Announcement

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:39 AM

19th December 2007, 03:45 PM
Unles
Sam Flynn
s he simply bunged them in the corner and "wrapped around", bandage style.
I honestly can't see that the Ripper had much time to make an "offal turnover", Ben, still less the inclination. Plonking the cargo in the middle of the cloth would have made eminently more sense.

My feeling is that, if one corner of the apron was indeed soaked in blood, then this may have resulted from its being thrown over Eddowes' chest - the wet portion having been in contact with one of the pools of blood either side of her upper body.

Ben
19th December 2007, 03:53 PM
Hi Gareth,

It wouldn't have taken any more time to wrap up the poopoo package I'm envisaging; perhaps a couple of seconds extra to ensure that it was compacted, and that the cargo wouldn't fall out. Or it could have been entirely random, in which case the middle would have made no more or less sense than the corner, especially if he was working in the dark.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 04:02 PM
Monty adds:
"Think you may have the order of events slightly out, but thats only my opinion."

Absolutely, Monty - there is no way to be sure here. I went with the notion that the mutilation job was something he felt compelled to do, and thus he would get that overwith before trying to cash in on the job. Sort of a necessities first approach.
Of course, it could be argued that it may have been technically simpler to get at the pockets before you did all the shoving aside and cutting bits.
Whats your take on it?

All the best!
Fisherman

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 04:09 PM
Or it could have been entirely random, in which case the middle would have made no more or less sense than the corner, especially if he was working in the dark.
...the middle of a moderately-large expanse of cloth would present a bigger target, even in pitch darkness, Ben. The corner would account for - what? - less than 5% of the overall surface area?

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 04:10 PM
Ben writes:
"Hi Fisheman - As for the issue of his "reconsidering" at Goulston Street, I don't believe he did. He simply surrendered the rag closer to home, after they'd "dried off" somewhat, so as to prevent his garments being sullied by feshly extracted innards. The fact that a Jewish hotspot lay en route may also have been a consideration in the disposal location. I don't believe for a minute that he wiped "en route". It would take as much time to get the worst of the gunk off, there and then at Mitre Square, as it would to remove a segment of the apron in the first place. Nor can I picture him stuffing organs into his overcoat when there was a handy rag to prevent his garments from getting yuckier than they needed to."

Well, Ben, if he did not risk getting his clothes bloodied, he must have carried the parcel with apron, kidney, uterus parts and all, quite openly. Holding it in his hand, in all probability. But if that parcel was saturated with blood afterwards, then it would have been readily visible to anybody he met that he carried a parcel filled with something that bled. It may even have started dripping blood. No good strategy, I believe!

And if he carried the goods all the way to a very close proximity to his home, thinking that he had concealed the body parts wisely - then why would he risk to take them out BEFORE reaching his doorstep? Huge risks involved here: "Oh, hi, Mrs Winklebottom! Look what I bought for your cat!"
Nope, Ben - if concealment was the purpose, he would have had no reason not to stick with it til he was home, I feel. And to have the apron at home with you, yes it would be compromising - but not half as compromising as it would be to keep the kidney and uterus on a shelf.

As for him wiping en route, I am not suggesting that he did so all the way to Goulston Street. What I am suggesting is that as Mitre Square was empty, he would have started wiping his hands there, as he left the scene. And he may have kept up the wiping as long as he was not seen by anybody. Be that only the stretch of one of the passages or be that a stretch down Mitre Street - that is what I think he must have done. He would not stay at the scene doing it, since every second that was added to his stay increased the risk of getting caught, there was no logical hindrance to do it while walking away - and the apron was not left in the square, which I feel it would have been, if he had finished wiping before leaving. Ergo, he used the time available to him, and then concealed the apron when it was called for.

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
19th December 2007, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't be quite as wrap-happy that way though, Gareth.

Hi Fisherman,

Well, Ben, if he did not risk getting his clothes bloodied, he must have carried the parcel with apron, kidney, uterus parts and all, quite openly.

Not if the organs, with attendant fluids etc, were on the inside of the bundle (hence the concentrated saturation in one corner), in which case his clothes wouldn't be sullied at all - handy, if that was the only coat in his possession.

And if he carried the goods all the way to a very close proximity to his home, thinking that he had concealed the body parts wisely - then why would he risk to take them out BEFORE reaching his doorstep

Because it entailed far less risk than returing home with a conspicuously smelly rag, especialy if he lived with others (you can conceal organs, but you can't conceal a pong), and because - in my view - he was aware that Goulston Street was a heavily Jewish locality, and sought to ensure that suspicion remained focussed upon them. If he was seen and recognised disposing of the apron, he'd been snookered anyway, regardless of whether or not he was transferring organs at the same time. Again, why take the apron for hand-wiping purposes (and nothing else), if he could do it there and then in seconds, especially when it took just as much time, if not longer, to remove the segment in the first place?

Best regards,
Ben

ChavaG
19th December 2007, 04:32 PM
Let�s not forget the importance of the timeline here! If the chronology shows contacting - accompanying - attacking/subduing - cutting throat - mutilating - rifling through the pockets - leaving, then the Ripper was not aware of the belongings in her pockets as he got smeared with faeces. And if such was the case, the apron was the handiest bid around at the time. It also was sufficient to meet his needs, since it was a large piece of cloth he cut of.
The other rags and bits of cloth, he would not have seen until later.

The best!
Fisherman

Yes, but he takes the cloth with him. If he gets feces smeared on his hands, he cuts the cloth, wipes his hands and then rifles through her pockets. But if that's the case why does he keep the cloth? Fingerprints are unknown then. No reason to withhold the cloth from the murder scene. Get the stuff on your hands. Cut a piece of apron to wipe it off. Discard the cloth. Rifle through pockets. But he doesn't do that. And if he goes through her pockets with crap all over his hands, then you'd see some transfer onto the pockets and their contents. Which so far as I know isn't noted.

I think he must have taken the cloth after he was finished. Wiped his hands while he ran--ok while he was doing some final arranging and admiring he got some nasty stuff on his hands as well as blood. And then threw it away. That location in the East End was all very Jewish. Goulston Street Chambers had mostly Jewish residents but the same could be said for all the buildings in all the streets around it. He's heading back and he doesn't want to be found with blood on his hands. Either he thinks the cops are right behind him and could pick him up. Or more likely he's going home or somewhere else where people wait who will notice the blood and ask questions. Because nothing I've seen in these murders suggests that he doesn't like the sight, feel or smell of blood. If one believes in the From Hell letter--and I do think that's the only one that might be authentic--he even mentions the 'bloody knif'. He gets off on this stuff which is why he doesn't clean himself up after the other murders. So in my opinion there had to be a reason why he cleans up so thoroughly after this one.

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 04:33 PM
Ben!

This goes to show how affected you get by your own notions. I never considered the possibility that he could have been staying at a place with no privacy. I have always believed that he did not - that he either lived alone or in circumstances that gave shelter and protection. The taking of trophies would be a lot harder to get away with if you stayed in a doss-house, for example.
Of course you may be right on this point.

As for carying the organs in a bundle made by the apron, I still say it must have included the risk of giving him away if the blood seeped through the cloth. He could not have been sure that it would not, and the road to Goulston Street is not all that short.
Implying the jews? No, I do not think that this was his purpose when he dropped the apron on its final address; there were so many districts crowded with jews around that the implication would have been there, almost regardless of where he dropped it in them quarters.
It was a deep, dark passage, and I think that mattered a lot more to him; it allowed him to be sure that he could not be readily seen from the street when he disposed of the piece of apron. More practicality than ideology.

All the best,

Fisherman

Leather_Apron
19th December 2007, 04:34 PM
Well..Thinking about the apron I thought of this. If JTR were carrying a Gladstone Bag then why not put the organs in that? If JTR used the apron to wipe his hands and knife how could He carry the Gladstone Bag?

Seems its most likely JTR did not carry a bag or package.

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 04:36 PM
Wouldn't be quite as wrap-happy that way though, Gareth.
He was bent on escaping a crime-scene, Ben, not making pastry. The organs were eminently suitable to be stuffed into a pocket, and would not have leeched much blood.

What say ye to my idea of the "wet" corner having gotten that way by having touched one or other of the pools of blood alongside Kate's body?

Ben
19th December 2007, 04:40 PM
Hi Gareth,

The organs were eminently suitable to be stuffed into a pocket, and would not have leeched much blood.

But surely "no" blood is infinitely preferable to "some"? To my mind, it would have been churlish in the extreme not to have used the rag for the purpose I suggest - it would mean sullying his coat unneccesarily.

What say ye to my idea of the "wet" corner having gotten that way by having touched one or other of the pools of blood alongside Kate's body?

Not a bad suggestion at all. Still prefer my wrapped organs hypothesis, but the above gets a close "second favourite" vote.

Hi LA - What makes you think it "most likely" that the killer carried a bag or package, especially a Gladstone one?

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 04:42 PM
Hi ChavaG!

I believe that the faeces is the major reason for his urge to clean his hands.

There are three obvious ways in which the scenario with the pickpocketing holds water if the rifling came prior to the wiping:

1. There was gore on the pockets and the things from them. Not very credible.
2. He smeared just the one hand, and went through the pockets with the other. A lot more probable.
3. He made an initial effort to remove the faeces the moment he realized he had gotten soiled by it, THEN went through the pockets, and as he left the square, he took the apron with him to do a more extensive wiping, in order not to give him away out on the streets. Maybe the overall best explanation.

I think that what the fact that he brought the apron with him shows, is not that he was set on pointing out the jews as responsible, but that he simply felt the need to clean up more thoroughly than the time in the square had allowed him.

The best!

Fisherman

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 04:47 PM
Hi Ben,
Not if the organs, with attendant fluids etc, were on the inside of the bundle (hence the concentrated saturation in one corner)
If he lovingly placed the organs in one corner, then rolled up the cloth, I'd expect to see an increasingly diffuse series of red smudges, separated by a distance roughly equal to the circumference of the largest organ. This would be due to the blood being sucked by capillary action through successive layers from the point where the cut neck of the womb or renal vasculature touched the cloth. The pattern would be quite distinctive, fading to nothing towards the outer edge of the bundle (when rolled up), or the centre of the cloth (when unrolled and laid flat).
in which case his clothes wouldn't be sullied at all - handy, if that was the only coat in his possession.
Most dark clothing - especially the thick fabric of a jacket or overcoat pocket - would have easily concealed the <10ml blood one might expect to escape from those organs.

jcoram
19th December 2007, 04:48 PM
Well, breaking down the evidence we have a few things strike me.....

Firstly it is clear that the apron piece matched the portion of the apron left on Kate's body. As it was pointed out, why not just cut the apron string and snatch the whole apron rather than laboriously cutting down through it if he just wanted something to clean up on? Why not take a few of the rags? Why not take a cloth of his own with him?

From the description it's clear that Jack cut lengthways down the apron, which seems rather long winded, if he was in a hurry to get away. There were far quicker options and ones which needed less thought.

So why make sure he took a portion of apron that could me matched to a piece left on Kate? Could it have been because he wanted it to be positively identified as coming from her? If he had taken another piece of rag, without forensic testing there would have been no way of knowing where it had come from. The apron was instantly identifiable.

Now I'm not saying that this was because he wanted to prove the graffito genuine, although if anyone supports the GSG as being written by Jack, it's usable. However it is possible that he wanted to implicate the Jews for some reason, or lay a false trail, and that was a pretty good way to do it.

Jane

xxxx

Leather_Apron
19th December 2007, 04:51 PM
Ben..Not most likely..Most likely not..

Ben
19th December 2007, 04:55 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Implying the jews? No, I do not think that this was his purpose when he dropped the apron on its final address; there were so many districts crowded with jews around that the implication would have been there, almost regardless of where he dropped it in them quarters

I've heard this suggested before, but I don't believe it was quite the case. There were discernably Jewish areas in the district, and Goulston Street particularly so. In fact, it was one of five streets referred to by Charles Booth as being heavily Jewish-populated. A stone's throw North-East, and you're back in Gentile territory.

As for the risk of blood seepage, it's a valid point, but if he simply shoved them into his pockets without the external protection lent by a large absorbant cloth, the seepage would transfer to his coat, which could potetially spell disaster is a thorough house-to-house search was imminent.

Best regards,
Ben

Ben
19th December 2007, 05:00 PM
Hi Gareth,

I'd expect to see an increasingly diffuse series of red smudges, separated by a distance roughly equal to the circumference of the largest organ.

It depends on how absorbant the apron was. If flimsy, then yes. If a little more sturdy and resilient, we'd expect the concentrated stain observed by Long et al. That said, there's nothing to rule out diffused smudges you describe in addition to the corner stain. PC Long may have observed precisely that, but lacked the eloquence or vocabulatory to translate his observations into "capilliary action".

Most dark clothing - especially the thick fabric of a jacket or overcoat pocket - would have easily concealed the <10ml blood one might expect to escape from those organs.

Visual concealment may not have been a problem, but it would create a sticky mess which would congeal and smell after a short period of time. If there was a handy rag to prevent that from occuring, I've no doubt that he'd avail himself of it.

Best regards,
Ben

baron
19th December 2007, 05:01 PM
Jane,

I beat you to it, re: apron strings. I think he may not have known he had the piece in his hand, and that it was a cut and tear as the result of savagery rather than of design, per my earlier post.

Cheers,

Mike

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 05:08 PM
Ben writes:
"As for the risk of blood seepage, it's a valid point, but if he simply shoved them into his pockets without the external protection lent by a large absorbant cloth, the seepage would transfer to his coat, which could potetially spell disaster is a thorough house-to-house search was imminent."

Absolutely, Ben - but so would a kidney and a uterus lying about. And the town, not least Whitechapel, was full of butchers whose working clothes were bloodstained, and there was not enough knowledge to tell animal and human blood apart.

As for the blame-the-jews part, I am only saying that since there was such masses of jews in the area, I do not think that the implications would have been that obvious to the man on the street. And if Jack was the author of the GSG, it would certainly have made more sense to be a little more clear regarding the wording. "Another gentile whore dispatched by us jews" would have done.
But I do admit that the mystery would have been less intriguing. And I do think that Jack was not the author.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Jez
19th December 2007, 05:10 PM
Continuing this gruesome excursion into offal turnovers and such like, Eddowes's possessions also included two unbleached calico pockets. Perhaps Jack had taken another one of these and turned into a fecal panini.

Ben
19th December 2007, 05:23 PM
Absolutely, Ben - but so would a kidney and a uterus lying about. And the town, not least Whitechapel, was full of butchers whose working clothes were bloodstained

True, Fisherman, but if the house-to-housers were to discover that the coat-wearer was not a butcher or slaughterer, it could entail some awkward questioning. To my mind, it's not just a question of concealment, but rather the realisation that the yukkiness was there. The apron provided an ideal means of avoiding this.

As for the blame-the-jews part, I am only saying that since there was such masses of jews in the area, I do not think that the implications would have been that obvious to the man on the street.

I respectfully disagree, Fisherman. I think the local man on the street was acutely aware of which locations were frequanted and inhabited by Jews; an awareness that was no doubt heightened by the prevelant anti-semetism in the district. Warren's decision to erase the message was no doubt prompted by a knowledge of this. If someone other than Jack authored the GSG, it seems that at least one other "man on the street" knew of its inhabitants, and the police, in addition, would certainly have known the Jewish hotspots.

All the best!

Ben

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 05:30 PM
Ben!

"Warren's decision to erase the message was no doubt prompted by a knowledge of this".

No argues there, Ben! What I am pointing to is that there would have been numerous addresses all over Whitechapel that would have prompted sir Charles to take the exact same action.

The best,
Fisherman

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 05:32 PM
Hi Ben,
That said, there's nothing to rule out diffused smudges you describe in addition to the corner stain.
I agree, indeed, that's what I meant

The point is, whether the source of the blood was leeching out from within a bundle, or whether the source of the blood was the drenched corner of the apron, I'd expect to see this sort of pattern in either case, if - and only if - the apron were wrapped around the organs:

9920

The fact that no auxiliary splashes of red were reported may simply be due to an error of omission on the part of those who described the apron, but it may be significant. The fact that the bulk of the apron (not the "wet corner") was definitely described as apparently having wipe marks on it, rather than a line of dots, nudges me towards the "significant" end of the spectrum.

Ben
19th December 2007, 05:41 PM
Thanks for that, Gareth.

I'd be interested to ascertain the nature of the material, and the colour for that matter. If it was dirty and darkened, it may have been difficult to discern a smudge from a wipe...for example.

Cheers,
Ben

Jez
19th December 2007, 05:45 PM
"The white apron was so dirty that at first glance it seemed black."
The A to Z quoting Walter Dew

Ben
19th December 2007, 06:02 PM
Thanks for that, Jez!

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 06:10 PM
Yes, thanks for pointing out that quote from Walter Dew, Jez

Jez
19th December 2007, 06:13 PM
I can see where Sam is coming from in his disposal of blood patterns. It's a little like oragami where you cut the corner from folded paper and see a pattern emerge. On the whole, however, as blood was concentrated heavily in one end section, I would favour that the apron piece was used to wipe the knife and his hands - the rag being drawn down the knife to produce one noticeable clump of blood. I still think it probable that he took other remnants of rag from Eddowes as well for his "trophy".

Ben
19th December 2007, 06:17 PM
I would favour that the apron piece was used to wipe the knife and his hands - the rag being drawn down the knife to produce one noticeable clump of blood.

But why remove the apron piece for that purpose, Jez?

I'm not saying he didn't use the apron for knife/hand wiping, but I don't think that was its sole or even primary function.

Leather_Apron
19th December 2007, 06:19 PM
"The white apron was so dirty that at first glance it seemed black."
The A to Z quoting Walter Dew

At first glance. What about under proper light? Maybe the wiper marks were easily discernable under light.

Jez
19th December 2007, 06:29 PM
Hi LA, maybe Dew saw it in a proper light. He wasn't in Mitre Square as far as we know. Or he may have been passing on somebody else's observations. But, yes, he isn't the most reliable of sources.
Ben, you mean the apron piece was specially taken from the scene to be left as an undisputed clue? I wouldn't disagree with that possibility.

Ben
19th December 2007, 06:55 PM
Hi Jez,

I believe the rag had several functions; most crucially that of an organ-transporter to prevent his clothes getting needlessly soiled, but by disposing of it where he did, it also served the purpose of implicating the Jewish community. The buzzword here, I feel, is "opportunity". The rag afforded him the opportunity to ensure the relative cleanliness of his coat, just as a Jewish enclave afforded him the opportunity to perpetuate the already popular belief that the killer was a Jew. It would have taken a minimal amount of effort to take advantage of both.

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 07:00 PM
At first glance. What about under proper light? Maybe the wiper marks were easily discernable under light.
Hi LA,

We're talking about Walter Dew here - take his memory with a pinch of salt. I've no doubt that the apron was dirty, but "almost black" sounds like typical Dew hyperbole... if he saw the apron at the time in the first place.

monty
19th December 2007, 07:07 PM
Sam,

As Im sure you know, Watkins described Eddowes clothing, and therefore one assumes this included the remains of the apron, as filthy.

Monty

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 07:18 PM
As Im sure you know, Watkins described Eddowes clothing, and therefore one assumes this included the remains of the apron, as filthy.
Indeed, Monty - and fair enough. However, I doubt that Watkins, in surveying the body lying in Mitre Square, was giving anything more than an overall impression of filthiness. That does not mean that any one layer of Eddowes' clothing was so irredeemably filthy as to be almost black, as Dew would have us believe of the apron. Accounts of the inquest state that the apron was "discoloured (with blood)", which suggests that there was quite enough contrast between the cloth and the stains for the latter to be eminently visible from a reasonable distance.

supe
19th December 2007, 07:29 PM
Sam, Monty,

I suspect you are both right. Granted, filthy is a subjective observation, but there is still a great difference between filthy and black. That is something parents of a youngster would be familiar with. A regular romp in the summer may make a young boy's clothes quite filthy, but you have to have mucked about in a byre to render them black. Which, as I recall, was my usual state at the end of every summer's day way back when.

Don.

Trevor Marriott
19th December 2007, 07:40 PM
Now i have watched and read the postings on this topic most seem to be of the opinion that he cut the apron to take away the organs with. Needless to most will know i do not subscribe to this theory.

If for example all of you are "right" then why was none of Chapmans clothing cut off to take away her organs.

Now if you say he took something with him for that purpose then surely that negates the suggestion that he cut Eddowes apron to take away her organs because if it was pre planned he would have had something with him and not needed to cut the apron.

I go back to what i said in an earlier posting that if he wanted to clean his hands or his knife he would have done that at the scene.

Ben
19th December 2007, 07:48 PM
Hi Trevor,

If for example all of you are "right" then why was none of Chapmans clothing cut off to take away her organs.

We don't know that it wasn't, although it's possible that he plopped the organs directly into his pockets at Hanbury Street, realised it created a mess, and resolved to use a suitable container next time around. As for approaching a murder scene with a container at the ready, that would assume he had something suitable knocking around beforehand.

Best regards,
Ben

tom_wescott
19th December 2007, 07:50 PM
I believe good points have been made by Trevor, Jane, Baron, and others on this thread. And excellent sources provided by Sam, Monty and others. It seems most are in agreement that the Ripper did not cut the apron away simply to carry the organs off in. Nor did he do so only to wipe his hands and knife (although it may have served this purpose as well). In fact, it seems to me the knife would have become more or less wiped clean during the act of cutting away the apron. In any event he could have wiped clean on the apron without cutting it loose and taking it with him. The reason one corner of the cut apron was more 'wet' with blood than the rest is probably because this is the corner he held for resistance with his bloody left hand as he cut with his right.

Perhaps the answer as to 'why' he put himself at risk to take this bloody cloth away can be answered by looking at the aftermath of this action. The graffiti. It was taken seriously by investigators then and by many now because this apron was found underneath it. Those who dismiss the graffiti outright as having been written by her killer are the ones on this thread struggling to make sense of why the apron was cut and taken away. However, it all makes sense when we just let the historical record speak for itself.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ben
19th December 2007, 07:58 PM
Hi Tom,

If the killer wrote the GSG then yes, the apron may well have been disposed there to authenticate the message. That wouldn't invalidate the suggestion that it was also used to transport the innards beforehand, however. It probably served more than one purpose.

Best regards,
Ben

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:42 AM

tom_wescott
19th December 2007, 08:02 PM
Ben,

I agree 100%.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

ChavaG
19th December 2007, 08:11 PM
I don't think the piece of cloth was used to transport anything. And I don't think it makes complete sense to think he took it away meaning to draw some graffiti on a possibly Jewish wall and drop the cloth there to put the blame on the Jews. If that were the case, as has been mentioned above, I'd expect a graffito along the lines of 'Another filthy whore killed by my avenging Jewish Sword' or whatever. As described, the graffito in question was notable for its complete ambiguity.

I agree that the blood at one end of the cloth suggests it was steeped in Eddowe's blood for a few seconds. And it's certainly possible--even probably--that he wiped his hands at the scene. Unless the cop was approaching quickly and the Ripper could hear his footsteps getting closer and closer. So he grabbed at/ripped a piece of apron to continue to wipe his hands and took off.

I don't buy the 'let's implicate the Jews!!' theory for the above reason and because I don't see him hanging around to chalk something on a wall and maybe get spotted doing it. I do think he may have been out later than he intended--almost an hour if he killed Liz Stride and I think he did. I continue to believe he was heading home and thinking about explanations as to why he had been out so late and he didn't need to have to come up with reasons why he had blood on his hands as well.

Which means, to me, that he didn't live alone. And probably lived with someone he was accountable to.

Leather_Apron
19th December 2007, 08:12 PM
Hmm? If JTR was carrying a bag and He used the apron piece to wrap the knife in but put the organs in the bag then maybe thats why the bloody corner? Then later decides to leave the message and leaves the apron as a clue.
Most likely He had no bag though. Although I suppose I would have taken one.

tom_wescott
19th December 2007, 08:18 PM
Chava,

I'm also not convinced that the Ripper was attempting to blame the Jews, although I do believe that in all likelihood he wrote the graffiti.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ben
19th December 2007, 08:29 PM
I'm afraid I disagree with an awful lot there, Chava.

Firstly, the notion that he disposed of the apron in Goulston Street to implicate the Jews does not require the message to have been written by the killer. I'm on the fence as to whether he wrote it or not, but even if he didn't, the location was a well-known Jewish enclave; recognised as such by coppers and locals alike. With or without the GSG, the disposal site would potentially have incriminated an already "scapegoated" community, and it was in recognition of this outcome that Warren ordered the obliteration of the message.

You argue that the apron wasn't used to transport anything. Do you believe, then, that he simply bunged the organs into his pockets when there was an ideal opportunity to prevent his clothing being spoiled? I find that as difficult to accept as the "wiping-en-route" theory. It doesn't take more than five seconds to wipe the worst of the gore off, and just as long to liberate the apron segment.

Best regards,
Ben

Trevor Marriott
19th December 2007, 08:30 PM
Well its nice to see everyone contributing but its all academic as the ripper nor anyone else removed the organs from either Chapman or Eddowes at the crime scene.

tom_wescott
19th December 2007, 08:34 PM
Well its nice to see everyone contributing but its all academic as the ripper nor anyone else removed the organs from either Chapman or Eddowes at the crime scene.

You've said that twice now Trevor. Please let us know why you're so convinced of that in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. And also, how do you explain Mary Kelly's missing heart?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Trevor Marriott
19th December 2007, 08:43 PM
Was kellys heart taken away? from the evidence there is a doubt. If contrubuters here suggest it was then why wasnt it highlighted in inquest and the press.

