Jack's Escape from Mitre Square

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

I think you're well aware that evidence cannot be treated as black and white, as either "accept all" or "reject entirely". There is no verbal testimony that is 100% accurate, simply because some of the words we use are by their very nature subjective. On person may describe a blood pattern as "spots" others use the word "smear", others "stained", etc. That doesn't mean it's contradictory and has to be thrown out. Some people give more specific details and others are more cursory in their descriptions, that too doesn't make them contradictory to the point of throw it all away and conclude something entirely unlike what any of them are saying.

But it is important simply because spots of blood are very different from blood smears. Someone wiping their bloody hands or a knife would not create blood spots, equally someone wrapping up organs in it would create a heavy staining of blood. We dont have the apron piece so we can only speculate based on the reports, and those reports do not suggest the apron piece was used by the killer to wipe his hands or his knife, or take away the organs. If he had wanted to do either he could have done it with ease and quickly at the crime scene on her clothes, if he had have cut the apron piece for the reasons you suggest he could have accomplished both within a short distance of Mitre Square, and then discarded it long before he got to Goulston Street

Now there are those who argue on that point that he was disturbed and had to make a quick exit before he had time to do that. But of course that explanation then brings us back to the cutting of the apron piece and the killer needing to do that. Now again some will say that he cut the apron piece before he set about the mutilations but thats just an excuse in my opinion for them to justify the fact that the killer did cut a piece from the apron.

So if he was disturbed by Harvey when did he have the opportunity to cut the apron piece?

PC Long may not mention in his signed deposition that it was wet with blood, but he does indicate it was wet. Moreover, he testifies under oath it was wet with blood, so you can't ignore that.

The fact is that he did say it was simply wet, if it was wet with blood why did he not say so because that is important and I cant see the person taking down the deposition missing that out and besides Long was most likely giving his testimony from notes recorded in his pocket book.

As him then saying it was wet with blood I am not sure where this is recorded was it in the official testimony or reported in a newspaper?

Also, given Dr. Brown's testimony as to the appearance, he's there to give forensic testimony, so he's going to be more specific, and he has the knowledge to do this, and he tells us it looks like hands or a knife was wiped on them.

I am aware of what is written but that is just his opinion and as I have stated before that is not in line as to how the apron piece is described, and if the killer had bloody hands why is the residue of blood and fecal matter only on one side of the apron, the killer if doing to the body all that he is supposed to have done would have two bloody hands and so I would expect to see traces of this residue on both sides

While I whole heartedly agree with you that the evidence has to be questioned, where I disagree with you is the idea that questioning always means rejecting. In this instance, there is nothing that suggests this inference made by the police at the time was a mistake.

I am not suggesting rejecting it I am questioning its accuracy and can it be safely relied on?

Now, you can question whether or not JtR used it to carry the organs (which is not something I've said, but I know that idea is out there). And personally, I don't think he used it to carry the organs (though as you know I think he took some) unless I'm wrong and he did go to a bolt hole first. It doesn't make sense to me that he would wrap organs, then discard the wrapper before he got home. But neither does it make sense to me that once he got home that he would then go back out to toss away a bloody piece of cloth. Rather, I would think he could dispose of that later, well after things have calmed down and it's not so risky. Hence, I think the apron piece was taken so he could clean his hands, and possibly his knife, given he damaged her bowel.

- Jeff

There is only one possible explanation with regards to the apron piece, and that is the killer did not cut it and take it away and did not deposit it in Goulston Street. We see no evidence of the killer doing this in any of the other murders so the old accepted theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny, and the evidence to show she was wearing an apron prior to her murder is also not to be relied upon for the reasons I have already highlighted in previous posts.

You are right we have discussed this previous and you and others seem set in your belief in the old accepted theories which is your choice, but 130 years later should we be accepting without question all of these old accepted facst that go back 130 years. I dont think we should

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

And your point is ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

There were blood spots and bloodstains on it.He used it to wipe his knife and some fecal matter but how much
extent is not clear.By cutting the apron in the first place,he used the knife and hands so the apron will
be stained,maybe this was mostly the reason for the blood/fecal matter in the apron.
I happen to believe that after Chapman's murder he learned what he was dealing with,opening the body and messing
with the organs and obtaining,and came prepared.

