The "other stuff" on the apron

[JTRSickert]

Hey everybody. OK, what I am about to say may gross some of you out, but just let me finish. As we all know, when Kathy's apron was discovered in Goulston Street, it was drenched in blood and other stuff, specifically fecal matter. Now, we all know that the blood is KAthy's since JTR used the apron to clean off his hands and his knife and possibly some of it drenched on the section of apron as he was cutting her up. Now, the fecal matter is also probably from Kathy since it probably got on the apron when her intestinal tract was cut when the Ripper was cutting her open. However, I had recently asked a friend if human DNA can be extracted from feces, and this is what he said:

"Yes, and easily so. although the bulk volume of feces is bacteria cells and indigestible particles, the lining (epithelium) of the human intestinal track is constantly sloughing off and regrowing, just as our outer skin does. thus there are plenty of human cells in feces. if the sample is “fresh” and the cells are alive, the epithelial cells can be cultured and separated from the bacterial cells in about 18 hours, with the right equipment. If the sample is old and the cells are dead, since the paired chromosomal arrangement of human DNA is radically different from the single ring and optional plasmid structural of bacterial DNA, they can be separated, especially since the Human Genome Project has pinned down so many “restriction sites” (places where special enzymes cut DNA into recognizable pieces)."

So, since we know the blood on the Apron is from Eddowes, that would give us a profile of her DNA (if we still had possession of the apron). But, if we examined the fecal matter and it didn't match to Kathy, what could this mean? Was it from Jack, or from some other source? I know the implications of this hypothesis sound pretty gross, but you know, if we still had possession of that paron today, it could help us narrow the pool of suspects.

[bolo]

Hello,

I don't think that you can still find useable DNA traces on a 122 years old piece of an apron, and even if you do, you would need other DNA samples or database entries to compare them against.

As far as I know, it is possible to obtain mitochondrial DNA from very old samples. However, mDNA is inherited from the mother, does not change by reproduction and thus is not specific to one individual so profiling results may not be as reliable as in case of cell nucleus-DNA.

Regards,

Boris

[JTRSickert]

I'm not saying it could lead to any definite results. All I'm saying is that if one sample is different from the other, it would show there are 2 bodily fluids on the apron from 2 separate people. And that, my friends, could lead to a whole host of debates of what happened that night.

[Steven Russell]

JTR,
Apologies for being indelicate but are you suggesting that Jack wiped his arse on the apron? If so, what are you driving at?

Best wishes,
Steve.

[JTRSickert]

Steve,

I'm not just talking about the fecal matter, but also the blood and whatever else may have been on the apron. Whether it is feces, urine, sweat, etc., it would show 2 different sets of DNA which could be lead to a genetic profile of the Ripper.

Then again, Kate was soliciting that night. So, any other stuff found on the apron might also come from another client of hers that night too. So, that could also be a dead end as well.

[belinda]

Does the piece of apron still exist?

And how would it be authenticated if it was found?

[Steven Russell]

JTR,
Yes, I see now.

Belinda,
I'm pretty sure the whereabouts of the apron are not known. There is a garment which some claim to be Eddowes' shawl but I don't know what evidence there is to back up the claim; tests paid for by P. Cornwell failed to find useable DNA on the garment if memory serves.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Adam Went]

In that case, it would be even easier to extract Jack's DNA off the apron if he suffered from haemorrhoids.

But seriously, no, as far as i'm aware, nobody knows exactly what became of the apron piece, although as mentioned the shawl has been tested before - there was a docco on about it a while ago and the results were "inconclusive", probably much the same as what the apron would be even if it could be tested - it is more than 120 years later after all, and even in the slim likelihood that it could ever be shown to carry different DNA strains (which is highly likely considering how dirty with wear the apron would have been and how many people Kate would come into contact with on a regular basis), there's no realistic way that it could be matched to any suspects.

And then, even IF it could be matched to a particular person, which is about a one in a billion shot, there'd be no way of proving he was the killer - he may have just been a customer, fellow lodging house boarder, etc who came into contact with the apron.

It's a good line of thinking, JT, but unfortunately a bit of a dead end.

Cheers,
Adam.

[The Good Michael]

Kathy? A bit familiar, eh.

Mike

[Addy]

And even if you did find DNA, how are you going to match it to the killer? They didn't keep DNA-profiles back then and how are you going to find DNA from all the suspects?

The piece of apron has probably dissappeared long ago. And indeed, even if it was there, how are you going to prove when which stain was made?

Greetings,

Addy

[Phil H]

I'd be VERY surprised if any of the physical items relating to the Whitechapel victims has survived for 100 years. Would the apron-piece have been held by the Met or City police? If the latter and it was in a box among the archives, the blitz probably saw the end of it.

Even the broken knife that was at one time in Rumbelow's possession has no clear relation to the crimes (though circumstantially it is intriguing).

The shawl - who knows and how could it ever be proved to have belonged to Catherine Eddowes?

Do any of our resident experts who have taken particular notice of the police process/Met or City procedures for non-paper archives/evidence? Would it have been kept for a finite time, boxed and stored? Do we know?

Phil

[Monty]

Don still has the knife, it has been soldered together.

The common conjecture is that the kidney was destroyed in the 50s as it was in such a poor state.

The shawl was in the posession of Andy and Sue Parlour. Its provenance is shakey and highly unlikely to be Eddowes as it is in fairly decent condition, unlike the rest of Eddowes clothing. To me it has an appearence of a tablecloth. I believe a bid was put in for it a few years back but Im not sure if it was sold.

The apron, some say, went around the time of the kidney. However this was mentioned to me in conversation and they did stress they has heard it from someone who heard it from someone, so make of that what you wish.

The bottom line is DNA work will not solve the case nor aid us in solving it. There simply is not enough to work with.

Monty

[tautridelta]

I believe it was Iain Begg in a taped discussion with some other experts claimed that Eddowes had the knife shoved up her rectum.

-TTD

[Edward]

A Late Reply

Hello All

I seriously doubt that any usable DNA on Eddowes’ apron would survive this long. If, however, any DNA did survive, some conclusions could be made as to the donor’s background. It would not identify the killer. As stated above, we would not know if the donor was, in fact, the killer.

DNA can identify if a person is of European descent, or if a person has Jewish ancestry. In other words, any surviving DNA could possibly rule in or out that the donor was a “Polish Jew”.

Edward