The Goulston Street Apron

[Phil Carter]

I can see how the colon got cut then, but not pushed into the rectum so that it's folded up like a telescope.

Hello Errata,

Could we here have another reason for why the rag-piece was stained with faecal matter? And or why the hands were in need of said wiping?



Phil

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

What I mean is, you have just cut the colon and hence an unpleasant flow has begun. You take the offending part and shove it aside--or inside.

Cheers.
LC

Well he would have cut the colon while the uterus was still blocking access to it. In order to reach the offending part, he would have had to remove the uterus and then go back in, which if he was done with that particular piece of real estate doesn't make a lot of sense. Also at that part of the digestive tract, the waste is solid. It's not spraying about nor is it especially flowing. The majority of the solid waste that he would have to deal with would have been above the cut, in the piece of intestine that he cut out. The spraying stuff came from farther up the colon.

This is something that happens with extremely damaged tissue, like eaten with cancer or devastated by radiation kind of damage. It can also happen if there is a prolapse of some kind. Now her peritoneum was cut, though not cut through. It would weaken the muscle significantly. In a living person that would absolutely cause a prolapse. But in a dead person, all muscles are equally slack, so having one weak muscle isn't a factor.

And it's not like this is important in any kind of forensic sense. But the only way I know that this could happen is in a living person. And even that isn't important at this point, but Jesus. Her throat had been cut, possibly her face had already been mutilated, she had been cut open from sternum to pelvis and she was still alive when he was taking her uterus. Not conscious, maybe brain dead, but still. Basically I'm stuck on a minute and unimportant detail because the implications are kind of horrifying. I am all about finding a way for that to have happened after she died, because the alternative just makes me a little ill. I just don't think he did it. I don't think it looks the same if a person does it as it does when it happens on it's own. Never mind the fact I don't see him sticking his finger in poop the plug a hole that isn't so much leaking.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I have always thought that the killer used the cloth to wrap the organs in, but it's the question of what happened to them if the empty cloth is thrown in the doorway.
- Did he transfer them into something else, if so, why?, or...
- Did he arrive 'home', then return to the streets to dispose of the cloth? if so, why, and was there a reason he picked that doorway?

Alternately, if the cloth was not empty when it was thrown, did it hit the wall and the organs spill out? Only to disappear down the grate in front of the adjacent window? These grates often were deep in rubbish.
I would prefer to think the police would look, but if they never considered the cloth being used to carry the organs, then they had no reason to look down the grate.

.

I find it almost inconceivable that he would stop to unwrap the organs, throw away the cloth and then put the organs into his pockets; and continue down the street. Seems pointless.

The only plausible explanation I can think of is that he didn't expect the body to be found so quickly and as such thought he would have a stroll down the street unchallenged. He could well have heard whistles and commotion by the time he reached Goulston Street and decided that carrying the apron wasn't a good idea, and so discarded it - which may not have been planned if he thought the body would not have been discovered so soon.

I think the fact that the apron was found where it was lends itself towards this because it seems that he didn't simply run down the street and throw it away; he sought shelter/privacy to do what he did which suggests he needed it for at least a few seconds - and that would suggest some sort of operation such as unwrapping the organs.

[lynn cates]

procedure

Hello Errata. Thanks.

What I mean is, you have just cut the colon and hence an unpleasant flow has begun. You take the offending part and shove it aside--or inside.

Cheers.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

The floor grate wasn't there in 1888. I think the killer wrapped the organ piece in the portion of apron and went to his abode before depositing the piece in inside the doorway.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Could that not have been done to stem the feculent material oozing out?

Cheers.
LC

But that would beg the question what on earth was he doing messing around at her pelvic floor after the uterus came out? And it doesn't act as a plug. Invagination or intussusception means that it folded the way you fold over a sock. It doesn't plug. Stuff would still come out. It would mean that the rectum would essentially end up double lined. Which in a mobile person is excruciating, though it's almost never that far down the gut. The blockage in a living person is due to inflammation, but in the dead or dying not enough time passes to inflame the tissue.

[Wickerman]

I have always thought that the killer used the cloth to wrap the organs in, but it's the question of what happened to them if the empty cloth is thrown in the doorway.
- Did he transfer them into something else, if so, why?, or...
- Did he arrive 'home', then return to the streets to dispose of the cloth? if so, why, and was there a reason he picked that doorway?

Alternately, if the cloth was not empty when it was thrown, did it hit the wall and the organs spill out? Only to disappear down the grate in front of the adjacent window? These grates often were deep in rubbish.
I would prefer to think the police would look, but if they never considered the cloth being used to carry the organs, then they had no reason to look down the grate.

.

[Michael W Richards]

...on the other hand, the officer might be intrigued to know which butcher was open at 2 o'clock in the morning.

.

We have ample examples of slaughter housemen and butchers about throughout the evenings,.....perhaps that factoid is unsuitable as a way of narrowing the search, but rather, it could be construed as making it more difficult.

All the best

[Wickerman]

.... It would appear as if he was carrying a butcher cut piece of meat.

...on the other hand, the officer might be intrigued to know which butcher was open at 2 o'clock in the morning.

.

[lynn cates]

stemming the tide

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Could that not have been done to stem the feculent material oozing out?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

The apron section was around 2 ft square and had one of the side strings used to secure it still attached,...so he took a side of it, not the top or the bottom.

My guess is that the he wrapped the organs in the cloth and wrapped the string around the "package". It would appear as if he was carrying a butcher cut piece of meat.

Best regards

[Errata]

Hello Errata.

"Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know."

I had always assumed he shoved it there manually, whilst digging about and cutting.

Cheers.
LC

I can see how the colon got cut then, but not pushed into the rectum so that it's folded up like a telescope.

[lynn cates]

manual

Hello Errata.

"Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know."

I had always assumed he shoved it there manually, whilst digging about and cutting.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

So it was a whole bottom slice, not just a corner? Where did I get the idea that it was a corner?

Do we have a reference some place that gives the actual dimensions? If it was more like a strip, than a rag, it sounds like it's the kind of thing used to bind a cut, so maybe the killer cut himself. How much fecal matter was on it? Small smears, or big chunks?

Halse said about half the apron was missing. Which can mean a couple of things. The bottom half was missing, though a bib was still present, The bottom half of the bottom portion of the apron was missing, or the left or right half of the apron was missing. Either way you end up with at least a 1 1/2 foot x three foot section missing. Now the question becomes whether or not what was found at Ghoulston street was the whole missing piece, or just part of the missing piece. And if it was just part of it, where did the rest of it run off to?

As for the quantity of fecal matter, about 25 ounces at most. Anything from the top of the colon cut would technically be chyme (of which I couldn't think there would be more than 12 ounces), but mostly liquid. From the sigmoid colon where the bottom cut was (not coincidentally right behind the uterus) pure solid. I don't think he would have had a lot of contact with the solid, since most of it would have been in the rectum. But he got sprayed with chyme all right. Now if someone could explain to me how on earth the remains of her sigmoid colon got sucked into her rectum barring her still being alive, I'd like to know.

[Wickerman]

So it was a whole bottom slice, not just a corner? Where did I get the idea that it was a corner?

Do we have a reference some place that gives the actual dimensions? If it was more like a strip, than a rag, it sounds like it's the kind of thing used to bind a cut, so maybe the killer cut himself. How much fecal matter was on it? Small smears, or big chunks?

The cut was diagonal because the piece still had one string attached, and the cut ran through a patch, which a tear would not.

Have you read this dissertation, it contains all that is known about the apron & the cut-off piece.

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

.