As suggested many times,using the apron solely to wrap the organs does not make sense,same as to solely wipe the knife.
So it came down to holding on to the apron to send some kind of message together with the graffito or "just because" - his own sense/calculations.

[JeffHamm]

Hi,

Ok, I've been working on my simulation program some more, and it's coming along nicely, thank you very much. Anyway, I've been toying with the idea that starts with the Church Passage Couple (CPC) being Eddowes and JtR. This is not a proven fact, so we're just considering one of multiple possibilities here. Also, I'm working on the idea that Eddowes, after being released from the police station, headed to St. Botolph's Church as this was an area known to be frequented by women engaging in prostitution, which the circumstances suggest she was doing (it was out of necessity that this was a very common practice for women in the area at the time). So that gives us a possible location for Eddowes and JtR to meet.

Now, PC Harvey passes the post office at 1:28. Based upon his estimated patrol speed, he had previously passed Church Passage at 1:23. He states he had seen nothing suspicious, and the police were to be on the look out for couples. I think it's safe to say, therefore, the CPC were not there at 1:23. They are there when Lawende and company leave the club. They get up to leave at 1:30 by Lawende's watch, but don't leave until 1:33-1:34 (Leve) or 1:35 (Lawende), and they see the CPC standing there. So, they must have arrived sometime after 1:23 and before 1:33 (possibly shortly after 1:30, if Lawende and co waited outside the club before leaving, but there's no shelter there so that seems counter productive).

Now, if the CPC get to Church Passage, given PC Harvey doesn't report seeing them, I was wondering if there is a time window when they might be able to move from St. Botolph's and get to Duke Street and up to Church Passage without PC Harvey noticing them. And, it looks like there is a good candidate, that makes a nice "just so" story that we all so love to hear.

Ok, at roughly 1:25:36, PC Harvey (Blue at the bottom) has just patrolled Church Passage and now has come out of Duke Street and has turned up towards Mitre Street. That puts his back towards St. Botolph's and let's consider the idea that Eddowes and JtR are there (Green; CPC). Things look like this:


It's possible that they see PC Harvey head away after coming out of Duke Street (by coincidence, they're not "scoping the area"). But, having agreed to a transaction, they slip in behind him. At an average walking pace, they would get to the entrance of Duke Street at 1:26:10, so in about 34 seconds. PC Harvey would still be heading towards Mitre Street, still with his back to them. So now things are like this:



From there, it's a short stroll to Church Passage, which they would reach at 1:27:02 (don't pay too much attention to the precision of these, I know I'm reporting to the second, but that's just how the simulation works. Obviously, people don't move at a constant speed, so there's going to be some wiggle room. However, notice that one could allow for quite large margins of error here and get effectively the same result).

So now, things look like this:
And now PC Harvey is on his return leg, away from Mitre Street and heading towards the Post Office. The CPC are still out of sight, and he's not seen them enter Duke Street. While we don't really know if this is when, or how they arrived at that location, we do know they are there at 1:33 (Leve) or 1:35 (Lawende), who give those times as to when they left the club.

But for now, PC Harvey is heading to the Post Office, where he'll check the time and it will be 1:28. We know that on his next round when he reaches Church Passage (1:41) the couple spotted by Lawende and company are no longer there. And we know the next time he's roughly in this spot, Eddowes will have been murdered, and PC Harvey will be responding to Morris's whistle.

No, I'm not claiming I know this happened. It's just one scenario that doesn't require anything magical to happen. In fact, it all looks a bit ordinary and mundane, and you know, life is generally pretty ordinary and mundane.

