Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

Thats what the problem for me is....suppose he wiped his hands with his own cloth, what would he need the apron section for if not to carry organs? We know that the apron section does not appear to have been used to wipe his hands, thats why I suggest his own hanky, so if not for organs, why take the cloth at all?

Hello Mike. The intestines were smeared with fæcal matter, and that "smearing" was almost certainly done by the Ripper himself, probably as a result of getting a fair bit of excrement on his hand(s) when he cut out Eddowes' colon. I'm reasonably certain that he needed the cloth either to wipe his hand(s) and/or, as a makeshift "glove", to shield his clothing from contamination by the excrement.

[Lechmere]

Gareth
I think your coprocentric interpretation of the Eddowes murder is misguided.
Who on earth would wipe their hands on an intestine, when there was yards of cloth readily available?
I somewhat doubt that the brown stuff went everywhere. A bit on the intestine and a bit on the apron. Neither trace need to have been wiped from the assailants hands.

[Tom_Wescott]

Apparently, where Sam comes from they have a giant length of towel in each house, and whenever they need to wipe their hands, they use a knife to cut off a length of towel. Jack must have been Welsh!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

No they don't. The Welsh buy intestine down the butchers and wipe their hands on that.

[Wickerman]

I don't recall too much litter being on the streets in contemporary photographs. They always seem to me to look remarkably well kept.

Quite right Ed. the East End of the 19th century was not a throw-away society, people created no rubbish.
In fact if anyone cares to read Mayhew's, London Labour and the London Poor, (roughly 30 yrs before the Ripper), you will see they even had uses for doggy poop, bones, waste paper, rags, and the Sewer Hunters would wade through all that 'you-know-what' looking for nuts, bolts, nails, old rope, bits of coal & wood.
Horse dung was scraped up off the streets and dried and used for fuel to burn by the more desperate members of society.

It is no surprise the streets looked like 'new' in photo's, these poor souls had nothing to throw away, and everything had a value.

[moonbegger]

Thanks for clearing that one up Jon ( No pun intended )

moonbegger

[Errata]

I remember people calling East Street 'The Lane' in the 1980s. I think it was open Sundays as I used to get confused and thought they meant Brick Lane, also known as 'The Lane'. To add further confusion Tottenham tend to play at the Lane on Sundays rather than Saturdays.

It didn't take long for the wording of the GSG to become common knowledge with the added frisson of a police cover up associated with it. And no riot. So that rather suggests that Arnold and Warren were wrong and far too jumpy. No wonder he resigned.

It was a fair concern. I don't know that I would have worried about rioting, but I would have worried about everyone in the neighborhood trying to turn in any Jew they ever met (and the attendant strain on resources and endless paperwork), I would have worried about groups of nasty young men beating down Jews in the street, and I would have worried about Jews demanding protection that the force was in no position to give. I think Arnold and Warren failed to take into account that the Jews had lived through worse, and were positive experts at keeping their heads down and becoming relatively invisible. And I think they failed to take into account that no matter how frightening these murders might be, the general populace was not going to rise up and hit the streets on behalf of whores (which they were assumed to be). Things were hard all over, and rioting means taking risk.

Ironically, rioting would only have occurred in a more perfect world where Jews felt they could walk the streets unhindered and the people of London were moved by compassion for unfortunate women. That's really the only way a clash like the one they feared could happen. It's like they were looking at it through rose colored glasses.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Mike. The intestines were smeared with fæcal matter, and that "smearing" was almost certainly done by the Ripper himself, probably as a result of getting a fair bit of excrement on his hand(s) when he cut out Eddowes' colon. I'm reasonably certain that he needed the cloth either to wipe his hand(s) and/or, as a makeshift "glove", to shield his clothing from contamination by the excrement.

Hi Sam,

Heres where I see problems with that....even IF he left Mitre and proceeded to where the cloth was dropped directly...it still amounts to a period of 10 minutes or so, I dont see carry feces smeared cloth being something someone would carry with them that length of time. We dont have evidence that the cloth showed smearing of any kind,...feces, or blood wiped from a knife or hands. I think the reason the intestines were covered is because he sectioned the colon to create that 2 ft piece that he places between her arm and body.

