Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[moonbegger]

BSM wasnt prevented from mutilating anyone...unless your belief is that he intended to kill and mutilate Stride somewhere on the opposite side of the street, where he apparently was pulling her to.

Hello Michael , was this not a translation error by schwartz or his interpreter ?

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Hello Michael , was this not a translation error by schwartz or his interpreter ?

moonbegger

Irrespective of that, this thread is about Eddowes ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Pretty much, yes. If he normally did drop his trophies somewhere at Pickfords - and I think he did - it would be inconsistent to bring parts of Eddowes home with him and risk being met in the doorway by his wife. If he had a safe storage, why not use it?

I don´t think he would grab any chalk, though, since I am not any GSG subscriber. Could of course be wrong on that count, though, just as I could be wrong altogether on the Long bit. I can only say how I reason.
As I´ve said before, it remains a bit of an anomaly that he brought the apron to and from Pickfords, which is why I believe he may have used the rag as a makeshift bandage if he cut himself in Mitre Square. This would explain why he hung on to it for the longst - and why a corner of the rag was still "wet with blood" when Long found it.

The best,
Fisherman

thanks fish
if it was lech then the trip to pickfords makes sense, logistically and chronologically. If lech was the ripper according to your idea he used pickfords as his bolthole so it would make sense he would do so again, even on a night he was not on his way to work.

but as for your bandage theory-I doubt he would use a cloth with feces on it as a bandage. I would stick to the idea that he used it to throw police off for some reason, irrespective of any connection to the GSG.

[Fisherman]

thanks fish
if it was lech then the trip to pickfords makes sense, logistically and chronologically. If lech was the ripper according to your idea he used pickfords as his bolthole so it would make sense he would do so again, even on a night he was not on his way to work.

but as for your bandage theory-I doubt he would use a cloth with feces on it as a bandage. I would stick to the idea that he used it to throw police off for some reason, irrespective of any connection to the GSG.

It was a substantial piece of cloth, Abby, and there is no knowing whether he noticed the feces or not in the darkness on that night. He may not have known it was there as he bandaged his hand.
Moreover, we do not know how large a quantity of feces it was. Maybe it was just a small quantity.
To add, the feces would have been transferred to the cloth from the killers hands - so he already had the feces on his hands, perhaps so on the hand he cut (if he did cut himself), meaning that this damage was already done.

Anyway, the evidence speaks of a cloth with a corner that was wet with blood and a portion where it seemed as if something had been wiped. Maybe the corner end of the cloth was clean.

If the rag was not put in the doorway until an hour or so after the murder, I find it a compelling suggestion that the wet state of if was a result of the killers blood having seeped into that corner continuously. If no wet blood had been added for a long period of time, it´s a lot harder to explain how the corner could still be "wet with blood" when Long found it at 2.55. That was an hour and ten minutes after the strike - at least.

Two more things:

If you use a rag as a makeshift bandage, you will grab one of the corners with your damaged hand, and use the other hand to wrap the rag around the wound. Therefore, the corner will be the portion of the rag exposed to the blood.

If he hung on to the rag for a substantial time, he also took a great risk; the apron piece would have had him hung if found. That´s why I say that his hanging on to that apron could perhaps best be explained by sheer necessity; as long as he bled, he would not drop the apron and leave a blood trail behind him. Maybe that insight was what made him go for the rag in the first place, feces or no feces.

Exactly how the deposition of the rag in Goulston Street would lead the police astray, I don´t know. Since we don´t know where he lived, and since the police did not do so either, why would Goulston Street of all streets be the best suited option for leading the police astray? How would that work?

All the best, Abby!
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Anyway, the evidence speaks of a cloth with a corner that was wet with blood

That could well be another miss quote , we also have other thorough reports that suggest it was just wet .. quite possibly from recent rainwater .

There were blood stains on it, and one portion of it was wet.

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

That could well be another miss quote , we also have other thorough reports that suggest it was just wet .. quite possibly from recent rainwater .



moonbegger

Numerous papers all stated on the 12:th of October - in varying manners - that one of the apron corners was wet with blood.
Would they all misquote Long?

"It had recent stains of blood on it, once corner being wet." - Morning Advertiser

"One corner of the apron was wet with blood." - The Times

"The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood." - Daily Telegraph

"There were blood stains on it, and one portion of it was wet." - Daily News

Four papers, four articles, four different wordings. All saying that one of the apron corners was wet with blood.

Did they all misquoute Long? Simultaneously?

Or was the corner wet with rainwater - but only the corner, not the rest?

To my mind, it is a total waste of time not to accept that the apron corner was wet with blood as Long found it.

Don´t you agree?

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Would they all misquote Long?

The thing is, two of them say just wet, and two say wet with blood ! The Times and the Telegraph quotes seem to be from the same source .. "One corner of the apron was wet with blood." Where as the Advertiser & the Daily News have very different wordings suggesting two different sources , each suggesting just wet .

also, as far as "It had recent stains of blood on it, once corner being wet."
would it not have been described as fresh , as opposed to wet ? its not abundantly clear to me that Long is referring to the wetness as being attributed to the blood .

I just don't think it is a bankable fact , there is also a possibility of it being wet from the rainwater .

