chest/abdomen.
So, what you have is not evidence of extra wounds, just her clothing is showing evidence of where he applied the knife in making the mutilations that are well known to everyone.
The point being, she was clothed when he plunged the knife into her, its just that her skirts were upside down.
Hi Jon,

It appears that the cut went upwards, not down..."The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 11-29-2016, 02:05 PM
Pierre Pierre is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 4,407
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
Yes, do ask yourself some questions about it. For example:

Do you agree with me that, whatever the construction of the apron, it was an apron, and it was not a skirt or a shirt or a jacket or a shawl - why was it an apron and not another item?

Do you also agree with me that someone cut off a piece from the apron and the strings, and if you do, do you know any symbolic language connected to such an act?

How can this act be connected to Lechmere?

Regards, Pierre
Have you no answers, Fisherman? Do you want me to answer these questions for you?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 11-29-2016, 02:11 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
If string then it corroborates what has been described all along "A piece" It was described by Brown as the corner of the apron with a string attached. If just one string, then you cant tie an apron with one string. There was no mention of the Gs piece having the other string attached.

I have not included the bib portion, I'm just trying to show why "a string" can really be both strings.
I'm sure you know this already but for those who don't, at an autopsy anything tied to the body is not untied, it is simply cut to preserve the knot intact.



I'm suggesting that Dr. Brown cut the string to remove the article during the autopsy. In consequence the piece of apron entered into evidence had a string attached.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 11-29-2016, 02:24 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Dc Halse
"I saw the deceased stripped, and noticed that a portion of the apron was missing"

How can this be interpreted? According to Collard, Halse was not present when the body was stripped. When he says he saw the body stripped that could mean that the body was laying on the mortuary table having been stripped.
I'm not disputing whether "I saw deceased stripped" means, being undressed, or after she was undressed.
What I do take issue with is that you are assuming because Collard did not mention Halse, that Halse was not present.
This is what is termed negative evidence. Absence of evidence IS NOT evidence of absence.
I think you are wrong to make that assumption.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 11-29-2016, 02:33 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,510
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Hi Jon,

It appears that the cut went upwards, not down..."The incision went upwards, not penetrating the skin that was over the sternum. It then divided the enciform cartilage. The knife must have cut obliquely at the expense of that cartilage."
Hi Michael.
The cut started at the apex of the ribcage (sternum), it did not go any higher.
"The incision" is the direction of the blade when thrust into the body.
The knife was thrust "upwards", not horizontal, and not down, but the direction of the cut was down towards the abdomen.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 11-29-2016 at 02:35 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.