The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Dave O]

Trevor,

After you have clicked on "reply" or "post quick reply" and are ready to type the text of your message, click the "go advanced" button that's below the message box. That will open a larger preview version of your message. Scroll down to the "Additional Options" section and you will see another button that says "manage attachments". That will open a second, smaller window that allows you to browse your computer and upload attachments.

Cheers,
Dave

[Trevor Marriott]

the answer is quite simple we can only work on the description of the apron piece as described. The results of the tests show that if the organs had been taken away in the apron piece then the apron piece would have been heavily bloodstained and not as was described..

The other issue are that had the faeccal matter seeped into the abdomen and was probabaly the case then it would have formed part of the mish mash of blood and faecal matter combined. Very unlikey to have been a separate smear of faecal matter either on the apron piece or on the killer hands

What cant speak cant lie and one pic is worth a thousnad words

[Ben]

The results of the tests show that if the organs had been taken away in the apron piece then the apron piece would have been heavily bloodstained and not as was described..

We have evidence that one corner of the apron was soaked wet, Trevor, which is potentially very compatible with transported organs.

[Trevor Marriott]

i have tried to up load pics but photos appear to be outside maximum size anyone any suggestions

[Canucco dei Mergi]

We have evidence that one corner of the apron was soaked wet, Trevor, which is potentially very compatible with transported organs.

It is not enough for an interpretation of a fact to be compatible with another potential one to get any degree of credibility.
To be reasonable the interpretation must be provided with some sort of logical chain of consequences dictated by the environmental evidence as we know it.

Let's assume the killer(s) use(s) the apron to wrap the organ with (a priori: why not ?).

Let's assume that the killer(s) has (have) his (their) own reason to lose time in cutting the apron instead of taking the whole of it.

Let's assume that cutting right half of it (if we have to believe major Smith - why shouldn't we ?) was - as many other mysteries are reputed to be in this affair anyway - a mere coincidental event.

Ben should still explain us what the killer(s) did with the organs in Goulston street when he (they) decided to get rid of the apron and thus, all of a sudden in his (their) flight, unwrapping the organs.

Were the organs eaten by the killer(s) in front of 108-119 Goulston street ?
Were they thrown on the street at that point and police just missed them ?
Were they abandoned with the apron and a dog took them away ?

Yes, the fact that the apron was wet could be compatible with the fact that it was used to wrap the organs with.
But unless you do think the scenario of the dog possible, the fact that the apron was found without any organ in it turns this potential compatibility in a mere curiosity without any logical and material support.

Thx for the attention.
Canucco dei Mergi

[Ben]

Ben should still explain us what the killer(s) did with the organs in Goulston street when he (they) decided to get rid of the apron and thus, all of a sudden in his (their) flight, unwrapping the organs.

He may well have transfered them into his pocket as he approached home, reasonably secure in the knowledge that the viscera had dried off to a a safe enough extent inside the bundle. Alternatively, if the killer was a Gentile, he may also have perceived an advantage in disposing of the apron in a heavily Jewish-populated district en route home.

But unless you do think the scenario of the dog possible, the fact that the apron was found without any organ in it turns this potential compatibility in a mere curiosity without any logical and material support.

When asking someone else to "explain" something to you, it doesn't really make sense to dismiss it as lacking "any logical and material support" before you've had a chance to listen to the explanation. I'd say it's considerably less logical to envisage the killer bunging freshly extracted viscera directly into his pockets when there was an easy way to avoid it in the form of a free cloth.

Thx for the attention

You're welcome. Not sure what the forlorm blue shakey head was in aid of, though.

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

"12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained" were amongst Eddowes possessions, yet the "Ripper" chose the one piece of cloth which could be directly matched to the apron she was wearing, dropped it in Goulston Street and thus involved two police forces in the manhunt.

I'd say it was all a bit of a tactical error on "Jack's" part.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

The faecal matter could have been as a result of the colon being cut as part of the abdominal mutilations,allowing faecal matter to spill out onto the intestines.

Dr Brown describes the intestines as smeared over with fæcal matter, Trevor. Spilled excrement does not smear of its own accord.

[Sam Flynn]

We have evidence that one corner of the apron was soaked wet, Trevor, which is potentially very compatible with transported organs.

It isn't particularly, Ben - the organs would no more have have soaked the corner anymore than they would have soaked the rest of the fabric around them. (Always assuming that the organs contained enough residual blood to have wetted the fabric in the first place - something I doubt, given that so much blood was shed via the throat). A wet corner is rather more compatible with the idea that part of the apron having lain in the blood that had flowed from the neck-wound and pooled near the head - which Monty, I seem to recall, suggested a while back.

[Ben]

That's possible, Gareth, but I'm not sure why the piece of apron would have ended up anywhere near the region of the head or neck. I'd say there was enough residual blood and general gunk from the organs to account for the corner patch.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That's possible, Gareth, but I'm not sure why the piece of apron would have ended up anywhere near the region of the head or neck. I'd say there was enough residual blood and general gunk from the organs to account for the corner patch.

But only if he wrapped the organs like an apple turnover, Ben - and then the blood would have tended to leech through successive layers of fabric, which would have soaked much of the moisture up. What you're then left with is a damp corner, and successively less damp patches of diminishing size layed out regularly as one ascended upwards through the layers. Rolled flat, the cloth would have looked something like this:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXxxxxxxxxXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXxxxxxxXXXxxxxxxxXXxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXxxxxxxxxXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Monty]

Simon,

Hi All,

"12 pieces of white rag, some slightly bloodstained" were amongst Eddowes possessions, yet the "Ripper" chose the one piece of cloth which could be directly matched to the apron she was wearing, dropped it in Goulston Street and thus involved two police forces in the manhunt.

I'd say it was all a bit of a tactical error on "Jack's" part.

Regards,

Simon

Why? Are you suggesting he went through everything? Nothing was placed like the Chapman scene.

Monty

[Simon Wood]

Hi Monty,

Nothing was placed like the Chapman scene?

Except for a mustard tin with pawn tickets, three buttons and a thimble.

Regards,

Simon

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm not sure why the piece of apron would have ended up anywhere near the region of the head or neck"

It did not have to, Ben. Frederick Fosters in situ drawing of Eddowes shows us that the blood formed pools underneath her, stretching as far as to below the hips.
Tom Wescott has entertained the exact same possibility before on the boards; that the apron may have been dipped in that blood before being cut away.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Simon,

Where does it state they were placed?

And speaking of thimbles, 2 of them? One on her left side, tother off her right hand.

Why?