Faecal matter on apron piece

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

Just checking to make sure that people understand that the lack of faecal matter in or on the face wounds of Kate may mean her face was cut after the throat and before anything else.

Since when are abdominal mutilations less important than superficial face wounds to Jack the Ripper? Particularly if, as assumed, he was denied the abdominal mutilations with his first victim of the night?

Facial mutilations and a relationship of some kind between the killer and his victim are common in murders like this. So....if he was killing a stranger then why the facial cuts before any others?

Is this serial killer one that rips only sometimes, focuses on abdominal mutilations after the throat cut only sometimes, and is an anomaly in the statistics of men who cut women's faces during their murder?

Best regards,

Mike R

[Jon Guy]

Hello again Lynn

Quite. But it is difficult to imagine that he did not. It would have been a natural move.

Without any record of Baxter, or any other, stating that he did see the body I can`t assume that it happened. He still had his hands full with the Stride inquest and all his other inquests (wasn`t he sitting in on a surprisingly large number of inquests per day).
This is similar to the "reasonable assumption" that Schwartz was a member of the club in Berner St when his police and press statements make no mention of this fact, and the salient edition of the Workers Friend (that you located and translated - great research by the way) mentions everybody but Schwartz, which I thought put to bed any idea that Schwartz was a club member.

Nor yet Phillips. But his opinion . . .

He indeed gave his opinion as an observer, but he could not advise the City Police as that was Brown`s responsibility. Phillips only thought three of the Whitechapel victims were by the same hand and I am assuming they were the three of the four he performed post mortem`s on (Chapman, Stride and Kelly - discounting McKenzie).

[lynn cates]

opinion

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Dr Phillips certainly saw Eddowes in situ and was invited to the post mortem by Brown . . ."

I would have thought as much.

". . . but I can`t find anything to suggest Baxter saw Eddowes body."

Quite. But it is difficult to imagine that he did not. It would have been a natural move.

"Dr Brown was present at a re-examination of Stride with Phillips, conducted the post mortem on Eddowes and was present at the Kelly post mortem yet he doesn`t seem to have directed the police to look for another killer in the case of Eddowes."

Nor yet Phillips. But his opinion . . .

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

If Bagster and Baxter were allowed to see the cuts--and I think that likely--I would put much stock in their "skilful" vs "unskilful" pronouncement.

Dr Phillips certainly saw Eddowes in situ and was invited to the post mortem by Brown but I can`t find anything to suggest Baxter saw Eddowes body.

Dr Brown was present at a re-examination of Stride with Phillips, conducted the post mortem on Eddowes and was present at the Kelly post mortem yet he doesn`t seem to have directed the police to look for another killer in the case of Eddowes.

[lynn cates]

All hands . . .

Hello Rya.

"there is nothing to suggest that Eddowes's killer was more or less skilled than that of Chapman. This is an old notion that seems to die hard, thanks I assume to Phillip's comments."

Well, I should think that the primary reason. If Bagster and Baxter were allowed to see the cuts--and I think that likely--I would put much stock in their "skilful" vs "unskilful" pronouncement.

"But there was no chance of this sort of "accident" in Eddowes because the killer used a completely different sort of cut . . ."

Now you're talking.

"What is important in all this to me is how different the procedure was in the two cases, whether due to time constraints, clothing, working conditions . . . Or due to the fact that two different hands were at work in the killings . . ."

I think that last an excellent choice.

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Rya

It is worth noting, however, that the killer may have removed other bits of clothing from other victims as well, which are unknown to us because he took them in total, rather than in part. We have limited knowledge of what the killer fancied and carried off with him (other than uteri, vaginas, and kidneys) because we have no way of knowing what the dead women started out with on the last night of their lives.

It appears that Chapman was missing the woolly scarf that Tim Donovan saw her wearing.

[lynn cates]

The eyes have it.

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"This may be a contentious issue, but I believe a case can be made which suggests Eddowes actually was also cut twice."

But the second cut--if there--was merely a scratch.

"Because Lynn, the answer may lay in the contemporary belief that the eyes retained the image of who or what the victim last saw.

IE; just covering his tracks."

And so he just figured that out in this ONE case?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sufficient time

Hello Colin. Thanks.

"I don't find the notion of JtR as a slow learner difficult to accept. I don't think he was necessarily an intelligent individual."

Very well. But IF such an individual existed, he was intelligent enough to kill and yet elude Scotland yard.

"Nobody knows. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was because, to him, they were important."

Granted. But he had enough time for these.

"The killer had very little time in which to do what he did, but still did the facial mutilations. To him they were logical and worth taking the risk."

Yet the doctors felt he had sufficient time, and based this conclusion on the eye nicking.

