Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

One corner was wet with blood

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • One corner was wet with blood

    Taken across from the "Time Gap" thread.
    Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
    Has anybody gotten around to explaining why the apron corner was still wet with blood some seventy minutes after Edowes was killed?
    "I [...] found a portion of a woman's apron. It had recent stains of blood on it, one corner being wet." (Morning Advertiser, 12th October). Similar reports appear in other papers, all of which would seem to confirm that there were blood stains elsewhere on the apron, with only one particular corner being wet. Perhaps that corner had lain in a pocket of rainwater on the passage floor, keeping it damper than the rest of the cloth.
    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

  • #2
    But bloodstains don't fear anything - except cold water, Gareth.

    Comment


    • #3
      G'day Sam

      Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Taken across from the "Time Gap" thread.

      "I [...] found a portion of a woman's apron. It had recent stains of blood on it, one corner being wet." (Morning Advertiser, 12th October). Similar reports appear in other papers, all of which would seem to confirm that there were blood stains elsewhere on the apron, with only one particular corner being wet. Perhaps that corner had lain in a pocket of rainwater on the passage floor, keeping it damper than the rest of the cloth.
      The Bit I've highlighted seems the simplest explanation to me.
      G U T

      There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by GUT View Post
        The Bit I've highlighted seems the simplest explanation to me.
        Ah. But was it wet with water, or blood, or feces or perhaps something else.
        The mystery deepens!!
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • #5
          G'day Abby

          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
          Ah. But was it wet with water, or blood, or feces or perhaps something else.
          The mystery deepens!!
          Doesn't really matter what was on it, sitting in water would help keep it wet.
          G U T

          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by GUT View Post
            Doesn't really matter what was on it, sitting in water would help keep it wet.
            Totally agree. It was a wet night. I was being facetious as I think its kind of irrelevant .
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #7
              "The piece of apron, one corner of which was wet with blood. "
              Daily Telegraph.

              I guess the blood was wet because the rag was wet, and the rag was wet because the ground was wet.

              Sort'a like, the kneebone's connected to the thighbone, kind'a thing.
              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #8
                Would a blood stain look different if first the apron was wet and then blood got on it versus the blood came first and then it was made wet? This is such as esoteric question but what I'm trying to get at for no good reason is whether the skirt got wet as she was lying on the ground and after the mutilations he caught off a piece of the wet garment to wipe off, or if the skirt was dry and the blood stained portion of it got wet when it was disposed of in Goulston Street?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Long speaking at the inquest, taken from the Times, Friday the 12:th of October 1888:

                  By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

                  My personal take on the Morning Advertiser snippet Gareth used, "I [...] found a portion of a woman's apron. It had recent stains of blood on it, one corner being wet", is that it should be read "I [...] found a portion of a woman's apron. It had recent stains of blood on it, one corner being wet with blood".

                  Apparently both the stains and a wet corner were mentioned in this context. However, just as the Morning Advertiser does not spell out that blood was what made the apron corner wet, the Times does not mention the stains in this particular sentence, whereas they ARE mentioned by Long in this report too, a bit further up: "There were recent stains of blood on it." .

                  The logical conclusion should be obvious.

                  This is why I ask what explanation there can be to the apron corner still being wet with blood some seventy minutes after Eddowes was killed. And - of course - this is also why I suggest that the wet blood could have come from a cut killer.

                  All the best,
                  Fisherman
                  Last edited by Fisherman; 07-07-2014, 12:00 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It may be nothing but at the time Alice McKenzie was murdered there was an engineer on site at the Goulston Street Baths and wash house (which back onto the McKenzie murder site in Castle Alley).

                    If such a person was the culprit, it would explain:

                    Why the rag was deposited in Goulston Street
                    Why it may have been dropped there after 2.20am
                    Why it was still bloody and wet (although I don`t see a problem with the rag not drying out in just over an hour)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                      It may be nothing but at the time Alice McKenzie was murdered there was an engineer on site at the Goulston Street Baths and wash house (which back onto the McKenzie murder site in Castle Alley).

                      If such a person was the culprit, it would explain:

                      Why the rag was deposited in Goulston Street
                      Why it may have been dropped there after 2.20am
                      Why it was still bloody and wet (although I don`t see a problem with the rag not drying out in just over an hour)
                      Letīs see here, Jon - are you suggesting the engineer of the Goulston Street baths as the culprit?
                      As for the wet state of the apron corner, I donīt know to what extent blood from Eddowes could have kept wet for seventy minutes or so. But I think we must predispose in such a case that the corner was dipped in blood in Mitre Square to remain wet that long afterwards - if it is even feasible?

