One corner was wet with blood

[Barnaby]

Hi Fisherman,

I like the idea that the killer was cut and used the rag to stop his own bleeding. It quite parsimoniously explains a good bit. However, you seem to think that, assuming the rag was otherwise dry and didn't come into direct contact with water, Eddowes' blood would have dried some 70 minutes later. This really is an answerable empirical question given we have a general idea about the weather conditions. Would the blood have dried or not? Anyone want to volunteer their blood?

[Fisherman]

Hi Fisherman,

I like the idea that the killer was cut and used the rag to stop his own bleeding. It quite parsimoniously explains a good bit. However, you seem to think that, assuming the rag was otherwise dry and didn't come into direct contact with water, Eddowes' blood would have dried some 70 minutes later. This really is an answerable empirical question given we have a general idea about the weather conditions. Would the blood have dried or not? Anyone want to volunteer their blood?

I really don´t know what to think about the drying out issue, Barnaby - that is why I´ve thrown out the question.
We must also keep in mind that "wet" may have been anything from slightly moist to soaking wet. It´s not an easy call by any means, I gather.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy: I dunno, but I wouldn`t want to be seen wiping my hands too close to Mitre Sq.

True - but I equally wouldn´t want to be found, rag in hand, ten blocks away.

Apparently, in FBI parlance, I believe the innards would be classed as trophies, and the rag as a souvenir, both desirable to murderers.

Aha - that´s interesting. But would not a souvenir be kept? Would it be thrown away.

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.

The woolen muffler, yes. It IS the only other possible indicator of clothing going lost that we know of.

If it were a make shift bandage, where did the sh#t on the rag come from?

Eddowes´colon, I should think. When, how and where, I couldn´t say - but it was very dark in that corner, and perhaps the killer would not have made his choice in better lighting conditions.
We know that the intestines were smeared over with fecal matter, indicating that the killer rummaged around inside her with feces on his hands. So whatever he grabbed onto, he would transfer feces to, arguably.

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.

Interesting reflection anyhow, Jon. But you seemingly missed that he would have been a witness in that case - and witnesses are never killers. Didn´t you know?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

How many times will I have to explain that Trevor blew his nose in the corner ?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

If the blood was still liquid enough to drench that part of the apron, the killer must have been practically hæmorrhaging. Almost an hour had passed by the time Long arrived and noted the wetness of that part of the apron, and I'd have expected any "normal" blood-flow to have started to dry out, aided by the absorbancy of the cloth. Whether it was Eddowes' or Jack's, I doubt that blood could have retained any genuine "wetness" having been in contact with fabric for that length of time.

[Wickerman]

If the rag was used to carry the organs away from the scene, that would prolong the condition of the rag being wet with blood.

[Sam Flynn]

Jon Guy: I dunno, but I wouldn`t want to be seen wiping my hands too close to Mitre Sq.

True - but I equally wouldn´t want to be found, rag in hand, ten blocks away

Why not? The killer knew that attention would likely remain focused in the City for several tens of minutes, if not longer - and so it transpired. Besides, Goulston Street is tucked away rather nicely, far enough from the "action" for most practical purposes - like scrubbing blood and whoopsie from one's hands or, if applicable, stemming the flow from a self-inflicted cut.

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:

If the blood was still liquid enough to drench that part of the apron, the killer must have been practically hæmorrhaging.

He would have been bleeding for a longish time - I think that would explain the wetness. Wet with blood was what was said, not drenched with dripping blood.

Almost an hour had passed by the time Long arrived and noted the wetness of that part of the apron, and I'd have expected any "normal" blood-flow to have started to dry out, aided by the absorbancy of the cloth.

In fact, it is ten minutes MORE than an hour. That means that with every minute that passes, the suggestion of a bleeding killer becomes better that a suggestion that the apron was still wet with Eddowes´ blood. It´s fairly straightforward.

Whether it was Eddowes' or Jack's, I doubt that blood could have retained any genuine "wetness" having been in contact with fabric for that length of time.

Fine - but if so, then who is the better candidate? Eddowes, who would have had her blood deposited in the rag seventy minutes earlier, or the killer, who could have bled up to the point the rag was tossed away?

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn:
Why not? The killer knew that attention would likely remain focused in the City for several tens of minutes, if not longer - and so it transpired.

That´s a bit circular, Gareth. He had killed on Met territory an hour before - how would he know that fanning-out policemen would not be around?

Besides, Goulston Street is tucked away rather nicely, far enough from the "action"...

Not far enough to stop Halse going there, for example.

I still say that it is too far away to work with the suggestion of a clean-up action by wiping. But it´s anybody´s guess, as always.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Why not? The killer knew that attention would likely remain focused in the City for several tens of minutes, if not longer - and so it transpired.

That´s a bit circular, Gareth.

No it isn't, Fish. Ducking into a quiet back street a safe distance away, before he ran out of breath and ATP, seems a perfectly reasonable course of action.

He had killed on Met territory an hour before

Only possibly.

how would he know that fanning-out policemen would not be around?

Even if he had killed Stride, the police action was well south of Goulston Street, the other side of Commercial Road. Besides, as we know, the number of policemen patrolling Goulston Street was precisely ONE in number, and his was a very lonely beat. Make no mistake, the street in which Wentworth Model Dwellings stood was very, very quiet that morning.

Besides, Goulston Street is tucked away rather nicely, far enough from the "action"...

Not far enough to stop Halse going there, for example.

...about 40 minutes after the murder, and only then because he, with Outram and Marriott, had decided to search the area. And, let's not forget, they headed for the main thoroughfares first; that is, Middlesex and Wentworth Streets, before Halse doubled back (towards Mitre Square?) via the sleepy side-street where the apron and graffito were later found.