If he intended to take organs before killing her, then why would he not have something with him to do so...and if he decided on the spot to take organs, it would explain the need for the cloth. So the way I see this is IF he intended to take organs away, he brought a cloth to carry them. Since he takes another cloth section from the deceased, what we have is a missing cloth....the one he brought orginally. I believe that one was discarded, because of the feces he wiped from his hands and knife.

Cheers mate

[Wickerman]

If he intended to take organs before killing her, then why would he not have something with him to do so...

He did, but why soil the inside of a perfectly decent black leather bag, he still needs to wrap the organs up first.

[Hunter]

... We dont have evidence that the cloth showed smearing of any kind,...feces, or blood wiped from a knife or hands...

Portion of Dr. Frederick G. Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest as reported in the London Times on Oct. 5, 1888:

On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

Relevant testimony of Dr. Brown being questioned by Mr. Crawford as reported by the Morning Advertiser, Oct. 5, 1888:

Crawford - On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?
Brown -Yes. There were also some other stains.

Again, Dr. Brown as questioned by the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, as reported in the Evening News, Oct. 5, 1888:

Crawford - On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it?
Brown - Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of faecal matter.

[Michael W Richards]

Portion of Dr. Frederick G. Brown's testimony at the Eddowes inquest as reported in the London Times on Oct. 5, 1888:

On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

Relevant testimony of Dr. Brown being questioned by Mr. Crawford as reported by the Morning Advertiser, Oct. 5, 1888:

Crawford - On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if someone had wiped blood-stained hands upon it?
Brown -Yes. There were also some other stains.

Again, Dr. Brown as questioned by the City Solicitor, Mr. Crawford, as reported in the Evening News, Oct. 5, 1888:

Crawford - On the piece of apron brought in by Dr. Phillips were there smears of blood as if some one had wiped bloodstained hands upon it?
Brown - Yes. There were also what appeared to be stains of faecal matter.

As you well know Hunter..."As if" isnt anywhere near a conclusive statement about what caused the staining, if there were "distinct markings" indicating a hand or a knife hand been wiped on that section, then thats how they would have phrased their response.

It shows us that they didnt have defacto evidence for what that piece of cloth was used for. But there is the question of "ripper" here, isnt there? If the Ripper killed Kate it stands to reason he would have had a better plan than to cut and tear off a section of the victims clothing to carry away what he would certainly have targeted...internal, abdominal, organs.

And in the following quote from the Inquest Brown makes no such observation..."My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding -some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street".

Some blood doesnt indicate hand or knife smears and apparently he couldnt even verify the "matter" was feces.

Cheers

[Michael W Richards]

He did, but why soil the inside of a perfectly decent black leather bag, he still needs to wrap the organs up first.

He could have cut the organs into little pieces and carried them in the empty cigarette cartons inside the black bag he was still lugging around.

Cheers

[Hunter]

As you well know Hunter..."As if" isnt anywhere near a conclusive statement about what caused the staining, if there were "distinct markings" indicating a hand or a knife hand been wiped on that section, then thats how they would have phrased their response.

You suggested there was no evidence. I just provided three similar sources that present that very evidence. So now it has to be conclusive? The only way that could be is if someone actually saw the murderer wipe his hands and/or knife on the apron... and that didn't happen. No one was ever able to report with certainty that they saw the murderer of any of these women do anything. That still don't mean there wasn't evidence left behind to be analyzed... and that's what Brown did in this instance. His testimony is evidence that the killer may have wiped his hands or the knife on the apron and that it contained blood and what appeared to be fecal matter.

... But there is the question of "ripper" here, isnt there?

No... just a presentation of the evidence as described. I didn't mention a "Ripper" at all.

If the Ripper killed Kate it stands to reason he would have had a better plan than to cut and tear off a section of the victims clothing to carry away what he would certainly have targeted...internal, abdominal, organs.

And how would you know this, Mike? I find it ironic and a bit humorous that people on both sides of the fence on how many were killed by the same or different hands seem to be predisposed on what the "Ripper" was or wasn't supposed to do in each and every case when no one was ever apprehended for any of the murders... let alone the reasons certain things were done in each of them. But if I were to make a guess based on the evidence provided, I'd go with the killer had some means of transport and probably stowed away the organs immediately after he took them out. And the apron was used to wipe the blood and feces off his hands and/or knife as he made a hasty retreat... And that is keeping with the evidence provided.

