Faecal matter on apron piece

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

But how VERY different from Polly and Annie!

Thanks. I see the intestines thrown over the right shoulder as with Chapman but not Nichols, and I see the mess between her legs as with Chapman but not with Nichols and of course a devastating cut across the throat, as in all three cases.

If you refer to the position of the clothes, Eddowes was wearing a lot more and had a few items tied around her waist, which had to be cut through if the killer wanted to access above her belly button.

[lynn cates]

vive la difference

Hello Jon. I deeply appreciate your post here. You are perhaps the first ripper student of whom I am aware who has committed to the accuracy of the sketch.

And I believe that you are right so to do. I think Foster has given a very honest and very accurate portrayal of Kate's mutilated body.

But how VERY different from Polly and Annie!

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

So the piece with strings attached, which matched up with the bloodstained and bespotted faecal piece was not apparently bloodstained and 'apparently' worn outside her dress.

Eddowes clothes were turned up, so the apron would be protected from blood. See sketch below. Can you see the apron?

Does this mean that the itinery list was made after Eddowes was naked?

Yes. The body was stripped by mortuary attendant, Mr Davis in the presence of Doctors Brown and Sequira. Collard listed her belongings once she was stripped.

Because if it was on the body, Collard would have SEEN it being worn, surely? He seems to be giving 2nd hand evidence in saying 'apparently wearing'?

Again, can you see the apron in the sketch?

And how odd that it didnt have a mark upon it...not one drop of blood.

Eddowes clothes were turned up, so the apron would be protected from blood.

[Monty]

Phil,

You understand I'm sure that if the rag piece was taken direct from Goulston St then Brown cannot possibly have matched it in Mitre Square as you said, and see Simon's comment above..

I did not state that at all.

I stated Brown noted the Apron was attached to the body at the scene. I made no reference as to where the matching of the pieces occured. Though logically speaking it would have been the mortuary

Lets be clear on that, again, I made no suggestion the matching occured in Mitre Square.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hi Monty,

"The apron would have been take off the body to be matched."

Okay.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Not so okay.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Monty, Simon,

Do please excuse retreating a bit,

Monty, in post 89 you said that Collard had Browns word that it fitted at the scene, I believe?

As I have no ref. book in front of me, am I correct in saying that Halse noticed the apron at the mortuary?

And who took the apron cut off to the mortuary?
And was this direct from Goulston St or via Mitre Square?

You understand I'm sure that if the rag piece was taken direct from Goulston St then Brown cannot possibly have matched it in Mitre Square as you said, and see Simon's comment above..
Of course if the cut off piece went via Mitre Square then Brown would have matched it there.
Who took it (if so) to Mitre Square?
Then who took it to the Mortuary?
Because if Halse's testimony was that he first saw the apron with strings at the mortuary he would not know that the pieces matched before then, no?

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain?

Best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

I think a lot of people have trouble envisioning a harried serial killer minutes away from discovery taking the time out to cut a piece of apron to wipe his hands. And I'm one of them. Especially since he could shove his hands in his pockets to avoid people taking notice of them. And a man who guts a woman is not going to be the fastidious sort.

Which is why I think the apron had to be for the face. Aside from the fact that a blood streaked face draws a lot of attention, there are any number of things the average person is willing to have on their hands that would turn their stomachs if it was around their mouth nose and eyes. Indeterminate digestive ooze being one of those things.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Sadly, that suggestion somehow gets turned into 'conspiratorialism' when it gets broken down into the proposition that 'jack the Ripper' of traditional fame, didnt exist. The simple truth, as one writer wrote- isnt simple. 'Jack the Ripper' was an invented name and substance that pushed, stirred and swelled the poplace's fears. And it wasnt just the Press who were guilty of doing it either. Certain high ranking policemen not only made comments and decisions that fuelled the fire but did surprisingly little to quell those fears. The incredible lack of fusion between them both at the time and afterwards showed no common agreement or goal. Individual kudos seemed, alarmingly to some today, of greater importance.

The faecal residue on the apron piece vis a vis the amount on or around the body (or chyme) is an important detail, as are many others imho.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

I dont know how many killers there were nor do I have a prime suspect, but I like Lynn's idea about C1 aod C2. I think Stride was a one-off slash n dash done possibly by an IWMEC man, and as for the other two Im as baffled as anybody, MJK possibly Irish connections?

Hi Phil

I'm pretty sure you're not alone in these beliefs mate!

All the best

Dave

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil

It's possible to envisage a scenario where the knife blade's been wiped, (maybe even on the "man's white vest"!), the killer's about to depart, and then noticing the back of his hands are still gungey, almost as an afterthought, slashes a piece off the victim's apron to rectify that...

To my mind it's far more likely than the killer stopping off en-route to laboriously write the GSG in relatively small letters, before depositing the mucky apron piece beneath it!

I honestly believe we sometimes overcomplicate things for ourselves...

Good wishes to all

Dave

A likely scenario to my way of thinking.

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Phil. Thank you for the kind words.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats nice Sweetie, its nice to know you are dressed.

Monty

Dressed and ready for every eventuality !

Remember the martini advert "Anytime any place anywhere "

[Monty]

My York presentation will I believe will clear up many of the ambiguites surrounding these issues, until then I will retain a watching brief.

Thats nice Sweetie, its nice to know you are dressed.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You assume the clothing wasn't the cut before the clothing, or apron at least Phil.

Thanks, I will look see.

Monty

My York presentation will I believe will clear up many of the ambiguites surrounding these issues, until then I will retain a watching brief.

[Monty]

You assume the clothing wasn't the cut before the clothing, or apron at least Phil.

Thanks, I will look see.

Monty

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

"The apron would have been take off the body to be matched."

Okay.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Not so okay.

Regards,

Simon

That's Brown, not Collard.

The point is the pieces were seperate.

Ok?

Monty