1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Jon,

I don`t think it was taken to clean his hands, we don`t know if he had faeces on his hands.

He almost certainly did, unless he'd used a paintbrush to smear the faecal matter over Eddowes' extruded entrails.

He could have cleaned his hands on her clothes in Mitre Sq in the same time it would have taken to cut a piece off

I doubt that he could - that stuff is really clingy, plus he was pushed for time. Had he lingered to wipe his hands in Mitre Square, chances are he'd have been caught brown-handed by PC Watkins.

[rain]

Was the cut cloth in good condition or was it covered in blood?

[Observer]

Hi Rain

If you're refering to the piece found in Goulston Street PC Long satated that one corner of the apron was wet with blood.

Hi Jon

I kew that other items belonging to Kate Eddowes lay beside her body but couldn't find reference to them, thanks for that. I'm pretty sure the killer looked through her pockets, as he did Chapman.

all the best

Observer

[rain]

Hi Rain

If you're refering to the piece found in Goulston Street PC Long satated that one corner of the apron was wet with blood.


all the best

Observer

Thanks, Observer, one corner wet with blood shows that he probably only held the cloth and did not wipe his hands with it.

You are so kind to answer my question.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Rain,

Thanks, Observer, one corner wet with blood shows that he probably only held the cloth and did not wipe his hands with it.

A wet corner does not mean that the rest of the apron fragment wasn't used for hand-wiping. In fact, the apron fragment was described at the Inquest as looking "as if a bloody hand or knife had been wiped on it" (Dr Brown's testimony). It appears, therefore, that it's likely that the apron fragment had been used for wiping (either hand, knife or both) and also had a bloody corner.

This quite possibly came about due to its resting in one of the puddles of blood near Eddowes' head, after being hoisted out of the way to give the killer access to her abdomen. The corner would thus have absorbed a quantity of blood whilst the killer was performing his abdominal mutilations.

[caz]

If this was his intention then it certainly worked, it didn't take the police long to link the cut off portion of apron with the apron as worn by Kate Eddowes. However the more I think about the scenario i.e. the killer purposely cut off a corner of Kate Eddowes apron in order to justify the message, the less likely I favour it. Sam and Bailey are probably right in stating that the killer cut the apron just prior to fleeing the scene, his sole intention being to wipe his hands they being soiled with faeces.

Hi Observer,

It was more like half Kate’s apron that ended up beneath the message and a substantial piece of material, not just a corner. Like others I cannot see why the killer would have needed or wanted a foul-smelling, 100% incriminating article about his person as far as Goulston St if he had merely set out to transfer the poo from his hands to the cloth. The poo was still with him all the way.

Imagine his horror when he learned just how easily the cops had picked up the bloody rag and associated it with some violent crime having been committed, and had soon matched it exactly to the piece of apron left on his victim. He would surely have sighed with relief but cursed himself for stupidly carrying it for so long after fleeing the scene - unless of course the intention was to take something that could only have come from the murder scene so he could lay a false trail.

Actually, I can think of very few other items he could have chosen to take that would have done a better job, if that was the purpose - or indeed a more thorough job of hanging him had he been stopped and searched before reaching Goulston. One of Kate's boots, for example, might have done the trick. But it could have proved tougher to remove and a bit too obvious for a false trail, and more instantly incriminating to boot (ha ha!). Anything else?

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

How about that kidney...? Or, perhaps most effective, how about nailing the apron to the door with his knife - and attending that linquistic course he obviously missed if he needed the GSG to be understandable.

The best,

Fisherman

[caz]

I've just had a thought. (Don't groan at the back there.) Everyone looks at this from the point of view of the apron piece being found and subsequently matched to the piece left on Kate. But maybe the killer was looking at it the other way round, fully expecting the cops at the murder scene to start the ball rolling by saying: "Look chaps, he has taken half her pinny. Find that and we will find the killer!"