I stand by argument that whover killed Eddowes and Chapman did not take away the organs from the crime scene. they were removed at mortuary by somone with some medican knowledge

Magpie
19th December 2007, 08:44 PM
Correct me if i am wrong and i sure you will but wasnt the apron piece torn not cut. and wasnt it torn from a repair which had been made to the apron previous.

In any event the ripper did not tear or cut the apron nor did he take away the organs of Eddowes or any of the other victims.

I believe that the apron was torn/cut across an older repair--it was by matching the repair that the apron was conclusively identified as Eddowes'. On the other hand Brown's testimony is vague enough to support either conclusion:

I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street

DYLAN
19th December 2007, 08:46 PM
Hi Chava.

I have to agree with every word that Ben has just said here.

Also, I think it's likely that the Ripper lived alone. If he had someone to whom he was accountable, I think that person would have got just a wee bit suspicious of this guy wandering the streets at odd hours on every occasion that a Ripper murder occurred. Where too would he have stashed the organs if another person lived with him ??

All the best.
DYLAN

Sam Flynn
19th December 2007, 09:22 PM
Do you believe, then, that he simply bunged the organs into his pockets when there was an ideal opportunity to prevent his clothing being spoiled? It doesn't take more than five seconds to wipe the worst of the gore off, and just as long to liberate the apron segment.
But Ben - there would not have been much blood remaining in those organs, and his hand or hands were almost certainly smeared with excrement, which (as we know) is more clingy than a clingy thing.

Ben
19th December 2007, 09:35 PM
Hi Gareth,

It would have been fearful stuff, no doubt, but it would only have taken a few seconds to wipe the worst of it off. To remove any more would have required water, which wasn't available at the crime scene. I'm sure he did use the apron to wipe his hands and knife, but I don't believe for a moment that he took it away for that purpose.

Best regards,
Ben

tom_wescott
19th December 2007, 09:42 PM
I'm sure he did use the apron to wipe his hands and knife, but I don't believe for a moment that he took it away for that purpose.

Ditto.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Jez
19th December 2007, 09:50 PM
I third that. I also think that the blood and muck on it was a necessary requirement for it to be linked with the murder. Had it been just a dry piece of cloth, the possibility is that it might have been ignored and never handed in. The wiping of knife/hands on it made sure of its origins.

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 11:09 PM
Hi all!

I think that the notion of the Ripper seeking to incriminate the jews is an unviable one. If a could be/would not be-situation arises, I always think it wise to look at similar cases. Turn to the long list of sexual sadistic serial killers (which I think is a description that is useful in the Rippers case) and find out how many of them that have opted for conveying political statements or tried to throw the guilt on different groups in society. They are precious few.
These deeds are almost always about subduing and controlling the victims, and imposing your power and sexuality on them, to then finally display your superiority by taking their lives. Finito. No subtleties there. All focus on the deeds.

Also, even if we accept that the Ripper had an agenda that involved scapegoating the jews, surely he could and would have made a clearer and more persistent show of it.
Why did he not write his accusations in blood on the walls in 13 Miller�s Court? He had the time. And the blood.
There would, to put it mildly, have been hundreds of ways to be very much more precise and clear if pointing a finger at the jews was his goal, than to throw a filthy rag in a doorway, a rag that could be carried away by any dog that passed it or even overlooked. Why not secure the rag by nailing it to the door with his knife? That would have done the trick.

If the Ripper had been interested in making statements, he had the ears of the world � and failed. I think that goes a long way to deflate the notion of a killer trying to incriminate the jews.

All the best,
Fisherman

Ben
19th December 2007, 11:22 PM
Hi Fisherman,

I'm not suggesting that the killer desired to make any political or religious statement, or even that the killer harboured any anti-semitic feelings himself. I'm merely suggesting that he sought to take full advantage of the prevalent anti-semetism in the district; the same anti-semitism that led to an underlying suspicion of a Jewish hand being behind the Whitechapel murders. It was to the end of keeping those suspicions alive that any Jew-implcating antics were directed, for in so doing, he'd be deflecting suspicion away from himself.

Why not secure the rag by nailing it to the door with his knife?

Obviously, because it would have attracted the attention of all and sundry, and would have been utterly pointless, if leaving it within the porch of a Jewish dwelling would have served the purpose with much less effort and risk.

Best regards,
Ben

GavinBW
19th December 2007, 11:24 PM
The possibility that he took the apron to simply wipe his hands should not be so easily dismissed. The objections to this idea are that he had plenty of time in the square to clean his hands (cutting the apron off would have taken as long it is said) and there would be no need to take the apron so far as Goulston Street.

However some seem to underestimate how long it takes to get rid of blood off your hands. Blood is a sticky substance that starts drying quickly. Rubbing your hands on a cloth may get rid of the excess but it will just rub dried, or drying, blood into your hands which is not easy to get rid of without the aid of water.

There are several factors which may explain the need for the killer to take away something to clean his hands. Firstly if the killer was interrupted by PC Harvey or Watkins, then he would need to get away immediately. He may have realised that he wouldn�t have time to get his hands completely free of blood and so needed to take some cloth with him. Another factor is that he had got faeces on his hands as well. He may have had a cloth already on him anyway to store the organs and maybe to wipe any excess blood from his hands as well. His plan may have been to have wiped his hands on the cloth then put the organs in and fold up the cloth so there was no blood on the outside to then put in a pocket. However he may not have wanted to wipe faeces into this cloth for the very reasons people suggest he had to get rid of the apron � it would smell and so he couldn�t take it into a lodging house or ordinary house with other people in. The approach of the PC may have made him hastily have to change his plans in this regard. So he may have got rid of the excess onto the apron quickly and put the organs away in his own cloth, then cut and took the apron away to ensure his hands were completely clean.

On the morning of Nichols� murder there would not have been a need to have his hands completely free of blood. At that time there wasn�t the state of panic in the area and someone seen with dried blood on his hands would not have been viewed as suspiciously as they would have been in later weeks. By the time of Chapman�s murder there may have been a need but certainly by the time of the 30th September the area was in panic and in a state of high alert. Men seen with dried blood on their hands would have aroused deep suspicion and the killer would have been aware of this. If he was pointed out by someone and stopped by the police and searched, the organs would have been found and this would have been enough for the police to detain him. In addition if he had also killed Stride then he would have known there would already be police looking for the culprit in the area to which he now had to return. Ensuring completely blood-free hands would have been essential.

If he had to flee quickly from Mitre Square because a policeman was approaching he would not have had time to ensure his hands were clean or to check under a light that he had achieved this. As people have said, if his intention was to clean his hands with the apron and to check under a lamp then the apron would have been found in Mitre Square. But if he had to flee because of an approaching police officer then he would not have had time to do this in the square. If he thought discovery of the body by this officer was imminent then he would have needed to get as much distance between himself and the square as quickly as possible before police came flooding into the area. As he fled he may have been wiping his hands and getting a glimpse under each lamp he passed to see if they were clean. However he may have felt that he wouldn�t have had time to stop until he was fair distance away and the fleeting poor light afforded by the street lamps as he went past would not have helped him see if his hands were adequately clean.

That the apron was said to be wet in the corner may have been a result of the killer putting the corner in some water � maybe a puddle as it had rained that night � to further assist in getting rid of the dried blood. The bloodstains on the wet corner may account for PC Long�s statement that it was �wet with blood� (some reports just said �wet�). It may be that only when he had got as far as Goulston Street did he think he was far enough away from Mitre Square to avoid discovery by police going to the scene of the crime and searching the immediate area around Mitre Square. Also he may not have wanted to go too far to avoid meeting police in the area of Berner Street. He would have wanted to get rid of the apron as soon as possible anyway. A piece of clothing, covered in blood and faeces, which could be identified as belonging to the victim would incriminate him if he had been found with it. Foster refers to a lamp near the doorway where the apron was found. It could be that he stopped and checked his hands by this lamp then discarded the apron into the next doorway to delay its discovery as he fled the area.

This is no more likely a situation that that proposed for using the apron to store the organs (at least temporarily). However it was said that the apron looked as though it had had hands or a knife wiped on it. Anyway I do not believe this scenario can be dismissed so lightly.

Fisherman
19th December 2007, 11:39 PM
Ben answers my question:

"Why not secure the rag by nailing it to the door with his knife?"

by writing:

"Obviously, because it would have attracted the attention of all and sundry, and would have been utterly pointless, if leaving it within the porch of a Jewish dwelling would have served the purpose with much less effort and risk"

Ben, how can nailing a knife to a door be pointless?

That taken aside, you also write:

"I'm merely suggesting that he sought to take full advantage of the prevalent anti-semetism in the district"

But that was exactly what he was NOT doing. "Taking full advantage of it" would have involved very much more than a rag dropped/tossed in a doorway. Thats why I am asking for something a little (or a lot, for that matter) more substantial and clear. But as we both know, nothing such is at hand. Nothing, nada, rien. And therein lies my contention that there was never any intention to send any message of any sort with that piece of apron. He had lots and lots of chances to reinforce such an accusation as you imply, and he took none of them.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

Pilgrim
20th December 2007, 12:29 AM
Effective symbolism works by - Suggestion/ (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER....on)Insinuation (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER....d=Insinuation). (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/WEBSTER.sh?word=Insinuation) The same might be said about any effective process of scapegoating. As no conscious or obvious intent can be proven.

~~~

�I believe there must only be allusion. The contemplation of objects, the images that soar from the reveries they have induced, constitute the song...To name an object is to suppress three quarters of the enjoyment of the poem, which derives from the pleasure of step-by-step discovery; to suggest, that is the dream. It is the perfect use of...mystery that constitutes the symbol...� St�phane Mallarm� (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St%C3%A...Mallarm%C3%A9), 1891.

~~~

My Regards.
.....http://www.geocities.com/stephenwoore/minerva3.gif
360 graden zicht vanop het dak (http://www.visoog.be/viewer.php?lang=dut&hotspot=24)

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 01:21 AM
Hi Guys!

One thing occurs to me and that is how the message was written. It was chalk on a wall, wasn't it? Which means, if the Ripper had intended to throw suspicion on the Jews he would have had to have the chalk with him. I can see him carrying a pencil with him in the way that a lot of us always carry a biro. But I don't see him having a piece of chalk unless he needed it in a general way of business. Perhaps he was a costermonger, chalking up the price of his fruit and veg...

But still that graffito sticks in my throat. It's been said above but it bears repeating. The Ripper could not have known that the dirty piece of rag would be (a) found at all and if found (b) identified as a piece of Eddowes's apron. The writing was probably very recent because the inhabitants of the tenement would have gotten rid of it as soon as they saw it. They wouldn't let that kind of thing stay up. However if the Ripper did write it, he took precious getting-away time to put it up and carefully position the cloth so it could be seen and identified.

It's the thing about the blood on the hands that made me even notice this. The Nicholls and Chapman murders were discovered by men going to work in the small hours of the early morning. Kelly* wasn't found until much later on in the morning but she hadn't been killed early either. She was also killed in the small hours. Chapman was apparently killed somewhere between 4.00 am and 5.30 am depending on whom you believe at the inquest. A butcher or meat porter or fish porter on his way to work might have a bloodstained apron and blood on the cuffs of his shirt and so on from his work the day before, and all the other murders took place during the work week. But Stride was killed late midnight Saturday night and Eddowes was killed around 1.40 am on Sunday morning. The porters etc didn't work on Sunday and probably would not be wearing their work clothes if they went out for a few drinks or whatever on Saturday night. Someone with blood on his person would have stood out much more then.

So, yes, I think he took the cloth to wipe up as he ran for it. Because PC Watkins hobmailed boots were ringing round the square and he had to get out fast! And his 'I'm just going to work, officer. It's a terribly dirty job, butchering' act wouldn't hold up since he wouldn't have been wearing the right clothes.

Jez
20th December 2007, 01:22 AM
Point taken Pilgrim, I think.
Insinuation is the best message-carrier.
The nice thing about a relatively small issue like Eddowes detached apron is that none of can ever be proved wrong. It will always come down to personal opinion. We all carry our own image/identity of Jack within us and we too easily transport that image to issues such as the piece of apron found in Goulston Street. I personally see Jack the Ripper as somebody who mounted a campaign of terror and tried, perhaps as an aside, to incriminate the Jewish population. I may well be wrong and Fisherman makes a fair point about the fact that he left no such message when Mary Kelly was slaughtered. For me, however, if the apron had been left accidentally, it was one very suspicious and almighty coincidence - particularly under a message so potent - despite its grammatical obscurity - that it was rubbed out to prevent a riot.

jcoram
20th December 2007, 01:27 AM
Just a small point about the state of Kate's apron and how dirty it might have been. As far as we know Kate was wearing her only clothes, and that apron is undoubtedly the one that she had been wearing when she was hop picking in Kent.

The main drawback of hop picking is that the hops stain the hands and by extension the aprons of the women as they wiped their hands on the cloth. What colour does it stain? Green and then black. It is very possible that Walter Dew saw the main portion of the apron that was filthy with hop stains.

The blood smears may well have been on the new portion of the apron that had just been stitched on, and the saturated corner almost certainly was on that cleaner part.......so really there might be no disparity at all between the various descriptions of the apron's state.

Jane

xxxxx

Ben
20th December 2007, 01:48 AM
Hi Chava,

So, yes, I think he took the cloth to wipe up as he ran for it. Because PC Watkins hobmailed boots were ringing round the square and he had to get out fast!

But it would have taken the same amount of time, if not more time, to remove the apron piece than it would to remove the worst of the gunk from his hands. The latter expedient would have taken less than five seconds - tops. It certainly wouldn't have required the length of time it would have taken to get from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. As Tom, Jez and a few others have pointed out earlier, he didn't need to remove the apron for that purpose alone if he had no other use for it - it wouldn't have made any sense. Accepting Gavin's observation, he could have scrubbed and scrubbed, but without water, the wiping action would only have got the worst of it off, and that would have taken a few seconds. The removal of the segment must logically have been promped by other considerations.

Hi Pilgrim,

Effective symbolism works by - Suggestion/Insinuation. The same might be said about any effective process of scapegoating.

Absolutely. This is why I feel it is folly to argue that Jack wasn't scapegoating the Jews because he didn't do it in an "obvious" enough way. Clearly, if you lay it on with a trowel (or a hammer and nails, Fisherman.

) you'll risk giving the game away. If suspicion-deflecting was on the agenda that night, it is more likely that the killer acted on the spur of the moment when disposing of the apron where he did. Rather than deciding from the outset that he was going to lay a Jew-implicating red herring, he probably took advantage of a potentially favourable situation there and then. Something along the lines of "Damn, where to get rid of this! Aha, Jews live here, that'll do!"

But even if he did seek to implicate the Jews prior to the Double Event (let's say), it still wouldn't have been acheived by creating a cacophany with a hammer and nails!

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:26 AM
The main drawback of hop picking is that the hops stain the hands and by extension the aprons of the women as they wiped their hands on the cloth. What colour does it stain? Green and then black. It is very possible that Walter Dew saw the main portion of the apron that was filthy with hop stains.
Intriguing suggestion, as ever, Janey. Personally, though, I have doubts whether Dew really saw it at all, and/or that he was embellishing his narrative. He evidently does so elsewhere, so why not here too?

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 02:50 AM
I would accept everything you are saying about the graffito if the Ripper was operating in a novel. The villainous mastermind who kills, runs, thinks carefully about whether the text he is about to leave is too damn' obvious, carefully leaves an incriminating piece of evidence he has thoughtfully brought with him and then saunters on his merry way no doubt a half-smile on his face would be an interesting character in a period thriller and in fact has featured that way any number of times.

But this isn't a novel.

Sometimes killers do things in a panic and they work out. Peter Sutcliffe was nearly caught murdering one of his victims. He shoved her body under an old horsehair sofa and ran. There she lay for a very long time before she was discovered. The Ripper had a minute or two at most to kill, mutilate, cut the cloth off and get out of there ahead of the cop who was approaching. I think he acted quick and it paid off for him. I have never doubted his fast reactions. But that whole 'blame the Jews via an obscure message and leave the cloth to make the point' thing just doesn't ring true to me. This is a guy who wants to dominate and kill. He doesn't give a damn who gets blamed as long as he doesn't.

Jez
20th December 2007, 02:56 AM
"1 piece of flannel & 6 pieces of soap."

This is one line of Kate's inventory of possessions. I would also be surprised - despite Dew's description - if she had allowed her apron to become so dirty. I think of that famous picture taken in Dorset Street where the women's aprons all looked so spotless. I imagine that a white apron was normally almost their only personal pride - a little similar to how women famously scrubbed and reddened their house steps. But, as Jane points out, Kate had only just come back from hop-picking.

tom_wescott
20th December 2007, 03:06 AM
"Two turntables and a microphone"

This is one line from Beck's inventory of possessions. I hope this helps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:44 AM

Ben
20th December 2007, 03:06 AM
The villainous mastermind who kills, runs, thinks carefully about whether the text he is about to leave is too damn' obvious, carefully leaves an incriminating piece of evidence he has thoughtfully brought with him and then saunters

I thought I made it reasonable clear that I don't believe he "thought carefully" about the text. I'm not even sure he wrote the message. I've merely suggested that he was presented - there and then - with the opportunity to take advantage of a prevailing mindset that was already working in his favour, and acted accordingly. As far as I'm concerned, he'd be piddling on his own bonfire if he bypassed it.

The Ripper had a minute or two at most to kill, mutilate, cut the cloth off and get out of there ahead of the cop who was approaching.

And cutting off a piece of cloth to run away with whilst wiping his hands would be a nonsensical move even if he was the most disorganised half-wit in a blind moment of panic. He could have wiped up in as much time as it takes to remove the apron. My alternative hypothesis is entirely consistent with a killer's mindset that would "do things in a panic and they work out". I think that's precisely what happened.

He doesn't give a damn who gets blamed as long as he doesn't.

Exactly. So if he's avoiding blame, in part, because the prevailing mindset is that a Jew may have been responsible, would it not be in the interest of a non-Jewish ripper to keep that prevailing mindset alive? It was to the end of deflecting suspicion away from himself - and in the direction of the vulnerable generic scapegoat - that his Jew-implicating antics (if that's what they were) were very probably directed.

Best regards,
Ben

tom_wescott
20th December 2007, 03:11 AM
The villainous mastermind who kills, runs, thinks carefully about whether the text he is about to leave is too damn' obvious, carefully leaves an incriminating piece of evidence he has thoughtfully brought with him and then saunters

Are we talking about Jack here or John Drake???

As for the message, I say it was to take credit for the Berner Street murder.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Jez
20th December 2007, 03:12 AM
"Two turntables and a microphone"

This is one line from Beck's inventory of possessions. I hope this helps.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Wow, Tom, satire!
I always admire your brevity.
I hope this helps.

Sox
20th December 2007, 05:39 AM
Far too much is made of this 'bloodstain' thing. Ever seen a bloodstain? Ever seen a bloodstain in the dark?

Blood stains red only on the lightest of cloth, and in the dark, even on light cloth, it looks black/dark - not red. To put it simply, all Jack needed to do was wear black clothes, & black was the Victorian colour.

How long after the discovery of Polly Nichols body was it before they realised the extent of her injuries? and that includes officers shining bull lamps over her.

No, bloodstains are not nearly as noticable as one might think.

The killer had long enough to butcher Kate Eddowes, time enough to wipe his hands & his knife. I agree with Ben, it makes no sense for him to waste time cutting cloth for a handwipe, he could have done it on the apron whole and he could have taken the cloth Eddowes had about her person, which he did find.

As Mr Wescott says 'I say it was to take credit for the Berner Street murder' and I agree with that. The only question that should really concern the investigator is, did he drop it near that message as a clear indication that he wanted to draw attention to the message, as his own.

baron
20th December 2007, 06:30 AM
Sox,

I think the question is why JTR cut a piece of the apron instead of taking the whole thing. Even if he wanted to be given credit for Berner Street, this must be answered. I feel certain that it wasn't for the transportation of bits, nor for the wiping of hands (though that may have been an added bonus). This leaves two possibilities: Either he just cut it in his attack and forgot he had it in his hand during the excitement, or he found the apron's knot too difficult to undo for whatever reason (the body lying on the knot, or just a knot that he couldn't see well enough to untie), but wanted that apron.

Either one of those possibilities leaves room for the deposition of the apron piece near the graffiti. It is too coincidental for me to think that JTR knew nothing of the GSG, yet chose to lay the apron beneath it. That being said, many strange coincidences do happen, including the fact that so many rock stars died at the age of 27, which is illustrated only for the point about coincidence.

Cheers,

Mike

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 07:04 AM
That being said, many strange coincidences do happen, including the fact that so many rock stars died at the age of 27, which is illustrated only for the point about coincidence.

And nearly all of them had names that began with 'J'. Coincidence? I think not!

Either way, that piece of apron bears close scrutiny. I take all your points about wiping blood, the colour of blood etc etc etc. They are all very convincing. But one thing remains. The Eddowes murder was the only murder where we know for sure the killer took something away from the victim. Whether he intended to use the cloth as a decoy to point to someone other than himself or whether he wanted to wipe off some caca that he'd involuntarily put his hand in while rummaging around in the victims insides, this breaks whatever pattern had been established.

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 10:21 AM
Hi all!

On the apron:
Ben returns to his statement that the worst soilng would not have taken more than five seconds to get rid of, and that is of course correct. Whether getting rid of �the worst� was something that the Ripper would have settled for, we do not know, however. I think that most of us agree that if we had our hands smeared with crap, we would be quite anxious to get rid of more than the worst of it. I believe that the Ripper would have been of that same opinion.
Therefore I also believe that he recognized the fact that some serious rubbing lay ahead of him. And I think that he would not contemplate sitting himself down on the pavement next to Eddowes butchered body to take care of the issue.
So he needed something that he could use to wipe his hands on, and he needed that something to be able to bring with him, leaving the square.
Opportunities?
12 pieces white rag.
1 piece course linen, white.
1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered.
1 piece red flannel with pins and needles.

These were the pieces of rag and cloth found on Eddowes. We know not how big they were, but considering the fact that there were no less than 12 pieces of white rag, for example, they would not have been bedsheet size. It is more reasonable to believe them smallish. Thus, if the Ripper searched her pockets prior to getting his hands smeared and knew they were there, he may have judged them inappropriate to handle the crap issue.

Next opportunity coming up would be the apron. That would be sufficient. In fact, it would be more than sufficient. No need to bring it all along, since a whole apron is quite big and difficult to handle and also to conceal, should the necessity arise.

Therefore he cuts away the amount he judges he needs, and leaves the scene, wiping away what could be wiped away, probably spending very much more than five seconds on it.

What do we know of that piece of apron? We know that Brown stated that �there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it.� And that, I would reason, seems to give away the purpose for which it was cut away � wiping away the crap and blood from his hands. And though the faeces is not mentioned in this sentence of Browns, it is in another: �Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street.�

My suggestion is that the apron travelled the distance from where the Ripper met other people on the streets, to the doorway in Goulston Street, in the Rippers pocket. When he had put some distance between himself and Mitre Square, and found a deep enough doorway in an empty street, offering the privacy he was looking for, he slipped into it and rid himself of the rag there.

Incidentally, Ben, I was never suggesting that he should have used a hammer and nails in Goulston Street to clarify his message, had he wanted to. I of course meant that he could have used his knife to nail the bloody piece of apron to the wooden door, thus ensuring it would stay in the passage.

All the best,

Fisherman

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 11:37 AM
i think the debate on this topic has been done to death (No pun intended) and posters have put forward their opinions which they are quite entitled to do so. However those opinions have been based on what has been put before them which may not be factually correct.

As far as the apron piece is concerned my understanding is that the apron piece was "wet", blood spots were found upon it and it was smeared with fecal matter.

Now for a start it wasnt raining that night so how did it become wet

If organs had been taken away it would be smeared with blood not spotted.

Blood spotting is consitent with female menstruation

Quite simple The apron piece had been used by Eddowes during menstruation it had been between her legs hence blood spotting and smearing of fecal matter. (As common today as it was then) !!!!!!!

As far as it being wet when people are drunk the tend to piss themselves

May I take this opportuntiy of wishing everyone a merry xmas and a happy new year and take the opportunity to thank all those who purchased my book. For those who didnt then theres still time before xmas

.

monty
20th December 2007, 11:43 AM
Sox,

The killer had long enough to butcher Kate Eddowes, time enough to wipe his hands & his knife

Can you cite evidence for this? How do you know he had the time?

Fisherman,

My suggestion is that the apron travelled the distance from where the Ripper met other people on the streets, to the doorway in Goulston Street, in the Rippers pocket. When he had put some distance between himself and Mitre Square, and found a deep enough doorway in an empty street, offering the privacy he was looking for, he slipped into it and rid himself of the rag there.

A common sense view and most likely IMHO.

Why do people assume the aporn was cut for a purpose instead of improvised?

Monty

baron
20th December 2007, 11:44 AM
Trevor,

are you suggesting Eddowes cut the apron herself to use as a sanitary napkin? Or are you saying that she simply tucked it up between her legs and Jacky took it with him after cutting off the desired length?

Mike

monty
20th December 2007, 11:54 AM
Trevor,

It had been raining till midnight and was damp, therefore the ground was still wet.

And I think you may have a few women posting on you latter comments.

And Merry Christmas to you too.

Monty

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 12:44 PM
I am saying precisley that and i wouldnt have posted those suggestions had in not researched those facts and know them to be correct.

