One corner was wet with blood

[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.

Thatīs 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.

[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.

Thatīs 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 itīs anybodyīs guess, as always.

The best,
Fisherman

[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 Eddowesī blood. Itīs 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

[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 wouldnīt 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.

[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]

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.

[DVV]

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

[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 wouldnīt 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 - thatīs 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?

Eddowesīcolon, I should think. When, how and where, I couldnīt 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. Didnīt you know?

The best,
Fisherman

[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 donīt know what to think about the drying out issue, Barnaby - that is why Iīve thrown out the question.
We must also keep in mind that "wet" may have been anything from slightly moist to soaking wet. Itīs not an easy call by any means, I gather.

The best,
Fisherman

[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?

[bolo]

EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread.

[Jon Guy]

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.

[Fisherman]

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

[Jon Guy]

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.

[Fisherman]

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