But, to be fair, I've not tried setting up other possibilities yet as I was mostly interested in seeing if the idea I've been mulling over about them meeting at St. Botolph's became difficult (i.e. no way for them to get there without being spotted). However, it's also possible that the CPC is Eddowes and JtR but they met north of Church Passage, and came down Duke Street following after PC Harvey, and that is easy to work as well (PC Watkins, while he pops out onto Duke Street briefly when he exits St James Place, isn't there for long, so he's easy enough to by pass). And of course, if the CPC isn't Eddowes and JtR, then none of this matters. However, the story I've just told does fit what we know, and seems to me to be reasonable, and so is probably worth taking the time to have a beer over and ponder.

- Jeff

[JeffHamm]

I have to point out yet again where you are wrong, and say that there is only one way to question the evidence and that is to accept it or reject it.

The problem with the apron piece is that researchers have been to quick to believe the killer cut it and took it away with in order to carry the organs away, wipe his bloody knife or his hands, But the reality is that the description of the apron piece with the stains etc is not consistent with any of those

Pc Long does not mention in his signed inquest deposition that the corner of the apron was wet with blood

"There appeared blood stains on it - one portion was wet" No where does he mention it was wet with blood !!!!!!!!!!!

I dont have a problem with the testimony because it quite clearly refers to the apron piece with one side and one side only being spotted with blood, and having traces of fecal matter on the one side and it being wet.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi Trevor,

I think you're well aware that evidence cannot be treated as black and white, as either "accept all" or "reject entirely". There is no verbal testimony that is 100% accurate, simply because some of the words we use are by their very nature subjective. On person may describe a blood pattern as "spots" others use the word "smear", others "stained", etc. That doesn't mean it's contradictory and has to be thrown out. Some people give more specific details and others are more cursory in their descriptions, that too doesn't make them contradictory to the point of throw it all away and conclude something entirely unlike what any of them are saying.

PC Long may not mention in his signed deposition that it was wet with blood, but he does indicate it was wet. Moreover, he testifies under oath it was wet with blood, so you can't ignore that. Also, given Dr. Brown's testimony as to the appearance, he's there to give forensic testimony, so he's going to be more specific, and he has the knowledge to do this, and he tells us it looks like hands or a knife was wiped on them.

While I whole heartedly agree with you that the evidence has to be questioned, where I disagree with you is the idea that questioning always means rejecting. In this instance, there is nothing that suggests this inference made by the police at the time was a mistake.

Now, you can question whether or not JtR used it to carry the organs (which is not something I've said, but I know that idea is out there). And personally, I don't think he used it to carry the organs (though as you know I think he took some) unless I'm wrong and he did go to a bolt hole first. It doesn't make sense to me that he would wrap organs, then discard the wrapper before he got home. But neither does it make sense to me that once he got home that he would then go back out to toss away a bloody piece of cloth. Rather, I would think he could dispose of that later, well after things have calmed down and it's not so risky. Hence, I think the apron piece was taken so he could clean his hands, and possibly his knife, given he damaged her bowel.

- Jeff

[Juniper4576]

i am glad to see another thinking out of the box labelled "Old accpted theories"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I am just looking at theories from others, and looking at other explanations for the events that also happened, and get an idea for what happened that night/early morning.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hmm, why did Halse after Mitre Square go to Middlesex St. then Wentworth St. then through to Goulston St. then back to Mitre Square?

He went to Mitre Square first, saw Kates body, maybe even pulled her clothes down and got bloodied hands and he tore the piece of apron off and dumped it in Goulston St. arriving there after Mr. Crawford.

Why, because he probably knew the 'bigger picture' and used it to direct public opinion that Jack was on his way home, the slums, Flower and Dean and Thrawl St. area.

I'm not to sure how the writing on the wall fits though

i am glad to see another thinking out of the box labelled "Old accpted theories"

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Statements to the Coroner,written or verbal in an inquest were under oath.The witness could expound on his written statements in the inquest court.

