Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DRoy View Post
    Originally posted by Lynn Cates
    I wonder about the source of the faecal matter
    If he had it tied or wrapped around his hand he could have got it on himself and/or the apron piece during any of the mutilations to her abdomen.
    Faecal matter on the hand first, methinks - "The intestines [outside the body] were smeared over with some feculent matter". Note the word smeared. Smeared with what? A sponge? A paintbrush? Unlikely. It's almost certain that the smearing was a purely manual effort by the killer, namely that the killer got faecal matter on his hand(s) after excising Kate's lower intestine, lifting it out of her body and placing it on the pavement. It's in the lower intestine that the fæces "live", or rather where they are formed as a result of the absorption of water by the colonic mucosa.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Faecal matter on the hand first, methinks - "The intestines [outside the body] were smeared over with some feculent matter". Note the word smeared. Smeared with what? A sponge? A paintbrush? Unlikely. It's almost certain that the smearing was a purely manual effort by the killer, namely that the killer got faecal matter on his hand(s) after excising Kate's lower intestine, lifting it out of her body and placing it on the pavement. It's in the lower intestine that the fæces "live", or rather where they are formed as a result of the absorption of water by the colonic mucosa.
      Makes sense to me.

      We don't even know if he cut himself but if he did, we don't know what part of himself he could have cut. From there how faecal matter would get on the apron piece would all depend on of course where his injured region was.

      Half an apron seems like quite a large piece of cloth if he cut his pinky finger! We can assume it was either a very deep cut or he required a big piece to cover and wrap a larger area (arm or leg).

      Cheers
      DRoy

      Comment


      • #33
        Hi,

        Is it possible that he wasnt cut at all, but that Eddowes bit him? Or scratched him?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Hatchett View Post
          Is it possible that he wasnt cut at all, but that Eddowes bit him? Or scratched him?
          That swatch of apron would have been way over the top for a bite or a scratch, methinks.
          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

          "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

          Comment


          • #35
            Hi,

            It depends where the bite was. If it was one the neck for instance, it could have bled quite freely. And of course you have the fecal matter. If the fecal matter had got on the knife, that would have had to be wiped.
            Best wishes

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
              That swatch of apron would have been way over the top for a bite or a scratch, methinks.
              Tut tuttety tut Gareth. You make it sound like a horse blanket. Over on the ill-used Time Gap thread you made it sound more like a hankie.

              Bites are very painful (just ask the victims of a certain footie player) so he'd have reacted angrily and instinctively if bitten, say, on the hand, arm or neck. Tearing or cutting off a piece of her apron and wrapping it round the affected area would have helped ease the pain when he left the scene, but it would need to have been large enough to tie on, or he'd have had to hold it in place to stop it just slipping off.

              I don't really buy the idea though, unless the bite was very deep, because the apron was so incriminating. His need - or desire - for it must have been an extremely powerful motivator to transport it for more than a few yards from the scene.

              Love,

              Caz
              X
              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by caz View Post
                Tut tuttety tut Gareth. You make it sound like a horse blanket. Over on the ill-used Time Gap thread you made it sound more like a hankie.
                No fair, Caz! I've never implied - nor even thought - that it was hankie-sized.
                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                Comment


                • #38
                  I for one have real doubts that the murder cut the apron to a size that suited the use he had for it, f he had a use, he simply cut the apron it wasn't a dress making project.
                  G U T

                  There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                    Faecal matter on the hand first, methinks - "The intestines [outside the body] were smeared over with some feculent matter". Note the word smeared. Smeared with what? A sponge? A paintbrush? Unlikely. It's almost certain that the smearing was a purely manual effort by the killer, namely that the killer got faecal matter on his hand(s) after excising Kate's lower intestine, lifting it out of her body and placing it on the pavement. It's in the lower intestine that the fæces "live", or rather where they are formed as a result of the absorption of water by the colonic mucosa.
                    There could also have been matter transferred from an organ that was smeared with feces Sam, and I can think of a few good reasons why someone would NOT take just a feces smeared piece of cloth with them, for one the very idea of it, for another, its not a useable piece of evidence with their technologies of the time, so why not just wipe and leave it? Why in heavens name carry it all the way to Goulston?

                    Therein lies a possible clue to the apron sections whereabouts, assuming as I do that Long was adamant on the point, an explantion that addresses both the delay and the requirement of the section that far from the murder site.

                    He dropped off what he took, then he took the cloth..and likely chalk, to Goulston. Which suggests a Ripper who is intent on blaming the jews for acts that he has committed, which suggests anti-Semitism, which is precisely why the fears existed regarding the message.

                    You see Sam, accept Longs simple statement and you have a myriad of very plausible options to choose from, ones that have tangential implications.

                    Cheers Gareth

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Plus the size of the apron section, perhaps 2 x 2ft, is hardly bandaid size.

                      Cheers

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
                        There could also have been matter transferred from an organ that was smeared with feces Sam
                        Not quite, Mike. The statement is clear - the intestines had been smeared over with fæcal matter. "Smeared" means "squished about", not "dotted with", as would have been the case if it was merely a contact-print from one surface to another. The stuff had clearly been rubbed over the intestines, not accidentally transferred.
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                          The stuff had clearly been rubbed over the intestines, not accidentally transferred.
                          I somehow doubt that is the intended reading.
                          Regards, Jon S.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            He dropped off what he took, then he took the cloth..and likely chalk, to Goulston. Which suggests a Ripper who is intent on blaming the jews for acts that he has committed, which suggests anti-Semitism, which is precisely why the fears existed regarding the message.
                            No. Fears of anti-semitism for this seemingly pro-jew act of defiance.

                            Mike
                            huh?

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              I somehow doubt that is the intended reading.
                              What other interpretation of "smeared over" can there be, Jon, and how is "smearing" usually accomplished?
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Transfer is produced in two ways, either intentionally by smearing it yourself, or accidentally, when you pull something across the already exposed faeces, thereby also causing transfer.
                                I have always suspected the latter.

                                I don't think we can be sure either way, though the intentional option raises more questions, does it not?
                                Regards, Jon S.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X