I am sure the women will support the blood spotting as part of the menstrual cycle. Those suggestion i have poste are plausible far more than the marjority suggested by posters on here to this topic

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 12:52 PM
Trevor,

It had been raining till midnight and was damp, therefore the ground was still wet.
Correct, Monty. Not only that, but the weather chart for 30th September/1st October, and weather reports for the same period, show moderately strong winds blowing from the North-West across London. The entrance to 108 Wentworth Model Dwellings was looking almost directly into the teeth of this wind, and it's a fair bet that the passageway floor would have been wet from rain raking in through the opening, particularly on the southernmost side. Additional water may also have been carried in on the residents' boots earlier that evening.

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 12:53 PM
Furthermore Eddowes wasnt out in the rain was she was locked up. The apron piece was under cover when found so how did it get wet then we are talking about wet not damp.

Please dont reply by saying from when she was lying dead on the ground!!!!!!!!

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 12:59 PM
I am saying precisley that and i wouldnt have posted those suggestions had in not researched those facts and know them to be correct.
That women menstruate is beyond doubt. That Catherine Eddowes needed a couple of square feet of material to handle her period is very dubious. We don't even know that she was still menstruating - she was poorly fed and approaching 47 years old when she died, and she may already have been menopausal. Even if she weren't, to suggest that she cut a large area of her own apron to assuage her menses quite frankly beggars belief.

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 01:06 PM
Furthermore Eddowes wasnt out in the rain was she was locked up. The apron piece was under cover when found so how did it get wet then we are talking about wet not damp.
Because of the North-Westerly winds blowing into the northwest-facing doorway of 108 Wentworth Model Dwellings, perhaps. The doorway was open to the elements, remember - and the elements earlier that evening had been knocking on the door, if not wiping their feet, on the very flagstones on which the apron fragment was found.
Please dont reply by saying from when she was lying dead on the ground!!!!!!!!
When it was lying in the puddles in the Goulston Street doorway. What of the "one corner was wet..." bit? Wouldn't that be entirely conducive with the apron resting in a pool of liquid? If so, and that corner of the cloth was indeed wet with blood, it's quite feasible that it had dipped into one of the puddles of blood at Mitre Square and soaked up its share of gore, before the killer cut it away from the rest of the apron and made good his escape.

Ben
20th December 2007, 01:44 PM
Goos points, Sox,

Hi Fisherman,

The fact that the other items weren't reported as being sullied with anything nasty offers an additional indicator that the killer got the few-seconds' handwiping process out of the way relatively quickly, perhaps before he rifled through Eddowes' belongings. I've no doubt that the apron was used to hand-wipe, but this could have been done at the scene - when the segment was still attached to the rest of the apron - in as much time as it would take to detach it. No "serious rubbing" would have done the trick. To remove the nastines entirely would have required water, and for that he had to wait for his bolt-hole.

I'm afraid I'll never be convinced by the notion that he bunged the innards directly into his pocket when the ideal opportunity presented itself to prevent his clothes from getting unnecessarily soiled.

Best regards,
Ben

GavinBW
20th December 2007, 01:51 PM
Accepting Gavin's observation, he could have scrubbed and scrubbed, but without water, the wiping action would only have got the worst of it off, and that would have taken a few seconds. The removal of the segment must logically have been promped by other considerations.

Hi Ben,

Well, it was rather my point that it would take more than a �few seconds� to get rid of the worst of the dried blood. The �wet� excess would take a few seconds, but the hands would be covered in dried blood. This is what needed to be cleaned up. This would not just take a few seconds with a dry rag, and if he did wet it, who�s to say when this occurred to him or when he found the �water� to do it. Also the point is he would need a reasonable time to stop and check his hands under a light � he may have needed to clear the immediate area before he would feel he had time to do this i.e. stop and clean his hands properly where he could see what he was doing. He�d possibly want to avoid getting near to street lamps on his immediate escape to lessen the chances of being seen, so he�d possibly not have enough light to check his hands as he fled.

As for the suggestion that the bloodstains would not have shown up well in the dark. That is true, but if he had been stopped by police whom he knew would be on the lookout (and also from Berner Street) or was seen by someone who caught a glimpse of the blood � in the street or when he reached his lodgings � then he would have possibly faced some questions. Far better to simply ensure his hands were free of bloodstains at the earliest opportunity.

Gavin

monty
20th December 2007, 01:53 PM
Ben,

Are you saying he rifled through her belongings after mutilation?

Monty

GavinBW
20th December 2007, 01:57 PM
No "serious rubbing" would have done the trick. To remove the nastines entirely would have required water, and for that he had to wait for his bolt-hole.

In my earlier post I suggested that he could have used water from a puddle as it had been raining that night.

edit: Actually I address a couple of the points you make in that post.

Gavin

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:01 PM
Hi Gavin,

Well, it was rather my point that it would take more than a �few seconds� to get rid of the worst of the dried blood

But if the blood was really capable of drying that quickly, he would still have been forced to make do with getting the excess wet stuff off until he was afforded the opportunity to get his hands under some water. It is entirely possible that he did "check his hands" in the vicinity of Goulston Street, and that he gave his hands an additional scrub once in the privacy of the Wentworth Dwellings entrance, but I still believe he used the apron primarily as a container to prevent his clothes from getting icky.

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:07 PM
I'm afraid I'll never be convinced by the notion that he bunged the innards directly into his pocket when the ideal opportunity presented itself to prevent his clothes from getting unnecessarily soiled.
Ben - I say again - there would not have been much blood. Furthermore, any seepage would have been practically undetectable if the organs were stowed in a pouch of thick, dark fabric typical of a donkey-jacket's pockets, or those of a workman's coat.

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:07 PM
Hi Monty,

Yes, I believe so. Her various pockets had all been cut through, which suggests he had a rummage, most probably for money. An ammendment to my last post may be in order, though. It appears the rummaging occured before he wiped his hands, as evinced by the bloodstains on the pockets and handkercheif etc.

Hi Gareth,

Yes, but some blood is nowhere near as good as no blood, and if the perfect, glaring opportunity presented itself to acheive the "no blood" option, I've no doubt whatsoever that he'd seize it. We're dealing here, in all probability, with a loose "jacket" of lighter colour, rather than a huge heavy-duty overcoat.

Best regards,
Ben

GavinBW
20th December 2007, 02:13 PM
It is entirely possible that he did "check his hands" in the vicinity of Goulston Street, and that he gave his hands an additional scrub once in the privacy of the Wentworth Dwellings entrance, but I still believe he used the apron primarily as a container to prevent his clothes from getting icky.

Hi Ben,

Indeed that may well be the reason. However in my post from yesterday (on page 9) I address why he may not have got his clothes icky - he had taken his own cloth to clean up and store the organs. However the faeces on his hands meant he used the apron to get clean this off. Then he stored the organs in his own container - which would not then smell of faeces - and he needed to take the apron away as he had been disturbed and didn't have time to clean up sufficiently at the spot.

Anyway, I take your point - well made, as usual - but I am not convinced that he would need the apron primarily for any reason other than to just clean up. He may have needed it for another reason, but I don't think this is necessarily the case.

all the best
Gavin

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:21 PM
Hi Gaven,

The suggestion that the killer may have brought his own container to the crime scene is an interesting one. The question is whether the killer was in the position of having suitable rags or recepticles to spare for the purpose. If he was a casual dosser or member of the working class poor, it is more likely that he made use of what he could at the scene. If so, the apron segment would have been the only available organ-transporter/cloth-protector.

All the best!
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:23 PM
Hi Ben,
Her various pockets had all been cut through.
Wasn't that the case only with Chapman? Some layers of Eddowes' clothing had been cut through in a zig-zag fashion, but her pockets were largely intact as far as I'm aware. The fact that only a thimble, the mustard tin and a couple of buttons were found on the ground in Mitre Square, might suggest that Jack did hardly any rummaging in reality. If he had rummaged much further I'd have expected more "fallout" alongside her body, especially if the killer also cut through her pockets - given that Eddowes carried so many odds and sods in them that were only discovered and itemised after she'd been taken to the mortuary.

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:31 PM
Hi Gareth,

The following from the official police inventory may be of interest:

2 Unbleached calico pockets, tape strings, cut through, also top left hand corners cut off one.

1 blue stripe bedticking pocket, waistband and strings cut through (all 3 pockets), bloodstained

It may not have been as thorough a "rummage" as Chapman's on account of the time factor, but it seems reasonable to surmise that the killer was responsible for cutting through those pockets, and probably made off with whatever interested him.

Best regards,
Ben

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:49 AM

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:32 PM
We're dealing here, in all probability, with a loose "jacket" of lighter colour, rather than a huge heavy-duty overcoat.
No doubt there was no room in this chap's pockets on account of a hip-flask full of Pimm's

It had been raining that evening and 100% cloud-cover is recorded for most of the night - it's unlikely that anyone would have ventured out in anything other than a thickish coat, for fear of further rain.

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:34 PM
Thanks for this, Ben
The following from the official police inventory may be of interest:

2 Unbleached calico pockets, tape strings, cut through, also top left hand corners cut off one.

1 blue stripe bedticking pocket, waistband and strings cut through (all 3 pockets), bloodstained
I was aware that the pocket strings were cut through, as was the apron string I believe - but that's not the same as willfully cutting open the body of her pockets. All in all, it rather sounds like collateral damage as he cut through the "belt" region to free up the apron piece.

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:35 PM
No doubt there was no room in this chap's pockets on account of a hip-flask full of Pimm's

Lovingly wrapped in American cloth, no doubt.

I'm basing my coat-related musings largely on the strength of Lawende's sighting, and a "loose-fitting pepper and salt jacket" strikes me as relatively flimsy affair.

I'd be very surprised if the pocket cuts were accidental. If the body of the pockets had been attcked, it would be easier to chalk the cuts up to collateral, incidental damage, but the fact that the pocket strings were severed suggests that they were deliberately targetted (in "all three pockets"). The fact that they were bloodstained would similarly be indicative of the killer's hand reaching in afterwards.

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 02:45 PM
Ben!

I respect your view on the apron being turned into a carrying parcel; you are of course quite entitled to it. But I think we need to look at the factual evidence existing - it was testified that the apron was used as a means to wipe of blood and gore.

When it comes to your response to Gavin, worded �But if the blood was really capable of drying that quickly�, I think that what Gavin is speaking of here is not the fact that the blood itself dries up quickly. But if you help it in that process by using a dry cloth to wipe your hands, the liquid content of the blood will go into the cloth, whereas other parts of it, including numerous red blood cells will not.
If you dip your hands in fresh blood and rub them, you will have a feeling of thin oil. If you dry them off with a piece of rag, removing the liquid, they will immediately turn sticky and red colour will remain at least in the cavities of the skin. I think this is what Gavin is getting at.

Something you return to time and time again, is that the Ripper would have tried to avoid the �icky� feeling of having bloodleaking innards in his pockets.
I think not.
You and me, Ben (well, me at least) would not take any pleasure in cutting an abdomen open and reaching into the blood and gore with our hands. Nor would we enjoy carying freshly cut out kidneys in our pockets.

To a man like, say, Jeffrey Dahmer, it would have been another thing altogether. Have a look, Ben, at what the reports from the lairs of men like Dahmer and Ed Gein tells us. They lived in appalingly sordid conditions, with human parts and blood all over the place. Their interest in hygiene was non-existant. Many a nutcase has been sent to the gallows for the simple fact that they themselves took no notice of the putrid stench that made their neighbours call the police. And this applies mainly in the cases where killers remove body parts from their victims. In other words, killers that were into the same collecting business as our man.
Gore, blood and scraps of human bodies have been found in various places, from the refrigerators to the winkles of killers�s mouths, so I would not subscribe too fervently to the Ripper having second thoughts on soiling a pocket of his.

All the best, Ben!

Fisherman

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 02:50 PM
Lovingly wrapped in American cloth, no doubt.

Naturellement!
I'm basing my coat-related musings largely on the strength of Lawende's sighting, and a "loose-fitting pepper and salt jacket" strikes me as relatively flimsy affair.
It says nothing about the darkness of the cloth - the ratio of salt to pepper, if you like - or the thickness of the fabric. There are plenty of pictures of contemporary working-class men wearing baggy, coarse clothing, and I shouldn't be surprised if that style of couture was what yer average Jack-about-town would have worn.

Also, the prevailing weather conditions have to be taken into account.
I'd be very surprised if the pocket cuts were accidental.
Pocket-strings. Let's keep the terminology as exact as we can

the fact that the pocket strings were severed suggests that they were deliberately targetted (in "all three pockets").
I rather think it's more likely that yer man shoved his knife under several layers of cloth and cut upwards, severing every string - whether pocket or apron - in one go. In addition - why cut through a pocket-string when you're interested in the contents of the pocket itself? It doesn't help any.
The fact that they were bloodstained would similarly be indicative of the killer's hand reaching in afterwards.
Or that they were in contact with bloody flesh. It's not inconceivable that the various bands and strings were cut at the same time he drew the knife down from beneath Eddowes' sternum. The zig-zag cut on some of her undergarments have often prompted me to think that he cut through one or two layers of clothing as he inflicted the zig-zag wound to her belly, and PC Watkins (I think it was) states in one report that there were bloody fingerprints on one such undergarment that appeared to have "got in the way".

Ben
20th December 2007, 02:56 PM
Hi Fisherman,

If you dip your hands in fresh blood and rub them, you will have a feeling of thin oil. If you dry them off with a piece of rag, removing the liquid, they will immediately turn sticky and red colour will remain at least in the cavities of the skin. I think this is what Gavin is getting at.

Oh, I agree entirely, which is why he could only remove so much of the blood until a water source became available. The act of scrubbing would only have removed the wet excess, leaving the sticky red-discolouring still adhering to the skin.

I'd disagree, though, with the notion that all sexual serial mutilators have poor hygeine and have no particular interest in keeping their clothes free from gore. Some are suprisingly fastidious when it comes to personal cleanliness, and even if they aren't, it's usually in their interest to remain as ickyness-free as possible so as to avert suspicion. A pooey coat with sticky pockets could, if discovered, have precipitated some awkward questions for the wearer.

Cheers,
Ben

monty
20th December 2007, 02:58 PM
Ben,

My apologies, I wasnt clear.

I meant did he rifle the belongings after the mutilation to the abdomen?

Sam,

Watkins noted a bloody fingerprint on her chemise...which was dirty by the way.

Monty

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 03:01 PM
Ben writes:
"I'd disagree, though, with the notion that all sexual serial mutilators have poor hygeine and have no particular interest in keeping their clothes free from gore"

...and I find myself searching my last post for the passage where I stated something like that categorically. Fail to find it though...

...which of course could have something to do with the fact that I never thought, let alone stated, such a thing. What I did was to point to the obvious possibility that the Ripper could�nt have cared less about a little blood inside his pockets. Not all serial sexual murderers are surprisingly fasti....whoops! Let�s not make THAT mistake, shall we?

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

Ben
20th December 2007, 03:07 PM
Hi Gareth,

It says nothing about the darkness of the cloth - the ratio of salt to pepper, if you like - or the thickness of the fabric.

True, but Lawende wouldn't have made the "salt and pepper" observation if the material was over-furnished in the "pepper" department. That way, it would have been indistinguishable from dark grey or black. Jackets are conventially made of lighter material, and are designed with shallower pockets than a huge all-concealing overcoat. Check out that photograph of a man stroking a cat in the kitchen of the Victoria Home.

In addition - why cut through a pocket-string when you're interested in the contents of the pockets itself? It doesn't help any.

The severance of the strings would have been the quickest and simplest means of accessing the contents, although it's noteworthy that the top left hand corner was cut from one. The "all three pockets (cut through)" is also crucial, and must surely negate the suggestion that the pockets weren't deliberately targetted. They would not, incidentally, have been in contact with bloody flesh - certainly not topside. The underside would have been touching the cloth of the next garment down.

Can't quibble with your astute zig-zag observation though. Good call!

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 03:15 PM
Hi Ben,
The term "jacket" is indicative of lighter material
Here's my hommage to Mr Poster's profile pic, featuring a worker wearing a jacket:

9942
The strings would have been the quickest and simplest means of accessing the contents
I think the tops of the pockets would have been the first logical place to look for the pockets' contents - not the strings tying them to her waist.
although it's noteworthy that the top left hand corner was cut from one.
Again, consistent with collateral damage - why deliberately snip off the top corner of a pocket, anyway?
The "all three pockets (cut through)" is also crucial
Pocket-strings, remember.
, and must surely negate the suggestion that the pockets weren't deliberately targetted.
Quite the contrary. Insert knife, twist, pull, twanggg.....! Three - or four, counting the apron - for the price of one

Ben
20th December 2007, 03:35 PM
Hi Gareth,

Here's my hommage to Mr Poster's profile pic, featuring a worker wearing a jacket

Fancy creeping up and snapping a poor man trying to have a private pee against a fence!

From my understanding, the strings served the additional function of securing the tops of the pockets into a "bunch" of sorts to prevent spillage and was dependent upon the strings being taut. If slackened, the opening is loosened. The cut-off corner was probably the result of an initial botched attempt to access the contents.

Insert knife, twist, pull, twanggg.....! Three - or four, counting the apron - for the price of one

Followed by a "Gotcha! Let's see if there's a penny or two in here. Not the reason I'm doing this, but I'm poor, so while I'm here"....!

Best regards,
Ben

GavinBW
20th December 2007, 03:39 PM
When it comes to your response to Gavin, worded �But if the blood was really capable of drying that quickly�, I think that what Gavin is speaking of here is not the fact that the blood itself dries up quickly. But if you help it in that process by using a dry cloth to wipe your hands, the liquid content of the blood will go into the cloth, whereas other parts of it, including numerous red blood cells will not.
If you dip your hands in fresh blood and rub them, you will have a feeling of thin oil. If you dry them off with a piece of rag, removing the liquid, they will immediately turn sticky and red colour will remain at least in the cavities of the skin. I think this is what Gavin is getting at.

Hi Fisherman,

That is indeed what I meant. Thank you.

cheers
Gavin

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 03:45 PM
Hi Ben,
The cut-off corner was probably the result of an initial botched attempt to access the contents.
...why not just rip the dratted thing apart, or slice a hole in the middle of it? It's not as if Jack would have cared about damaging the pocket beyond repair, and time was pressing. In such circumstances, treating the pocket like an icing-bag was hardly uppermost on the killer's mind.

This snipped pocket corner has all the echoes of collateral damage - not least because the top corners of the pocket would have been nearest the string, which we know was cut.

Ben
20th December 2007, 03:53 PM
Hi Gareth,

The string was probably cut for expediency's sake more than anything, not because he was particularly anxious to leave the pocket intact. That said, a haphazard pocket ripping would have resulted in any coins therein being spilled out and lost in the dark, or in the abdominal cavity.

Cheers,
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 04:16 PM
That said, a haphazard pocket ripping would have resulted in any coins therein being spilled out and lost in the dark, or in the abdominal cavity
That may have been true whatever tactic he employed - why, therefore, after cutting the strings, didn't he pull the pockets fully away from the body and rummage "offline", either in the square or later? Why only cut one pocket and not the others?

All in all, Ben, it strikes me that Jack wasn't the least bit interested in the contents of Eddowes' pockets.

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 04:18 PM
Ben, on second thoughts when it comes to the rare species that take body parts from their victims; how many tidy, prudent characters can we come up with? Off hand, I can�t think of any such man. Can you?

Men like Dahmer, Kroll, Fish, Chase and Gein seem to share the sordid homes and low-life physical appearance. There are characters that swear against this to some extent, and the one person that leaps to mind here is of course Fritz Haarmann. He cared about his physical appearance to an obvious extent, although he was nothing in the order of K�rten. But Haarmaan added an economical interest to his killing lust, and sold the flesh from his victims as meat for eating. Thus he was not all the same kind.
And although he did not give a shabby appearance, he had nothing against dealing in blood and gore, as stated at his trial:

"I'd make two cuts in the abdomen and put the intestines in a bucket, then soak up the blood and crush the bones until the shoulders broke. Now I could get the heart, lungs and kidneys and chop them up and put them in my bucket. I'd take the flesh off the bones and put it in my waxcloth bag. It would take me five or six trips to take everything and throw it down the toilet or into the river. I always hated doing this, but I couldn't help it � my passion was so much stronger than the horror of the cutting and chopping."

It is also believed by many scientists that there is a connection between schizophrenia and the organ taking that is brought about by a wish to eat human flesh. This could perhaps to at least some extent account for the conditions under which many of these killers live.

What say you, Ben; can you off-hand offer any posh trophy-taker who would think a kidney in his pocket "icky"? I am not saying they can�t be there, mind you. But I am saying that I have a hard time trying to come up with one.

The best,

Fisherman

Ben
20th December 2007, 04:44 PM
Hi Gareth,

why, therefore, after cutting the strings, didn't he pull the pockets fully away from the body and rummage "offline", either in the square or later?

Surely it wouldn't have made a scrap of difference? If he was already "at" the body, it was as good a place as any to do a bit of investigative delving for a few coins? The pocket cut was probably a botched or over-zealous attempt to sever the string as close to the pocket as possible so as to access the contents.

All in all, Ben, it strikes me that Jack wasn't the least bit interested in the contents of Eddowes' pockets.

I can't agree, Gareth. I think the reverse was true.

Hi Fisherman,

I'm not saying that Jack was a tidy, prudent character, and I've certainly never envisaged him as "posh". I don't, however, believe he was as haphazard and disornagised as some of the serialists you've listed; history has demonstrated that serial killers are quite capable of being organised, superficially "normal", but still engage in evisceral depravity - the loathsome Andrei Chikatilo being a good example. In fact, the more "out there" crazy disorganised ones are in the conspicuous minority in comparison to their psychopath/sociopath counterparts. There's no evidence that anyone of the offenders you named were content with having bloodstains secreted about their persons, and this is as much concerned with the avoidance of detection as it is with cleanliness.

What say you, Ben; can you off-hand offer any posh trophy-taker who would think a kidney in his pocket "icky"?

Could have been all of them, for all we know.

Best regards,
Ben

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:52 AM

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 05:02 PM
Ben writes:
"There's no evidence that anyone of the offenders you named were content with having bloodstains secreted about their persons"

Chase, Ben? Dahmer? Fish? Pulling my leg, are you? Chase was dubbed the Sacramento Vampire, and he CRAVED blood, since he thought that his own life would seep away from him without it. There were bucket marks on the carpets beside his victims...
I think that we can be very much content to believe that men like these had no problem at all with the issue of getting bloodied by their victims. To throw forward a suggestion of the opposite is... may I say "ludicrous" without hurting your feelings? For I really think it is.

In accordance with this, I say it stands to every reason that we can lightheartedly dismiss the notion that the Ripper would have hesitated to get his clothing "ickied" by carrying the occasional innard with him. At the very most, he may, like Haarmann, have realized that it was a gruesome thing to do - and then he would do it anyway. But in all probability he never had a second thought about it - to think that it would have filled him with joy, expectations and a sense of being invincible would be the logical and consequential thing to do, given the evidence we have from later cases of trophytakers.

All the best, Ben!
Fisherman

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 05:04 PM
Sam i know you are a very knowledgeable man and you are passionate about this mystery as we all are and you really belive that JTR killed these victims and removed the organs at the crime scene.

i thinks its time you took a step back and stopped looking at this through rose tinted glasses. Every time someone on here puts forward a plausible explanation or puts their view across, Straightaway back you come with your own answers trying to negate what others say You cant be right all the time !!!!!!!

The truth is out there but with your blinkered approach to all of this you may never know if it jumps up and smacks you in the face

Ben
20th December 2007, 05:14 PM
I think that we can be very much content to believe that men like these had no problem at all with the issue of getting bloodied by their victims. To throw forward a suggestion of the opposite is... may I say "ludicrous" without hurting your feelings? For I really think it is.

Almost as ludicrous as the assumption that Jack the Ripper must have been as disorganised and haphazard as the serialists you've referenced, after historical precedent has already shown them to be in the minority. Even John Douglas, who suggested in the 1990s that the ripper hay have been such a person, also expressed the opinion that he'd be distressed when confronted with the fact that he would have become personally soiled by the blood of his victims.

So it doesn't really matter if you think it's incongruous - serial killers are quite capable of engaging in all manner of depraved, organ-pinching mutilations, but at the same time ensuring that they do not have their garments blood-soaked, chiefly because the latter has a greater chance of eliciting suspicion if the offender is searched and questioned...which, incidentally, is a consideration that has nothing to do with whether they think organs on clothes is "icky" or not.

I say it stands to every reason that we can lightheartedly dismiss the notion that the Ripper would have hesitated to get his clothing "ickied" by carrying the occasional innard with him

No, we most certainly cannot. Because that would be ridiculous. Because history has demonstrated, on several occasions, that serial killers are capable of being normal, relatively hygenic, and organised but also engage in ghastly mutilations.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 05:15 PM
You are absolutely right, Trevor: Sam can not be right all the time!

Then again, I have never heard him stating that he would be.

I have often been surprised, though, by the factual number of times that he actually IS right. And I would suggest that if you are looking to find someone you could convince of being very much unaware of what took place in 1888, there are somewhat easier catches to be made.

The best, Trevor!
Fisherman

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 05:19 PM
Ben says:
"So it doesn't really matter if you think it's incongruous - serial killers are quite capable of engaging in all mabber of depraved, organ-pinching mutilations, but at the same time ensuring that they do not have their garments blood-soaked, chiefly because the latter has a greater chance of eliciting suspicion if the offender is searched and questioned."

Surely, Ben - but that was not what the matter was about, was it? It was about the Ripper finding it "icky" to carry bloody organs on him. Trying to evade detection, would that not be another issue altogether?

