Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[Sam Flynn]

He didn't take Eddowes neckerchief either.

Indeed not, Jon. He took a much larger piece of cloth from her.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

If, by so doing, it became apparent that an item of the deceased's clothing had gone missing, I'm sure the ever-alert Baxter wouldn't have let it slip. Or the press, for that matter. Much was made in the press of Chapman's missing rings - and her missing teeth! - so, if the woollen scarf had gone AWOL too, I'm sure we'd have heard something by now.

[Wickerman]

Indeed not, Jon. He took a much larger piece of cloth from her.

Quite so Gareth, which may suggest that those neckerchiefs were unsuitable, too thin, too small?

[curious4]

The scarf

In other words she either wasn't wearing it that particular evening, in spite of what was said, or she left it somewhere during the "missing" hours. I don't remember a list of her clothing like the one for Kate Eddowes. I suppose it could have been mistaken for a rag in the yard - the killer would have had to remove it to cut the throat as it was under the silk scarf/neckerchief - but they seem to have been very thorough when the yard was searched. Or it was accounted for and just not mentioned. That is if Jack didn't use it to carry away her "bits".

Best wishes,
C4

[Wickerman]

If, by so doing, it became apparent that an item of the deceased's clothing had gone missing, I'm sure the ever-alert Baxter wouldn't have let it slip. Or the press, for that matter. Much was made in the press of Chapman's missing rings - and her missing teeth! - so, if the woollen scarf had gone AWOL too, I'm sure we'd have heard something by now.

Hindsight is always 20-20!

[Wickerman]

In other words she either wasn't wearing it that particular evening, in spite of what was said, or she left it somewhere during the "missing" hours. I don't remember a list of her clothing like the one for Kate Eddowes. I suppose it could have been mistaken for a rag in the yard - the killer would have had to remove it to cut the throat as it was under the silk scarf/neckerchief - but they seem to have been very thorough when the yard was searched. Or it was accounted for and just not mentioned. That is if Jack didn't use it to carry away her "bits".

Best wishes,
C4

Which takes us back to my first mention of the subject:

"Apparently, her scarf was missing".

[Sam Flynn]

Hindsight is always 20-20!

So is insight, sometimes

If it had been established that Chapman's woolly scarf had gone missing, I'm sure we'd have heard. Had that been the case, I shouldn't be surprised if several copies of the "one true scarf" had turned up on Ebay!

[Wickerman]

So is insight, Jon

If it had been established that Chapman's woolly scarf had gone missing, I'm sure we'd have heard.

I can't imagine why anyone would feel sure.

[Fisherman]

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.

The better guess is that the apron was wet with blood.

Just like you say, if the blood was Eddowes´ blood, it would be strange if it was still wet at 2.55.

Therefore, the guess that the killer had cut himself and used the apron as a makeshift bandage has everything going for it - especially since it would fit in nicely with Long´s observation that the apron was not in place at 2.20.

The mentioning of the apron corner being the portion that was wet with blood also tallis admirably with the suggestion of a makeshift bandage.

Just saying!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

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.

Chapmans belongings, as found on her person on the murder day, were described as:

Long black figured coat that came down to her knees.
Black skirt
Brown bodice
Another bodice
2 petticoats
A large pocket worn under the skirt and tied about the waist with strings (empty when found)
Lace up boots
Red and white striped woolen stockings
Neckerchief, white with a wide red border
Scrap of muslin
One small tooth comb
One comb in a paper case
Scrap of envelope she had taken form the mantelpiece of the kitchen containing two pills.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I can't imagine why anyone would feel sure.

Given all the myths that have emerged around this case, one would think that a genuinely missing item of clothing would have forked at least some lightning. But, not so much as a squeak.

That's why I'm sure.

[Sam Flynn]

The mentioning of the apron corner being the portion that was wet with blood also tallies admirably with the suggestion of a makeshift bandage.

Not as far as I see it, Fish. Ooze from a cut hand would soak right into the material and dry out in much the same way as blood from any other source. Perhaps more so, if that part of the apron in contact with the wound had been tightly bound and/or gripped so as to help staunch the flow of blood.

"Wet with blood" signifies comparatively fresh blood to me, not blood that had been on the surface of an absorbent cloth for an hour or longer.

[Fisherman]

Not as far as I see it, Fish. Ooze from a cut hand would soak right into the material and dry out in much the same way as blood from any other source. Perhaps more so, if that part of the apron in contact with the wound had been tightly bound and/or gripped so as to help staunch the flow of blood.

"Wet with blood" signifies comparatively fresh blood to me, not blood that had been on the surface of an absorbent cloth for an hour or longer.

"Wet with blood" signifies comparatively fresh blood to anybody, Gareth. And if the killer bled into the apron, then that would produce comparatively fresh blood.

Long found the apron at 2.55. The killer could easily have dropped it in the doorway at 2.50, after having bled into it for some considerable time.

What would you have causing the "comparatively fresh blood"? Blood from a wound would be exactly what would produce a rag wet with blood.

Sometimes I find it difficult to see why some arguments are produced. You are now arguing that if the killer bandaged himself and bled into the apron for more than half an hour, then that would produce a dry apron.

I mean ... hello?!

Good night, Gareth.
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Therefore, the guess that the killer had cut himself and used the apron as a makeshift bandage has everything going for it - especially since it would fit in nicely with Long´s observation that the apron was not in place at 2.20.

For that blood to have still been wet when Long arrived, Jack must have delayed applying the bandage for some considerable time. If the wound was so bad that it could literally soak a portion of the apron, I would have expected Jack to have applied the bandage as soon as possible... and to keep the bandage moving as parts of it got too soaked to be useful. I would thus have expected to have seen several patches of soaked-in blood all over the apron, as opposed to mere smears and a solitary wet corner.

[Sam Flynn]

You are now arguing that if the killer bandaged himself and bled into the apron for more than half an hour

See my last post (about keeping the bandage moving) for that one.

then that would produce a dry apron.

Not "dry" as in bone-dry, but certainly with the blood soaked in, diffused, getting ever stickier; basically drying out. Damp at best, but not "wet with blood" by any means.