PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Sam Flynn]

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

I don't see that it does, Jon - if anything, it makes things easier to explain.

He'd sliced through Eddowes' large intestine, indeed cut out a sizeable section of it, lifted it out of the body and placed it on the pavement. The large intestine is where fęces are made and where they "live". There is a significant probability that, in the act of excising her large intestine, he inadvertently released some fęcal matter, thereby contaminating his hand(s). The glistening mass of viscera immediately to his left - i.e. the other intestines he'd earlier pulled out - presented a natural "wet-wipe" surface on which to dispose of at least part of the filth he'd got on his hands. The "smearing over" of those intestines with fęcal matter is entirely congruent with this explanation, if not almost inevitable.

or accidentally, when you pull something across the already exposed faeces, thereby also causing transfer.

And how were the fęces already exposed? The answer is almost certainly when he cut through and removed that length of intestine, an operation which carried a significant risk of contamination. I'd go so far as to say that it would be nigh-on impossible, without ligatures at both ends, to cut and lift out a length of intestine without getting at least some filth on one's hands. So, even if the "smearing over" was accidental - which I doubt - there's a strong probability that he'd have dirtied his hands anyway.

[Michael W Richards]

I don't see that it does, Jon - if anything, it makes things easier to explain.

He'd sliced through Eddowes' large intestine, indeed cut out a sizeable section of it, lifted it out of the body and placed it on the pavement. The large intestine is where fęces are made and where they "live". There is a significant probability that, in the act of excising her large intestine, he inadvertently released some fęcal matter, thereby contaminating his hand(s). The glistening mass of viscera immediately to his left - i.e. the other intestines he'd earlier pulled out - presented a natural "wet-wipe" surface on which to dispose of at least part of the filth he'd got on his hands. The "smearing over" of those intestines with fęcal matter is entirely congruent with this explanation, if not almost inevitable.And how were the fęces already exposed? The answer is almost certainly when he cut through and removed that length of intestine, an operation which carried a significant risk of contamination. I'd go so far as to say that it would be nigh-on impossible, without ligatures at both ends, to cut and lift out a length of intestine without getting at least some filth on one's hands. So, even if the "smearing over" was accidental - which I doubt - there's a strong probability that he'd have dirtied his hands anyway.

Which raises this issue.....if he soiled his hands accidentally while performing his new tricks, why didn't he use a cloth that he brought to carry the organs? You've suggested that he just popped them into his pocket, which again, assumes that he is a butcher or someone who would have bloodstains on his clothing. With the delay in the cloth-drop, he may well have been from a part of the city where the serfs live. Not someone who would walk around bloodstained.

I believe IF this was Jack, he would have been prepared to take something away, and when he soiled his hands, he discovered he needed another cloth to carry the organs. His hands were wiped on the spot....not 10 minutes walk away, and he popped the soiled hanky into his coat pocket...soon to be burned I would imagine.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

Which raises this issue.....if he soiled his hands accidentally while performing his new tricks, why didn't he use a cloth that he brought to carry the organs?

I don't believe he brought - or needed - a cloth to carry the organs, Mike. To me, it's highly significant that, on the one occasion he decided to cut and lift out a length of large intestine (viz., two feet of a veritable fęces-machine), we find fęces smeared over another part of the corpse, and - a few hundred yards away - a blood- and fęces-besmirched piece of the victim's apron jettisoned in a doorway. I'd be very, very surprised if these facts weren't connected in some way.

[GUT]

I know that if I get $h!t on my hands look for something to wipe it off.

[Michael W Richards]

I know that if I get $h!t on my hands look for something to wipe it off.

Like pronto, and I wouldn't carry that cloth with me anywhere, not even for a 10 minute walk.

The premise that someone who expects to take organs woulkdnt make some provision for that circumstance Sam is untenable to me personally. The speculation that Jack the Ripper, based on the profile created by the first 2 Canonicals only, would not plan to mutilate the abdomen and take something away is also, untenable.

If he wiped his hands then he tossed that cloth before reaching Goulston.

Im sure even bloodthirsty killers have their limits as to what horrors they are willing to endure, someones feces might have been his limit.

The cloth was cut and ripped free....which would be using his hands, so that's where the feces smeared on Kate comes from, since its probably the last cutting he does. There is no trace of feces in most of the cuts made. he chose to make noise in that sound chamber while standing over someone he has murdered, I agree, that shite may be the reason he felt compelled to go ahead with it, but to me a much more reasonable answer that fits the evidence and the circumstances is that he used the cloth in a utilitarian fashion, as a carry all...using the attached apron tie to wrap around the parcel.

IF so, why was he unprepared with a container of his own? Answer..he was, he just needed it early to wipe his hands off.

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

If he wiped his hands then he tossed that cloth before reaching Goulston.

Goulston was only a few minutes away, don't forget - but nicely tucked out of sight on a quiet backstreet. Besides, $hit takes some shifting - especially, perhaps, if you've exacerbated matters by trying to "smear" some of it off at the scene of the crime. An understandable instinctive action, perhaps, but one that would almost certainly cause the excrement to spread even further on your hands, and possibly ingrain it deeper into your skin.

[Observer]

Goulston was only a few minutes away, don't forget - but nicely tucked out of sight on a quiet backstreet. Besides, $hit takes some shifting - especially, perhaps, if you've exacerbated matters by trying to "smear" some of it off at the scene of the crime. An understandable instinctive action, perhaps, but one that would almost certainly cause the excrement to spread even further on your hands, and possibly ingrain it deeper into your skin.

I'd agree Sam. Also ,Jon Guy theorised that the killer would not have wanted to be seen wiping his hands in the close proximity to Mitre Square, a sensible precaution if one takes into account the size of the apron piece. Indeed, he was liable to trip over it in the process if he were not careful!

I believe the killer realised he needed to put as much distance between himself and the murder scene asp, and happening upon the entrances to the model dwellings finally decided to rid himself of the excrement, and blood on his hands. He then dumped it in the entrance. I, like you, believe that the graffiti was already chalked on the wall, and has no bearing upon the case whatsoever.

Regards

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Jon Guy theorised that the killer would not have wanted to be seen wiping his hands in the close proximity to Mitre Square

Quite so, Obs, and thanks for drawing my attention to Jon's - surely correct - suggestion. Goulston Street, for me, would have been an ideal stopping-off point between Mitre Square and the heart of Spitalfields, a fact not entirely lost on the authorities at the time.

[Observer]

Indeed. Oh to know where his final destination lay! The authorities seemed to think he travelled up Bell Lane. Not the place to dscuss here however.

[GUT]

G'day Michael

The cloth was cut and ripped free....which would be using his hands, so that's where the feces smeared on Kate comes from, since its probably the last cutting he does. There is no trace of feces in most of the cuts made. he chose to make noise in that sound chamber while standing over someone he has murdered, I agree, that shite may be the reason he felt compelled to go ahead with it, but to me a much more reasonable answer that fits the evidence and the circumstances is that he used the cloth in a utilitarian fashion, as a carry all...using the attached apron tie to wrap around the parcel.

IF so, why was he unprepared with a container of his own? Answer..he was, he just needed it early to wipe his hands off.

Cheers

I am inclined to agree that he would have come prepared with something to carry his trophy off with if his plan was to harvest organs. But he MAY have left wiping his hands till he was away from the body especially if anyone was around.

[Jon Guy]

Jon Guy theorised that the killer would not have wanted to be seen wiping his hands in the close proximity to Mitre Square

Indeed, the wisest thing to do was put his hands in his pockets and walk quickly away from Mitre Sq.

When Morris ran down Mitre Street blowing his whistle the police who were in ear shot came running to the scene, they then began fanning out from the scene. They would have been stopping everyone in the vicinity of Mitre Sq.

Perhaps, the killer stopped at Goulston Street because it was the first street past the City Police boundary of Middlesex Street?

[Trevor Marriott]

Indeed, the wisest thing to do was put his hands in his pockets and walk quickly away from Mitre Sq.

When Morris ran down Mitre Street blowing his whistle the police who were in ear shot came running to the scene, they then began fanning out from the scene. They would have been stopping everyone in the vicinity of Mitre Sq.

Perhaps, the killer stopped at Goulston Street because it was the first street past the City Police boundary of Middlesex Street?

Perhaps the killer was never ever in Goulston Street ?

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps the killer was never ever in Goulston Street ?

Yes, a possibility.

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Observer

I'd agree Sam. Also ,Jon Guy theorised that the killer would not have wanted to be seen wiping his hands in the close proximity to Mitre Square, a sensible precaution if one takes into account the size of the apron piece. Indeed, he was liable to trip over it in the process if he were not careful!

I believe the killer realised he needed to put as much distance between himself and the murder scene asp, and happening upon the entrances to the model dwellings finally decided to rid himself of the excrement, and blood on his hands. He then dumped it in the entrance. I, like you, believe that the graffiti was already chalked on the wall, and has no bearing upon the case whatsoever.

Whilst I still fight hard to keep an open-mind, I do find myself drawn towards agreeing with you, particularly as I remain to be convinced the GSG was as prominent as Sir Charles made out to his Home Office bosses...and nobody else did...Jon will probably disagree about this particular aspect I know, but I think we can be amicable in disagreeing...

All the best

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Trevor

Perhaps the killer was never ever in Goulston Street ?

It's possible, as are many things...however my personal belief. (and it is only that), is currently that the balance of probabilities suggests he was, no matter how fleetingly or otherwise...

All the best

Dave