And that also answers your next issue:
"history has demonstrated, on several occasions, that serial killers are capable of being normal, relatively hygenic, and organised but also engage in ghastly mutilations."

Yes, Ben. But has it demonstrated, on several occasions, that these killers found it "icky" to carry organs in their pockets? Please keep to the subject. You suggested it yourself, mind you.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
20th December 2007, 05:25 PM
Surely, Ben - but that was not what the matter was about, was it? It was about the Ripper finding it "icky" to carry bloody organs on him. Trying to evade detection, would that not be another issue altogether?

Indeed, Fisherman, and the evasion of detection would have course have been the initial consideration in wishing to keep his clothes gunk-free, but as regard the ickiness issue, yes, I believe most would seek to avoid it if the opportunity prevented itself in the form of a handy bit of cloth. I like honey on toast, but not in my pockets.

All the best,
Ben

DYLAN
20th December 2007, 05:33 PM
Hi guys.

Excuse me poking my nose in here, but I've found all these arguments really fascinating, and well worth following.

Maybe Sam can't be right all of the time, but speaking purely personally, I believe him to be right at least 98% of the time on these particular issues.

Okay, carry on chaps.

All the best.
DYLAN

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 05:34 PM
The truth is out there but with your blinkered approach to all of this you may never know if it jumps up and smacks you in the face
Where I see grounds for implausibility, or perceive a more rational explanation I'll flag it up. I can't see anything wrong in that.

Even if I were blinkered, at least it would help keep my horse on a steady course. Others may take as many diversions or leap as many self-inflicted hurdles as they please. Nothing I say can prevent them from doing that, and neither would I wish to stifle innovative thinking, provided sound reasoning prevails.
Every time someone on here puts forward a plausible explanation or puts their view across, Straightaway back you come with your own answers trying to negate what others say
Now, I see it the other way round. I see plenty of others stamping on fires whenever their world-view is threatened. It takes two to tango, and it ain't always me that takes the lead in this merry dance I can assure you.

Now, back to your idea that Eddowes needed a sheet half the size of a fire-guard to handle her menstrual flow...

monty
20th December 2007, 05:47 PM
The truth is out there but with your blinkered approach to all of this you may never know if it jumps up and smacks you in the face

Again, the irony.

Gareth, I know which horse Id back sunshine.

The sheer audacity in the face of common sense. I try to take you serious Mr Marriott, but alas, with posts like that, its becoming increasingly hard to.

Monty

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 05:48 PM
Hi Ben,The pocket cut was probably a botched or over-zealous attempt to sever the string as close to the pocket as possible so as to access the contents.
Why not cut it down the middle? Why not pluck the whole thing away from the body and open it "offline", as I've already suggested? And that's just one pocket, only minimally damaged at the periphery. The other pockets were seemingly undisturbed to the extent that their contents were only discovered much later, after the body had been removed. In all this, there is next to no evidence that Jack was at all interested in the pocket contents - which is why I feel it's fully justifiable to maintain that he wasn't.

Ben
20th December 2007, 05:58 PM
Hi Gareth,

Why not cut it down the middle? Why not pluck the whole thing away from the body and open it "offline", as I've already suggested?

Because the first option entailed the risk of contents spillage, and the second strikes me as somewhat pointless if he was already "at" the body. I'm afraid I find it impossible to reconcile the notion that the pockets were "seemingly undisturbed" with a contemporay police inventry which included the detail "waistband and strings cut through (all three pockets)" - which could easily mean that the pockets themselves were cut through. If the clothing had evinced no signs of pocket-bothering, they'd hardly have been mentioned in that context.

Regards,
Ben

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 06:08 PM
This is an answer to the comment about Eddowes' possible menstrual napkin, given that I seem to be the only woman on this thread. What was done in those days and right up until someone invented disposable napkins was this: you took a large piece of soft cloth. You folded it over and over. You pinned it between your legs. It had to be large enough to fold and fold and fold so as to prevent any leakage. I know the idea of this is queasy-making to guys but there it is. Therefore it's entirely possible that Eddowes had a large piece of cloth to use for this purpose. Oh, and by the way, we don't get fecal matter on our napkins, OK? That never happens. Some people have no idea of female anatomy!

If Lawende's description is right then it's entirely possible that the Ripper grabbed some cloth to try and wipe some blood off. 'Pepper and salt' is a light colour and wouldn't half show up some stains.

Happy holidays!
Chava

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 06:08 PM
I find it impossible to reconcile the notion that the pockets were "seemingly undisturbed" with a contemporay police inventry which included the detail "waistband and strings cut through (all three pockets)" - which could easily mean that the pockets themselves were cut through.
It means that the pocket strings were cut through, as were other bands around her waist, Ben.

Eddowes' possessions comprised:

* 2 small blue bags made of bed ticking
* 2 short black clay pipes
* 1 tin box containing tea
* 1 tin box containing sugar
* 1 tin matchbox, empty
* 12 pieces white rag
* 1 piece course linen, white
* 1 piece of blue and white shirting, 3 cornered
* 1 piece red flannel with pins and needles
* 6 pieces soap
* 1 small tooth comb
* 1 white handle table knife
* 1 metal spoon
* 1 red leather cigarette case
* 1 ball hemp
* 1 piece of old white apron with repair
* Several buttons and a thimble
* Mustard tin containing
* Printed handbill
* Portion of a pair of spectacles
* 1 red mitten

...of which only the thimble, the mustard tin and a few (not several) buttons were found on the ground near the body. If the three pockets had been cut open, we might have expected a little more "spillage" than that.

Although I can't prove it, I get the distinct impression that it was Eddowes herself who may have fished for that handful of items, just before she was attacked. This may explain why the thimble was found in close proximity to her hand when the body was discovered.

Ben
20th December 2007, 06:21 PM
Hi Gareth,

I'm not saying the killer emabarked on as extensive a sort-out as the aftermath of the Chapman murder, but the preponderance of evidence - the mention of cut pockets and pocket strings, coupled with the items discovered on the floor - suggests that he did have the briefest of rummages through Kate's possessions, as evidenced also by the fact that valueless items only remained.

In fact, thinking on, the items found outside the pockets were the "jangly" or metallic objects, and I don't see this as coincidental. This, to my mind, is wholly consistent with an inspection of the potentially "interesting" items. "Hey, these look shiny and jingly....wait a minute, nope, all crap". As for whether or not the pockets were cut (cut "through" as opposed to cut "open"....pedantic, moi?), it's the "waistband and strings cut through (all three pockets)" which retains my interest. Since any mention of pockets is pretty irrelevent if he had only cut the strings, it seems pretty safe to assume that the intended meaning was "waistband and strings cut through (and all three pockets).

Best regards,
Ben

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 06:22 PM
'Pepper and salt' is a light colour
Not if it has more "pepper" than "salt" in the weave, Chava. Here's an example of a dark S&P jacket, and very smart it is too:

9945

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 06:28 PM
Hi Ben,
Since any mention of pockets is pretty irrelevent if he had only cut the strings, it seems pretty safe to assume that the intended meaning was "waistband and strings cut through (and all three pockets)".
...the relevance is surely contained in the fact that only the pocket strings are reported as having been cut through. It is inconceivable that the severance of the peripheral items (the strings) were reported and not the salient items (the pockets).

As a thought experiment, substitute "strings" and "pockets" for "laces" and "boots" - I can't imagine a pair of snipped laces would have been the only thing reported, if the boots they fastened had also been cut or ripped open.

Ben
20th December 2007, 06:37 PM
...the relevance is surely contained in the fact that only the pocket strings are reported as having been cut through

Ah, but that's just it, Gareth. I believe the inventry was saying that the pockets had been cut through. Either the strings were entirely incidental to the pockets, or they provided some sort of impediment between an inquisitive hand and the pockets' contents. If the latter, it follows that the strings were cut to access the contents, but if the former, there was absolutely no reason to mention the pockets at all in connection with the strings....but they did, which allows for the interpretation that the pockets themselves had been cut.

Cheers,
Ben

Pilgrim
20th December 2007, 06:45 PM
...........Not if it has more "pepper" than "salt" in the weave, Chava. Here's an example of a dark S&P jacket, and very smart it is too:

M&Co - Not Found

http://www.mandco.com/content/ebiz/mackays/invt/1800531/1800531_grey_m.jpg....http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1396/537907417_a6cd31a097_o.jpg

Shop new season trends for Women, Mens, Kids and Home. Give your wardrobe a style refresh. Shop online and instore.

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 06:46 PM
Hi Ben,I believe the inventry was saying that the pockets had been cut through.
You may believe that, but the inventory categorically does not state that.
if the former, there was absolutely no reason to mention the pockets at all in connection with the strings....but they did, which allows for the interpretation that the pockets themselves had been cut.
No, it doesn't, because nowhere at all are the pockets themselves reported as being cut, apart from the top left-hand corner of just the one. Why mention the top left-hand corner of one pocket alone, if the rest of the pockets had been cut open?

If there is any room for interpretation here, it's the sort of room for interpretation that makes people see the face of Jesus in a slice of toast.

Mr. Tea
20th December 2007, 06:46 PM
No time like the present for my very first post. Greetings, all.

The GSG and apron fragment have always seemed very odd to me. It doesn't feel planned.

If the killer thought there was a possibility of removing and transporting some sticky organs, I think he would have come prepared. I'll also go out on a limb, and say he was certain that his hands would get messy. He probably had a plan for that, too.

So why cut the corner off of the apron? The simplest answer would be that he needed a piece of cloth for something. Something happened that he hadn't come prepared for, and he need an extra piece of cloth quickly. So what could have happened, that he didn't expect to happen, that would have required a piece of cloth immediately?

I think he cut his hand, and cut it fairly badly. He then slices off a convenient piece of apron (already soiled from his ravaging), wraps the cut, and off he goes. Maybe if there were puddles around from the rain, he occasinally dips his hand (wrapped in the apron) in the water of a puddle, to crudely rinse the accumulating blood.

Why would he take a piece that was already soiled with blood and fieces? It was dark, he was in a great hurry, and that apron corner was most accessible and convenient cloth available from where he was crouched. At that point, time would be more important than anything else.

Once he is removed from the scene, he could replace the bandage with something else, wipe his knife off, or anything else he wanted to do. Maybe he intentionally left it near a Jewish building, maybe that building was just convenient.

The main idea is that he didn't plan on cutting off the corner of a whore's nasty apron, he needed a cloth he didn't already have, and fast. I think he cut himself near the end of the Mitre Square episode. Any cloth he brought with him was already wrapped around a removed organ.

Just a thought. Hope you all have a nice holiday.

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:54 AM

Sam Flynn
20th December 2007, 06:48 PM
...............http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1396/...cd31a097_o.jpg
Thanks, Pilgrim - is that our man at last?

Ben
20th December 2007, 07:07 PM
Hi Gareth,

You may believe that, but the inventory categorically does not state that.

Not explicity, but it would seem a perfectly reasonable interpretation. If they weren't cut, then the "strings" were, and given that these strings were mentioned explicity in connection with the pockets, it stands to reason that the strings were cut to gain quicker entry to them.

If there is any room for interpretation here, it's the sort of room for interpretation that makes people see the face of Jesus in a slice of toast.

....Which still wouldn't be quite enough room for the premise that Eddowes retreived her mustard and thimble in readiness for her erotic encounter with the saucy one.

All in good spirit,
Ben

tom_wescott
20th December 2007, 07:55 PM
Hello everyone,

First let me say that I'm enjoying just sitting back and following this thread. I'm a bit rusty on my apron lore and with noted Mitre Squarians such as Monty and Sam about I'm in 'shut up and listen' mode! It's also great seeing Ben flexing his muscles outside of Dorset Street and making a lot of sense to boot. I noticed Sox agreed with something I wrote which was a pleasant first (wink) and Trevor's only issued one unwarranted insult towards a poster, so count your blessings where you can find them. Now for a question on sources:

I believe it was Trevor who brought up the point about the 'wet' portion of the apron and suggested it was wet with water and not blood. I had always taken the 'wetness' to have meant blood, but I noticed that no one corrected him on this so I'm wondering about the sources. Is there a source that specifically states the apron was 'wet' with blood or could it in fact have been water?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

jdpegg
20th December 2007, 08:09 PM
Tom,

or urine?

tom_wescott
20th December 2007, 08:18 PM
Tom, or urine?

Tough choice, but I'll go with Tom.

Actually, that's not a crazy suggestion at all, given that Annie Chapman's body was sprinkled with something like water (per James Kent) although I suspect it was urine.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 08:33 PM
i dont want to keep have to repeat things because its getting boring now and i wish people would read posts carefully before rushing to reply.

The apron piece as described was spotted with blood !!!!!!!!!!!!
(no cuts from ripper/no wiping of knife/no carrying away of organs) these are logical facts so why does everyone keep going on about the same issues accpet what is written.

The apron piece was smeared with traces of fecal matter not large smears which would be consitent with the theory that he wiped his mucky hands on it

The apron piece was wet not with blood so that either leaves water or urine. described as wet

As Eddowes had been locked up when it was raining it couldnt have got wet that way. Found in doorway under cover could not have got wet there it was under cover.

The question of the size of the apron piece is debatable Sam suggests that it was the size of a pillow case if that be the case there would have been hardly any of the apron left. It was much small as is described as being small.

We all accept that it came from her apron and the missing piece was from a repair making it easy to tear off. So why is is not feasable that whilst locked up she felt the need to tear the piece off and use it as a makeshift sanitary towel. placing it between her legs. These women were not hygene friendly so thats how the blood and the fecal matter got on the apron piece and the wetness was urine.

She could have then disposed of it herself after being released and before she met her killer. or for that matter earlier in the day before being arrested. After all even today people urinate and deficate in alleyways, and other out of the way places so i am sure this was even more common in 1888

All her belongings would have been taken off her and placed in safe storage at the police station

jdpegg
20th December 2007, 08:42 PM
Trevor,

What proof is there?

It is not feasible since she had numerous other rags, probably for the very purpose.

How much do you think you know about periods Trevor?

lol

Jen

Leather_Apron
20th December 2007, 08:46 PM
I doubt if Eddowes even had a menstrual cycle. She probably couldnt put enough calories in Her body to keep up with the amount of energy She was expending. She appears to have been a full blown alcoholic.

Theres nothing I can tell about the apron other than the roports of where it was found and that it appeared to match something Eddowes had in Her posession.

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 08:49 PM
Jane

i know what rags you are talking about and what proof is there that they were for that purpose twelve rags do you carry 12 tampons around with you

Secondly as I STATED her property including the "rags" would not have been with her in the cell.

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 08:49 PM
Thanks, Sam! However I have a suspicion that the cloth might have been a bit lighter than that. Because something that dark would show up as black at night under a gas lamp unless Lawende was close enough to really see the weave.

I'm not sure what to think about the contents of Eddowes' pockets. The 12 cloths would have been her napkins, so she hadn't hit menopause yet. The Ripper seems to me to be very focussed on his work, so I can't quite imagine him being distracted by bits and bobs from his victims. And I very much doubt anyone could have believed that Eddowes had anything worth taking. If she had, she would have drunk it long before.

Trevor, yes, all women carry tampons/pads with them, and if they don't have a home, they carry all their napkins/pads with them. And no, even if she was a complete slut which I'm sure she may have been, she wouldn't have had any material between her legs that had crap on it. If it's a napkin, then it doesn't have crap. It's anatomically impossible. And if she used said material to wipe her arse then she wouldn't have stuck it between her legs. That's one of those basic human instincts that survive. Cognitive women don't do that ever, and as drunk as she was, she wasn't mentally-challenged enough for that.

I agree with the poster upthread who thought he cut himself. I was thinking about it and it's an absolute possibility that he took the cloth with him to stanch the blood as he ran. Otherwise he would have left a trail of droplets for anyone to find. When he thinks it's stopped dripping, or he thinks he's clear enough away, he discards the cloth. Which, if it had fecal matter and dried blood on it, could have given him a nasty and in those days incurable, case of septicemia. Since I believe that the Ripper killings ended with Eddowes, it would give me no end of satisfaction to think that the final cut he took on her was the final cut for him as well!

Trevor Marriott
20th December 2007, 08:57 PM
Jennifer
Apologies for calling you Jane !!!!!!!!

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 09:08 PM
Ben comes up with:
"Indeed, Fisherman, and the evasion of detection would have course have been the initial consideration in wishing to keep his clothes gunk-free, but as regard the ickiness issue, yes, I believe most would seek to avoid it if the opportunity prevented itself in the form of a handy bit of cloth. I like honey on toast, but not in my pockets."

And all is well as long as you avoid to point out a Ripper-style killer as someone who would be picky about getting his clothes soiled. Chikatilo, who you mention, bit off pieces of his victims while they still were alive, if I remember correctly, and to me he does not seem like the kind of guy who would be discouraged by carrying somebodys womb around in his waistcoat pocket. Or the more juicy parts, for that matter - since he ate what he carried away, and thus was not into trophytaking as considers the body parts. And that is where my critic lies, as you will have noticed. I have no objections to sadistic serial trophytaking killers taking care not to give themselves away, but I have every objection in the world to believing in them thinking that carrying concealed organs on them would be too yucky an affair to consider. That is just plain ... well, you know!

As for the many faces of different organized/disorganized killers, I am just as aware as you are of the difficulties of describing the species involved. That still does not hinder me to point out that those who actually take body organs with them for trophies seem to be a whole different breed than those who choose garments, jewellery and such. And that different breed does not offer any examples of people who would seem to mind handling bloody organs - if such was the case, they would in all probability not have taken the organs from the start, would they. And this is why I merrily second your opinion on the fear to stay undetected, whereas I suggest that the notion that the Ripper would have thought his trophies "icky" is cast overboard.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

PerryMason
20th December 2007, 09:33 PM
Hello all,

The physical evidence as far as the apron piece indicates it was both cut AND torn, and the staining on it was concentrated in one area....which is entirely consistent with wet, bloody organs with some traces of faeces being carried in the cloth, or wrapped in it. The fact that the killer chose to tear an item from Kates clothing, something which would be audible in a confined space, seems to indicate he had a need that was great enough to warrant the noise. I suggest that cleaning his hands or knife, when her dead body is still covered with cloth he could easily wipe himself off on, is not such a need.

If this was "Jack", and Kate is arguably one of only two victims where there are medical opinions that infer some skill or knowledge on the killer that was required for the speedy extractions in the dark,... then this apron piece may simply be him avoiding a mistake he made with Annie, when he perhaps found himself with a handful of organs and nothing to carry them in but his pocket. At least there is no evidence he took any such carryall from Annie.

If thats correct, and it is a simple answer, then the logical assumption would be he discarded the rag when he felt he was close enough to his home to risk staining his pockets for the last leg of his journey.

Best regards all.

Ben
20th December 2007, 09:36 PM
Thanks for the kind words, Tom. It is indeed nice to be outside the oppressive confines of Miller's Court for once.

Hi Fisherman,

And all is well as long as you avoid to point out a Ripper-style killer as someone who would be picky about getting his clothes soiled

What on earth does that mean? There's no more onus upon me to demonstrate that a "ripper-style" killer wouldn't bung freshly extracted viscera in his dry pockets, than there is upon you to demonstrate that they would. We simply don't know. On balence, I feel my honey analagy is an apt one. Yes, I enjoy it. Yes, I like consuming it, but no, I don't enjoy putting it directly into my pockets, thereby getting my pockets sticky.

Chikatilo, who you mention, bit off pieces of his victims while they still were alive, if I remember correctly, and to me he does not seem like the kind of guy who would be discouraged by carrying somebodys womb around in his waistcoat pocket.

Great, he does not "seem" like that "kind of guy" according to you - that's not an argument, is it? To me, he seems like just the kind of guy who would avoid getting his clothes caked in viscera at all costs, and given that he falls into the largely "organised" end of the SK spectrum, and that he conveyed, for the most part, an external normalcy, I'd venture a guess that I'm probably correct.

That still does not hinder me to point out that those who actually take body organs with them for trophies seem to be a whole different breed than those who choose garments, jewellery and such.

No, I'm sorry, you're simply mistaken.

Organ-pinchers can range from the spittle-flecked lunatic to the organised serial killer with an outwardly benign demeanor. There's a difference between "handling" bodily organs, and sticking them in a dry overcoat when there was ample opportunity to avoid it.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 09:56 PM
Ben!

"What on earth does that mean?"

It means that you originally pointed to the possibility that the Ripper perhaps did not put the kidney and the uterus in his pocket because he found the prospect "icky". I think that is a possibility that we can rule out. People who manage their problems with ickyness well enough to be able to cut a kidney and an uterus out from the abdomen of a butchered woman will probably not be overcome with an urge to vomit by the prospect of putting the stuff in their pockets. Don�t think that Chikatilo would have faced any such problems either.
I am not talking about the extent to which organized killers are dedicated to staying away from the law. Nor were you as this discussion took off. At that time you were arguing that the Ripper may have found it icky to carry body parts in his pockets, nothing else.
And such a discussion does not involve whether Chikatilo would have tried not to get soiled in order to stay away from getting caught. It would only involve whether he would have thought it so icky to get soiled that he would rather not go through with his deeds.

As for:
"That still does not hinder me to point out that those who actually take body organs with them for trophies seem to be a whole different breed than those who choose garments, jewellery and such." (my words)

No, I'm sorry, you're simply mistaken.

Organ-pinchers can range from the spittle-flecked lunatic to the organised serial killer with an outwardly benign demeanor. There's a difference between "handling" bodily organs, and sticking them in a dry overcoat when there was ample opportunity to avoid it." (your words)

...you are simply providing an excellent answer to a question that was never asked. When did I say anything that even remotely would have brought anybodys thoughts than yours to the idea that I would argue that there could not be disorganized nitwits as well as organized, slick killers involved in trophy taking or mutilating?
What I DID say was that those who take organs are of a different breed than those who take items like garments and jewellery. If I was to expand on it, I would say that I would be much inclined, given the guess, to vote for the organ trophy taker as a disorganized killer and the jewellery trophy taker as an organized one - although there is the possibility to turn this around, I believe the existing cases on file points clearly to the original notion. And I would be amazed to find a killer who every other occasion took organs, whereas he took items like jewellery at other occasions, unless this was done in an effort to hide his trail. That is the difference I am speaking of. I you want to accuse somebody of not understanding the span from disorganized to organized and from lunatic to careful planner within the range of mutilators, I respectfully suggest you look somewhere else.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
20th December 2007, 10:09 PM
Hi Fisherman,

It means that you originally pointes to the possibility that the Ripper perhaps did not put the kidney and the uterus in his pocket because he found the prospect "icky". I think that is a possibility that we can rule out.

Why? With respect, you haven't argued against the premise. You've just speculated that other serial killers wouldn't have minded shoving innards into their pockets, without any evidence as to whether they would or not. We have no evidence either way. Wouldn't it be better to leave it on the understanding that, while it would be in the interests of any serial killer to keep his garments gunk-free for the purposes of self-preservation evading capture, the "ickiness" issue is purely a matter for personal opinion and speculation?

People who manage to overcome their problems with ickyness well enough to be able to cut a kidney and an uterus out from the abdomen of a butchered woman will probably not be overcome with an urge to vomit by the prospect of putting the stuff in their pockets.

Unless they're interested in personal hygene, and don't wish for their garments to get sullied with blood or faeces, a category into which Andrei Chikatilo - who was not dirty, dishevilled and blood-smeared - undoubtedly falls, despite being an organ thief.

All the best,
Ben

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 10:37 PM
I�ll tread carefully here, Ben!

You ask me why I feel that we could rule out the possibility that the "ordinary" trophytaking sexual serial killer would not consider carrying organs in his pockets icky.
Lets just say that history proves that a number of killers have done this, and that I feel that therein lies the answer to your question. Now, we can go on debating forever exactly what kind of killer the Ripper actually was, and there is no way I can disprove your notion that he may have felt sick at the thought of putting a kidney in his pocket. But then again, I never did speak of certainties; I spoke of probabilities and factual case evidence from the history of serial killers.

You go on to counter my argumentation that "people who manage to overcome their problems with ickyness well enough to be able to cut a kidney and an uterus out from the abdomen of a butchered woman will probably not be overcome with an urge to vomit by the prospect of putting the stuff in their pockets"
by writing
"Unless they're interested in personal hygene, and don't wish for their garments to get sullied with blood or faeces, a category into which Andrei Chikatilo - who was not dirty, dishevilled and blood-smeared - undoubtedly falls, despite being an organ thief"
and thereby you of course subscribe to the notion that Chikatilo may well have been overcome with that vomiting urge at the prospect of soiling his pockets.
Luckily for you, there is no way I can disprove this either. He may have had a sensitive stomach. Anyways, there is no way we will find out from the horses mouth, since he is executed. I do feel that it would be strange if a man who bit off and munched on his victims nipples would have had that weak stomach, but I hail your conviction that it cannot be proved.

Now, though I find these suggestions of yours somewhat unfruitful, I very much welcome the passage "Wouldn't it be better to leave it on the understanding that, while it would be in the interests of any serial killer to keep his garments gunk-free for the purposes of self-preservation evading capture, the "ickiness" issue is purely a matter for personal opinion and speculation?"
Though, as I said, there was never any reason from the outset to tangle these two differing topics up in order to clear up the issue of to what extent mutilators and organ trophy takers in fact DO have weak stomachs, I must say that this suggestion of yours tops any ideas I could possibly have presented. I thankfully accept, Ben!

All the best, as usual, Ben!

Fisherman

Mr. Tea
20th December 2007, 10:41 PM
From PerryMason:
"The fact that the killer chose to tear an item from Kates clothing, something which would be audible in a confined space, seems to indicate he had a need that was great enough to warrant the noise. I suggest that cleaning his hands or knife, when her dead body is still covered with cloth he could easily wipe himself off on, is not such a need."

