Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Wickerman]

I have some vague awareness of the art, Jon - I myself worked at a poultry farm and meat delivery-boy and my dad was a slaughterman. Anyhow, why suppose that Jack would have used a "correct" method anyway? He'd just want to get the hell out of there, quick, and stashing a couple of small organs in his pockets would have served that end admirably. I get the distinct impression that he needed the cloth for other purposes.

Thats ok Gareth, all I'm pointing out is that there is a rationale & logical explanation why one corner was wet, while the rest was only smeared with blood.
No-one needs to accept it, there could be other explanations too. Suffice to say that there is nothing about the condition of the apron itself which suggests he didn't carry the organs in it. The facts suggest otherwise.

[Sam Flynn]

like who would want to put those things in the pocket - yuk

I hardly think that, after doing that to Eddowes (and Chapman/Nichols before), he'd have been too squeamish about such things, Boggles.

[Boggles]

So since it seems to have some bearing on the subject - what happened to those organs after he left the apron under the gsg? surely he wouldn't have seen fit to dispose of them so soon after him acquiring them?

[Wickerman]

The man's life was in mortal danger, can't see him having time for origami. Besides, all that cloth to wrap two squidgy organs, the biggest of which is only the size of a large plum?

C'mon Gareth, lets not try to make it sound like special pleading. The common way to wrap fresh produce was known by everyone. You see it demonstrated in Market stalls, fish & chips shops, butcher shops, fish mongers, even fruit & veg, everywhere.

"The uterus measures about 7.5 cm. in length, 5 cm. in breadth, at its upper part, and nearly 2.5 cm. in thickness; it weighs from 30 to 40 gm."

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject/268

[Sam Flynn]

Suffice to say that there is nothing about the condition of the apron itself which suggests he didn't carry the organs in it.

Agreed, Jon.

The facts suggest otherwise.

The facts, in my view, point more strongly to the "improvised glove" hypothesis. Having got excrement on his hands (he excised Eddowes' descending colon in its entirety, after all, and deposited it on the pavement), he tried to get rid of it at the scene (the "smearing over" of fæces on Eddowes' entrails), but only partially succeeded in doing so. I'd suggest that he used the cloth to wrap around his hand, rather than risk contaminating his shirt with excrement. If that hand had also been cut then, by gripping the cloth in that hand before wrapping the cloth around it, he transferred his own blood to the corner of the cloth onto which he was holding.

[Wickerman]

So since it seems to have some bearing on the subject - what happened to those organs after he left the apron under the gsg? surely he wouldn't have seen fit to dispose of them so soon after him acquiring them?

Ahh, the inability to answer that question is one of the reason's why there is a degree of reluctance to consider the apron was used to carry the organs.
In other words, rather than face the problem, lets ignore it and suggest another reason for its use.

The fact remains the killer took organs in three cases, the likely hood he took them 'home' is not considered a problem in two of the cases (Chapman, Kelly), so why be reluctant to accept this in the case of Eddowes?

What is so extraordinary about this killer taking the risk of returning to the street with this piece of bloodstained cloth?, he took far greater risks throughout the span of those murders.

The challenge is part of the thrill.

[Sam Flynn]

C'mon Gareth, lets not try to make it sound like special pleading. The common way to wrap fresh produce was known by everyone. You see it demonstrated in Market stalls, fish & chips shops, butcher shops, fish mongers, even fruit & veg, everywhere.

It's not "special pleading" at all, Jon - I never resort to that. I genuinely don't see that Jack had the need, or time, to exercise much finesse in packaging his trophies. Anymore than he showed finesse in removing them.

"The uterus measures about 7.5 cm. in length, 5 cm. in breadth, at its upper part, and nearly 2.5 cm. in thickness; it weighs from 30 to 40 gm."
http://education.yahoo.com/reference...ts/subject/268

Let's not play "find a quote that suits our argument", Jon. Simply Google uterus and "large plum", Jon, and I'm sure you'll find some hits. Don't forget Eddowes' age as well.

Small organs can be smuggled quite effectively in pockets.