And your point is ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Long refers to the corner being wet with blood in his inquest testimony. And, as you yourself mention, Dr. Brown indicates it appears to be smeared, as if hands or a knife were wiped on it. The various descriptions all indicate a piece of material that had blood stains on it, with PC Long indicating that one corner was more wet with blood. Basically, all of these are only contradictory if you require every person to use exactly the same words to describe something, and that's not how language works. I really don't see why you have a problem with the testimony. Also, there are multiple witnesses, who testify as to Eddowes wearing an apron, so again, I don't see how you can justify claiming they were all wrong despite them all corroborating each other on that relatively innocuous point. I am aware that you've concluded that the apron wasn't cut and taken away and dropped by JtR, but I can see no justification for that conclusion, particularly as it seems to require accepting the assumption that a set of statements that all effectively describe a similar situation are in fact the polar opposite of what you think happened.

Again, we're at the point where we've been before on this, and it boils down to differences in how we question the evidence, and you start with the premise that the underlying gist of the evidence is wrong, while I start with the notion that underlying the statements is some true state that we try to work out. Your starting premise leads you to reject all aspects of the evidence and to put forth the opposite (if nothing said is true, what must be true is what is not said), while I try and find what appears to be the best fit that minimizes how much of the stated points have to be smoothed out. We're never going to agree on these points because we approach the evaluation of the evidence from such fundamentally different starting points.

Anyway, let's not get side tracked here. We've gone over these points before and ended up in the same place, so it's clear neither of us is convinced by the other, so rather than repeating ourselves here, let's try and keep this thread focused on the more immediate aspects of the escape from Mitre Square. The issue with regards to the apron's location in Goulston street really only comes up when the topic focuses on the "bolt hole then Goulston" vs "straight to Goulston", and then it should be raised that you've suggested "never to Goulston" as well.

- Jeff

I have to point out yet again where you are wrong, and say that there is only one way to question the evidence and that is to accept it or reject it.

The problem with the apron piece is that researchers have been to quick to believe the killer cut it and took it away with in order to carry the organs away, wipe his bloody knife or his hands, But the reality is that the description of the apron piece with the stains etc is not consistent with any of those

Pc Long does not mention in his signed inquest deposition that the corner of the apron was wet with blood

"There appeared blood stains on it - one portion was wet" No where does he mention it was wet with blood !!!!!!!!!!!

I dont have a problem with the testimony because it quite clearly refers to the apron piece with one side and one side only being spotted with blood, and having traces of fecal matter on the one side and it being wet.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Varqm]

Well if you are going to accept the witnesses as being truthful and accurate you have to accept what they say and the evidence you refer to is contradictory.

Pc Longs official signed statement

"I found a portion of the womans apron which I produce. There appeared blood stains on it" no mention of a corner being wet with blood"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Browns official signed statement

"My attention was called to the apron piece, it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Brown Telegraph testimony

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

Dr Brown Times testimony

"On the piece of apron there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it" The first mention of the suggestion that a hand or knife had been wiped on it, and we go from spots to smears, if the killer had blood or fecal matter on his hands and he used the piece to wipe his hands there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece,The same applies to wiping a knife. The residue described was only on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Statements to the Coroner,written or verbal in an inquest were under oath.The witness could expound on his written statements in the inquest court.

[Joshua Rogan]

Hmm, why did Halse after Mitre Square go to Middlesex St. then Wentworth St. then through to Goulston St. then back to Mitre Square?

He went to Mitre Square first, saw Kates body, maybe even pulled her clothes down and got bloodied hands and he tore the piece of apron off and dumped it in Goulston St. arriving there after Mr. Crawford.

Why, because he probably knew the 'bigger picture' and used it to direct public opinion that Jack was on his way home, the slums, Flower and Dean and Thrawl St. area.

I'm not to sure how the writing on the wall fits though

Perhaps because the City Police HQ was in Old Jewry Street...?

