Faecal matter on apron piece

[Ally]

Hi Ally

To be fair to Phil, the inventory on Page 226 of the JTR Sourcebook does actually seem to list the bloodstaining or otherwise on the clothing

Sorry!

Dave

No need to say sorry. I asked for the source because I didn't remember it. (still don't). I'll give it a look when I get home in a few days.. But let me asK you, do they mention what you would consider to be an extensive amount of staining, fully consistent with a women mutilated to the extent of Eddowes? I'll ask you because phil is apparently suffering from PCS.

[Errata]

Actually I don't understand the use of the word "apparently" with regard to the faecal matter. If something has excrement on it, it smells of excrement. Dr Brown saw the piece of apron at first hand. He even handled it, fitting the two pieces together:

"I fitted the piece of apron which had a new piece of material on it which had been evidently sewn on to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding - some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street".

Even a small amount would smell, so why only "apparently" faecal matter? Did someone clean it off before giving the piece of apron to Dr Brown?

Regards, Bridewell.

Because fecal matter is technically only fecal matter somewhere between the colon and the rectum.Before that it is still being digested and so is called chyme. But the coloring agent (bilirubin) and the bacteria which cause the smell comes in during chyme's stay in the small intestine. So chyme can look and smell like feces, but is not feces.

Which is not to say that feces were strewn about the place. Even in a perfectly functioning digestive system, some of this material clings to the walls of the intestines. Up to 10 pounds worth. Also if she was digesting something at the time of her death, there was likely a liquid still in her intestines. Cutting the intestines open would cause that to spray, but not to release turds or anything. It's possible that her killer caught it in the face, which even a murderer is going to want to wipe off. See, I can't see anything getting on his hands that is going to bother him overmuch. The face on the other hand, that's a whole other thing.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

If there was s*** on her clothing it would have been understandable...he severed her colon and placed a section between her arm and body. There was no discernible smears by hands of such matter on her garments. There was a discernible amount on the apron section, which could have been transferred by wiping the knife or hand somewhat.

I submit the matter was transferred from the organs placed inside the section to cart off. There is no reason for the killer to cut and rip that section free other than for him to have used it. It had blood and faecal matter on it, just like his hands would have had. But it was not used for wiping his hands, that would leave smears that could be identified as such.

I cant imagine even someone as crazy as her killer liking that "matter" on his hands, so it seems reasonable that he cleaned them with something he brought himself.

Best regards all,

Mike R

[Phil Carter]

Sorry Phil, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one!

All the best

Dave

PS Hope your suitcase has recovered from it's unorthodox usage (and your head from Messrs Theakstons ministrations!)...

Hello Dave,

No problem at all. All I am doing is making observations and asking what I feel are pertinent questions.

Mr Theakston hath provided and Mr Carter replenished. The suitcase has served its grand pusore and retires back into oblivion!

Best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

His Own Cloth

That opens up the realistic possibility that any wiping was done elsewhere, and the amount of faecal matter on the piece of rag does not equate with the amount of such substance in situ that would, by dint of the 'work' the killer did and where, and with what, indicates a mess on the killer's hands that would need wiping off.

Perhaps the killer had a cloth of his own with him. It would make sense for him to carry such an item. If he severed the rectal passage by mistake, as seems likely, he may have realised that his own cloth would be insufficient and therefore improvised by cutting a piece from Kate's apron. The fact that no other cloth was recovered does not necessarily mean that no other cloth existed. He may have taken his 'own' cloth home with him.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Sorry Phil, but I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one!

All the best

Dave

PS Hope your suitcase has recovered from it's unorthodox usage (and your head from Messrs Theakstons ministrations!)...

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Let us take it as a given that any faecal matter caused by the laying of the intestines would have left a mark. However, 2 points-
1) it was not noted
2) this leaves no indication nor evidence that the killer wiped his hands or knife on the clothing.

That leaves presumption without evidence-equal to presuming that the killer wiped the mess on his own attire. But, and in my view it is a significant but, the clothes on the body were examined in good light prior to the autopsy-by a policeman who made very detailed item description.

Had, for the sake of example. The policeman listed 'white chemise with wipe marks upon' it would not have been unusual, but a quite normal observation in terms of detailing the clothing at tie morgue. Had there NOT been the detail of the clothing made as we have been presented, I would have no problem with it.