And in the following quote from the Inquest Brown makes no such observation..."My attention was called to the apron - it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin - I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Doctor Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It's impossible to say it is human blood, I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have - the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding -some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street".

Some blood doesnt indicate hand or knife smears and apparently he couldnt even verify the "matter" was feces.

I provided three sources that further detailed his testimony. Don't tell me you have no comprehension about how testimony was transcribed by various reporters and edited for space and relevance... or why a professional such as Dr. Brown would say "apparently faecal matter" when describing a forensic artifact presented as evidence at an inquiry. If you don't, then it would be wise to reassess the evidence and how it was presented before making invalid assertions.

[Michael W Richards]

Hunter,

I dont know when you began becoming obstinate with me rather than conversive, but lets address your post below;

Hunter: You suggested there was no evidence. I just provided three similar sources that present that very evidence. So now it has to be conclusive? The only way that could be is if someone actually saw the murderer wipe his hands and/or knife on the apron... and that didn't happen. No one was ever able to report with certainty that they saw the murderer of any of these women do anything. That still don't mean there wasn't evidence left behind to be analyzed... and that's what Brown did in this instance. His testimony is evidence that the killer may have wiped his hands or the knife on the apron and that it contained blood and what appeared to be fecal matter.

The testimony confirms that blood and matter that was apparently faecal was on the section, "as if it had been wiped on by a knife or hand" is a speculative guess as to the method of transfer by Brown. So its not evidence, its just evidence that was his opinion. Like Killeen and the Dagger...the wound was categorized as larger and unlike the others and Killeen speculated on the weapon used.


And how would you know this, Mike? I find it ironic and a bit humorous that people on both sides of the fence on how many were killed by the same or different hands seem to be predisposed on what the "Ripper" was or wasn't supposed to do in each and every case when no one was ever apprehended for any of the murders... let alone the reasons certain things were done in each of them. But if I were to make a guess based on the evidence provided, I'd go with the killer had some means of transport and probably stowed away the organs immediately after he took them out. And the apron was used to wipe the blood and feces off his hands and/or knife as he made a hasty retreat... And that is keeping with the evidence provided.

Youre very obviously ignoring the fact that the first 2 murders were conducted in almost identical fashion, and almost assuredly by the same man..that establishes a pattern. On what basis do you believe that that particular killers objectives and methods changed...Liz Strides murder? Why would anyone... (something I find humorous), make an argument that that killer changed when there is no reason for it within the known evidence? He killed twice within 2 weeks in almost exactly the same way, and 3 weeks later Liz Stride is killed in a completely different manner. That suggests a new killer, not a metamorphosis.

I provided three sources that further detailed his testimony. Don't tell me you have no comprehension about how testimony was transcribed by various reporters and edited for space and relevance... or why a professional such as Dr. Brown would say "apparently faecal matter" when describing a forensic artifact presented as evidence at an inquiry. If you don't, then it would be wise to reassess the evidence and how it was presented before making invalid assertions.

Both arrogant and inaccurate...another double event. Evidence isnt an opinion of how something was done or created, the evidence is what was done and what was found. The evidence is that there were stains on the cloth. How the stains got there are anyones guess...Brown made his guess, and that in of itself isnt evidence of any kind, its his opinion....so please dont correct my statements unless you have the grounds to do so.

Also, since your line I made bold above agrees with my "guess" of his planning for taking organs in the first place, what exactly is the problem with my post again?

Regards

[MrBarnett]

A Blue Peter Moment

Hi,

I’ve just carried out a small experiment using a kitchen knife, some juice from a jar of pickled red cabbage and a piece of white cloth. I ‘bloodied’ the knife and then attempted to clean it using the cloth. The obvious method is to fold the cloth over the knife and then withdraw it while pinching it between thumb and forefinger. The resultant stain has a distinctive linear shape with a clear central section where my thumb/finger pressure didn’t cover the entire blade. The stained cloth very much looked ‘as if it had been used to clean a knife’ rather than, say, having absorbed blood as a result of coming into contact with a wound.

I would say the shape of the stain is evidence. And what use is evidence, if not to stimulate theory?

MrB