Faecal matter on apron piece

[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

[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.

[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 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]

wardrobe

Hello Jon. Thanks. Then you DO see the big difference in the clothing? (And Polly's wardrobe was rather impressive, if I recall properly.)

Do you also see the two cuts to the throat, like Polly and Annie, or is it just one and a scratch?

Cheers.
LC

[Jon Guy]

Hi Lynn

Nichols had nothing on in comparison to Eddowes, who was wearing three skirts and other stuff tied around her waist.

There appears to be an attempt at a second cut around the throat, but it seems the face mutilations proved to be more important whilst he was at the end of the body.

[lynn cates]

scratch

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, the second cut was described as "superficial." Put another way, a scratch.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Brown only described one cut, starting superficial, then going deeper, then tailing of to the right. Brown was very detailed in his description of all of the injuries perpetrated and would have mentioned two cuts if that had been the case. Read it carefully.

The diagram posted earlier was drawn by Dr. Brown, not by Foster.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi all,

Interesting that the facial mutilations are mentioned so casually Jon.

Mutilation of the face is rare, its cruel and superfluous, and almost always an indicator that the killer knew the victim. In Marys case that fits quite nicely, since she is in her own bed in her own room in her undergarments when she is attacked.

In Kates case though it shows incredible self control and a determination that does not fit with the wounds themselves. Its as if those cuts were as important as the ones he made to open her up and excise the organs.

If Lawende saw Kate....and at this point Im fine with that premise, then from that moment until Watkins enters the square its about 8 or 9 minutes. Lets factor Harvey in there, in case he did look into the square from the passageway and in case the killer had left, thats at around 1:42ish?...thats 7 minutes.

The killer gets her into the square after the 3 Wise men pass, then subdues her silently and cuts her throat, then he begins the mutilations. What, maybe a minute or 2? 6-7 minutes left.

He has to cut her open, extract her kidney through her front and excise, sloppily, 3/4 of her uterus. He cuts around her navel. He cuts a section of colon and places it between arm and body. He makes the facial wounds, almost severing her nose. He cuts and tears a section of apron section, and he leaves.

This happens in a square that is patrolled by 2 separate cops just minutes apart about every 15 minutes, with an ex cop warehouseman and a current cop in residence in #3. 3 detectives are a few streets away. Harvey and pal are just a street away.

This guy was surrounded by cops and had virtually the least possible time of any kill to accomplish what he did, and yet he took the time to carve the face, and to cut and tear an apron section.

It seems this man didnt fear anything. And if it was his 4th kill, after a misfired 3rd, youd think his paranoia would be heightened.

Best regards,

Mike R

[Supe]

Michael,

And if it was his 4th kill, after a misfired 3rd, youd think his paranoia would be heightened.

And why would anyone think that? One could just as easily argue his confidence level was higher. Or, because that is delving in an area of logical assumptions, that it is impossible to analysis Jack's actions. I would support that last possibility.

Don.

[lynn cates]

scratch and sketch

Hello Cris. Thanks. I thought you personally believed in the two cuts to Kate's throat?

Regarding the sketch, it looks the same as the Foster sketch. Are you certain that it is not Foster?

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi Lynn,

I did believe in the two cuts to the throat for a while and for the same reason others do. But while researching for an article I was writing, I went back over and took a fresh evaluation of the medical evidence and the testimonies of the medicos and came to a different conclusion about this particular aspect.

There was a simple answer that was staring us in the face all along but it was just overlooked. Because this is not pertinent to this thread I will start another to discuss this because it is intriguing to say the least.

Quickly on the drawing of Kate in situ... I used to get this confused myself, crediting this to Foster, who did make sketches of Kate Eddowes right after she was conveyed to the mortuary, and some books have mistakenly called it a sketch by Foster too. But there is a caption under the original that says, "Position of body when found from a sketch made on the spot by Dr. F. Gordon Brown."

[Cogidubnus]

Quickly on the drawing of Kate in situ... I used to get this confused myself, crediting this to Foster, who did make sketches of Kate Eddowes right after she was conveyed to the mortuary, and some books have mistakenly called it a sketch by Foster too. But there is a caption under the original that says, "Position of body when found from a sketch made on the spot by Dr. F. Gordon Brown."

Thanks Cris...There's a reproduction (Item 9) in JtR and the Whitechapel Murders, which shows this caption, but it's quite faint and I for one hadn't noticed it before.

One of the Foster drawings (quite different) is also shown...

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Michael,

And if it was his 4th kill, after a misfired 3rd, youd think his paranoia would be heightened.

And why would anyone think that? One could just as easily argue his confidence level was higher. Or, because that is delving in an area of logical assumptions, that it is impossible to analysis Jack's actions. I would support that last possibility.

Don.

Its my understanding Don that people who support the notion that Jack the Ripper killed both Liz and Kate that night do so because they believe the first kill was interrupted, before mutilations could take place, and that tension is shown in the Eddowes murder by virtue of the "new" wounds that appeared in that case. He was frustrated and angry and needed to find another victim after Liz ended with a single cut.

I then surmised that if the above is true, that he would have not only a potential interruption again that night on his mind in Mitre Square, but also a more acute sense of how much time his needs required. If he responded to a misfire by angrily seeking a second victim in one night surely he wanted to be sure he got to do all he wanted and needed the second time.

And in this case, he needed to mutilate her face.

Since the first kill that evening left no physical signs that the woman was even touched as she lay on the ground bleeding out, let alone was being prepped for abdominal mutilations, I believe such folks should accept a Ripper that doesnt rip, rather than make excuses for the lack of ripping by creating this "interruption", but thats my own take of course.

Best regards,

Mike R

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Cris. Thanks. It looks like a second cut--superficial. At any rate, the deep parallel cuts are missing.

Cheers.
LC