I agree. There was ample, accessible material at the scene to wipe hands and knife quickly. A piece of dirty apron seems an unlikely choice as a trophy, which leads me to believe there was utility for him in that piece of cloth. Given the stakes of the game he was playing, and his time constraints, I believe the need must have been acute.

If he had planned on taking organs, however, I still think it likely that he would have come prepared to wrap them (If he wrapped them at all). Avoiding, as you point out, complications he may have experienced in one of the earlier murders. That leaves me with him cutting himself at some point during his work on Ms. Eddowes. Our guy painted in bold strokes, with a very sharp knife. If he did have a mishap, the wound would stand a good chance of being respectably deep. If it were deep enough to cause a small but constant blood flow, I think he'd feel obliged to stanch the flow somehow. I remember seeing something about bloodhounds never showing up after the Kelly murder. If he believed that the police had bloodhounds at their disposal, I don't think he would want to leave even a small trail of blood drops everywhere he went. Maybe he cut the apron, and while making his exit, wrapped his hand up and stuck it in his pocket, throwing the rag away some 30 minutes (would that time be about right?) later.

Steve

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:56 AM

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 10:50 PM
Hi Steve!

Leaving other things aside, I think that it was noted that the piece of apron was not torn, but cut away, with one clean cut. Thus no sound, I�m afraid!
Also, if you take a look at the earlier posts here on the thread, you will see that the bloodsoaked part of the apron was a corner of it, which renders the theory of the organs having soaked it while being carried around somewhat doubtful.

All the best,
Fisherman

Sox
20th December 2007, 10:55 PM
So.....the last serial killer caught in the street with blood on his hands was?

Hardly a common occurance is it.

Our boy Jack is knelt beside the butchered body, worrying about the blood on his hands? Sorry ladies and gents but that simply does not have a ring of truth about it.

If Kate Eddowes had been his first victim, then maybe I could buy into this, but at this point in his career, if (and that is a huge if) Jack was the worrying kind, then perhaps he would have made provision for the blood on his hands before it got there? Are we seriously suggesting here, that a man who kills and mutilates women, in the street, worries about the blood on his hands??

On the subject of the apron being used as a 'rag'..... that Kate Eddowes was still having periods was as likely as Prince Albert being her killer.

ChavaG
20th December 2007, 10:57 PM
Which makes me think that Mr Tea is right! Think about it. You've cut your finger and you have a piece of cloth to wrap it. You need to keep the wrapping close to the finger or whatever so you'll likely place the corner of the cloth over the wound since the corner is narrow and pointed and much easier to control and wrap around. The corner is therefore closest to the would and absorbs the blood. There are various smudges and droplets on the rest of the cloth. You run like hell and when you think the blood has stopped flowing, you toss the cloth and then run some more.

On the subject of the apron being used as a 'rag'..... that Kate Eddowes was still having periods was as likely as Prince Albert being her killer.

And the 12 cloths found on her person were for what? Making sure said Prince Albert had a nice clean place to sit while he was carving her up? If she wasn't menstruating, she would not have had those cloths. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that she was into menopause. As I noted earlier, the mean time for the last baby in those days in that place was 41 years. Women continue to have periods for 2-5 years after they are capable of conceiving a child. Eddowes' periods may have been irregular and unpredictable but given those 12 pieces of cloth, you can bet your bottom dollar she was still having them!

Ben
20th December 2007, 11:01 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Lets just say that history proves that a number of killers have done this, and that I feel that therein lies the answer to your question.

But which ones? Which serial killers have shoved freshly extracted viscera into their dry pockets when the opportunity prevented itself to avoid coat-organ contact? It's not so much the question of Jack the Ripper being excessively repelled or horrified at the prospect of getting his coat sullied. It's more a question of seeking to avoid that eventuality when it was emintently "avoidable".

Reciprocal best wishes!

Ben

Mr. Tea
20th December 2007, 11:13 PM
Not worried about her blood on his hands at the scene, but worried about leaving little bits of his blood everywhere he was about to go.

I've cut my thumb (more than once) to the extent that I left a literal trail of small blood drops from the garage to my bathroom. I even got some on the bedroom carpet, for which I received a good lashing from my wife. You know what she said? "Why didn't you put something on that before you started walking around?" None of those cuts even required stitches. Once, in the attic, I banged by head on the sharp point of a protruding roofing nail, and the trail of blood across the insulation, back to the attic access ladder, is still there today.

I'm suggesting that IF he was actively bleeding in any significant way, he would have taken steps (however cursory) to control the dripping before leaving the square. He took my wife's advice, and put something on his wound before walking around. It could have been the piece of apron.

And no jokes about me being clumsy, please.

Steve

Fisherman
20th December 2007, 11:43 PM
Ben!

You write "It's not so much the question of Jack the Ripper being excessively repelled or horrified at the prospect of getting his coat sullied. It's more a question of seeking to avoid that eventuality when it was emintently "avoidable"."

Again, with all due respect, it is not only so much, but totally, the question of Jack being repelled or not by blood and gore. That, and nothing else was the topic here. That is the question that arises when somebody writes that he thinks that the Ripper avoided the organ pocketing since he would have regarded it icky.

Incidentally, I did some reading up on Chikatilo. It seems he did not have that weak a stomach after all. Richard Lourie, who wrote the book on Chikatilo, �Hunting the devil� says, based on the psychiatric reports, that Chikatilo would place his semen inside a uterus that he had just removed and as he walked along, he would chew on it�"the truffle of sexual murder�.

Think he would have managed to carry a kidney in his pocket after all...

The very best, Ben!

Fisherman

Ben
20th December 2007, 11:58 PM
Hi Fisherman,

That, and nothing else was the topic here.

Not really. My position was always that the killer would avoid coat-organ ickiness whenever the possibility arose, and in the aftermath of Mitre Square, I'd suggest that the ickyness-avoidance potential - in the shape of that apron - was especially in evidence.

As for Chikatilo having a strong stomach and a blood-lust, I don't dispute that for a moment. I'd still dispute the idea that he'd sully his garments when garment-sullying was easily avoidable.

Cheers,
Ben

Fisherman
21st December 2007, 12:07 AM
Ben writes:
"Not really"
and my answer is:
Definitely!

...and thus we are discussing the matter from two different angles, leaving us the eminent opportunity to withdraw from the discussion without anyone of us having to admit defeat. What do you say, Ben; let�s leave it there, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
21st December 2007, 12:11 AM
Sounds good, Fisherman.

Until the next good-natured parry/thrust,

Ben

Simon Wood
21st December 2007, 12:23 AM
Hi All,

I've just looked at Casebook's list of Eddowes' clothing, in which there is no mention of " the apron worn by the deceased." [ Insp. Collard]

But listed amongst her possessions is "1 piece of old white apron with repair."

A repair on the piece of apron found in Goulston Street uniquely traced back to Eddowes.

Doctor Brown�"I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Looking at Brown and Foster's sketches of Eddowes' body, I'd be intrigued to know how the killer effected her mutilations without first cutting away the apron. Surely it would have got in the way, hampering his operations when speed was of the essence.

But there are inconsistencies in Brown's inquest account.

Evans and Rumbelow in JtR-SYI tell us that at Eddowes' post mortem Brown's attention "was drawn to a piece of apron�a corner of the garment with a string attached . . ." Brown fitted it with the piece found in Goulston Street. They matched.

One corner of an apron with a string attached cannot be "still attached by the strings to the body". The two accounts don't agree, so which one is true?

If Eddowes wasn't actually wearing an apron, perhaps the "1 piece of old white apron with repair" was the matching half of the piece found in Goulston Street.

If this is the case, why didn't her killer simply take the whole piece? Why waste time cutting it in half?

Regards,

Simon

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 01:02 AM
Simon,

The Ripper would likely have flipped the apron up before mutilating, which is how the apron did not get in the way. It's possible but not likely he bothered to cut it in half first. Even then the remaining half would needed to have been flipped up and kept out of the way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

GavinBW
21st December 2007, 01:16 AM
So.....the last serial killer caught in the street with blood on his hands was?

Hardly a common occurance is it.

Sorry, but how would this affect the thinking of the killer? He's killed someone. He's got to flee and he has to evade suspicion. Cleaning himself had to be done at some point and the sooner the better. That no serial killer has been caught in such a way would probably not really affect his thoughts regarding trying to leave the area without arousing suspicion.

Our boy Jack is knelt beside the butchered body, worrying about the blood on his hands? Sorry ladies and gents but that simply does not have a ring of truth about it.

Probably didn't worry him at that point, but he would afterwards need to consider certain things if he wanted to get away without arousing suspicion. It possibly did bother the killer as the marks on the apron looked as though someone had wiped something on it.

Trevor Marriott
21st December 2007, 02:43 AM
This discussion is now going round in circles with the same old theories being banded about.

If you want to accept JTR killed and mutilated Eddowes and Chapman and then surgically removed vital organs with medical precision and then took them away and in the process cut himself and then wiped his dirty hands on a piece of apron and then discared it so be it.

This it was had glorified the ripper mystery over the years without these this case would have drifted into oblivion long ago.

A lot of people have been brainwashed into believing this part of the mystery and wont let it go and accept that this part of the mystery may not be true. and that perhaps there are other plausible explanations to not only this issue but other parts of the mystery which people have also readily accepted as fact over the years

Time for the blinkers and the tinted glasses to come off.

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 02:52 AM
Trevor,

You're putting words in peoples' mouths. Many of the posters to this thread, such as Sam, Monty, and myself, do not necessarily think the Ripper "surgically" removed anything with "medical precision". And you keep sidestepping the issue of Kelly's heart in your discussion of missing organs. That I believe is the fly in your theoretical ointment regarding the theory (borrowed from Bob Hinton) that either the bumbling Keystone Cops of H Division lost the organs in transit or that a super rat came along and carried them off. You've as yet provided no solid reasoning for us to accept without doubt that the Ripper did not take organs from three of his victims. That's why you still see all these blinkers.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. I'm relatively certain I haven't misrepresented Monty this time!

Sam Flynn
21st December 2007, 02:55 AM
If you want to accept JTR killed and mutilated Eddowes and Chapman and then surgically removed vital organs with medical precision
Calm down, Trevor - surely nobody believes that old nonsense anymore?

Trevor Marriott
21st December 2007, 02:57 AM
I answered your question regarding kellys heart in an earlier post seems u missed it. I nver sidestpe anything always a pleasure to respond to "The 3 Wise Men"

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 02:59 AM
I answered your question regarding kellys heart in an earlier post seems u missed it. I nver sidestpe anything always a pleasure to respond to "The 3 Wise Men"

Thanks, Trevor. I did indeed miss it and will go back to look for your response about Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Trevor Marriott
21st December 2007, 03:02 AM
Sam I am calm and its been a pleasure seeing you in full flow I admire you for being so passionate.

By the way I do agree with you regarding the cutting of the pockets etc definatly done by the killer as part of his frenzied attack,

Must be mellowing

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 03:06 AM
Trevor,

I went all the way back to page 9 of this thread and didn't see you tackle the subject of Kelly's heart. I can only suppose you now dismiss her murder as the work of a copycat - a thesis I don't remember you putting forth in your book, although I admit it's been some time since I've read it.

ChavaG,

Are you one and the same as 'chavagebenko' who used to post here? If so, welcome back!

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Trevor Marriott
21st December 2007, 03:21 AM
Tom
I think you need glasses post number 80

quote Was kellys heart taken away? from the evidence there is a doubt. If contributer here suggest it was then why wasnt it highlighted at the inquest and the press.

In the book i did raise a doubt that related to the fact that if the organs were not taken away by the killer from the Eddowes and Chapman murders then that is enhanced by the fact that none of Kellys were taken away.

We still come back to the medical precsion aspect

I also rasied many other doubts aabout the number of victims attributed to JTR and the fact that he could be the worlds first transcontinenatal serial killer. All other facts which some on here want to dismiss lightly

ChavaG
21st December 2007, 04:01 AM
ChavaG,

Are you one and the same as 'chavagebenko' who used to post here? If so, welcome back!

That's me. I couldn't remember my password and the password thingie didn't want to give it to me, so I re-upped. It's great to see you all!

By the way, and completely off-this topic, has any one checked to find out if there were any prostitutes who had narrow escapes from knife-wielding/strangling attackers earlier that year? He strangles them and then cuts their throats before taking the knife to their innards. But he doesn't seem to be focussed on the throat. He's after the abdomen. I wonder if he tried to kill someone earlier with a knife but didn't quite manage to subdue her and she got away. Because I'm not sure why he strangles them first and then cuts their throat. It's almost as if he wants to make sure they're dead before he gets to work. Maybe he didn't try and kill her with the knife, maybe he tried to strangle someone and didn't manage to put her out and she woke up and ran. This is all complete fantasy but I always thought the MO was so polished so early on in the spree that he spent a lot of time learning from one mistake or a couple. He may even have done time for the earlier assault.

Celesta
21st December 2007, 04:18 AM
Tom
I think you need glasses post number 80

quote Was kellys heart taken away? from the evidence there is a doubt. If contributer here suggest it was then why wasnt it highlighted at the inquest and the press.

In the book i did raise a doubt that related to the fact that if the organs were not taken away by the killer from the Eddowes and Chapman murders then that is enhanced by the fact that none of Kellys were taken away.

We still come back to the medical precsion aspect

I also rasied many other doubts aabout the number of victims attributed to JTR and the fact that he could be the worlds first transcontinenatal serial killer. All other facts which some on here want to dismiss lightly

Hi Trevor,

I'm a bit off thread, but personally, I have no problem with JTR being a sailor, or merchant marine, or other seafarer, and certainly others have hypothesized a transcontinental Jack the Ripper, as well. I tried doing some searches on similar murders in other ports in the right time frame but did not uncover a lot of detail, mostly allusions to killings in various western ports. Wouldn't it be nice to tie something down?

Best wishes and happy holidays, Celesta

Celesta
21st December 2007, 04:32 AM
Hi All,

I've just looked at Casebook's list of Eddowes' clothing, in which there is no mention of " the apron worn by the deceased." [ Insp. Collard]

But listed amongst her possessions is "1 piece of old white apron with repair."

A repair on the piece of apron found in Goulston Street uniquely traced back to Eddowes.

One corner of an apron with a string attached cannot be "still attached by the strings to the body". The two accounts don't agree, so which one is true?

If Eddowes wasn't actually wearing an apron, perhaps the "1 piece of old white apron with repair" was the matching half of the piece found in Goulston Street.

If this is the case, why didn't her killer simply take the whole piece? Why waste time cutting it in half?

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

According to Evans and Rumbelow, both policemen, the arresting officer and the one who relieved the arresting officer, at the jail, took note of Kate's apron. It is possible also that the inspector, prior to releasing her, also noticed the apron, though the authors don't say so specifically. JTR didn't have any trouble with Kate's numerous skirts and underskirts, so I wouldn't think the apron would cause him much more trouble. It was, I believe, an old garment, anyway.

Best wishes,

Celesta

mikey559
21st December 2007, 04:42 AM
Ok, I have read all these posts, some posts I even re-read. I do not think that Jack cut the apron to use as a tote for organs. He would have come prepared for that. I have always believed that the last thing he took was the piece of apron. Why? I believe that he cut himself and took the apron to stanch the flow of blood. I now know that I'm not the only one to hold that belief. I think he carried it as far as he needed to, then he got rid of it. It ended up where it did as a result of chance and I do not believe he wrote the Grafitto (or wall writing if you prefer).

Also, to think that a late Victorian Period, 47 year old woman, who was malnourished and alcoholic, still mentruated is laughable at best. Even in the 21st century, healthy, well nouriished, active women have usually stopped menstruating by the age of 47 or have at least began menopause and would not be menstruating heavily or regularly.

Ok, I've said my piece.

Mikey

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 12:59 AM

Ben
21st December 2007, 05:04 AM
Hi Mikey,

I do not think that Jack cut the apron to use as a tote for organs. He would have come prepared for that

What if he didn't have the financial means to bring a ready-made organ container?

Best regards,
Ben

Celesta
21st December 2007, 05:23 AM
Ok, I have read all these posts, some posts I even re-read. I do not think that Jack cut the apron to use as a tote for organs. He would have come prepared for that. I have always believed that the last thing he took was the piece of apron. Why? I believe that he cut himself and took the apron to stanch the flow of blood. I now know that I'm not the only one to hold that belief. I think he carried it as far as he needed to, then he got rid of it. It ended up where it did as a result of chance and I do not believe he wrote the Grafitto (or wall writing if you prefer).

Also, to think that a late Victorian Period, 47 year old woman, who was malnourished and alcoholic, still mentruated is laughable at best. Even in the 21st century, healthy, well nouriished, active women have usually stopped menstruating by the age of 47 or have at least began menopause and would not be menstruating heavily or regularly.

Ok, I've said my piece.

Mikey

Hi Mikey,

I have no problem with much of what you say here, Mikey, but the menopause business is not totally accurate. It depends on what definition of menopause you are using. It's not uncommon for women to menstruate up into their fifties. For all we know, Kate might have been one of those, if she had lived, or she might have stopped at 30, some women do. As for the flow, it can be extremely heavy in perimenopausal women, due to various ailments, such as endometriosis or fibroids. If by menopausal, you mean women who have actually gone through menopause, then I retract my objection. Alcohol can certainly cause problems, as you suggested, and malnutrician as well.

I think you may be right about the apron bit. I also think he just used it because he needed something to clean his hands, or for a similar reason, and then tossed it when he was done. It's unfortunate that we don't have a sketch of that piece of cloth. I think the stain patterns could tell volumes.

I don't have a problem with Kate using cloth to clean herself, but I don't think she used this particular piece of apron to do that, unless it was after she left the jail. I don't think she would have torn up an apron that was still usable and we know that she, or at least someone, mended this apron. We know she had various pieces of fabric with her that she could have used for the purposes that Trevor suggests. The officers, at least 2 of them, took note of Kate's apron while she was incarcerated.

Cheers,

Celesta

ChavaG
21st December 2007, 05:27 AM
Also, to think that a late Victorian Period, 47 year old woman, who was malnourished and alcoholic, still mentruated is laughable at best. Even in the 21st century, healthy, well nouriished, active women have usually stopped menstruating by the age of 47 or have at least began menopause and would not be menstruating heavily or regularly.

OK you've said your piece and now I'll say mine.

The average age for the onset of menopause right now is 51, with a range of 48-55. There aren't all that many women who are through the climacteric by 47. According to her sister Eliza's testimony, Catherine Eddowes was 43. Which means, according to the research I've done, that she would be well within the range for menstruation. Don't forget that the average age for having a last child in those days was 41 and women do menstruate irregularly for a couple of years at least at the end of their menstrual lives without producing an ovum and so conceiving a child. Annie was alcoholic apparently, but I don't see any evidence to suggest she was actually malnourished. So far I've seen enough misinformation in this thread to warrant a whole term of sex-ed classes! What the hell do you think those 12 pieces of cloth were for??

Celesta beat me to it! But there is something else that you guys don't know--and no reason why you should--but women of my age find out and it's an unpleasant shock. When a woman doesn't ovulate, the hormones don't kick in to bring on a period. The lining of the uterus just gets thicker and thicker until at last the structure can't hold and pieces of the lining break away. This doesn't mean the period gets lighter. Oh no. All of a sudden one starts missing regular periods and then, unexpectedly, getting the Period From Hell and it lasts for days and days. Eddowes was just the right age for that...

mikey559
21st December 2007, 05:29 AM
Hi Mikey,

What if he didn't have the financial means to bring a ready-made organ container?

Best regards,
Ben

Ben,

That's a good question. We do not know who he was, so we have no idea of his financial situation. That being said, I believe he always came prepared to do what he needed to do. We do not know what he may have taken off of the other victims, (if anything) to use to transport organs, but we do not read in the coroners reports about other pieces of clothing being cut off. That in and of itself, MAY tell us that something different occured this time. I believe that the something different this time was that he cut himself. Sorry, I don't have any other answer than that.

Mikey

mikey559
21st December 2007, 05:57 AM
OK you've said your piece and now I'll say mine.

The average age for the onset of menopause right now is 51, with a range of 48-55. There aren't all that many women who are through the climacteric by 47. According to her sister Eliza's testimony, Catherine Eddowes was 43. Which means, according to the research I've done, that she would be well within the range for menstruation. Don't forget that the average age for having a last child in those days was 41 and women do menstruate irregularly for a couple of years at least at the end of their menstrual lives without producing an ovum and so conceiving a child. Annie was alcoholic apparently, but I don't see any evidence to suggest she was actually malnourished. So far I've seen enough misinformation in this thread to warrant a whole term of sex-ed classes! What the hell do you think those 12 pieces of cloth were for??

Ok, for your information, I got the menstruation information on 21st century women from the director of Nursing at the Birthing Center here in our town. My partner is a Nurse and she used to be his boss before she moved to the birthing center. As I know her quite well, I called her and she gave me the information. I am on the phone with her right now. She is 61 years old and has been a nurse for 39 years, she has been a certified Nurse-Midwife for 14 years. She says what you are stating may be true for a certain class of women. Women form the middle class and above. She states however that women who live in poverty tend to have rapid menopause and have stopped menstruating by their mid 40's. On the other end of the spectrum, gymansts and dancers that follow strict diet and exercise regimens may not start their menses until the age of 20 or may stop menstruating for long periods of time due to hormonal changes caused by the dieting and exercising. With this information in hand, let's look at women in the East End in the 1880's. They new nothing of proper nutrition, and couldn't afford healthy food anyway. Many of them had veneral diseases that may have stopped their menses as well. All of our victims are believed to be alcoholic, another factor that could affect menstruation. And, actually, my whole point in making the comment was that it was highly unlikely that she used her apron as a menstrual pad, and yes, I would think that if she was still mentruating, she had the 12 pieces of cloth to use as protection (and I thought about them when the first male on this board made reference to her menstuating). From now forward I will let the females correct the big, bad, misinformed men.

Mikey

Celesta
21st December 2007, 06:21 AM
Ok, for your information, I got the menstruation information on 21st century women from the director of Nursing at the Birthing Center here in our town. My partner is a Nurse and she used to be his boss before she moved to the birthing center. As I know her quite well, I called her and she gave me the information. I am on the phone with her right now. She is 61 years old and has been a nurse for 39 years, she has been a certified Nurse-Midwife for 14 years. She says what you are stating may be true for a certain class of women. Women form the middle class and above. She states however that women who live in poverty tend to have rapid menopause and have stopped menstruating by their mid 40's. On the other end of the spectrum, gymansts and dancers that follow strict diet and exercise regimens may not start their menses until the age of 20 or may stop menstruating for long periods of time due to hormonal changes caused by the dieting and exercising. With this information in hand, let's look at women in the East End in the 1880's. They new nothing of proper nutrition, and couldn't afford healthy food anyway. Many of them had veneral diseases that may have stopped their menses as well. All of our victims are believed to be alcoholic, another factor that could affect menstruation. And, actually, my whole point in making the comment was that it was highly unlikely that she used her apron as a menstrual pad, and yes, I would think that if she was still mentruating, she had the 12 pieces of cloth to use as protection (and I thought about them when the first male on this board made reference to her menstuating). From now forward I will let the females correct the big, bad, misinformed men.

Mikey

It is not clear to me why you took offense. Menopause varies with the woman and other factors. If you have statistical data that says that the women of the East End in the 1880's stopped menstruation, by the age of 47, that's fine, but I was talking about women in general, and women in general vary, depending on genetics, alcohol abuse, nutrition, and other factors. To say that all poor women stopped by the age of 47 might be a bit of a generalization.

Khanada
21st December 2007, 06:33 AM
do you carry 12 tampons around with you
OK, I'm new here, so I'm just reading along, and quite enjoying the ride. I've no real opinion to offer, except this -- Trevor probably shouldn't ever make a bet with me about the number of feminine hygiene items in my purse.

(Jack the Ripper really would have loved the little wet wipes... )

mikey559
21st December 2007, 07:29 AM
It is not clear to me why you took offense. Menopause varies with the woman and other factors. If you have statistical data that says that the women of the East End in the 1880's stopped menstruation, by the age of 47, that's fine, but I was talking about women in general, and women in general vary, depending on genetics, alcohol abuse, nutrition, and other factors. To say that all poor women stopped by the age of 47 might be a bit of a generalization.

I did not take offense. Just wanted to give a background on where my information was coming from. My point was about my doubt that the apron was used as a sanitary napkin. Besides doubting that she would use the apron when she had other, more appropriate materials at hand, I really don't think that if she was 47 and living in the conditions that she was, she was still menstruating. She could be, I personally doubt it, but she could be. I was really going on about the apron and it's use and how it may have gotten blood on it.

Mikey

Mr. Tea
21st December 2007, 07:32 AM
I�m encouraged to see that at least a few other people agree Jack possibly cut himself in Mitre Square, and used the piece of apron to keep the bleeding under control. I was certain (yet somehow disappointed) that I wasn�t the first person to think of this. I hope you will all endure a few thoughts on the graffito in this thread, as it has been inexorably linked to the �bloody piece of apron�.

The following ideas are only offered with the presumption that the Eddowes coroner got it right, and the fragment of apron found in Goulston St. was actually a separated piece of the same apron found with Eddowes�s body.

If we assume that the graffito and the apron fragment were left by the same person, the various syntax, spellings, and double negatives of the graffito text offer to me two possible meanings:

Option 1: The Jews had something to do with this.

OR

Option 2: The Jews had nothing to do with this.

We�ll consider both.

Option 1: The Jews had something to do with this.

1a � A Jewish killer left the bloody apron piece at the entrance to a largely Jewish dwelling, and an accompanying message saying that a Jew had something to do with the killing.

1b � A non-Jewish killer left the bloody apron piece at the entrance to a largely Jewish dwelling, and an accompanying message saying that a Jew had something to do with the killing. (If his intent was to convince people a Jew was responsible, then he was trying to convince people that the notion above [1a] is plausible. It would have been much more effective to leave the apron by itself with no message, as in a �dropped piece of damning evidence as the killer was running upstairs to his room in this Jewish boarding house.�)

Option 2: The Jews had nothing to do with this.

2a - A Jewish killer left the bloody apron piece at the entrance to a largely Jewish dwelling, and an accompanying message saying that Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the killing.

2b - A non-Jewish killer left the bloody apron piece at the entrance to a largely Jewish dwelling, and an accompanying message saying that Jews had nothing whatsoever to do with the killing. (A possible taunt? Still very low on my probability scale.)

None of these make any sense at all to me. I do, however, respect the police decision to wash it out. I don�t think the graffito had anything at all to do with the apron (and I think they knew that), but perception is everything. The situation in the East End was unpredictable and fluid, and if some elements of the Whitechapel public had apparent manifest provenance connecting Jews and the ripper, it could have meant big trouble. There is lots of talk in the official documents about the syntax and spelling of the message, but not much at all concerning the opinion of the relevant law enforcement about what they thought the message meant.

One last thing. After a disappointing first killing the same night, the killer succeeds in a more gratifying second killing, and still has in his pockets, alongside whatever murder supplies he deemed necessary, a nice piece of chalk for message writing? And he saves that chalk to leave a confusing, ambiguous message. Maybe.

I don�t think there was any blame deflection going on here. I think the police were lucky they found the apron fragment at all. He just threw the apron fragment away at an opportune moment. Thanks for your patience with a new guy, and sorry about the Moby **** sized post.

Steve

Leather_Apron
21st December 2007, 10:17 AM
Kates body was lying on a number of buttons. I dont think they came from Her clothes. She had needles/pins/hemp/rags/buttons/whatever else on Her person. In addition Her boot was repaired. The apron was repared. And She posessed bags made of bed ticking. Kate probably made the repairs and the bags Herself.
I totally agree with Mikey 559 that Kate probably had no mestrual cycle. From all the drawings and pictures I have seen of that area and time period it seems that if Jack hadnt have come along..Starvation and Disease were sure to follow.

Trevor Marriott
21st December 2007, 11:47 AM
As far as the 12 pieces of cloth are concerned there is nothing to suggest what she had them for.

Furthermore she was locked up for mnay hours in a cell possible on her own.

Her property including the 12 pieces of cloth would not have been accessible to her so why is it not feasble for het to tear a piece of her apron off and use.

Besides blood spotting is also a part of the menstruation process in some women, and would probaly me more consitent with someome like Eddowes given her age and physical condition as some posters here suggest.

i am glad we have some female viewpoints on the topic and i dont want to go to deep into feminie hygene but someobe suggested that even if the piece was used there was no way fecal matter could have got on it.

Well i wonder if any of our older women poster can remeber back some 50 years to the old fashioined sanutarty towels they were big enough to cover both vagina and anus. So why would not a rag placed between here legs cover the same areas.

Sam Flynn
21st December 2007, 01:13 PM
Hi Trevor,
As far as the 12 pieces of cloth are concerned there is nothing to suggest what she had them for.
Well, she did have assorted buttons, a piece of flannel studded with pins and needles, a thimble and a ball of hemp about her person. It's probable that Eddowes wasn't carrying these things around for fun, and perhaps she went equipped for impromptu work "making do and mending". In which case, might the 12 pieces of white cloth have been another weapon in Eddowes' portable darning armoury? ("Darning Armoury, Darning Armoury" - obscure joke for English cricket fans there

)

Not entirely convinced myself, but a possibility...

jdpegg
21st December 2007, 01:16 PM
Trevor,

so to be clear your opinionm is that she started her period whilst she was detained in the police cell, pissed out her head, and she somehow tore part of her apron off and used it there and then?

Because it's been a while, but i don't recall it being phrased like that in youer book.

Jen

jdpegg
21st December 2007, 01:24 PM
Trevor,

no i do not carry 12 tampons around with me. Thanks for asking, what a gent!

they didnt have any tampons in the Victorian times, weren't they still at the point where they had to recylce, if we want to get crude about it, didnt they use to boil them up and re-use them. i think you'll find they did. (jane would probably know!) In which case, explain to me - why would she discard it on this occassion.

And do tell me - did her period suddenly stop - why no mention of it?

Leather_Apron
21st December 2007, 01:37 PM
Hi Trevor,

Well, she did have assorted buttons, a piece of flannel studded with pins and needles, a thimble and a ball of hemp about her person. It's probable that Eddowes wasn't carrying these things around for fun, and perhaps she went equipped for impromptu work "making do and mending". In which case, might the 12 pieces of white cloth have been another weapon in Eddowes' portable darning armoury? ("Darning Armoury, Darning Armoury" - obscure joke for English cricket fans there

)

Not entirely convinced myself, but a possibility...

Oh..Its sounds logical to me that if a Woman with no home and living in poverty needed to make a little money. Sewing would be a good choice.
Im sure alot of the Men needed repairs like sock darning.

Probably the bed ticking bags Kate made to sell. She probably traded and sold alot of stuff like that.

Fisherman
21st December 2007, 03:21 PM
Hi all!

Here�s another point to ponder! Reading through the report from the resumed inquest on Eddowes in the Daily Telegraph of the 12:th of October, this passage is interesting. It concerns itself with the testimony given by the PC who found Eddowes drunk in "High Street, Aldgate" (however correst that address may be is under a lot of dispute...)

�City-constable Lewis Robinson, 931, deposed: At half-past eight, on the night of Saturday, Sept. 29, while on duty in High-street, Aldgate, I saw a crowd of persons outside No. 29, surrounding a woman whom I have since recognised as the deceased ... The apron being produced, torn and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing.�

...and that brings us back to that Dorset Street picture again, with all the women wearing aprons looking very much the same in size and colour; white and waist to ankle.

Now, how is it that Robinson does not tell the coroner that there would have been no possible way to tell if the apron was probably Eddowes�, if they were all much the same? And why is it that he was asked such a question at all?

Does this not seem to point out that there may have been differing types of aprons? As we know that it did not differ in colour (it was white, though filthy), then it must have differed in some other way if the PC:s recognition was sound. And the most reasonable guess would have been that it was a question of size. Moreover, since it would not have been larger than the ordinary type, since that would have caused Eddowes to trip on it and fall over, it seems that it may well have been significantly smaller.
Unless, of course, it was so badly stained by the hop-picking, that it stood out in that way. Then again, Eddowes was not the only woman that returned from hop-picking that autumn, was she? Would have been hundreds of them, I gather.
Any thoughts on this? Or better still, anyone who can confirm that there were smallish aprons around back then?

All the best,
Fisherman

ChavaG
21st December 2007, 03:38 PM
Mikey, the info about the women in poorer areas of 19th century Britain came from a demographic research paper. There are suggestions that malnourished women hit menopause earlier than well-nourished women, but I specifically looked up the effects of alcoholism on this and didn't find anything. Although smokers hit menopause faster than non-smokers. We know that Eddowes smoked so that will have had some effect.

This comes from a recent research paper:

On average, for women who smoked, the age of menopause for women born in 1908 was 48 years and 4 months and 50 years for women born in 1930. For nonsmoking women the average age of menopause was 49 years for women born in 1908 and 51 years and 5 months for women born in 1930. (Dr Kerstin Rodstrom's research)

If we extrapolate from that, we discover that it's likely the average age for a smoking woman to hit menopause in 1888 was roughly 46-47 years old. Kate Eddowes was 43.

As for the use of the apron as a menstrual pad, I missed something in the reading. Because I never thought she used the apron as a pad. I was simply reacting to the 'she was well beyond using pads' comments.

Mr Tea, I think a bunch of us agree with you. Funnily enough, in the middle of the night I couldn't sleep and was thinking 'maybe he just cut himself. I'll put that on the board tomorrow!' went back to sleep and forgot about it. then read your post the next day. I must have been channelling your thoughts!

Sam Flynn
21st December 2007, 03:57 PM
On average, for women who smoked, the age of menopause for women born in 1908 was 48 years and 4 months and 50 years for women born in 1930. For nonsmoking women the average age of menopause was 49 years for women born in 1908 and 51 years and 5 months for women born in 1930. (Dr Kerstin Rodstrom's research)

If we extrapolate from that, we discover that it's likely the average age for a smoking woman to hit menopause in 1888 was roughly 46-47 years old. Kate Eddowes was 43.
She was 46, actually - despite what her sister believed. Had she lived, Eddowes would have turned 47 on 14th April 1889.

ChavaG
21st December 2007, 04:21 PM
I can't work out how to edit my above post. But I stand corrected. Thanks Sam!

(She still was probably getting the odd period tho'...)

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:06 AM

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 09:38 PM
Dr Bonds states that the heart was absent from the pericardium

No it doesn't. It says 'heart absent'.

Surely such an important issue as this would have been highlighted at the inquet do you not think.

Had Baxter served as coroner it most certainly would have. Seeing how the inquest was ran however I'm not at all surprised that the missing heart, along with much other evidence, was not made public.

So i would suggest that there is a grave doubt and if lets say the heart wasnt taken away then it puts the removal of the organs of Chapman and Eddowes from their crime scenes in doubt

Even if Kelly's heart were not taken away - which it most certainly was - it would still have no bearing on the earlier murders. Stride and Nichols were not missing any organs but that doesn't mean Chapman and Eddowes were not. Same with Kelly.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

supe
21st December 2007, 09:46 PM
Trev,

Surely such an important issue as this would have been highlighted at the inquet do you not think.

As you are aware, the Kelly inquest was a truncated affair (for whatever reason) and the only physician called was the Divisional surgeon, Bagster Phillips, who simply said he was sure Kelly was dead when he arrived and later rendedered what he thought was the proximate cause of death. There was no lengthy description of the wounds and thus that there was no mention of a missing heart is not at all evidence that it was not missing.

Nor does it necessarily follow that even if the heart were not missing that it puts the removal of organs from Chapman and Eddowes by JtR in doubt.If anything, it might only bolster the argument of those who see Kelly as a victim of a copy-cat murder.

In any case, you are quite welcome to your alternate explanations of certain aspects of the murder, but so far the peer review suggests that your explanations have been found wanting (and perhaps wanton). It could be that we are all out of step but you, but I would suggest that a real grasp of the evidence would indicate otherwise.

Don.

PS: I like your hotels.

mikey559
21st December 2007, 09:56 PM
Mikey, the info about the women in poorer areas of 19th century Britain came from a demographic research paper. There are suggestions that malnourished women hit menopause earlier than well-nourished women, but I specifically looked up the effects of alcoholism on this and didn't find anything. Although smokers hit menopause faster than non-smokers. We know that Eddowes smoked so that will have had some effect.

This comes from a recent research paper:

On average, for women who smoked, the age of menopause for women born in 1908 was 48 years and 4 months and 50 years for women born in 1930. For nonsmoking women the average age of menopause was 49 years for women born in 1908 and 51 years and 5 months for women born in 1930. (Dr Kerstin Rodstrom's research)

If we extrapolate from that, we discover that it's likely the average age for a smoking woman to hit menopause in 1888 was roughly 46-47 years old. Kate Eddowes was 43.

As for the use of the apron as a menstrual pad, I missed something in the reading. Because I never thought she used the apron as a pad. I was simply reacting to the 'she was well beyond using pads' comments.

I really am not trying to argue this point. The point was made early on in this thread that the apron was bloody from Kate using it as a menstrual pad. That was the point I was discussing. However, using your extrapolation, in the time frame from 1908 to 1930, the average age for women to stop menstruating changed by 2 years. In other words women who were born later, menstruated longer. By using this same extrapolation, women born in 1888 would have stopped menstruating by age 46. Most of these women were born about 1846-1852, again we can deduct aproximately 2 years off the age that they would stop menstruating and we get the average age of 44. Remember, your own figures, use as a measure, the year of BIRTH. I am a researcher, I take given criteria and put together a report on what I find. You provided me with the research, the citerria and the extrapolation factors and I have just given you my conclusion, based on YOUR information. The studies you cite are probably discussing poor women in general, not alcoholic whores, which according to my medical sources would definitely make a difference.

Very respectfully yours,

Mikey

tom_wescott
21st December 2007, 09:58 PM
Why is 'men' the root word of 'menstruating' anyway?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

supe
21st December 2007, 11:17 PM
Tom,

Why is 'men' the root word of 'menstruating' anyway?

Just in case you're not making another ill-conceived jest, it comes from the Latin menstruus-a-um, which means monthly.

Don.

Natalie Severn
21st December 2007, 11:56 PM
One thing that can happen to women who are about to cease menstruating is unexpected "flooding" when the periods go through a last ditch round of chaos-one will be light and last a couple of days, another will be extraordinarily heavy and need something much more absorbant than a tampon to stop the heavy flow of blood.I have known this to happen to a work colleague and a great big piece of apron would have been appropriate in such a case.Anaemic women often have a very heavy ,very frequent, menstrual cycle, and I tend to agree with Trev here that if Kate left the police cell still inebriated then she might have done a few things she would have regretted had she been allowed to sober up!
Natalie

Sam Flynn
22nd December 2007, 12:31 AM
Trev, I like your hotels.
Here's one:

The Sun Trevor

http://www.suntrevor.co.uk/

Here to Help

Celesta
22nd December 2007, 12:32 AM
One thing that can happen to women who are about to cease menstruating is unexpected "flooding" when the periods go through a last ditch round of chaos-one will be light and last a couple of days, another will be extraordinarily heavy and need something much more absorbant than a tampon to stop the heavy flow of blood.I have known this to happen to a work colleague and a great big piece of apron would have been appropriate in such a case.Anaemic women often have a very heavy ,very frequent, menstrual cycle, and I tend to agree with Trev here that if Kate left the police cell still inebriated then she might have done a few things she would have regretted had she been allowed to sober up!
Natalie

Yes, the flooding is a big issue ( no pun intended, Nats) with many perimenopausal women, just as you say. The homeostasis is so upset at this time, for some. Then there are fibroids which will deluge blood unexpectedly and cause more flooding. It can all be totally unexpected by the woman. My main questions about the apron revolve around just how much blood was on it and did it look like it had been folded or creased to be used for the sanity purpose, or did it look like it was been used to staunch a bloody hand or to clean the hands. Those questions, and how and when it got to Goulston are what I ponder.

I still think the policemen at the jail would have taken more notice of her apron had it already been torn and a piece missing. It was suggested that Kate might have left it earlier. Now, if she meandered into Goulston, after she was released, and left it herself, well, that's another whole issue. I don't doubt that she was probably still drunk to some degree.

Take care, Nats, and have a Merry Christmas.

Linda

Natalie Severn
22nd December 2007, 12:49 AM
Here's one:

The Sun Trevor

http://www.suntrevor.co.uk/

Here to Help

---er excuse me but what"s this to do with the thread exactly Sam?
I actually heard Trev give his talk at the WS and thought he drew together some interesting thoughts- even if they were not all new-to present his sailor theory.He was also brave enough to present them to a room full of " experts"- seemingly prepared to try him for treason!
Lets chill out a bit here eh..........

Sam Flynn
22nd December 2007, 01:05 AM
---er excuse me but what"s this to do with the thread exactly Sam?
I actually heard Trev give his talk at the WS and thought he drew together some interesting thoughts- even if they were not all new-to present his sailor theory.He was also brave enough to present them to a room full of " experts"- seemingly prepared to try him for treason!
Lets chill out a bit here eh..........
Who's not chilling out, Nats? I just posted a link to a "Trevor Hotel" just for jolly, that's all.

Blimus! It's like walking on eggshells here sometimes

Natalie Severn
22nd December 2007, 01:07 AM
Hi Linda,
Well I wish we knew where Kate was between 1 am when she was released from Bishopsgate Police Station and when her body was found at 1.46 am because it certainly doesnt take half an hour to get from BPS to Mitre Square! More like 6 or 7 minutes.Currently I tend to believe she made for a "restaurant" in Aldgate and was waylaid by JtR or solicited him,probably in Mitre Street rather than Church Passage.
But there is a possibility she knew of a "wine" bar [where she wasnt already banned] in or around Goulston Street.She could have had a sudden flood of blood which she tried to attend to in a muddled sort of way,given she had been flat on the floor drunk only hours before-and just thought ,"Oh sod it, I"ll tear a piece off my god-damn apron and clean myself up a bit! It was probably an old second-hand apron anyway, if it was already patched.Kate had reached the end of the road in many ways that day before Jack finished her off.All her clothing was apparently dirty and old----and all she probably cared about by 1.10 am or so , was drinking and forgetting....

Natalie Severn
22nd December 2007, 01:16 AM
Who's not chilling out, Nats? I just posted a link to a "Trevor Hotel" just for jolly, that's all.

Blimus! It's like walking on eggshells here sometimes

I do remember chatting with you Sam,in Wolvers,and you were always up for a laugh and very witty too!

But I just think its important not be too ready to "demolish" any and every new nearly new,or even old theory!...we still dont know who the bugger was!

Sam Flynn
22nd December 2007, 01:19 AM
For Eddowes to have deposited her apron at Wentworth Model Dwellings, between leaving Bishopsgate nick and her death, the beat constable passing through Goulston Street would have had to have missed seeing it twice, or possibly even three times. Now, once I can accept...

Natalie Severn
22nd December 2007, 01:42 AM
Thinking of what Linda says , Sam, if the piece of apron was used to stop blood flow a patch of blood would have been evident.Its hard to determine whether "one corner of the apron was wet with blood" meant just such a patch being present,or whether the corner of apron was just wet because he had used it to stem his own blood flow from a cut---and possibly the faeces was from having wiped himself after having an accident and making a mess down below ,due to all his excitement and fear, following the murder!

Celesta
22nd December 2007, 01:48 AM
Hi Linda,
Well I wish we knew where Kate was between 1 am when she was released from Bishopsgate Police Station and when her body was found at 1.46 am because it certainly doesnt take half an hour to get from BPS to Mitre Square! More like 6 or 7 minutes.Currently I tend to believe she made for a "restaurant" in Aldgate and was waylaid by JtR or solicited him,probably in Mitre Street rather than Church Passage.
But there is a possibility she knew of a "wine" bar [where she wasnt already banned] in or around Goulston Street.She could have had a sudden flood of blood which she tried to attend to in a muddled sort of way,given she had been flat on the floor drunk only hours before-and just thought ,"Oh sod it, I"ll tear a piece off my god-damn apron and clean myself up a bit! It was probably an old second-hand apron anyway, if it was already patched.Kate had reached the end of the road in many ways that day before Jack finished her off.All her clothing was apparently dirty and old----and all she probably cared about by 1.10 am or so , was drinking and forgetting....

Well, Nats, I know, and the picture you form is believable, but why didn't the cops mention the apron being torn when the topic came up, after the thing was found? If it was me, and I heard about that apron, I'd say "Now, what a minute, bub, the shabby old thing was already torn-up, when she was here, in stir, just shortly before she was killed." I agree that she likely went off looking for a drink and ran into JTR. As you point out in the "chill out" post to Gareth, it is not unlikely that she ran into a seaman and that seaman was JTR. I would like to see the seaman theme developed in another thread, sometime.

Till next time, C/L

Sam Flynn
22nd December 2007, 01:52 AM
...whether the corner of apron was just wet because he had used it to stem his own blood flow from a cut---and possibly the faeces was from having wiped himself after having an accident and making a mess down below ,due to all his excitement and fear, following the murder!
That's possible, Nats - however, under such circumstances one would have expected a much greater amount of faecal matter (positively three-dimensional) to have been apparent in the midst of the apron fragment. The more parsimonious explanation would seem to be that some residual faecal matter was transferred onto the rag by some means, and that the source was Eddowes herself.

Trevor Marriott
22nd December 2007, 01:57 AM
Nice one Sam like it. Thats what casebook is all about exchanging views, harmelss banter. I certainly dont have a problem with that.

Natalie Severn
22nd December 2007, 02:09 AM
That's possible, Nats - however, under such circumstances one would have expected a much greater amount of faecal matter (positively three-dimensional) to have been apparent in the midst of the apron fragment. The more parsimonious explanation would seem to be that some residual faecal matter was transferred onto the rag by some means, and that the source was Eddowes herself.

Yes Sam,that is the more feasible explanation,particularly if it was transferred post mutilation via a cut.
But no I dont really think Jack would have done that exactly-I was meaning that he just needed to clean himself up!Maybe we should rename him "Jack the Stinker"

PerryMason
22nd December 2007, 03:53 AM
Seasons Greetings all,

Something that should be inserted here is that most if not all the scenarios posited here last few pages lead one to conclude that most if not all feel the apron was "casually" discarded, whether by Kate herself earlier, or by her killer later. Due to its having served its usefulness as a temporary tampon, a handkerchief, or a satchel. There is however a real possibility that rag was infused with greater meaning.... by it's possible secondary use as a means to authenticate the authorship of the grafitto.

Although overtly linked only by juxtaposition, there may have been intention in that gesture. Which may lead one to surmise the original intent may have been to acquire a souvenir to be used again.....after first serving as a utitiltarian object, something that he felt should reveal a message's author when found in close proximity to each other. Perhaps in his delusion he felt others would have readily understood its meaning, and the accent of the bloody evidence being the symbolic wax seal on his "letter". One thing is certain.....some high ranking men felt it a volatile enough few lines of chalk to,...and the only time on record for these cases, willingly destroy potential evidence in a Ripper murder case.

That apron piece is the only bit of physical evidence from any Whitechapel Murder investigation that can be traced to both the victim, and almost certainly, to her killer. Its an important bloody rag.

My best Holiday wishes folks.

jcoram
22nd December 2007, 04:14 AM
Just a few thoughts reading through these very eclectic and interesting posts.

I think it is really impossible at this point to say if Kate was or was not still menstruating at the time she was killed. It is impossible to say if the pieces of rag were to be used as menstrual pads or for mending. So perhaps looking at some of the other evidence will prove more fruitful.

When Kate was arrested and she was put into the cell, Trevor has rightly pointed out that all of her possessions would have been taken from her, in case she caused injury to herself. That was the same then as it is today I believe. If which case they would have removed the apron from her and the pockets tied around her waist because she could have hung herself with the long strings. She would not have been wearing the apron when she went into the cell and therefore could not have used it as a sanitary pad.

To the poster (I think it was Fisherman) that asked the sizes of aprons. They were really all much of a muchness in that stratum of society, very large as you can see in almost any photograph of the era.

The fact that Kate's apron had a mended portion sewn into it, needs to be taken into consideration as well, and the fact that the waistband of the apron was cut through. If Kate had still been wearing her apron whilst in the cell, then she would not have been able to tear through the apron string (indeed why on earth would she want to?) nor would she have been able to tear through the mended patch. Anyone that has tried tearing through a seam will know that without scissors or a knife it is impossible.
If someone has very strong teeth they can sometimes bite and start on it, but it's nigh on impossible. So how did Kate manage to tear lengthwise down a large apron, through the waistband and the newly sew on portion?
Wouldn't she just have torn out the new portion would would have been much easier to detach?

We also need to consider that half of the apron was found attached to her body around the waist. How did that get there? Did the killer take it out of her pocket and wrap it around the body?

That's before we get to Sam's point that it would have been in the doorway some time and went unnoticed by anyone.

All in all, whether or not Kate was still having periods seems immaterial, because the other problems attached to that scenario, really make it impossible in my opinion.

Jane

xxxx

mikey559
22nd December 2007, 04:22 AM
Jane,

Excellent post, as usual. You seem to have covered every base in just one post. Thanks for chiming in!

Mikey

Sox
22nd December 2007, 05:40 AM
Sox
i have been saying that all the way thorugh this discussion you are another one who obvioulsy doesnt read the postings carefully

Hmm well, perhaps that is because I have not been a criminal investigator for 30 years. I have degree's in American history & criminal physcology, though this does not mean that I am incapable of penning complete & utter 'bosh' in relation to this case on occasion.

I bow to my peers you see, and though many of the posters here may well be amatuers (me included) they are very very gifted amatuers. Indeed, if a cricket broke wind while sat on a fence in 1888, and there is evidence of it, then someone on this website will have found out about it.

I am not one of the 'big guns', I am a little fish, and it was not that I found your theory 'implausable' it was that I found it to be highly improbable. It is plausable that Jack the Ripper was a one eyed Rumanian transvestite called Ethel, but not very probable - see?

Jane, once again I bow to your suberb pen & intellect, very well written.

supe
22nd December 2007, 06:19 AM
Sox,

I think what you are referring to is the undated letter in the MEPO files from Angus MacDaft, late of Aberdeen, who wrote complaining about a flatulent cricket in Flower and Dean Street. However, since the files are full of letters from MacDaft complaining about incontinent pigeons, randy racoons and neurotic newts, most serious Ripperologists take no notice of the cricket incident. Though, certain Duittists feel that the mention of cricket is actually a reference not to the insect but the sport and are still busy trying to find out if Montague had "beans on toast" for breakfast that day. Finally, there is an adamant minority who are convinced MacDaft's letter and all other documents (including the entire 1888 run of the Daily Telegraph) concerning JtR are hoaxes.

Hope this helped.

Don.