[Juniper4576]

Daniel Halse, detective officer, City police: On Saturday, Sept. 29, pursuant to instructions received at the central office in Old Jewry, I directed a number of police in plain clothes to patrol the streets of the City all night. At two minutes to two o'clock on the Sunday morning, when near Aldgate Church, in company with Detectives Outram and Marriott, I heard that a woman had been found murdered in Mitre-square. We ran to the spot, and I at once gave instructions for the neighbourhood to be searched and every man stopped and examined. I myself went by way of Middlesex-street into Wentworth-street, where I stopped two men, who, however, gave a satisfactory account of themselves. I came through Goulston-street about twenty minutes past two, and then returned to Mitre-square, subsequently going to the mortuary. I saw the deceased, and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing. I accompanied Major Smith back to Mitre-square, when we heard that a piece of apron had been found in Goulston-street. After visiting Leman-street police-station, I proceeded to Goulston-street, where I saw some chalk-writing on the black facia of the wall. Instructions were given to have the writing photographed, but before it could be done the Metropolitan police stated that they thought the writing might cause a riot or outbreak against the Jews, and it was decided to have it rubbed out, as the people were already bringing out their stalls into the street. When Detective Hunt returned inquiry was made at every door of every tenement of the model dwelling-house, but we gained no tidings of any one who was likely to have been the murderer.
By Mr. Crawford: At twenty minutes past two o'clock I passed over the spot where the piece of apron was found, but did not notice anything then. I should not necessarily have seen the piece of apron.

Read that carefully and consider the timing.

Hmm, why did Halse after Mitre Square go to Middlesex St. then Wentworth St. then through to Goulston St. then back to Mitre Square?

He went to Mitre Square first, saw Kates body, maybe even pulled her clothes down and got bloodied hands and he tore the piece of apron off and dumped it in Goulston St. arriving there after Mr. Crawford.

Why, because he probably knew the 'bigger picture' and used it to direct public opinion that Jack was on his way home, the slums, Flower and Dean and Thrawl St. area.

I'm not to sure how the writing on the wall fits though

[JeffHamm]

Well if you are going to accept the witnesses as being truthful and accurate you have to accept what they say and the evidence you refer to is contradictory.

Pc Longs official signed statement

"I found a portion of the womans apron which I produce. There appeared blood stains on it" no mention of a corner being wet with blood"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Browns official signed statement

"My attention was called to the apron piece, it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Brown Telegraph testimony

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

Dr Brown Times testimony

"On the piece of apron there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it" The first mention of the suggestion that a hand or knife had been wiped on it, and we go from spots to smears, if the killer had blood or fecal matter on his hands and he used the piece to wipe his hands there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece,The same applies to wiping a knife. The residue described was only on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Long refers to the corner being wet with blood in his inquest testimony. And, as you yourself mention, Dr. Brown indicates it appears to be smeared, as if hands or a knife were wiped on it. The various descriptions all indicate a piece of material that had blood stains on it, with PC Long indicating that one corner was more wet with blood. Basically, all of these are only contradictory if you require every person to use exactly the same words to describe something, and that's not how language works. I really don't see why you have a problem with the testimony. Also, there are multiple witnesses, who testify as to Eddowes wearing an apron, so again, I don't see how you can justify claiming they were all wrong despite them all corroborating each other on that relatively innocuous point. I am aware that you've concluded that the apron wasn't cut and taken away and dropped by JtR, but I can see no justification for that conclusion, particularly as it seems to require accepting the assumption that a set of statements that all effectively describe a similar situation are in fact the polar opposite of what you think happened.

Again, we're at the point where we've been before on this, and it boils down to differences in how we question the evidence, and you start with the premise that the underlying gist of the evidence is wrong, while I start with the notion that underlying the statements is some true state that we try to work out. Your starting premise leads you to reject all aspects of the evidence and to put forth the opposite (if nothing said is true, what must be true is what is not said), while I try and find what appears to be the best fit that minimizes how much of the stated points have to be smoothed out. We're never going to agree on these points because we approach the evaluation of the evidence from such fundamentally different starting points.

Anyway, let's not get side tracked here. We've gone over these points before and ended up in the same place, so it's clear neither of us is convinced by the other, so rather than repeating ourselves here, let's try and keep this thread focused on the more immediate aspects of the escape from Mitre Square. The issue with regards to the apron's location in Goulston street really only comes up when the topic focuses on the "bolt hole then Goulston" vs "straight to Goulston", and then it should be raised that you've suggested "never to Goulston" as well.

