Faecal matter on apron piece

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Ltns! Hope you are well!

Of course, your scenario is quite plausible- but again it leaves a couple of questions.
1) if the killer used the rag piece to transport the body part, why didnt he use the material that he took to the murder with him?
2) when dumping the rag in GS, how did he then transport the body part? Surely not in the material he could have used in the first place?

But ok, let us say that this intrepid genius hit upon the idea of deliberately taking said rag piece to Gs to bring proof of the writing to light and connect the rag piece, writing and murder.

Now- this forward thinking genius STILL has the body piece on his person. Which again puts his methods of being one step ahead in danger if stopped.

So before he dumps the rag piece in GS, he has on his person a body part, a knife,a rag from the dead woman, a gore soaked material piece of his own, a possible mucky jacket, shirt or trousers, and all this whilst he is a cunning genius walking about and into an area screaming with policemen because of the 1st murder in the very area he is walking towards!

No way José. Or as Del Boy says, No way Pedro.

I dont know what the answer is to all this, but either the man is a genius or a complete idiot. Forward planners with expert timing of their crimes cover every eventuality, not make silly errors of happenchance.

To me it just doesnt make sense.

Best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

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

I think you will find he had more than enough time to cut the apron and get at least two blocks away from Mitre Square before he would even see a police officer.
There was never a risk involved.

Rob

P.S. Whens your book coming out.

[Michael W Richards]

Hi Phil,

Nice to see you too.

Heres what I believe occurred....a handkerchief that the killer had with him was used to wipe his hands off because of the "guck" he would have had on them, and the apron section was used to transport the organs from the scene.

Lets not forget that there is over an hour from when the section was taken and when it appeared in the Goulston doorway. The PC stated that "the apron section was not there" at around 2:20 when he passed by the spot. I believe a bolt hole or home is where that killer went after that murder.

And he, or someone else, placed the section and writing there between the PC's beat passes.

Cheers Phil,

Mike R

[Phil Carter]

Hello Rob,

Sorry to disappoint you, but no book.
Tinkered a few years ago with an historical non-fiction work to do with the Nazi Regime but that's on hold for other, non-litarary reasons.

As far as time used is concerned, and as far as I am aware, the killer wouldn't KNOW how much time he had, would he? Unless you assume as fact that he DID know? And he wouldn't know about any person wandering about either to catch sight of him -not just a policeman.
No risk? Every secound he stayed with that body was a potential risk.
3 entrances into Mitre Square- one of which from where he was he could not see- the one from Mitre Street. One or possibly two he would have his back towards whilst he worked on the body at ground level.

Best wishes

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Thanks for the reply.
Pertaining to the last paragraph, relating to the placement of the rag and possibly the writing, if your hypothesis be correct- it indicates the killer/and or 'apron piece carrier' would know the movements of the police beat either prior to the murder or whilst observing from said bolt hole.
That in turn would make any thought of Eddowes herself less likely to be the one to know the police beats(as has been suggested elsewhere) and make it more likely to have been her assailant who knew or made such observations, would it not?

Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

The City police changed their beats that night, whilst Eddowes was in custody.

Monty

[Bridewell]

Beat Changing

The City police changed their beats that night, whilst Eddowes was in custody.

Monty

Hi Monty,

Was the order given that all the beats should be worked left-handed or was it just a select few?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Exactly. In a cell. Drunk. Sleeping it off?
Presumption that she knew or heard or remembered the change in beat would be highly improbable, I submit.

Best wishes

Phil

[Supe]

Phil,

You constantly set up "straw men" or false arguments, of which the following is an example: 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.

Such a rhetorical device allows you to make your tired old argument with a flourish, but it is quite divorced from reality -- or at least of any reality for which we have real evidence. Instead of the "super-criminal" you posit to make your argument, the killer of Kate could as easily have been a lucky bumbler who would gladly have walked off with an apron piece without initially realizing the danger that posed.

Moreover, if not the killer, then who did remove the apron piece and leave it in Goulston Street?

Don.

[Rob Clack]

Hello Rob,

Sorry to disappoint you, but no book.
Tinkered a few years ago with an historical non-fiction work to do with the Nazi Regime but that's on hold for other, non-litarary reasons.

My mistake, when you said "in my book that doesn't wash", I thought you had a book on 'How to do laundry, Norwegian style" coming out.

As far as time used is concerned, and as far as I am aware, the killer wouldn't KNOW how much time he had, would he? Unless you assume as fact that he DID know? And he wouldn't know about any person wandering about either to catch sight of him -not just a policeman.
No risk? Every secound he stayed with that body was a potential risk.
3 entrances into Mitre Square- one of which from where he was he could not see- the one from Mitre Street. One or possibly two he would have his back towards whilst he worked on the body at ground level.

Best wishes

Phil

Not a fact, I was just using a bit of common sense. It would only take a couple of seconds to cut the apron. In my opinion he saw Harvey and followed him out. Harvey turned right, Jack turned left and had a clear run for a couple of blocks.
Three exits, three ways out, no risk as he could hear any foot steps approaching like Harveys. Hanbury Street and Millers Court. That's what you call a risk.

Rob

[Phil Carter]

Hello Don,

'Jack the Ripper' being a super cunning and elusive murderer idea is not my idea- the opposite infact. That old idea is from the blow-up of the press at the time. I argue against that 'tired old argument'.
As for who placed the rag bit- I don't know- but I don't at this moment in time rule out the possibility of an accomplice. (the 2 men Halse met are of interest) Shame, you didnt manage to draw me on that in the direction you hoped for. Shame.

as far as my 'rhetoric' is concerned, when you come up with answers to all the questions that remain unanswered, I will gladly read your book.

Best wishes

Phil