Four little words

[Robert]

Hi Tom

But when I suggested it in post #62 you disagreed in post #63.

[curious4]

Bladdered

Hello Tom,

Thank you. It does seem the most logical. Always a good idea to explore the other possibities, though. Makes for a good discussion. And perhaps Bridewell will forgive me im time!

Best wishes,
C4

[Jon Guy]

I was thinking that maybe the Ripper rinsed his hands under the tap and returned to the body to wipe them clean on Chapman`s scarf.
Or
He was dropping the missing body parts in a container of some sort which then spilt some kind of prasarving liquid.

But, Kent never mentioned this detail at the inquest, nor did Chandler, and nor did Dr Phillips, but I suppose the sack they put over the corpse until the doctor arrived may have absorbed or wiped away the liquid, if it was there in the first place.

[curious4]

Beyond the pail

Hello Jon,

The argument against him washing his hands is that Mrs Richardson was certain that the pail of water she left beside the tap had not been moved. The yard was quite small, so the bucket of water was probably close to the tap. If he did wash his hands there is a good chance that he would get blood in the bucket of water, or at least round it.

Best wishes,
C4

[Jon Guy]

Hello Jon,

The argument against him washing his hands is that Mrs Richardson was certain that the pail of water she left beside the tap had not been moved. The yard was quite small, so the bucket of water was probably close to the tap. If he did wash his hands there is a good chance that he would get blood in the bucket of water, or at least round it.

Best wishes,
C4

Yes, C4, a good point. It did cross, sorry lechmere my mind so I agree it`s unlikely he used the tap.

[Wickerman]

This is what was said:

"I saw some water, which seemed to me as if it had been thrown at her."
Echo, 12th.

"She looked as if she had been sprinkled with water or something."
Daily News, 13th.

Can you tell sweat from water by looking at it? I know I canīt. And I also know that when movies are made where a character is supposed to be sweaty in some scene, the impression is created by spraying water on the actor.

I donīt think James Kent - or anybody else - would expect a cold corpse to be covered in sweat. That would not have been a viable option for an explanation to the liquid. In the end, though, it looked like water, just like sweat looks like water (and indeed IS water), and therefore I donīt think the possibility of "death sweat" can be ruled out by any supposition that Eastenders recognize sweat when they see it.

And once again, nothing tells us that the liquid was on both the uncovered parts of Chapman as well as on her clothes.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Christer.

Well, the difference to my mind is that if you see droplets of water on the face and nowhere else you will automatically think 'sweat'. But if that was the case I can't imagine anyone describing this as looking like it had been thrown/sprinkled over her - so to my mind sweat does not work.

Alternately, whether there were any droplets on her face or not, if dark blotches of varying sizes were present all over her clothes & apron then this will not appear to be sweat. And, this would fit very well with the description of "thrown/sprinkled over her" - so liquid thrown over her is the most likely cause.

[Bridewell]

No offence meant, Bridewell!

C4

None taken!

[Bridewell]

I'm sure no offense will be taken as it's well known among us that Bridewell always tosses his water out the front window onto the pavement. It's not one of his most recommending traits, but we accept him as he is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

You're too kind!

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Tom

But when I suggested it in post #62 you disagreed in post #63.

Hi Robert. I'm a visual person, so when you described bladder spillage, I had a vision of it spilling onto the ground between her legs. But Curious4's description had me picturing Bridewell's water spilling all over Chapman. So it was her post that made the light bulb go off and the chamber pot runneth over.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Fisherman]

Hi Christer.

Well, the difference to my mind is that if you see droplets of water on the face and nowhere else you will automatically think 'sweat'. But if that was the case I can't imagine anyone describing this as looking like it had been thrown/sprinkled over her - so to my mind sweat does not work.

Alternately, whether there were any droplets on her face or not, if dark blotches of varying sizes were present all over her clothes & apron then this will not appear to be sweat. And, this would fit very well with the description of "thrown/sprinkled over her" - so liquid thrown over her is the most likely cause.

Jon, what you said in your earlier post was that the average Eastender would recognize sweat when he saw it. That sounded to me as if he or she could tell water from sweat on sight.

It seems now that what you meant was that this same average Eastender would deduct that droplets of water on a face would be sweat.

And thatīs fine. It works better, of course.

Whether the liquid was present all over Chapman or just on the exposed parts of her body is something we canīt tell from the descriptions given. It could be either way, though if the liquid really had been thrown over her, it stands to reason that it would have hit the clothing too. But her coat was black and probably made from fabric that would have soaked up the liquid and no dark stains can be seen on black fabric. If the liquid looked sprinkled, then I say the "death sweat" suggestion works nicely for me.

... and that, I feel, is as far as we are going to get.

The best,
Fisherman