Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

IF he had already thrown the rag at his feet and was not in possession of it, he could have denied seeing it in the dark if anyone questioned him about writing something that makes no mention of murder.

Having stowed away his knife, thoroughly scrubbed up, jettisoned the organs, found (or conveniently produced) a piece of chalk...

The only "crime" that could be pinned on him was writing graffiti

I really can't see that he'd have been foolish enough to believe that, or to take that risk.

[Wickerman]

There is, I believe, no evidence that he used the apron piece to carry his trophies. What did he use in Chapman's case?

Apparently, her scarf was missing.
What would he want with a scarf?

You would expect the rag to be much more bloodstained than it was - not "spotted with blood" if he had. "Wet with blood on one corner" suggests dipping it in the blood to me.

Just by way of interest, have you ever watched how a butcher wraps up meat in a sheet of paper?

Generally, you place the meat in one corner (which will then be the wettest point), and roll the meat & paper forward towards the opposite corner, folding the left and right corners up into the middle as you go. It's quick and neat, and not only used by butchers but anyone who uses paper to wrap an article.
I was a butchers apprentice when I left school and remember how we were taught to wrap meat. This 'could' answer the question of why one corner was more wet with blood.

[curious4]

Wrapping meat

Hello Wickerman,

Yes, that could very well be an explantion for the corner being wet. Provided you accept that the murderer had some knowledge of meat wrapping and didn't just grab and run. Was Chapman's bit of woollen scarf missing? Reading from the Sourcebook I can only see that only two things are mentioned as missing; her rings and her "bits". Although wool is absorbent and would be a good choice to carry them off in.

(I may at any time break off from here,(not from lack of interest) as my daughter-in-law is threatening to give birth at any time, bad idea as she is booked in for a c-section next week. Huge baby, tiny mum)

Best wishes,
C4

[Sam Flynn]

Apparently, [Annie Chapman's] scarf was missing.

Was her scarf missing, Jon? I see that asserted now and then, but I'm jiggered if I know the source for it.

[Fisherman]

Was her scarf missing, Jon? I see that asserted now and then, but I'm jiggered if I know the source for it.

This will be it, Gareth; Donovan from the inquest, speaking about the handkerchief Chapman was wearing around her neck:


Timothy Donovan, the deputy of the lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, was recalled.
[Coroner] You have seen that handkerchief? - I recognise it as one which the deceased used to wear. She bought it of a lodger, and she was wearing it when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner ways, placed round her neck, with a black woollen scarf underneath. It was tied in front with one knot.
Daily Telelegraph, 11th Sept

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

You would expect the rag to be much more bloodstained than it was - not "spotted with blood" if he had. "Wet with blood on one corner" suggests dipping it in the blood to me.

The "corner" reference appears in the Times and East London Advertiser press reports of the inquest. They are both summaries, in the third person, of proceedings. When one looks at more "first-person" narratives, we get a slightly, but only slightly, different picture.

For example, the official (signed) record of Long's testimony says this: "I found a portion of a woman's apron, which I produce. There appeared to be blood stains on it, one portion was wet".

The Daily News report says almost exactly the same: "I found a portion of a woman's apron (produced). There were blood stains on it, and one portion of it was wet."

Of course, all corners are in some way portions, but not all portions are corners. So, which was it?

In addition, the third-person newspaper reports both say "wet with blood", but the official record and the first-person reports simply say "wet". The weather conditions were very bad, so the passageway would surely have attracted a few small puddles of rainwater; not just from the sky, but from residents' boots. So, whilst Long probably did mean "wet with blood" (even if he didn't say it explicitly), can we be absolutely sure?

[curious4]

Chapman's scarf

Still doesn't say it was missing. According to the coroner at the inquest, only two things were missing, rings and uterus. She was stripped in the workhouse shed, against police orders but if anything else had been missing I think it would have been mentioned - they seem to have been very thorough - tin box, piece of metal etc in the yard.

Best wishes,
C4

[curious4]

Portion or corner

The "corner" reference appears in the Times and East London Advertiser press reports of the inquest. They are both summaries, in the third person, of proceedings. When one looks at more "first-person" narratives, we get a slightly, but only slightly, different picture.