Cheers.
LC

[Rya]

A few comments that occurred to me as I was reading through this tread:

There is no reason to think that the killer was doused with puddles of excrement in the course of Eddowes's mutilations. Assuming that he excised the descending colon before he pulled away the rest of the guts, it would be inevitable that some fecal matter would fall into the abdominal cavity. If it spilled onto the small intestines, he would have "smeared" this across the dead women's bowels while gripping them with his "off" hand, cutting away the mesenteric attachments with the knife. If he were experienced in this sort of operation, through whatever means, the whole process could have been done in a minute or less. There would have been little excrement on the woman's clothing or body, and the killer would only have had to deal with poop on his one hand. The fecal matter would have been noticeable on the intestines around her shoulder only--and on the object the killer used to wipe his hand with.

If the feces on the apron or clothing (a small amount and mostly in liquid form) had been rubbed in and/or dried within the cloth, it would not necessarily have emitted much of an odor, or even have been all that discernible from the blood stains.

This doesn't necessarily mean that the killer needed the apron to wipe off his hands, that this was the rationale for the apron removal. This whole business has been debated a lot on the boards here, and frankly I don't think we can know the answer as to why he took the cloth with him. It is worth noting, however, that the killer may have removed other bits of clothing from other victims as well, which are unknown to us because he took them in total, rather than in part. We have limited knowledge of what the killer fancied and carried off with him (other than uteri, vaginas, and kidneys) because we have no way of knowing what the dead women started out with on the last night of their lives.

By the way, and I apologize for being redundant here, since this has been discussed by me, Hunter, and others previously, but there is nothing to suggest that Eddowes's killer was more or less skilled than that of Chapman. This is an old notion that seems to die hard, thanks I assume to Phillip's comments. Nor is it likely that the cutting away of the colon was an accident. The large front-to-back cut that severed the bulk of Chapman's bladder and reproductive organs, but stopped short of notching the rectal cavity, impressed Phillips as the work of someone with anatomical knowledge. But there was no chance of this sort of "accident" in Eddowes because the killer used a completely different sort of cut, snipping the fundus and ligaments of the uterus off in a horizontal fashion, leaving bladder and vagina intact. The whole operation was more deft and precise than anything in the Chapman murder (where, by the way, barring incontinence, the killer would have found his hands covered with urine, and where he ended up carrying off a much larger sum of lady parts--including a portion of the abdominal wall involving the naval and perhaps down to the pubes--than Eddowes's killer did). So if he ripped Eddowes's upper anal cavity away in the assult, he most likely meant to do so. What is important in all this to me is how different the procedure was in the two cases, whether due to time constraints, clothing, working conditions . . . Or due to the fact that two different hands were at work in the killings, either separately or in tandem.

[Wickerman]

Hi Lynn,

If the killer has killed before, he will have learned from the experience. A single cut, where there have previously been two,

This may be a contentious issue, but I believe a case can be made which suggests Eddowes actually was also cut twice.

If he was so pressed for time, why the nicks to the eyes and the other facial mutilations?

Because Lynn, the answer may lay in the contemporary belief that the eyes retained the image of who or what the victim last saw.

IE; just covering his tracks...

Regards, Jon S.

[Michael W Richards]

Hello all,

I hate to keep harping on this faecal matter business, but it is very likely based on that matter, or lack thereof, that the killer either cut her face before he cut her colon section, possibly before he even cut her abdomen, or he cleaned his knife after the messy business before cutting her face.

The second option seems to lack strength to me. I honestly cant imagine why he would clean off his knife before cutting her face if its just after disemboweling her and cutting out organs. What would be the reason to do so?

I believe he did clean his knife off before sticking it back in his belt, but that was after he was done and leaving. Its possible the faecal matter and blood were transplanted when he ripped and cut the apron section, maybe he hadnt cleaned off his knife completely or neatly before cutting into it.

Maybe thats why there is blood staining and smears, but nothing grandiose.

Ive often thought the section carried the organs, but the fact that no real large amount of staining was mentioned makes me wonder about this other idea.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Bridewell]

The Slow Learner

Hello Colin. If so, then he was a slow learner as both Polly AND Annie had the twin cuts.

I don't find the notion of JtR as a slow learner difficult to accept. I don't think he was necessarily an intelligent individual.

If he was so pressed for time, why the nicks to the eyes and the other facial mutilations?

Nobody knows. If I had to guess, I'd say that it was because, to him, they were important. The killer had very little time in which to do what he did, but still did the facial mutilations. To him they were logical and worth taking the risk.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

And of course what none of this addresses, is the very real and logical question of why in the name of god's green earth a woman of Catherine's years would cut her apron and leave it discarded and lying in the street, which for some reason men can never quite realistically answer.

Hi Ally

Either that's a sweeping generalisation, or I'm more in touch with my female side than I thought!

Why indeed?

Dave

[lynn cates]

slow learner

Hello Colin. If so, then he was a slow learner as both Polly AND Annie had the twin cuts.

If he was so pressed for time, why the nicks to the eyes and the other facial mutilations?

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Nor can they explain how she cut through a canvas or stuff apron with a table knife in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time.

Just so.

Regards, Bridewell.