- Jeff

[Christian]

Passageways under Mitre Square. - Jack The Ripper Forums - Ripperology For The 21st Century

Brilliant reading thanks for link sir!

[Trevor Marriott]

The Five were stalking Jack for blackmail money and there was a bunch of them.
Mary Ann Kelly was the instigator, not for the first time.
The minute Eddowes left for Kent,Nichols was waiting for Sutton "late at night" outside the London Hospital.
Henry Gawen Sutton exhibited traits of a high functioning Asperger.Suspect Nichols panicked him.
Eddowes no doubt appreciated the medical help Sutton had afforded her.She was acting as a go between,although she wanted her cut.There is a chance one of her son's was a homosexual prostitute.
Reckon Eddowes recruited Stride for a Hanbury Street payoff,but did not make it herself.BS Man was probably muscle.
Chapman,like Stride was a neighbor of Mary Ann Kelly's.

What planet are you on?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor,

How accessible the apron was is situational, and if he took it, your assumption it was inaccessible is wrong. Also, we know she was wearing an apron because there are multiple independent statements from people saying she was wearing one, starting from the moment she went out I believe, and including testimony by the police who had her in custody only a short while before she was murdered.

Come on, a white apron almost every victorian working woman wore a white apron, what was so significant and identifiable about her apron for these witnesses to say days later that on a specific date and time they saw her wearing a white apron, can you remember what color shirt you were wearing on a specific day two weeks ago. I cant.

Its not wrong its totally logical if she was wearing an apron at the time she was murdered then the killer throwing her clothes up above her waist would then place the apron almost on her stomach with all the other items of clothing covering it up making any of her other clothes much more easier to take hold of an cut than the hidden apron

But there was no police evidence from Sgt Byfield about the apron despite him being the station Sgt who booked her into custody and was responsible for releasing her, and would have had to note down in detail her property when she first came into custody, I wonder why he didnt fall in line with all the others.

Also, PC Long, who finds the apron I believe, had heard of the crime at the time he found it at 2:55, and I believe would have been on the look out at 2:20 as well. He might not have been aware around 1:45 (assuming that 35 minutes is a fair estimate of his beat time), but as JtR is likely to have passed a few minutes after PC Long, that's irrelevant.

If he had only heard about the crime when he found it which would suggest was from the other officer he summoned why was he so intent on searching the archway in the first place and therefore the apron piece at that time had no significance?

Even if he wasn't aware of the murder, the cloth he found had blood on it, enough to be described as one corner wet with it. It is also described as looking like something had been wiped on it, perhaps a knife or hands I think the statement reads. Anyway, those who had seen the apron piece indicate it looked like it had been used in cleaning up.

Thats wrong

I really don't think there's grounds for us, over 130 years later, to suggest we know what it looked like and that their descriptions are wrong.

But how it looked and how it was described it vital to the investigation 130 years later because we can now test some of the evidence and can come to conclusions that much of what was said in testimony and statements back then is now 130 year later unsafe to totally rely on. As we have seen there are major conflict in witness testimony throughout these murder.

- Jeff

Well if you are going to accept the witnesses as being truthful and accurate you have to accept what they say and the evidence you refer to is contradictory.

Pc Longs official signed statement

"I found a portion of the womans apron which I produce. There appeared blood stains on it" no mention of a corner being wet with blood"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Browns official signed statement

"My attention was called to the apron piece, it was the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin"

The statement referred to above would have been read by him before signing and he would have been asked if he wanted to add or remove anything

Dr Brown Telegraph testimony

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

Dr Brown Times testimony

"On the piece of apron there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it" The first mention of the suggestion that a hand or knife had been wiped on it, and we go from spots to smears, if the killer had blood or fecal matter on his hands and he used the piece to wipe his hands there would have been residue on both sides of the apron piece,The same applies to wiping a knife. The residue described was only on one side!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk