PC Long, GSG & a Piece of Apron

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[DRoy]

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

[Hatchett]

Hi,

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Hatchett]

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

[caz]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[GUT]

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.

[Michael W Richards]

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

[Michael W Richards]

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

Cheers

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Wickerman]

The stuff had clearly been rubbed over the intestines, not accidentally transferred.

I somehow doubt that is the intended reading.

[The Good Michael]

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

[Sam Flynn]

I somehow doubt that is the intended reading.

What other interpretation of "smeared over" can there be, Jon, and how is "smearing" usually accomplished?

[Wickerman]

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?