If he assumed the cops would be actively searching for the missing half when he dropped it, and buzzing around it like flies upon finding it, it would make so much more sense of the false trail theory than if he was merely hoping that someone might come across it by accident and then decide to investigate, and keeping his fingers crossed that it wouldn't be missed, ignored or swept away as rubbish.

Hi Fisherman,

I suspect that nailing the apron to the door would rather effectively scupper any plan to nail the murder on someone behind it.

And the kidney, at a pinch, could be passed off as a pig's kidney for his supper, or a treat for his cat. I doubt he took it to wipe his hands on though. I would imagine it was important enough to him to risk taking it all the way home too.

Love,

Caz
X

[Suzi]

Hi Caz-
Perhaps that 'kidney' should have been delivered to No 21 Millers Ct!!!! A seriously grateful Dids would have woomped down 'The Evidence'!!! Hmmm
Good point- drop the pinny in Goulston St and then bugger off in the opposite direction-PRONTO!

(Off thread- and as an aside- How WONDERFUL is the thing about Aberystwyth showing Life of Brian for the first time!!!!!!!!! the PC mayor played Judith Iscariot ( Brian's girlfriend) heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee WHAT an image 'eh!!!!)

He's not The Messiah he's a VERY naughty boy!!!

He heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeee

Suz x

[Observer]

Hi Caz

Hi Observer,

It was more like half Kate’s apron that ended up beneath the message and a substantial piece of material, not just a corner. Like others I cannot see why the killer would have needed or wanted a foul-smelling, 100% incriminating article about his person as far as Goulston St if he had merely set out to transfer the poo from his hands to the cloth. The poo was still with him all the way.

Yes, I realised that it was a substantial piece of apron, the only other reason for it's removal other than as a substitute for a towel has already been mooted here in the past, namely as a means of transporting the organs that the killer removed from Kate Eddowes. This has it's problems of course, for what did the killer do with the organs once he discarded the apron section?

all the best

Observer

[KatBradshaw]

It is possible that he found something to transport the kidney in in the area and so decided to dump the soiled cloth. I have to say I have always wondered why, if the graffito was genuine why was there no sign of blood on the wall. Surely Jack would have still been covered in the stuff even if it was only transfer from the apron.

[Suzi]

Hi Observer-

Yes as you say the concept of Kate using her pieces of rag etc for shall we say menstrural reasons has been considered and debated here before.....
I doubt that she was in the habit of using her apron though...a) Not a good move! and b) she had the ubiquitous '12 pieces of rag- some bloodstained 'about her'

I cannot be disuaded from the idea that's what she- and many others probably did...maybe hoping to clean them up later....or at some point.....

....Of course following the discovery of the Pinchin Street Torso -a piece of blood stained apron was also found relatively close to the 'er Torso - however that was - upon police examination- found to have been used as a 'towel' - sad but true-

.....Needs must when 'the devil' drives

Suzi

[Suzi]

Hi Caz



Yes, I realised that it was a substantial piece of apron, the only other reason for it's removal other than as a substitute for a towel has already been mooted here in the past, namely as a means of transporting the organs that the killer removed from Kate Eddowes. This has it's problems of course, for what did the killer do with the organs once he discarded the apron section?

all the best

Observer

Probably dumped the 'organs' in the street to be eaten by the ravening hoardes of cats and dogs and shoved the pinny pice into a pocket or inside a jacket until dropping it at speed passing a doorway----failing to notice any writing in his haste!!!

[KatBradshaw]

Maybe they were as horrified that the shop bought ones were subject to VAT as 'luxury' items as I am. Only a man could consider it a luxury!
I never put 2 and 2 together over the pieces of cloth and their use. That seems truely pathetic to me.

[Suzi]

Kat- Such 'er luxury was certainly not available to the poor souls in Spitalfields- In fact I must check out how the 'er Upper orders coped with such matters at the time- presumably the good Dr White wasn't in practice at the time!

I imagine that they used 'rags' for the purpose -to be washed by the downstairs staff as a matter of course!