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:09 AM

baron
22nd December 2007, 07:52 AM
Don,

Surely the letter regarding the horny honey badger is true? Should I even mention the mystery of the mendacious mole? Well, he was not to be believed, to be sure.

Mike

Sox
22nd December 2007, 08:13 AM
Sox,

I think what you are referring to is the undated letter in the MEPO files from Angus MacDaft, late of Aberdeen, who wrote complaining about a flatulent cricket in Flower and Dean Street. However, since the files are full of letters from MacDaft complaining about incontinent pigeons, randy racoons and neurotic newts, most serious Ripperologists take no notice of the cricket incident. Though, certain Duittists feel that the mention of cricket is actually a reference not to the insect but the sport and are still busy trying to find out if Montague had "beans on toast" for breakfast that day. Finally, there is an adamant minority who are convinced MacDaft's letter and all other documents (including the entire 1888 run of the Daily Telegraph) concerning JtR are hoaxes.

Hope this helped.

Don.

It did indeed Don, not as helpful as your piece on the Phantom Raspberry Blower of Old London Town however

jdpegg
22nd December 2007, 01:29 PM
Janie,

I knew you would know!

Jen

ChavaG
22nd December 2007, 06:22 PM
That apron piece is the only bit of physical evidence from any Whitechapel Murder investigation that can be traced to both the victim, and almost certainly, to her killer. Its an important bloody rag.

I agree. That's why I started this thread.

Whether Eddowes was menstruating or not is interesting but only important if the others were menstruating, in which case that might be what set him off. But I doubt it.

In my opinion the Eddowes killing might be the most informative because it's the killing he didn't intend. I do believe he killed Stride and I think she was his victim for the night. But he was interrupted in that killing and so went off looking for someone else. At that time he is killing a certain type of women. He's looking for someone older, shorter, possibly incapacitated, poor enough to be on the streets late looking for doss money. He finds Eddowes and does his thing, but I think it's possible that he may have had some set-up moves or rituals that he didn't have time to carry out. I don't know how he selected his earlier victims or how much time he spent with them before he killed them. but he clearly spent next to no time with Eddowes so it's a possibility that he isn't as well-organized there as he is in other killings. He may have made mistakes/done things he wouldn't do normally. I believe that the rag is one of these. For whatever reason, he takes a slice of apron and runs away with it. He had to have been horribly close to being discovered if PC Watkin's testimony is accurate so under extreme pressure. Whatever his reason for taking the cloth, I wonder if there is anything else at all during or at the site of this murder that gives us some info. Because I do believe that the clues to his identity are here where he was for the first time working off-balance.

Celesta
22nd December 2007, 06:40 PM
Hmm well, perhaps that is because I have not been a criminal investigator for 30 years. I have degree's in American history & criminal physcology, though this does not mean that I am incapable of penning complete & utter 'bosh' in relation to this case on occasion.

I bow to my peers you see, and though many of the posters here may well be amatuers (me included) they are very very gifted amatuers. Indeed, if a cricket broke wind while sat on a fence in 1888, and there is evidence of it, then someone on this website will have found out about it.

I am not one of the 'big guns', I am a little fish, and it was not that I found your theory 'implausable' it was that I found it to be highly improbable. It is plausable that Jack the Ripper was a one eyed Rumanian transvestite called Ethel, but not very probable - see?

Jane, once again I bow to your suberb pen & intellect, very well written.

Hello Sox,

Nice post.

Significant discoveries have been made by amateurs in lots of fields. Some of them were successful because they were able to tip the problem up and take a little edgewise peek at things. At any rate, I've always heard that it's probably best to remember that the gods punish hubris. Hopefully, the true professional usually keeps that in mind.

Best wishes,

The Minnow

monty
22nd December 2007, 07:42 PM
Guys

This thread has exploded since my last visit and, also, seeing as Im a blinkered no hope who really knows nothing on this particular crime, can anyone tell me if Collard, Robinson and Hutt have been mentioned yet

And Tom, you are correct on my stance, thanks for clarifying.

Monty

monty
22nd December 2007, 10:37 PM
Guys,

I see Linda has noted it...

I still think the policemen at the jail would have taken more notice of her apron had it already been torn and a piece missing.

Nats,

I hear the point you are saying about Trevor and his ideas. However, its a two way thing and to be told that we are blinkered sheep is an insult to those of us who have spent considerable time, just as Trevor has, looking into this aspect of the case.

Especially when the evidence (such as other examples of aprons being used in such a way, which Im sure they may have done) has been non-existant.

Janie,

Such sense from one so young.

Monty

PerryMason
22nd December 2007, 11:29 PM
Liked that post by Janie too.

Consider also that the killer's dropping of that bloodied apron section would reveal his general location to his pursuers.....if he did actually live in that section of the East End, in which case he could be considered sloppy...or, it could have been used as an instrument to misdirect the search focus, in which case he could be considered cunning. The last option is that it was left in conjunction with a message.

For myself, not that I consider the killer a genius by any stretch, but plain sloppy and just leaving incriminating evidence lying around would be my 3rd choice.

And it was torn from Kates apron, as well as cut. At 1:45 in a deserted square... with tall brick walls to riccochet the sound around. Fabric ripping at 1:45am.....Pearce slept through it and Morris didnt hear it, but that may well be another of his good fortunes. Our previously stealthy and virtually silent killer now carelessly creates some noise just to obtain a handrag, then casually leaves it, showing his route home?

As Clint Eastwood said as "William Muny", after calmly gunning down 5 men in a saloon in Unforgiven, "Ive always been lucky when it comes to killin".

Best to all......ho,ho,............HO

Sam Flynn
22nd December 2007, 11:42 PM
Hi Mike,

You wouldn't have to be to too reckless to give away the general direction of your route home, in an area with such a high population density - and where a single street might be home to hundreds of "likely" men.

monty
22nd December 2007, 11:49 PM
Michael,

good to see you back so soon.

Go and look at the Met police search area in October 1888.

Think thats an indicator to the polices train of thought.

Monty

Ben
22nd December 2007, 11:52 PM
True, Gareth.

If the apron was discarded en route home, there was a reasonable guarantee that a dispoal location in a predominantly Jewish enclave would ensure that suspicion would fall initially on that already "scapegoated" group. A "false trail" can still work without it being directional.

Best regards,
Ben

ChavaG
22nd December 2007, 11:58 PM
Except that he hasn't got any real reason to think they will find it. The investigation was in something of a shambles and there were cartoons in the illustrated papers showing how incompetent the cops were. After all it was just a piece of bloody cloth and I'll bet you could find a few of those lying around the East End on a Saturday night.

Constable Long's testimony is that he found a piece of bloodstained cloth in the close of 106-119 Goulston St Model Dwellings. It seems to me that he was on his regular beat and not seconded to the Ripper investigation because he was past at 2.20 am and the cloth wasn't there then. Constable Long then diligently searched the stairs and passageways probably looking for someone injured or dead to whom the cloth might pertain. When he didn't find anything, he took the cloth back to his station. He notes the graffito but doesn't seem to give it a lot of importance. More interesting to me is the fact that the rag wasn't there at 2.20 am but was when he got back. So if he's right, the rag arrives at the Goulson St dwellings no earlier than, say, 2.25 am. And it certainly doesn't take 40 minutes to get from Mitre Square, so I assume he went somewhere else first and then doubled back. This does make me think that he cut himself. He has to wait until the blood has stopped flowing before he can get rid of the cloth. He can't go home with a bunch of blood on his hands because he'll have to explain it. He gets away from Mitre Square. Wonders around until the damn' cut finally coagulates, ditches the cloth. It's just chance that the cloth is found by eagle-eyed and punctilious PC Long.

By the way, all this talk of missing organs and pockets. Does anyone know what kind of material made up men's suitings/jackets/ whatever then? Because, even wrapped in cloth, a bloody piece of meat is likely to leave a trace that will stink to high heaven in a very short time. They didn't have dry cleaners then!

Ben
23rd December 2007, 12:08 AM
Except that he hasn't got any real reason to think they will find it

I respectfuly submit that the chances of the apron not being found and connected with the crime were non-existent, Chava. Given the size of the apron piece, it would have been easy to prevent the insides of his pockets being blood/faeces-smeared.

Best regards,
Ben

monty
23rd December 2007, 12:19 AM
Chavag,

Long had no reason to check the entrance at 2.20am and had no reason to note the debris. His duty was to the Queens highway and therefore had no obligation to the dwelling entrance unless he felt a crime had, or was about to take place. If he had heard of a murder at 2.55am then he had every reason to search the entrance, then the building upon locating the apron.

Monty

sirrobert
23rd December 2007, 12:22 AM
Whether Eddowes was menstruating or not is interesting but only important if the others were menstruating, in which case that might be what set him off. But I doubt it.

Isn't there a theorist who proposed that all of the victims were menstruating ? I can't recall who it was; does that ring a bell with anyone ?

PerryMason
23rd December 2007, 12:46 AM
Hi again,

Thanks Monty

,... I found I am addicted to you all

. Ill be off a while again just after Christmas, but I do hope to return regularly at some point.

I think Im aware of your position on whether the apron is one of two clues found in that entranceway off Goulston

...but remember, we do have 3 city detectives searching city streets for "something" around the time Kate is killed in Mitre, do we have a possible search for Jack clues there....prior to his killing in their jurisciction?

Did they in fact focus only on The Metropolis and its surrounds when looking for the killer?

Also, could a city based killer convince the posse that he was headed "home" to the East End, when he in fact "backtracks" when leaving Goulston? How about with a city crime scene piece of evidence very near anti semetic remarks? Seems like a local fella's work....but is he?

To Sam, I agree that revealing his general habitat is not damning, but its is thoughtless if he indeed was returning home. It is not beyond imagination that a continuance of the series into 1889 or beyond would have caused the authorities to literally surround and quarantine an area, if they had good reason to suspect he was in there. Proof of him killing in the city then fleeing to the East End is such a reason I think. A foolish move, if not reckless...and again, I dont see a fool in the lead character role.

The idea that it was misdirection relating to sect is interesting Ben, but one would then have to accept both grafitto and cloth to be from the killer. As a standalone gesture, apron piece only...without a message to skew the true identity of the author, that leaves us with a geographical bread crumb trail.

My question is... do we feel that was done accidently, or casually, or thoughtlessly....or purposefully.

And if purposefully, why no more such "communications" or displays with Kelly?

I know Sirrobert that menstruation was mentioned as a potential problem for the bloodhounds if they used them, but I dont recall it being discussed as a common theme amongst the dead.

My very best all.

ChavaG
23rd December 2007, 12:53 AM
What were the exact dimensions of the cloth?

I thought he might be set off by menstruation. But don't think so now. He was attracted by a certain type, however. Which is why I don't think he did Kelly.

Talking of which, I wonder what the 'name and address' was that Eddowes gave when she was released. She'd said she was Mary Anne Kelly of the Flowery Dean, I think.

Ben
23rd December 2007, 12:57 AM
The idea that it was misdirection relating to sect is interesting Ben, but one would then have to accept both grafitto and cloth to be from the killer

Not at all, Mike.

The fact that he disposed of the apron in a well-known Jewish dwelling would have been more than sufficient to deflect suspicion in Jewish direction (where current suspicions was primarily focussed anyway). An accompanying message would have over-egged the pudding somewhat. I don't believe for one moment that he doubled back in the direction of the City - careering headlong into two police forces trafficking between two police stations and then back again, after a strong police presence had already conregated at Mitre Square.

If he was an a Gentile East-Ender (as probability would, to my mind, dictate), returning back to his bolt-hole in the very heart of the murder district, there was nothing remotely foolish or reckless about disposing of the apron en route in a conspicuously Jewish enclave.

Welcome back, btw.

Ben

monty
23rd December 2007, 01:10 AM
Michael,

Sometimes its tempting to over egg this case in the desire to explore every avenue. Halse and co were NOT on the lookout specifically for the killer but carrrying out normal duties though they paid attention to suspicious couples.

And I was referring to the Met search of 19th oct. And indication of where they think jack was.

Monty.

Sam Flynn
23rd December 2007, 01:51 AM
What were the exact dimensions of the cloth?
It was enormous, Chava! Here's a recently-discovered photograph of Jack making good his escape from Mitre Square:

9968

...ahem! This was taken just as the moon had peeped out from behind a cloud

ChavaG
23rd December 2007, 02:17 AM
Hilarious!

PerryMason
23rd December 2007, 05:14 PM
Michael,

Sometimes its tempting to over egg this case in the desire to explore every avenue. Halse and co were NOT on the lookout specifically for the killer but carrrying out normal duties though they paid attention to suspicious couples.

And I was referring to the Met search of 19th oct. And indication of where they think jack was.

Monty.

Hello Monty

,

I would think that if City cops were looking for suspicious couples, then it was the Ripper and a potential victim they were looking for, and despite the fact that the previous Ripper murders, at that point considered to be Martha, Annie and Liz....were committed on Metropolitan turf. Guarding the perimeter of the single square mile that constitutes The City of London would be prudent I suppose, but searching streets and alleys within city limits, before a city kill, seems to be "cart before the horse", like arresting a man before he commits a crime.

Point being...there was no indication at all that Jack the Ripper would kill inside The City of London before Kates murder....yet they did look for him on city streets, before Kates murder. On the very night of, as a matter of fact.

Almost like they were following a tip to cover the city streets that night.

Thanks for the welcome back Monty,....I will be off again for a while, but its nice to see you too. And your new Green Day sign off.

My best to you and yours at Christmas time Sir Monty.

Michael

PerryMason
23rd December 2007, 05:43 PM
Not at all, Mike.

The fact that he disposed of the apron in a well-known Jewish dwelling would have been more than sufficient to deflect suspicion in Jewish direction (where current suspicions was primarily focussed anyway). An accompanying message would have over-egged the pudding somewhat. I don't believe for one moment that he doubled back in the direction of the City - careering headlong into two police forces trafficking between two police stations and then back again, after a strong police presence had already conregated at Mitre Square.

If he was an a Gentile East-Ender (as probability would, to my mind, dictate), returning back to his bolt-hole in the very heart of the murder district, there was nothing remotely foolish or reckless about disposing of the apron en route in a conspicuously Jewish enclave.

Welcome back, btw.

Ben

Hi Ben, and thanks for the welcome,

It would seem that you feel the writing was there pre-apron, and the killer decided to utililize the anti-semetic feelings rising from these killings by placing the apron near to the chalk lines on the dado. The problem I have with the message and apron piece being left there separately, is the reaction to it that Warren and others had. They obviously felt it was a dangerous few lines of scribble on the wall, to erase it even before taking a photo for trial evidence....to compare handwriting with....to assess the authors literacy..... if it was as volatile as they surmised, it would not have been there longer than that day, .....someone would have noticed it. Its inexcusable that we have no official recording of the exact wording, or spelling. Only a few recollections of what it said from notes taken. A very questionable action for a message that even today we still dont understand.

Many senior men thought the two items in that entranceway were both connected to the killer. I do too. Im just not certain whether it was to re-direct blame, to confess to crimes, to re-direct a search party, to exonerate himself from the klling that night on Jewish private property, or just "for the jolly".

And if they both were left just before they were found, together, by Kates killer,...not left earlier to be missed on Longs first pass by after Kates murder, then it is almost certain they were left intentionally at that spot....because he would have had almost 70 minutes between killings to get rid of any evidence that had no meaning to him...like a cloth just used to wipe himself and his knife off.

If that delay occurred,....then there is no reason on earth for him to still possess that cloth an hour after it was taken. Even if it simply wiped off blood and faeces as its use, it is something that connected him to the crime in Mitre, and he had ample time and many places to leave it where it would never be found.....but it was left where it must be found... eventually.

When left, that apron piece, a piece of evidence tying Kates murder to the possessor of the cloth, is enough evidence to convict a man of the crime back then, and in no other instance do we see actions taken by the murderer that indicate his willingness to stay on the streets an hour after a killing. If the apron and writing were left together, and by "Jack", after an hours wait after the killing, its is inconceivable to me that the apron piece was left "casually".

Happy Holidays Ben...all the best.

Sam Flynn
23rd December 2007, 06:04 PM
there was no indication at all that Jack the Ripper would kill inside The City of London before Kates murder...
Perhaps not, Michael, although it pays to remember that one could almost spit from City Police territory into Whitechapel, and within the City boundary there were poor streets, prostitutes and ruffians aplenty. Seen in that context, it's small wonder that they'd have been on the alert, as - I shouldn't wonder - would those Metropolitan Police areas flanking "H" Division itself.

Fisherman
23rd December 2007, 07:34 PM
Jane Coram writes:
"To the poster (I think it was Fisherman) that asked the sizes of aprons. They were really all much of a muchness in that stratum of society, very large as you can see in almost any photograph of the era. "

And to soe extent you are right, Jane - I was asking questions

monty
23rd December 2007, 07:45 PM
...that the City DCs were not looking for Jack specifically.

Theres an, what I think interesting, note to the police jurisidiction. Though still Met, the first in the so called canon was recieved by J division Bethnal Green. and not H.

Monty

PerryMason
23rd December 2007, 07:48 PM
Perhaps not, Michael, although it pays to remember that one could almost spit from City Police territory into Whitechapel, and within the City boundary there were poor streets, prostitutes and ruffians aplenty. Seen in that context, it's small wonder that they'd have been on the alert, as - I shouldn't wonder - would those Metropolitan Police areas flanking "H" Division itself.

Hello my friend,

Its great to talk to you guys, even after only a short lapse. Im hoping to be able to discuss these things regularly again in the near future, Ive a different perspective on my time here now that Ive cleared up some things.

Anywho......prudent to have City Beat cops keep a watch on who is milling about, I agree,

...but to be executing what is described as a "search" of City streets and alleys prior to, and at the exact moment a City kill occurs, before any incident relating to the WM has taken place on City soil, seems a trifle more than watchful....it seems they suspected there was some pending "activity" or person in their jurisdiction that might be caught.

Why look on City Streets if there is no hope of finding anything, and why authorize detectives to search streets and alleys of City land that has not been the chosen playground of the murderer?

I dont think planting evidence to divert or distract the pursuers was anything new in 1888, and if our man did take that risk because he wanted the focus on the East End as the killers home, and Jews to be thought of as somehow connected....well, he did a bloody good job...literally.

My best Sam....and Ill have an eggnog for you tommorow night at my parents, its a tradition....49 years of Christmas Eve parties now, it started my first year.

Cheers Mate.

Fisherman
23rd December 2007, 07:51 PM
Jane Coram writes:
"To the poster (I think it was Fisherman) that asked the sizes of aprons. They were really all much of a muchness in that stratum of society, very large as you can see in almost any photograph of the era. "

And to some extent you are right, Jane - I was asking questions related to the size of Eddowes�apron. But my question did not concern itself with the ordinary size of a Victorian apron worn in Whitechapel back in 1888. I am fully aware of how these aprons looked, since I have seen lots of them in photographs and drawings.

I was thinking along some other lines here. I found it strange that the PC that had picked Eddowes up from the gutter before she was jailed earlier that evening actually thought himself recognizing the bloodied piece that was found in Goulston Street when it was shown to him at the inquest.
He and another PC at the police station actually both stated that they remebered that they had observed that Eddowes wore an apron as she was put in her cell.
Since PC Robinson meant that he thought that the apron piece from Goulston Street "to the best of his knowledge" was identical to the one Eddowes wore, there must have been something to distinguish it. And thats what I am talking about.

In Evans� and Rumbelows� book, they point out that it was assumed that the aprong was worn outside Eddowes�dress. I do not know the source for this assertion, but I combine it with the famous drawing that was made of Eddowes in situ in Mitre Square, and I notice that we can clearly see the jacket with fake fur at the collar and on the lower sleeves - the drawing seems to be very exact in reproducing the clothes Eddowes was wearing that night.
What I cant see, however, is any apron covering her chest area. It seems the apron only extended from the waist down. And if we take a look at that part of Eddowes, there is a light coloured area both to the left and the right of her lower body and legs. Now, the light shape to the left of her body, is a part of her intestines, and we know that such a part was cut out and left at her side, "apparently by design". But the thing is, there is also a light coloured area to the right of her body. And my guess is that this may be the part that remains of the apron.
If so, it would seem that the Ripper did not flick the apron up over her breast. Instead he may have cut in it half from the outset, before he started on the mutilations, perhaps just to rid himself of it as it was in his way. Maybe he had no planned purpose at all as he made that cut, but to be able to easier get at the abdomen. The fact that he took it away later can be because it was conveniently there as he felt the need to wipe the faeces and blood of / bandage the cut in his hand / incriminate the jews.

Just a thought.

All the best,

Fisherman

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:10 AM

Sam Flynn
23rd December 2007, 08:04 PM
Why look on City Streets if there is no hope of finding anything, and why authorize detectives to search streets and alleys of City land that has not been the chosen playground of the murderer?
Hi Michael,

As Monty has pointed out, the murderer first struck in "J" Division at Buck's Row, then moved 3/4mile or so west to "H" Division at Hanbury Street. I'm not suggesting that a perceived "westward drift" prompted the City Police to up the ante, but that could be a possible contributory factor. A far more likely reason is that City Police territory abutted directly onto the area where the killer had last struck, and Hanbury Street was less than half a mile away from their jurisdictional boundary.

Trevor Marriott
23rd December 2007, 08:05 PM
To finally put to rest one part of this apron saga which relates to whether it had been cut or torn, the irrefutable answer is it was "torn".

Pc Robinson at the inquest was shown the apron which was desrcibed as "torn" and discoloured with blood, the witness said that to the best of his knowledge it was the apron the deceased was wearing when she was arrested. This surely is very important as it now rules out the suggestions that the killer cut the apron piece off.

If as posters suggest the killer did take the apron piece then wouldnt it have been much easier for him being armed with a sharp knife to "CUT" a piece of the apron and not tear it.

His testimony as far as the apron wasnt expanded on he should have been asked if it was torn when she was arrested especially as the apron piece was found and matched and mentioned at the inquest

This could now suggest that perhaps it had been torn prior to her arrest.

monty
23rd December 2007, 08:43 PM
Just so we have a balanced, unblinkered view, Insp Collard, also at inquest, stated the apron was cut. The same Collard who produced a list of articles belonging to Eddowes.

Monty

Trevor Marriott
23rd December 2007, 08:54 PM
Well i was of the opinion that the inquest reports into these murders were correct and to be relied upon but thats seems to not be the case. i wonder how many other discrepancies there are in all of the inquest reports then.

I guess you are one of those who come down on the side of the killer cutting the apron piece ?

I guess you pay your money and you take your choice !

monty
23rd December 2007, 09:26 PM
Collards inquest statement was also written down AND signed by the witness himself. He would have read and, if it was wrong, corrected it before signing it. Or at least pointed out the discrepancy. Cut or torn would make no difference to Collard.

As an ex CID man surely you would have seen that, no?

PerryMason
23rd December 2007, 09:43 PM
Hello again,

I do see the contention Sam and Monty, but we are talking about a murder a month old, and the Ripper has killed at least twice since then, both East End kills. I find it hard to imagine he posed a threat to the City based on what had occurred until that point.

And to Monty's point re: the apron removal technique, I believe it is a matter of record that both cutting and tearing was used, likely because part of the section removed had been repaired...as in stitched,...and he tore that stitched section apart.

My best regards and Holiday wishes.

Fisherman
23rd December 2007, 09:51 PM
Hi Trevor, Monty, Michael... ...wait a minute; Michael? THAT Michael?

Welcome back, Michael! Who says Santa isn�t for real? Good to see you about again!

On the apron, Monty points to Collards statement on it being cut. That is actually seconded by both Halse and Henry Smith:

Halse: "When I saw the dead woman at the mortuary I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut.
(Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File)

Henry Smith: "By this time the stretcher had arrived, and when we got the body to the mortuary, the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut."
Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner)

...so I think subscribing to it being proved that the apron was torn may be to jump the gun.

All the best,

Fisherman

Trevor Marriott
23rd December 2007, 09:54 PM
i would suggest the Police Constable would have donethe same !!

Natalie Severn
23rd December 2007, 09:59 PM
I think it needs to be remembered that in an otherwise quiet square,a fairly loud ripping sound would accompany such a "tear"-whereas a "cut" with a knife
would have made a little less sound! If indeed it was "torn" by Jack during or after the murder and in Mitre Square, then George Morris was wearing earmuffs when he swept his step down to the door with same "ajar" or he was a bit deaf or else he was lying!
Natalie

monty
23rd December 2007, 10:17 PM
Indeed Trevor, Robinson did sign his. However, not at any stage in his signed witness statement does he mention the state of the apron, whereas Collard does. I suspect you are referring to the news accounts of the inquest.

Monty.

jcoram
23rd December 2007, 10:21 PM
Hi Fisherman,

As a notorious make do and mender myself..........

The idea of a large apron doesn't necessarily equate with a voluminous amount of material. The apron was almost certainly cotton, or possibly a mixture of linen and cotton, and the fact that Kate had recently stitched a patch of new material on it would suggest that the rest of the apron was old and worn. As material gets older it obviously gets thinner and thinner until it rips just by staring at it hard. I suspect, knowing Kate's background and her lack of funds that the apron was very old and worn, actually from the evidence we have that is 99% certain. If that is the case, it would probably take up a very small amount of space when rolled into a ball or bundled.

Add to that of course that only a portion of it remained when that sketch was drawn, then I think what we see there looks just about right to me, but I agree that it's probably the bit at the side, rather than the white material over her chest or a bit of both. I think that you're right though about it being a waist tied apron and not a full apron with a bib. I've attached the sketch at the bottom in case anyone hasn't got easy access to it so they can see what they think.