[Sam Flynn]

Ahh, the inability to answer that question is one of the reason's why there is a degree of reluctance to consider the apron was used to carry the organs.

There's no reluctance on my part at all, it's just that there was no need for him to do so. There is, however, a need to explain what Jack did about the fæcal fall-out from his botched butchery, and that one or both of his hands would almost certainly have been contaminated with excrement as a result.

[Boggles]

Well i suppose it could have been either way. I cant think of any more plausible reason for taking it than the above 2, but i am of the view that it was for some practical reason rather than a trophy. Neither do I believe that he took it then and there with the premeditated intention of leaving it as a signal of authenticity for the GSG, but this happened as either a afterthought at the time or was a coincidence.

[Wickerman]

It's not "special pleading" at all, Jon - I never resort to that. I genuinely don't see that Jack had the need, or time, to exercise much finesse in packaging his trophies. Anymore than he showed finesse in removing them.Let's not play "find a quote that suits our argument", Jon. Simply Google uterus and "large plum", Jon, and I'm sure you'll find some hits. Don't forget Eddowes' age as well.

Small organs can be smuggled quite effectively in pockets.

Why would anyone write 'large plum' in a search unless you were trying to steer the search in that direction?

All I entered was "size of a uterus" - which I take to be an honest & unbiased question.

[Wickerman]

Well i suppose it could have been either way. I cant think of any more plausible reason for taking it than the above 2, but i am of the view that it was for some practical reason rather than a trophy. Neither do I believe that he took it then and there with the premeditated intention of leaving it as a signal of authenticity for the GSG, but this happened as either a afterthought at the time or was a coincidence.

Agreed with your second point. I don't accept the killer had anything to do with the GSG, he just threw the cloth in a doorway oblivious to the fact there was some miniature graffiti on a few bricks above where the cloth landed.
Unfortunately, the press never considered to tell the reader how much graffiti was in the surrounding area, lots or none?

[Sam Flynn]

Why would anyone write 'large plumb' in a search unless you were trying to steer the search in that direction?

I was simply trying to find a familiar object to which we could all relate, Jon. I could have chosen "medium-sized tangerine", "small apple" or a dozen others. It just so happened I went for "large plum", purely at random.

Whichever metaphorical object I chose, you may rest assured that it would be an honest and accurate comparator, and that I would not seek to "steer" a search in any way. Frankly, I'm rather upset that you'd suggest such a thing.

[Wickerman]

There's no reluctance on my part at all, it's just that there was no need for him to do so. There is, however, a need to explain what Jack did about the fæcal fall-out from his botched butchery, and that one or both of his hands would almost certainly have been contaminated with excrement as a result.

In much the same way as we cannot determine how great or little his hands were bloodstained, neither can we determine how great or little his hands were stained with fecal matter. Its a guess.
If he did mess his hands up, then naturally he could have wiped them at the scene immediately after he sliced off the piece of apron. That would be natural.
Though that does not explain the reason why he took the cloth with him, nor why the corner was wet with blood.

I don't see any reason why he could not have sliced off the apron to use for carrying the organs, while at the same time wiping his hands clean before he wrapped the organs up.
Nothing we have debated excludes him briefly wiping his hands at the scene before he left with the organs.

[Wickerman]

Frankly, I'm rather upset that you'd suggest such a thing.

Ok, fair enough, but what did you mean by previously suggesting I was not being honest?

Let's not play "find a quote that suits our argument", Jon.

Now you know that wasn't true I hope?

[Boggles]

I don't accept the killer had anything to do with the GSG,

Ah now there I may disagree but am agnostic - Can we talk about this for a while, though i know that it must have been debated many times before. Police at the time were pretty damn sure it was him. I don't believe graffiti was that commonplace.

My theory - On his way back to his bolt hole he stopped to take a piss, remembering Stride interruption and the Eddowes witnesses he was frustrated and angry with Jews, so he scrawled the graffiti - what he meant by it was that if it wasnt for Lipski interruption he wouldnt have had to have killed Eddowes aswell, which I suppose is true enough in the context of the nights proceedings.