For example, the official (signed) record of Long's testimony says this: "I found a portion of a woman's apron, which I produce. There appeared to be blood stains on it, one portion was wet".

The Daily News report says almost exactly the same: "I found a portion of a woman's apron (produced). There were blood stains on it, and one portion of it was wet."

Of course, all corners are in some way portions, but not all portions are corners. So, which was it?

In addition, the third-person newspaper reports both say "wet with blood", but the official record and the first-person reports simply say "wet". The weather conditions were very bad, so the passageway would surely have attracted a few small puddles of rainwater; not just from the sky, but from residents' boots. So, whilst Long probably did mean "wet with blood" (even if he didn't say it explicitly), can we be absolutely sure?

Hello Sam Flynn,

Portion and corner sound quite similar - someone taking down what was said could have misheard, or it could have been a printing error. When in a hurry, it does happen that you repeat the word you have just written by mistake.

Or, of course, you could be right. And rainwater from boots could have dampened the material. I suppose it would be difficult to carry a piece of apron with one corner soaked with blood without getting the rest bloodied. Unless it had dried and then become wet again from said rain water.

Best wishes,
C4

P.S. A corner would, of course, be a portion.

[Sam Flynn]

Unless it had dried and then become wet again from said rain water.

If it was blood, then the fact that it was wet at all doesn't really ring true. Irrespective of whether the killer used it to carry organs or to wipe his hands, there can't have been much "liquid" blood to begin with. Surely, any such blood would have been absorbed by the fabric, or otherwise clotted/dried, during the hour or so since Eddowes' death. Perhaps the rainwater made it wetter than it would otherwise have been.

[Wickerman]

Still doesn't say it was missing. According to the coroner at the inquest, only two things were missing, rings and uterus. She was stripped in the workhouse shed, against police orders but if anything else had been missing I think it would have been mentioned - they seem to have been very thorough - tin box, piece of metal etc in the yard.

Best wishes,
C4

The police can only say her uterus was missing because it was 'evident'?
They also knew she had worn rings because they left a mark (ie; evident?).

The police had no material evidence of the existence of a scarf, that only transpired at the inquest.

[Wickerman]

.... can we be absolutely sure?

Generally speaking Gareth, we can be absolutely sure about nothing!

This will be it, Gareth; Donovan from the inquest, speaking about the handkerchief Chapman was wearing around her neck:

Thankyou Christer, a gent, as always.

[Sam Flynn]

The police had no material evidence of the existence of a scarf, that only transpired at the inquest.

I think the problem is more that what didn't transpire at the inquest was any mention of a missing scarf. Unfortunately, we don't have as detailed an inventory of Annie Chapman's belongings as we have of Eddowes', so perhaps we'll never know.

[Sam Flynn]

[Coroner] You have seen that handkerchief?

[Donovan]I recognise it as one which the deceased used to wear. She was wearing it three-corner ways, placed round her neck, with a black woollen scarf underneath.

Thanks, Fish - I found that too, but thanks for posting it.

So we have a woollen scarf, which wasn't reported missing as far as we know, which was worn under the neckerchief. If the neckerchief was above the scarf, why didn't he take the neckerchief? A quick cut with his knife was all it took, and he'd have a piece of fabric that would serve just as well (if not better) as an organ carrier, than the woolly scarf beneath.

[Wickerman]

I think the problem is more that what didn't transpire at the inquest was any mention of a missing scarf.

Not sure what you mean Gareth. How are the police expected to know she had been wearing a woolen scarf, if it was only first mentioned by Donavon at the Inquest?
Baxter had no cause to ask about the woolen scarf if he wasn't aware it was not on any inventory list held by the police.

Missing clothing only became significant with the discovery of the portion of apron following murder of Eddowes.

[Wickerman]

Thanks, Fish - I found that too, but thanks for posting it.

So we have a woollen scarf, which wasn't reported missing as far as we know, which was worn under the neckerchief. If the neckerchief was above the scarf, why didn't he take the neckerchief? A quick cut with his knife was all it took, and he'd have a piece of fabric that would serve just as well (if not better) as an organ carrier, than the woolly scarf beneath.

He didn't take Eddowes neckerchief either.