Time-gap between Eddowes murder and Goulston Graffito

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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