                      To me, the suggestion of a cut hand is a very tempting one, since it would explain both why he hung on to the rag in spite of itīs implications and why the rag was wet with blood at that late stage.

                      The best,
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Fisherman View Post
                        Letīs see here, Jon - are you suggesting the engineer of the Goulston Street baths as the culprit?
                        Only a possibility, Christer.
                        After all, he was within yards of McKenzie when she was murdered, in a facility when he could clean up in private. Of course, as mentioned, it would explain the rag appearing where it did at 2.55


                        As for the wet state of the apron corner, I donīt know to what extent blood from Eddowes could have kept wet for seventy minutes or so. But I think we must predispose in such a case that the corner was dipped in blood in Mitre Square to remain wet that long afterwards - if it is even feasible?
                        Depends if the rag was used to carry Eddowes excised organs, which would have been bloody, or whether the killer washed and cleaned himself up before discarding of the rag.

                        To me, the suggestion of a cut hand is a very tempting one, since it would explain both why he hung on to the rag in spite of itīs implications and why the rag was wet with blood at that late stage.
                        Yes, a possibility too, but I don`t think quite as likely as the rag been used to a) carry organs b) a clean up rag c) a souvenir or d) as a marker for the graffiti.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Jon Guy:

                          Only a possibility, Christer.
                          After all, he was within yards of McKenzie when she was murdered, in a facility when he could clean up in private. Of course, as mentioned, it would explain the rag appearing where it did at 2.55

                          Sort of, yes - unless he ditched the rag when arriving in Goulston Street at 1.53. It is kind of hard to tell, but itīs fresh thinking on your behalf no matter what applies!

                          Depends if the rag was used to carry Eddowes excised organs, which would have been bloody, or whether the killer washed and cleaned himself up before discarding of the rag.

                          Yes the possibilitites abound.

                          Yes, a possibility too, but I don`t think quite as likely as the rag been used to a) carry organs b) a clean up rag c) a souvenir or d) as a marker for the graffiti.

                          What I think here is, taken in order:

                          a/ If it was a makeshift organcarrier, then I would have expected him to put the rag on the ground, put the innards in the centre of it and make a bag of sorts. In that case, the corner specifically would not be wet with blood. Would he place the innards on the corner and then start to wrap? I dunno, but it seems odd to me.
                          I know that Wickerman has stated that butchers do it this way, but I donīt think they would put the meat all the way out to the corner, but instead some way in on the wrapping. But of course, the corner would subsequently be folded over the meat, so perhaps.

                          b/ A clean-up rag would have been tossed away much sooner than Goulston Street if you ask me.

                          c/ A souvenir? When he already had the innards? Plus we do not have him cutting away other garments with the other victims. And if it WAS a souvenir, he didnīt hang on to it for very long.

                          d/ As a marker for the graffiti? I am not any GSG believer in the first place, although I have no trouble seeing the viability in the suggestion.

                          All in all, four useful explanations - but I favour the explanation that he cut himself in a hand. A makeshift bandage would be produced by holding on to the corner, before wrapping the rag around the damaged hand. And it would certainly explain why there was wet blood on the corner of it when found!

                          But it has to remain an each to his own-issue, I think!

                          What more do you know of that engineer at the Goulston Street baths - if anything?

                          All the best,
                          Fisherman
                          Last edited by Fisherman; 07-07-2014, 05:42 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                            b/ A clean-up rag would have been tossed away much sooner than Goulston Street if you ask me.
                            I dunno, but I wouldn`t want to be seen wiping my hands too close to Mitre Sq.

                            c/ A souvenir? When he already had the innards? Plus we do not have him cutting away other garments with the other victims. And if it WAS a souvenir, he didnīt hang on to it for very long.
                            Apparently, in FBI parlance, I believe the innards would be classed as trophies, and the rag as a souvenir, both desirable to murderers.

                            Annie Chapman`s woolly scarf, as noted by Tim Donovan, seems to have been missing when the police took a description of the body the next day.

                            All in all, four useful explanations - but I favour the explanation that he cut himself in a hand. A makeshift bandage would be produced by holding on to the corner, before wrapping the rag around the damaged hand. And it would certainly explain why there was wet blood on the corner of it when found!
                            If it were a make shift bandage, where did the sh#t on the rag come from?

                            What more do you know of that engineer at the Goulston Street baths - if anything?
                            Nothing, I`m afraid. Only discovered his existence recently. He is mentioned in one newspaper as being interviewed by police following the discovery of McKenzie`s body, but alas, no name is given.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread.
                              ~ All perils, specially malignant, are recurrent - Thomas De Quincey ~

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X