As it is, there is no evidence to show the killer wiped either hand or knife on the clothing of the victim. Any such presumption must be backed up with known fact. In this case I know of none.
That opens up the realistic possibility that any wiping was done elsewhere, and the amount of faecal matter on the piece of rag does not equate with the amount of such substance in situ that would, by dint of the 'work' the killer did and where, and with what, indicates a mess on the killer's hands that would need wiping off.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

So Phil can you point me to that detailed list of her possessions that you are using? Because I don't remember the very detailed list of her clothing making ANY mention of blood or other staining on each item and therefore, by your logic, all of her clothes, except for the back parts must be blood-free and pristine?

Hi Ally

To be fair to Phil, the inventory on Page 226 of the JTR Sourcebook does actually seem to list the bloodstaining or otherwise on the clothing

Sorry!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Phil

You are quite correct that there are no explicit mentions of faecal smears on the clothing...although the "dirt" on the black jacket in the inventory may be a polite euphemism...

However, the good doctor says "The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder - they were smeared over with some feculant matter. A piece of about 2 feet was quite detatched from the body and placed between the body and the left arm, apparently by design"

Look at that description Phil, and the well known drawing on P119 of Scotland Yard Investigates (It's also part of item 9 in JtR and the Whitechapel Murders)...Do you honestly believe it is possible to do that and NOT have faeces smeared on the clothing? Honestly?

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

So Phil can you point me to that detailed list of her possessions that you are using? Because I don't remember the very detailed list of her clothing making ANY mention of blood or other staining on each item and therefore, by your logic, all of her clothes, except for the back parts must be blood-free and pristine?

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

I trust you slept well?

Looking at the minutae of the description of the clothing indicates to me that the police were thorough in their listing AND description of each item of clothing. Cuts, type length of cut, material etc. Apart from the back part of the clothing upon which Eddowes was laying, which does make mention of the blood, there are no mentions of smears of faecal matter on the clothing. Now given the detailed description of said clothing, it is not unreasonable (if any such wipes, smears and markings existed) to see that they would have been noted.
There is no indication that the killer wiped his hands or knife on the clothing attached to the body. Please do show me if there is? Thank you my friend.
Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Ally...You might've taken the words from my mouth...I'm glad someone's a late-bird round here...probably the medication but I'm yawning by 1am nowadays!

All the best

Dave

[Ally]

Hello Dave,

THIS is where I am going-

Why did the killer not simply wipe his hands and knife on the masses of available material smack bang right in front of him? No, instead he uses more time to neatly cut away a piece of rag to take with him to wipe his hands as he flees the scene risking being caught 'red handed' literally.

THAT doesnt make sense Dave. This cold blooded brilliant avoider of policemen who so brilliantly times these crimes with such efficiency to enable him to leave NO trace.of being caught RISKS doing exactly that with a simple mistake that would blow his game.

And it doesnt make sense that he would linger longer than necessary. Wipe hands, cut cloth, go do minor cleaning well away from the dead woman. How does it make sense to stay and do a lengthy cleanup over the corpse you are responsible for.
In MY book, that doesnt wash.

Best wishes

Phil

What makes you think he didn't? He cleaned the majority of the filth off and cut a piece off to take away with him to finish up the leftovers. Makes a hell of a lot more sense than eddowes deciding to slice up her own apron when she had scads of alternate cloths available and on her person.

[Phil Carter]

On the parts which lay under and around the drawn and tossed intestines perhaps Phil? To put no overfine point on it Phil, when the poor woman's a shitty bloody mess who's going to notice where the killer's started wiping his mitts?

I know where you're going Phil, but in my book it doesn't wash!

All the best

Dave

Hello Dave,

THIS is where I am going-

Why did the killer not simply wipe his hands and knife on the masses of available material smack bang right in front of him? No, instead he uses more time to neatly cut away a piece of rag to take with him to wipe his hands as he flees the scene risking being caught 'red handed' literally.

THAT doesnt make sense Dave. This cold blooded brilliant avoider of policemen who so brilliantly times these crimes with such efficiency to enable him to leave NO trace.of being caught RISKS doing exactly that with a simple mistake that would blow his game.

In MY book, that doesnt wash.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

It would have been noted if faecal smears were on any of her well torn and noted garments no?

On the parts which lay under and around the drawn and tossed intestines perhaps Phil? To put no overfine point on it Phil, when the poor woman's a shitty bloody mess who's going to notice where the killer's started wiping his mitts?

I know where you're going Phil, but in my book it doesn't wash!

All the best

Dave