Faecal matter on apron piece

[lynn cates]

rum job

Hello Phil. In my poor puny mind, the important point is that Eddowes' mutilator was an obvious tyro.

Of course, I am comparing her to Chapman.

Cheers.
LC

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Many thanks. Yes- an awful lot indeed. And the killer must have had his hands covered in it.
Am I also wrong in saying that there was only a small amount of faecal matter on the apron piece? If so is that consistent with the surely much muck'd killer's hands being wiped on it?


Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

That bloody apron piece again

"The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder - they were smeared over with some feculant matter"

"About two feet of the colon was cut away - the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum very tightly"

Inquest evidence of Frederick Gordon Brown...so yes, lots of crap at the scene Phil!

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

Do excuse the naivity of thìs question- but for the sake of THIS thread I will give it as a fact that Eddowes' killer dumped the apron piece. (whìch I personally dont believe)

Now, the killer CUTS the apron piece. He may use it to wipe his knife. He may use it to wipe his hands. What I would like to know is WHERE in the known evidence does it show sign of faecal matter at the scene of the crime? I may have missed this-apologies if so- because from this poster's recollections- and I may be forgetting somethìng here- the only mention of faecal matter is on the rag piece dumped at Goulston St.

You may ask where I am going with this. Well- if there was no feacal matter on or near the body- then how did it get on the newly cut piece?

Best wishes

Phil