Faecal matter on apron piece

[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

[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 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

[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

[Cogidubnus]

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?

"some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulstone Street"...

And I think that was all the good doctor had to say at the Inquest about the quantity of cack Phil!

Dave

[Cogidubnus]

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

Of course, I am comparing her to Chapman.

No ulterior motive there then Lynn (Heh Heh)

Of course it was a lot darker and probably more hurried in Mitre Square than it was at Hanbury Street...says he, more in hope than expectation...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

Lux fiat . . . nah

Hello Dave. Indeed. Of course, Dr. Sequiera said that the light was sufficient without addition.

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Lux Fiat

So what's cleaning your cheap Italian car with ordinary Washing Powder got to do with it?

The good doc also admitted it was the darkest part of the square...

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

enough lux

Hello Dave. Cute.

Yes, he knew the corner and it was the darkest one. Still, he thought the light sufficient.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Dave. Indeed. Of course, Dr. Sequiera said that the light was sufficient without addition.

Cheers.
LC

But was he not referring to the murder and the mutilations in that statement ?

Although others will use that to prop up the removal of the organs theory.

[lynn cates]

bifurcation

Hello Trevor. Well, for whatever surgical procedure.

I can argue disjunctively.

IF Kate's organs were removed, then it was by one who did a rum job of it, NOT the same as Chapman.

If Kate's organs were NOT removed, then probably not the kind of killer many expect.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

For What

Hello Dave. Cute.

Yes, he knew the corner and it was the darkest one. Still, he thought the light sufficient.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Sufficient for what though? Sufficient only to do the acts of mutilation in the manner in which they were done, or sufficient to have done something similar but with more efficiency? The light couldn't have been too good or Pc James Harvey would have seen something - & we can't have that!

Regards, Bridewell.

[lynn cates]

tenebrae

Hello Colin. Good question. I presume to do what he did.

Although it was fairly dark in Mitre sq, I daresay it was no more so than Bucks Row. Of course, Polly's abdominal mutilations were not quite so extensive as Kate's.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Faecal Matter

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.

[Cogidubnus]

I can argue disjunctively

Indeed Lynn...you could even be arguing in your spare time...

Sufficient for what though? Sufficient only to do the acts of mutilation in the manner in which they were done, or sufficient to have done something similar but with more efficiency?

Yes Colin...that was the nub at the heart of what I was trying to say...

I don't disagree that Eddowes may have been killed by someone other than the guy who did Nichols and Chapman...but I simply don't see the evidence for it in a comparison of techniques...the Chapman case was, we are led to believe, in dawn's early light, whilst in Eddowes case it was dark...Hanbury Street seemingly allowed a more leisurely approach, whilst by necessity Mitre Square was hurried....

Note I'm not arguing Harvey here - unusual though it is for me to ignore a scarlet fish on the floor!

All the best

Dave