On your final note ,I'm not sure if there was a hole in the roof and subsequent floors on the day of the inquest Fish , or even if it was raining that day ..

cheers , moon .

[moonbegger]

Checking out the Times and Telegraph , it would appear they are from different sources .. so it is likely after all

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Moonbegger: The thing is, two of them say just wet, and two say wet with blood ! The Times and the Telegraph quotes seem to be from the same source .. "One corner of the apron was wet with blood." Where as the Advertiser & the Daily News have very different wordings suggesting two different sources , each suggesting just wet .

You are letting your fantasy run away with you. "The apron had blood on it and one end was even wet" is not an indication of a rainy night.

also, as far as "It had recent stains of blood on it, once corner being wet."
would it not have been described as fresh , as opposed to wet ?

If it was wet, it was wet. With blood. I don´t misunderstand it. So why would you necessarily do so? Why must all things that are not easily chewed be "misinterpreted"?
It is pretty damn clear - the rag had recent (yes, that´s what it says) marks of blood on it, and one corner of it was wet with blood.

its not abundantly clear to me that Long is referring to the wetness as being attributed to the blood .

It is to me. We can always ask for - and wish for - more, like the poster who wished that the coroner had asked Long HOW he knew that the rag was absent at 2.20. As long as we have a very clear statement (the apron´s corner was wet with blood, the rag was not in the doorway at 2.20), we really should not ask for more. These are as clear cut statements as we will ever have. Other things are a lot more foggy and hard to interpret. But there is no need to "interpret" "it was not there" and "it was wet with blood". These things speak for themselves.

I just don't think it is a bankable fact , there is also a possibility of it being wet from the rainwater .

It´s good enough in my bank account. But fair enough - I´ve seen people question equally obvious things when they don´t like the emerging picture. I say let them do so, it´s their own time they are wasting.

If the rag had been magically soaked in rainwater in one corner - and one corner only (however THAT came about...) - then it would have been stated that this was so; "The rag was bloodstained and one corner of it was wet with water". But some of the papers do not say outright "wet with blood", they just say that there was blood on the rag and one corner was wet.

Had it not been for a number of papers clearing the matter up, we would be faced with a small conundrum.

Was it water?
Was it urine?
Was it a mixture of lukewarm soapwater and orange juice?
Could it have been sweat, having dripped from the killers forehead?

It´s a good thing that the papers left us (well ...) in no want for information on the subject. It´s a good thing that when somebody says "The shirt had numerous squirts of coffee on it and one sleeve was actually quite wet", we don´t ask ourselves "Wet? With what?", since we have already been handed the answer. And if a number of sources confirm it by stating that "one sleeve was wet with coffee", then I think we should find ourselves other things to spend time and effort on.

It´s not as if there is a lack of material, more worthy of a close look. Is it?

Over and out,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Checking out the Times and Telegraph , it would appear they are from different sources .. so it is likely after all

moonbegger

Just saw this post - good on you. Yes, the Times and the Telegraph - and other large papers - would have their own correspondents in place. So it was not any misquoting, arguably.

So if it was blood and if a corner of the rag was wet with it, Moonbegger - how did that come about, some seventy to seventyfive minutes after the murder...?

The best,
Fisherman

[DRoy]

Hi all,

Had to come back for a second just to say there is no proof it was fecal matter, it only appeared to be. Probably was but never confirmed as such that I'm aware of.

Cheers
DRoy

[GUT]

G'day DRoy

Had to come back for a second just to say there is no proof it was fecal matter, it only appeared to be. Probably was but never confirmed as such that I'm aware of.

I think that is right.

But what does it change?

[Michael W Richards]

It had rained earlier that night and the ground where the cloth was found may well have had water on it. Its evident by the Berner Street evidence that dirt was converted to mud by those showers. That would explain the condition, however there needs to be a logical progression to his use of the cloth, because clearly this wasnt a premeditated action...he decided to take it from Kate that night. He needed it....why?

1. What did he use the cloth for in Mitre Square?

2. If he intended to take organs then why didnt he bring something with him to carry them away? Just popping them into his pockets doesnt work if he is then to head into the area where an earlier murder is actively being investigated.

I believe he would have had something with him had he the desire to take organs from the evenings outset, so I kind of set aside the notion that this apron section was needed for that reason. I also think he would have had some idea of what he was to do with any gunk or blood left on the knife after he cut what he wanted out. So, the apron section was probably not to wipe his knife.

Is it possible that he used it to double wrap his "package", because of the very short time he would have had to bleed her organs out fully...if Lawende saw Kate of course. Thats why the staining is only minimal by the sounds of it, its function was as a secondary measure.

Thoughts? Ideas? ..Martinis?

cheers

[Michael W Richards]

Hello Michael , was this not a translation error by schwartz or his interpreter ?

moonbegger

I believe she was being pulled into the street, which is to say away from the clubs entrance. An action which would be required if he intended to take her across the street...as I suggested.

Anyway...I digest...back to this nagging apron thing....

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Hi all,

Had to come back for a second just to say there is no proof it was fecal matter, it only appeared to be. Probably was but never confirmed as such that I'm aware of.

Cheers
DRoy

Correct - we have no confirmation that it was fecal matter. On the whole, though, it will be a good guess that it was.

Fisherman