No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Doctor X]

Well there is an abundance of evidence from various crime scenes of this being a common "bi-product" of crimes that involve high risk.

Such as?

--J. "You Can't . . . You Can't Dust for Vomit" D.

[Mike Covell]

Hi Nats,

Possible of course. But would the 'nearest hidy hole' really be as far removed from Mitre Square, and the scene of this childish accident, as Goulston Street? It's a long way to carry such a large bit of bog roll, while sporting squelchy, foul-smelling undercrackers.

Love,

Caz
X

In practical terms it would be difficult, may years ago I was trapped on a golfcourse, miles from civilisation and "Needed to go"
We were camping and carrying out a 30 mile hike!!
I did my business and made an attempt to wide the affected areas, but it slowed me down, made things sore, and when I found the nearest B+B I paid a fortune for a hot bath!!

I suppose being a foul smelling individual wouldn't have made him stand out as many were involved in the "Manure Trade", coincidently Richard Stephenson was a Manure Merchant in Hull, his son was Robert D'Onston stephenson, who many would describe as a little S*%T!

[Natalie Severn]

Caz,you should have been a comdedienne-some of your lines are priceless!

Anyway-he must have hid somewhere for the unaccounted for hour that elapsed.Why not the rear of the building,struggling to clean up---maybe surfacing into Goulston Street only to see some copper appear,whereupon he dives into the dwelling house waits a few minutes ,dumps the half apron piece in the hallway and walks off whistling?
Nats

[caz]

Hi Nats,

Possible of course. But would the 'nearest hidy hole' really be as far removed from Mitre Square, and the scene of this childish accident, as Goulston Street? It's a long way to carry such a large bit of bog roll, while sporting squelchy, foul-smelling undercrackers.

Love,

Caz
X

[Natalie Severn]

I am unaware of the commonality of murderers defecating during the act.

No need to create a more complicated scenario than that indicated by the observations.

--J.D.

Well there is an abundance of evidence from various crime scenes of this being a common "bi-product" of crimes that involve high risk.
The idea came to me after reading Trevor Marriots theory about Kate using it for her period,which I definitely dont hold with,since no poverty stricken person like Kate would tear their one and only apron up and use it as a pad-particularly as she had twelve rags or small "pads" found in her pockets.
Natalie

[Doctor X]

I am unaware of the commonality of murderers defecating during the act.

No need to create a more complicated scenario than that indicated by the observations.

--J.D.

[Natalie Severn]

I think the scenario described by Caz is perfectly feasible.However,even though there were apparently smears of faeces on Kate"s intestines which could indicate the faeces was from the victim it is also very common for the perpetrator to sh*t themselves with all the fright and excitement. So I believe there could other scenarios.A planner which I believe Jack was,must have had a few cloths up his sleeve to cover eventualities such as bloody hands/gloves and so the apron piece, which I understand was pretty big,could have been cut/torn for a reason not covered by his pre-planning.Either that or it was done with the intention of leaving a message about these murder with the cut piece of her apron that police would "match up" later.So my other guess is that if he did have an "accident" he would probably have shinnied off to the nearest hidy hole to clean himself up.And he waited there ,for the all clear, before he popped his makeshift cleaning cloth into the nearest doorway on his way home.
Best
Natalie

[caz]

Hi Barnaby,

I think a quick wipe and/or wrap would absorb most of the 'gunk', and I doubt the freshly removed organs would pong much either, otherwise every trip home from the butcher's shop would be a perilous, messy and smelly business, not to say an embarrassing one.

A large and shi**y apron piece, however, from a woman you have just slaughtered like a pig in a market, is a slightly different matter, I should have thought. So I really can't see even the most moronic offender wiping all the way to Goulston for wiping's sake alone. If he's wiping to get rid of the mess and the smell, the cloth ensures both will remain with him until he finally discards it.

It's the only physical clue he left away from the murder scenes, and since he spared the time in Mitre Square to cut her face (for reasons only he can fathom), then the fact that he spared the time to cut her pinny there too seems indicative of reasons that go beyond a simple wiping operation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Doctor X]

Would the uterus really have been drenched in blood? I understand that there might be some blood on it, but would it hold enough blood to actually ruin clothing that probably already was soiled and stained?

Exactly.

Your answer is--not.

--J.D.

[Barnaby]

Would the uterus really have been drenched in blood? I understand that there might be some blood on it, but would it hold enough blood to actually ruin clothing that probably already was soiled and stained?

[Jane Coram]

Hi Paul,

Almost any knife could have cut through the apron if tension was put on it; certainly the one that Jack used to inflict the injuries would cut through it very easily providing he pulled against it to stretch the material slightly. If it was just dangling freely, then it would be almost impossible to cut through it, even with the sharpest knife as there would be no resistance.

Basically, he must have grabbed hold of the corner with his free hand and pulled against it in order to cut the piece off. It is possible that at least some of the matter on that piece came from him holding the material to cut it. It might not explain all of it, but possibly some of it.
Hugs

Jane

xxxx

[paul emmett]

But if he felt compelled to wipe off the faeces, why was he so happy to prance around town with a hunk of (very) bloody meat in his pocket?

I agree with Ben that it's not about feces(or blood) because for that he could have cleaned off and dropped the apron at the crime scene in no time at all--and certianly before Goulston Street. I agree with Sam that it's not about Kelly because it's just too far away. I agree with the folks that said he planned it out and brought a to go bag because that just seems reasonable. I agree with Michael that it's either about leading the police to the GSG or to the wrong way home because, while the latter doesn't seem worth the risk, the former seems to fit in with the other Jewish connections of the night which, in turn, seem to me calculated by JTR and, hence, important to him.

I know this was brought up earlier, but are we sure that Jack's knife could cut an apron in two?

[Chava]

But if he felt compelled to wipe off the faeces, why was he so happy to prance around town with a hunk of (very) bloody meat in his pocket? I don't think it's a given that he would sever a uterus or a kidney or whatever and just cram it in his pocket. For a start, if he was a working-class man, he wouldn't have too many jackets to wear. And whether or not the blood is concealed by the colour of the fabric, no colour on earth is going to be able to conceal the smell.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

the most obvious reason for the removal of the swatch of apron cloth was that Jack got his hands covered in excrement, and felt compelled to wipe it off.

He could have done that at the crime scene in as much time as it would take to remove the apron.

Not this debate again!

[Sam Flynn]

The amount of "seepage" from a "wet" organ could easily be camouflaged by the typical dense, dark fabric of a Late Victorian's pocket. The one thing that sets Eddowes' murder apart from the others is the indisputable presence of faecal matter in conjunction with the corpse. The leaving of dubious "signals" aside, the most obvious reason for the removal of the swatch of apron cloth was that Jack got his hands covered in excrement, and felt compelled to wipe it off.