Faecal matter on apron piece

[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

[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]

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

[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

[Bridewell]

Halse

Hello Colin,

'Apparently wearing'?

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.

Does this mean that the itinery list was made after Eddowes was naked?

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'?

And how odd that it didnt have a mark upon it...not one drop of blood.

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Dc Daniel Halse went to the mortuary with Collard:
"I came through Goulston Street at 20 past 2 and then went back to Mitre Square and accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary. I saw deceased stripped and saw a portion of the apron was missing...".

Assuming that Collard and Halse stayed together at the mortuary, Collard must have seen what Halse saw. I can't see Halse noticing that a piece of the apron had been cut away without commenting on the fact to the senior officer present. Might it just be that Collard didn't recall the apron? We don't know how much of it remained - although I have a vague recollection of reading somewhere that the larger portion was in Goulston Street.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Monty]

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

[Phil Carter]

Hi Dave,

Collard refers to it in his evidence:

"I produce the list of articles found on her - she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

'Apparently wearing'?

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.

Does this mean that the itinery list was made after Eddowes was naked?

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'?

And how odd that it didnt have a mark upon it...not one drop of blood.

Best wishes

Phil

[Bridewell]

Collard

Dunno Phil, but I thought it was generally worn over the skirt, but under any outer coat...but like I said, dunno...

Dave

Hi Dave,

Collard refers to it in his evidence:

"I produce the list of articles found on her - she had no money whatever on her - I produce a portion of the apron which deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and was found outside her dress".

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

Apron

Hello Colin,

Not bloodstained?

Best wishes

Phil

Hi Phil,

Presumably not, as the list doesn't say that it was.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Cogidubnus]

Dunno Phil, but I thought it was generally worn over the skirt, but under any outer coat...but like I said, dunno...

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hello Dave,

Would I be correct if I suggested the 'apron' 'attached with strings' would be the outermost body garment worn over the skirts, etc?

Best wishes

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

He didn't. It's the last item in the list of her possessions

Oh yes..below the matchbox, pins & needles and ball of hemp...which is why I overlooked it I suppose...but as it was still attached to the body, and therefore part of her apparel, wonder why it's listed below the rest of her clothing, beneath even the meanest of her possessions?

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

Hi Simon,

He didn't. It's the last item in the list of her possessions, suggesting she was no longer wearing it when found (perhaps):

"1 Piece of old White Apron".

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Colin,

Not bloodstained?

Best wishes

Phil

[Rob Clack]

Bring on the hedgehog.

Rob

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Not according to Dr. Frederick Brown—

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

Regards,

Simon