Faecal matter on apron piece

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

"The apron would have been take off the body to be matched."

Okay.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Not so okay.

Regards,

Simon

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

Collard didn't do his inventory at the scene, this is obvious.

The apron would have been take off the body to be matched. However Collard has Browns word it was on the body at the scene.

The two pieces matched.

It is not beyond improbable that one piece had blood upon it whilst the other did not. As they became two seperate items they became independant of each other.

So no, its not odd when you break it down.

Monty

Hello Monty,

Thanks for that. Ok, so the body was naked when Collard made the list and used another persons word that it was worn where it was. Good.

'not beyond improbable' seems like an all covering possibility.(no disrespect intended) but by the same token it is not beyond improbable, infact quite possible that the other piece would have been bloodstained, wet, or soaked through given that all the othe items were bloodstained to varying degrees whilst Eddowes lay prostrate,

What I am trying to get at, perhaps badly is that the knife that cut the piece could have been clean, why? Because yer man who cut it would be holding one piece in one hand ( presumeably the cut off piece-bloodied messy hand) and the cut left no blood mark from the side of the blade nor along the edge of the cut.

And if the knife was clean- how can we know when the piece was cut?
Also, a clean handed person could have made the cut- HENCE my interest in the TWO men Halse met. An accomplice.

yes its speculative- but not beyond improbable.

email sent btw

Thanks for the response to the thread with the positive input.

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

a napron

Hi Phil

It's possible to envisage a scenario where the knife blade's been wiped, (maybe even on the "man's white vest"!), the killer's about to depart, and then noticing the back of his hands are still gungey, almost as an afterthought, slashes a piece off the victim's apron to rectify that...

To my mind it's far more likely than the killer stopping off en-route to laboriously write the GSG in relatively small letters, before depositing the mucky apron piece beneath it!

I honestly believe we sometimes overcomplicate things for ourselves...

Good wishes to all

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Indeed- perhaps we do 'overcomplicate'- but by the same token there are many many anomelies- some due to lack of official written evidence that necessitates stones being turned and looked at, ripperology hasn't, in my humble opinion done that before the recent past,. More and more people far newer than I are doing exactly that. All I do is look and ask questions- and perhaps convey possibilities.
After 40 plus years of interest, I refuse to close my eyes to possibilities, unless, like PAV, Sickert, etc the door is closed through complete lack of evidence. It has become clearer over the years that despite valiant attempts to rejuvenate old suspects like Kosminski and Druitt, lack of official written evidence from the period in question rules them out anyway.
I dont know how many killers there were nor do I have a prime suspect, but I like Lynn's idea about C1 aod C2. I think Stride was a one-off slash n dash done possibly by an IWMEC man, and as for the other two Im as baffled as anybody, MJK possibly Irish connections?
All I do know is there is a lot of things in this that are NOT simple, but to suggest otherwise makes one 'conspiratorial' in some way...
Just my view for what its worth my friend.
Best wishes

Phil

[Monty]

Hi Monty,

"The apron would have been take off the body to be matched."

Okay.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Not so okay.

Regards,

Simon

That's Brown, not Collard.

The point is the pieces were seperate.

Ok?

Monty

[Monty]

You assume the clothing wasn't the cut before the clothing, or apron at least Phil.

Thanks, I will look see.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

You assume the clothing wasn't the cut before the clothing, or apron at least Phil.

Thanks, I will look see.

Monty

My York presentation will I believe will clear up many of the ambiguites surrounding these issues, until then I will retain a watching brief.

[Monty]

My York presentation will I believe will clear up many of the ambiguites surrounding these issues, until then I will retain a watching brief.

Thats nice Sweetie, its nice to know you are dressed.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Thats nice Sweetie, its nice to know you are dressed.

Monty

Dressed and ready for every eventuality !

Remember the martini advert "Anytime any place anywhere "

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Phil. Thank you for the kind words.

Cheers.
LC

[Bridewell]

Hi Phil

It's possible to envisage a scenario where the knife blade's been wiped, (maybe even on the "man's white vest"!), the killer's about to depart, and then noticing the back of his hands are still gungey, almost as an afterthought, slashes a piece off the victim's apron to rectify that...

To my mind it's far more likely than the killer stopping off en-route to laboriously write the GSG in relatively small letters, before depositing the mucky apron piece beneath it!

I honestly believe we sometimes overcomplicate things for ourselves...

Good wishes to all

Dave

A likely scenario to my way of thinking.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

I dont know how many killers there were nor do I have a prime suspect, but I like Lynn's idea about C1 aod C2. I think Stride was a one-off slash n dash done possibly by an IWMEC man, and as for the other two Im as baffled as anybody, MJK possibly Irish connections?

Hi Phil

I'm pretty sure you're not alone in these beliefs mate!

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Sadly, that suggestion somehow gets turned into 'conspiratorialism' when it gets broken down into the proposition that 'jack the Ripper' of traditional fame, didnt exist. The simple truth, as one writer wrote- isnt simple. 'Jack the Ripper' was an invented name and substance that pushed, stirred and swelled the poplace's fears. And it wasnt just the Press who were guilty of doing it either. Certain high ranking policemen not only made comments and decisions that fuelled the fire but did surprisingly little to quell those fears. The incredible lack of fusion between them both at the time and afterwards showed no common agreement or goal. Individual kudos seemed, alarmingly to some today, of greater importance.

The faecal residue on the apron piece vis a vis the amount on or around the body (or chyme) is an important detail, as are many others imho.

Best wishes

Phil

[Errata]

I think a lot of people have trouble envisioning a harried serial killer minutes away from discovery taking the time out to cut a piece of apron to wipe his hands. And I'm one of them. Especially since he could shove his hands in his pockets to avoid people taking notice of them. And a man who guts a woman is not going to be the fastidious sort.

Which is why I think the apron had to be for the face. Aside from the fact that a blood streaked face draws a lot of attention, there are any number of things the average person is willing to have on their hands that would turn their stomachs if it was around their mouth nose and eyes. Indeterminate digestive ooze being one of those things.

[Phil Carter]

Hi Monty,

"The apron would have been take off the body to be matched."

Okay.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown—

"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Not so okay.

Regards,

Simon

Hello Monty, Simon,

Do please excuse retreating a bit,

Monty, in post 89 you said that Collard had Browns word that it fitted at the scene, I believe?

As I have no ref. book in front of me, am I correct in saying that Halse noticed the apron at the mortuary?

And who took the apron cut off to the mortuary?
And was this direct from Goulston St or via Mitre Square?

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..
Of course if the cut off piece went via Mitre Square then Brown would have matched it there.
Who took it (if so) to Mitre Square?
Then who took it to the Mortuary?
Because if Halse's testimony was that he first saw the apron with strings at the mortuary he would not know that the pieces matched before then, no?

Perhaps someone would be kind enough to explain?

Best wishes

Phil