I think what actually made it easy to recognise was the fact that it did have a patch stitched on it, which would have made it a bit more easy to distinguish from others.

As to the idea that he cut it to get it out of the way......well that's a fair suggestion, but surely he would just have cut through the apron string and flung it over whole, rather than taking the trouble to cut through the apron? Seems a lot of effort for little reward.

Hugs

Jane

xxxx

jcoram
23rd December 2007, 10:33 PM
Hi Trevor,

Obviously I agree with the others that evidence shows fairly conclusively that the apron was cut and not torn.....but it is possible that Jack, and I'm afraid I still am quite adamant that it was Jack......did tear or at least pull the cloth taut as well to hasten the severance.

Material, even old material is almost impossible to cut if there is no tension. If he had began cutting downwards, once he had cut through the apron string then there would have been no tension and he would have had the devil of a job finishing the cut to the bottom on the apron, because it would be hanging free, unless he seized the loose half of it with his left hand and pulled at the same time he cut. Actually that is one possiblity I suppose for the markings found on the detached piece of apron, which I've never thought of before.

This would still result in the 'clean cut' that is described, because the knife would have been doing the severing of the threads.

The difference between a tear and a cut is usually very obvious. If the fabric is torn, it invariably follows the weft or the warp of the cloth, absolutely exactly along the thread and there is usually a puckering of the cloth as the threads are broken and not cut. With a cut, although more so with scissors, the blade always ends up cutting diagonally across the cloth, severing and crossing the warp and the weft and it's very easy indeed to distinguish the two, even to an untrained eye. As I pointed out in my other post though, tearing through the waistband of the apron, even if it was old and threadbare would be nigh on impossible, especially to someone who was as inebriated as Kate was that night. I know I couldn't do it sober!!!

Jane
xxx

Fisherman
23rd December 2007, 11:11 PM
Jane Coram writes:
"I agree that it's probably the bit at the side, rather than the white material over her chest or a bit of both"

...and I will add that the white material at her chest, I always figured to be the white calico chemise mentioned among her belongings. Waist tied would be right, I think, and it�s good to hear you second that.

As for
"As to the idea that he cut it to get it out of the way......well that's a fair suggestion, but surely he would just have cut through the apron string and flung it over whole, rather than taking the trouble to cut through the apron? Seems a lot of effort for little reward"

...I must agree that there would have been easier ways to get the apron out of his way. But I would have thought the simplest way would be to just throw it up over her, but it would seem he did not. Maybe he actually took pleasure in cutting through the apron, since it lay over her abdomen. Some sort of weird aperitif, perhaps?

The best,

Fisherman

PerryMason
24th December 2007, 12:54 AM
Hi once again,

I see that I mistook which murder Sam said prompted the "alert", I now see that point Sam and Monty.

As to whether he cut through the apron from the start, did he cut through Marys chemise as well...while it was buttoned closed? I dont recall.

My best all....and Merry Christmas Fisherman.

Thanks for the thoughts....hopefully Ill be back more often in a few weeks.

Sometimes I feel you need to push somethings out of the way for a time to get to other things, and Ive underestimated my ability to do without my Casebook colleagues.

Cheers.

Sam Flynn
24th December 2007, 01:08 AM
Maybe he actually took pleasure in cutting through the apron, since it lay over her abdomen. Some sort of weird aperitif, perhaps?
Quite possibly, Fisherman. It's worth reminding ourselves that a number of Kate's "waist-garments" (if I can call them that for simplicity) had been cut through, and some of these showed evidence of bloodstains inside and out, as follows:
Chintz skirt - jagged cut 6� inches long from waistband. Edges slightly bloodstained;

Green alpaca skirt - jagged cut 10� inches long in front of waistband downward. Bloodstained inside front, under cut;

Blue skirt - jagged cut 10� inches long through waistband, downward. Bloodstained inside & outside back and front;

White chemise - very much bloodstained all over, apparently torn thus "ᛊ" in middle of front.

There appears to be a reasonable probability that the knife was used to cut through at least some of these - including the waistbands - at once. It's also possible that these cuts to the clothing, particularly the longer jagged ones, were coincident with the wound that opened Kate's abdomen.

Sox
24th December 2007, 03:20 AM
There appears to be a reasonable probability that the knife was used to cut through at least some of these - including the waistbands - at once. It's also possible that these cuts to the clothing, particularly the longer jagged ones, were coincident with the wound that opened Kate's abdomen.

I agree Sam. I have long thought that these very things were possible indications that our boy was rushing like never before, and if he had just killed Liz Stride, then he had every reason to be in a hurry. Too much of a hurry to be planting cloth and scrawling messages? Maybe, maybe not.

I think Kate left us more clues than a piece of cloth and a bogus message. When the killer first encounters Eddowes he is in a state of high anxiety/excitement, atested to by the state of Kates clothing, which seems to indicate a ferocious initial attack upon her corpse, not present in the other victims. He was even at pains to pull down Nichols skirts, after the attack, for example, thus enhancing shock value because with her clothing back in place, the extent of her injuries are not imediately apparent.

His excitement abates as the major mutilations are made and he knows he will get what he wants/needs....and he settles to some details, the nicks on the eyes and turning out her pockets......and cutting away a piece of her apron. I would suggest that Kate Eddowes was a direct result of Liz Stride, an oft made suggestion I agree, but I believe the crime scene goes a long way to showing that Jack, initially at least, was rushing things.

My thoughts on his reason for taking the apron piece are voiced earlier in this thread, but I would like to ask something. There is evidence, and with more than just Kate Eddowes, that Jack was rifleing through their belongings - why?

Could it be, that he was making sure there was nothing to incriminate him?

Ben
24th December 2007, 03:35 AM
Hi Mike,

It would seem that you feel the writing was there pre-apron, and the killer decided to utililize the anti-semetic feelings rising from these killings by placing the apron near to the chalk lines on the dado.

He didn't need to. The act of discarding the apron in the entrance of a Jewish dwelling in a Jewish enclave would have been sufficient to "utililize the anti-semetic feelings rising from these killings". He might also have written the message, but it would have been entirely supererogatory for that purpose.

All the best,
Ben

Ben
24th December 2007, 04:35 AM
Hi Sox,

There is evidence, and with more than just Kate Eddowes, that Jack was rifleing through their belongings - why?

He was probably looking for money, or anything else of potential and relative value.

mikey559
24th December 2007, 05:56 AM
I have always thought that he rifled through their belongings to get his money back (punters always pay first) and there might have been another reason, to get back a little something he might have given them on a prior occasion. Just my opinion.

Mikey

Sam Flynn
24th December 2007, 12:55 PM
Hello all,

As I said earlier, I see very little evidence that Jack rifled through Eddowes' belongings at all. Your mileage may vary

baron
25th December 2007, 08:37 AM
Quite possibly, Fisherman. It's worth reminding ourselves that a number of Kate's "waist-garments" (if I can call them that for simplicity) had been cut through, and some of these showed evidence of bloodstains inside and out, as follows:Chintz skirt - jagged cut 6� inches long from waistband. Edges slightly bloodstained;

Green alpaca skirt - jagged cut 10� inches long in front of waistband downward. Bloodstained inside front, under cut;

Blue skirt - jagged cut 10� inches long through waistband, downward. Bloodstained inside & outside back and front;

White chemise - very much bloodstained all over, apparently torn thus "ᛊ" in middle of front. There appears to be a reasonable probability that the knife was used to cut through at least some of these - including the waistbands - at once. It's also possible that these cuts to the clothing, particularly the longer jagged ones, were coincident with the wound that opened Kate's abdomen.

Gareth I quite agree with this probability. If we use your list as the order, from outer to inner layer, it suggests that things get bloodier as they approach the abdomen. This would be the case if he had simply lifted up everything and then made his cuts, and then laid everything back down, but in this case, it appears to me that he plunged the dagger, bowie knife, poinard, bayonet, whatever, and then cut downward or upward. If the apron was a particular nuisance, I could imagine him trying to cut through that as well, but as an apron is not sewn together in the back, it would have not had the support of her body to enable him to cut quickly through that and all the other layers. I suggest that upon making the initial, violent stab, he found that he could not cut all layers with that floppy apron moving about, so he tore the piece off that was in his way, and may have still been clutching it as he left the scene.

Cheers,

Mike

Fisherman
25th December 2007, 01:02 PM
A lot of sense here, I feel, Mike.
What interests me in particular, is the knife issue. You write of a "dagger, bowie knife, poinard, bayonet, whatever", and that has more of an appeal to me than it had to the doctors of the time.
In the case of Chapman (Phillips) and Nichols (Llewelyn) the medicos stated clearly that the wounds made could all have been inflicted by one knife only. And what kind of knife would that be? Well, Phillips describes it in detail: a knife with a long, thin, narrow, pointed blade.

In the Eddowes case, we do not have this assertion that the same knife did all the damage, but if we have the same killer, it stands to reason that there is at least a good chance the same weapon/s was/were used.
I agree that it seems that the opening cuts to Eddowes abdomen may have been made with an effort that cut through both clothing and flesh in one and the same movement. But could you manage such a powerdemanding cut with the aid of a thin, narrow blade? I think that would prove very difficult. It would be extremely hard to direct such a blade, and you would stand the risk that the blade would break.
I think much the same applies to the severe, very deep cuts on the necks of the victims - that would be far easier to do with, for example, a bowie.

The removal of the kidney, however, is another thing altogether. That would call for a much more subtle blade than the one provided by a heavy dagger like a bowie.

By now, it should be obvious where I�m headed with all of this: I believe the Ripper worked with more than one knife. It would make him a lot more efficient, and it would greatly diminish the risks of him cutting himself while making the more force-demanding cuts.

...which of course sooner or later brings us to Tabram, who definitely was the victim of two knives. One of them big and heavy, whereas the other blade seemed to have been a narrow one, so narrow, in fact, that it prompted the doctor involved to speak of a pen knife.

All the best, Mike!

Fisherman

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:12 AM

baron
25th December 2007, 01:24 PM
Fisherman,

I think that all the knives I illustrated, for really no particular reason than to try and cover possibilities, have sharp points and some mass. I believe that would be all that is needed to make the initial puncture through all those layers of clothing. The problem would really come when a ripping action was needed. A poinard and dagger, and most bayonets wouldn't be able to do that because they were really for stabbing. A bowie knife or some sort of pointed and serrated hunting knife would have no problem unless the cloth was not secured behind the victim or at least held down with a free hand.

I guess that's it for my Christmas thoughts.

Take care,

Mike

As for Tabram, well I'm not so sure she was a Ripper victim, but I'm open to it. I think there is too much to be made from the report that a bayonet-type thingy was used, as well as a pen knife. It sounds to me like conjecture. I think a good, edged blade, with a point and mass, would be able to do a violent puncture as well as small jabs and detailed work, especially on a dead person. A bowie knife would be useful for both, but I'm sure there were great knives made by the Sheffields and Solingens that could do much the same.

Later, gator

Mike

Sam Flynn
25th December 2007, 04:16 PM
Hi Mike,
Gareth I quite agree with this probability. If we use your list as the order, from outer to inner layer, it suggests that things get bloodier as they approach the abdomen. This would be the case if he had simply lifted up everything and then made his cuts, and then laid everything back down
...we also have one of PC Watkins' statements to the press, in which he says that he saw bloody finger marks on the hem of Eddowes' chemise "as if the clothing had been lifted up out of the way" (I paraphrase). It strikes me that, since 10� inches would only cut part way through a skirt, apron or chemise, it's probable that the killer got fed up with cutting through the fabric, before grabbing hold of the lowermost garment - viz., the chemise - and used it to sweep the rest of the skirts upwards before re-commencing his mutilation of the abdomen. In the process of so doing he may already have part-cut the apron which, being the topmost garment, was least likely to be contaminated with blood and hence more amenable to his purpose of wiping his hands later. Or transporting the organs - you pays your money and takes your choice

baron
25th December 2007, 04:46 PM
Gareth,

I agree with the apron being the best thing for wiping, it being the outermost layer. I thing the order of stabbing, frustration, lifting the clothing, and then doing the majority of the bloody work afterwards, seems the most plausible so far. The only thing left is the apron. Was it taken incidentally and used for cleaning the hands, or was it taken purposefully for organ transport and/or placement by the GSG? Alternatively, could it have been taken incidentally and/ or unconsciously and then used for one of those purposes through dumb luck?

Too many and/ors here, eh?

Mike

Simon Wood
25th December 2007, 07:21 PM
Hi Sam,

Nadolig Llawen a Blwyddyn Newydd Dda.

I'm still not convinced that Eddowes was wearing an apron when she was murdered.

Aside from her fur-trimmed jacket the apron would have been Eddowes' outermost item of clothing. If, as you point out, her three skirts were cut through the waistbands it is difficult to imagine that the apron didn't suffer a similar fate.

But at the inquest Doctor Brown stated that�"I fitted that portion [of the apron] which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body."

Tom has suggested that the murderer simply flipped the apron up over Eddowes' chest. Perfectly logical, but surely the waistband would still have got in his way.

Eddowes' body was surrounded by doctors and police in Mitre Square for a good hour, but in that time nobody noted her cut/torn apron which, if Tom is right, would have been in full view. That observation was down to DC Halse, who first spotted it at the mortuary. Also, an apron doesn't appear in Doctor Brown's in situ sketch of Eddowes' body. Nor was an apron included in the City Police's list of Eddowes' clothing. The closest we get is an item listed amongst her possessions�"1 piece of old white apron with repair."

The piece of apron found in Goulston Street showed signs of repair, so maybe the killer took part of this 'piece of old white apron with repair."

Where would she have carried this piece of apron? In a pocket, perhaps? That's what I thought until I caught this extract from The Times of October 1st.

" . . . She wore a pair of men's laced-boots; and a piece of old white coarse apron and a piece of riband were tied loosely round the neck. . . "

If it was a makeshift scarf, this would partly explain the bloodstains on the piece of apron found in Goulston Street.

In the final analysis, does it really matter whether or not Eddowes was wearing an apron?

I believe it does, for the apron played a more important part in establishing Eddowes as the woman locked up in Bishopsgate police station than any really positive identification.

But that's another story.

Regards,

Simon

PS. I'm off now to find the sixpence in the Christmas Pudding.

PerryMason
25th December 2007, 07:22 PM
Merry Christmas all,

These last few posts raise some interesting ideas,.... Im wondering how much the type of material cut and the weapon used to do so can tell us.

If you had a garment that you wanted to cut through with a knife, it would have to be taut at the point where its first pierced,.... or made as rigid as possible, to accomplish that. The sharpest knife made would have great difficulty slicing through loosely gathered or piled cotton.

I think he cut and tore it due to that reason, because it was not held taut, as it would be if Kate was upright and the apron tied snugly in place when he cuts it. The initial piercing of it, and the snipping of the string that tied it occuring when he begins the abdominal mutililations, and his completing the severing of the piece from the bulk of the garment was done when it was loosely gathered. He tore it then I believe.

And I think a stronger argument can be made that it was for cartage if one accepts that premise. If he has completed his act on her....why take something to wipe excrement off his hands later when he could wipe them off immediately on her clothing. And the apron had staining concentrated in one area, a wipe of blade or his hand would leave just that....bloody, sh***y smears across the fabric.

I also think it could be the single most compelling reason to surmise that at the very least Kate and Annie were killed by the same fella. An example of a logical progression in technique...he learned from his mistake of pocketing almost the same exact organs last time.....note I omit Liz

.....maybe ruined a top coat, had to dispose of it... or he felt unwanted stress when he noticed that the blood had saoked through from Annies organs, and he was not yet home.

I think it should have been disposed of discreetly once he was close to home, and I think he would have done so, had it not been for the first murder investigation of that night being in full swing near his home, altering his ability to go straight home after killing Kate. A spontaneous idea for the apron piece now comes to him.

Did he get that notion at around 2am, or close to 3am.....? My guess is 3.... he is somewhere, getting the new idea for the bloody cloth after leaving his "take" safely somewhere, for close to an hour, before going to Goulston.

I really feel this is a possible scenario, and lends itself to the idea that the chalk and the apron piece were both his work, and as some kind of gut reaction and message regarding his well made plans being screwed up by that first murder. Involving a woman killed on Jewish private property. Immediately attributed to Jack the Ripper by International Club...Jewish...members.

"The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing".....sorta makes sense based on the above concept.

Happy Holidays friends...

baron
25th December 2007, 08:02 PM
If you had a garment that you wanted to cut through with a knife, it would have to be taut at the point where its first pierced,.... or made as rigid as possible, to accomplish that. The sharpest knife made would have great difficulty slicing through loosely gathered or piled cotton.

I think he cut and tore it due to that reason, because it was not held taut, as it would be if Kate was upright and the apron tied snugly in place when he cuts it. The initial piercing of it, and the snipping of the string that tied it occuring when he begins the abdominal mutililations, and his completing the severing of the piece from the bulk of the garment was done when it was loosely gathered. He tore it then I believe.

Michael,

Exactly as I said it before. The knife blade didn't have to have a sharp edge for the initial plunge, but it wouldn't have cut well, even with a good edge unless the body weight was sufficient to hold the clothing down. The apron
was too floppy for cutting. He tore away what was irritating him, and lifted up the clothing, as Gareth said, by pulling up the innermmost layer, evidenced by the bloodstains, and noted by the PC.

Mike

Sam Flynn
25th December 2007, 08:41 PM
Greetings Mike,
If he has completed his act on her....why take something to wipe excrement off his hands later when he could wipe them off immediately on her clothing.
It's evident that he smeared some excrement over her (small) intestines. I surmise that he found that this only removed the greater part of the offending material from his hand - the remainder would have to be cleaned up later, away from the approaching police. The apron piece may have been an improvised "glove" designed to insulate his own clothing from faecal contamination, until he could remove the residual mess at a safer remove from the crime-scene.

PerryMason
25th December 2007, 10:43 PM
Hi again,

I agree with your point that agrees with my point Mike.

And Merry Christmas ya old mountain man.

The tearing was likely a result of the time available and the lack of satisfying results by merely piercing or sawing at it with the knife. I also believe that it served some other purpose that he felt warranted the noise made to tear it, rather than just as a handkerchief.

Greetings Mike,
It's evident that he smeared some excrement over her (small) intestines. I surmise that he found that this only removed the greater part of the offending material from his hand - the remainder would have to be cleaned up later, away from the approaching police. The apron piece may have been an improvised "glove" designed to insulate his own clothing from faecal contamination, until he could remove the residual mess at a safer remove from the crime-scene.

I think you may have struck upon a really good answer as usual Gareth,

.....using it to shield his hand as a "glove" and then wrapping the package to plop in his pocket is very reasonable I think. I think although somewhat different in mechanics, I think your suggestion backs up my, Bens and others feelings that it was used to handle the organs, not just wipe his hands or to clean his knife.

So....if its discarded when he has no further use for it, its when he is almost home....fair? So....if it doesnt appear until over an hour after Kates death has passed, does that mean he stayed on alleys and streets with his filthy package in pocket, or did he have somewhere to go prior to his real home if need be, and he left the contents there?

If so.....why would he still have it on him when he goes back out?

Merry Christmas Sam.

...all the best.

Sam Flynn
25th December 2007, 10:47 PM
Hi Mike - what makes you think that Jack would have been remotely queasy about making direct manual contact with the organs? Using the apron as a "glove" would make it far more cumbersome to handle the viscera, and would furthermore prevent his hands from becoming contaminated with blood and faeces in the first instance - which was evidently not the case.

Fisherman
26th December 2007, 12:50 AM
Merry Christmas, Mike, and a Happy New year, here amongst intestines, faeces and blood...!
A strange hobby, this. Or infatuation, for that matter!

You write:

"I think there is too much to be made from the report that a bayonet-type thingy was used, as well as a pen knife"
...on the Tabram case.
I have always subscribed to the no-Jack-victim theory when it comes to Tabram, but I have slowly started my ascent up on the fence these last few months.

This all belongs to another thread, of course, but since it has been brought up, I must say that to my mind there is no doubt whatsoever that the Tabram deed involved more than one weapon. Since Killeen spoke of a bayonet or dagger as being responsible for the chest wound, I think it must be accepted that the wound had a width that corresponded to these weapons. The other wounds, Killeen asserted, could all have been done by the same weapon, "such as a pen-knife". If those wounds had had the same width as the chest wounds, there would have been no mentioning of a pen knife. Indeed, there would probably not even have been no mentioning of two possible weapons.
But we know that the wounds pointed to a type of weapon that could be compared to a pen-knife, although they reached deep within Tabram, piercing the inner organs. Ergo two weapons; I can not see any other possibility.
Others can, though...

All the best, Mike!

Fisherman

PerryMason
26th December 2007, 12:53 AM
Hi Mike - what makes you think that Jack would have been remotely queasy about making direct manual contact with the organs? Using the apron as a "glove" would make it far more cumbersome to handle the viscera, and would furthermore prevent his hands from becoming contaminated with blood and faeces in the first instance - which was evidently not the case.

Hi Sam,

I dont think he has an aversion to handling bloody slippery organs at all, just that with Kate, due to the colon sectioning, there is excrement this time as part of the package when handling the kidney.

Im think that there are features with some of these acts that might make a gentleman type squeamish, if he was one,....such as excrement, or an excess of blood to mess his cuffs when mutilating the abdomen, perhaps thats the main reason he bleeds them first.

And when he tranfers the organs from the apron section to his pocket before leaving the piece just off Goulston, he could just let the apron unravel while pulling it from his pocket, leaving the organs behind. He need not even touch them until he is in a place where he can clean up immediately afterward. Although he also might have been wearing gloves, so direct hand to bloody organ contact was not required.

That scenario means though that he did not likely improvise this as a result of his possible negative experience with taking Annies organs, if they just ended up in his pocket staining his coat again anyway.

Of course, I think he did that before going to Goulston

.

My best as always Sam.

Sam Flynn
26th December 2007, 02:00 AM
Hello again, Mike.
That scenario means though that he did not likely improvise this as a result of his possible negative experience with taking Annies organs, if they just ended up in his pocket staining his coat again anyway.
Ay, well there's the rub. I am pretty certain that no major staining would have ensued, given the relatively small quantity of blood involved and the likelihood that he had coat - or trouser - pockets made of comparatively dark, coarse fabric. Such clothing was practically the norm in Late Victorian London, at least among the "shabby genteel" and below.

ChavaG
26th December 2007, 02:01 AM
So I had a nice but long trip down south and plenty of time just to sit and think. Something occurs to me now that hadn't occurred before so bear with me please as I do a 180...

On the night of the 'double event', the Ripper killed a woman at the door of a well-known social club inhabited exclusively by Jews. He wasn't able to finish what he started because a club member interrupted him. Instead of going home and maybe waiting a prudent day or two before venturing out again, he runs West and finds Catherine Eddowes. He kills her. And then he takes a piece of her apron for whatever reason. Maybe he cuts himself. Maybe he wants a kidney transporter. Maybe it was done just for jolly. He discards this apron which is clearly connected to the victim outside the passageway into a model dwelling which is also inhabited mainly by Jews. And either (1) he takes the time to write some obscure graffiti or (2) he notices said obscure graffiti, understands it was written there because Jews live there. Maybe (3) he doesn't notice the graffiti. Which is what I thought right up until my long and thoughtful journey.

I respectfully submit that the double event's connection to the Jews may very well be purposeful. And that he set out to kill a woman in a heavily-trafficked Jewish are from the getgo that night. When his first efforts were unsuccessful he tried again. At some risk to his safety. And well out of his comfort-zone.

I wonder why he was so hellbent on demonstrating that the Jews were responsible. He didn't try and fit them up for Nicholls or Chapman. But the cops had picked up--and released a Jew by that time. Maybe they had interviewed him or noticed him in some way and he thought they were on to him. Since I believe the Kelly killing wasn't part of this series, I believe he stopped right after Eddowes for some reason.

I have nothing more to offer. My mother-in-law who died aged nearly 100 was Jewish and born and brought up in the East End. She never felt there was much racial tension between the Jews and the gentiles there, but things may have changed by the turn of the century.

Anyway, for what it's worth--which may not be much--I now think he did try and implicate the Jews. And he had already decided to do that before he left wherever it was that he lived to go out and kill that night.

Happy Holidays!
Chava

Sam Flynn
26th December 2007, 05:50 AM
And that he set out to kill a woman in a heavily-trafficked Jewish are from the getgo that night.
Hi Chava,

And if he were to have tried to find a non-heavily-trafficked Jewish area in that part of the world? I humbly submit that it would have been rather difficult.

ChavaG
26th December 2007, 03:52 PM
Sam,

It would have been easier than you think. There were very few--almost no--Jews living in the Flowery Dean/Dorset St area that we think of as the heart of the killing area. Contemporary maps of London show that area to be relatively non-Jewish. No one living at 29 Hanbury St, at least no one called at the inquest, was Jewish. The Jews tended to live in their own areas around Brick Lane etc. You'd find large concentrations in one tenement and almost none in another. That would have to do with people coming over from Eastern Europe and wanting to stay close to their relatives. The UK city that I grew up in had maybe 3000 Jews in my time. 1500 of them were my relations! Because everyone had come from the same area of Russia and went to live close to people they knew already.

I just think it might be worth while to look at the double event killing as linked perhaps further than just happening on the same night. Yes they happened at the same time and (roughly) the same area. But they also both involve Jews to an extent that doesn't happen in the other murders.

Sox
26th December 2007, 04:31 PM
I am sorry gents but this is a step to far. Mythology has played too great a part in the investigation of these crimes for years, and the claim that Jack was some kind of political crusader is foremost among those myths.

The chances that this sexual serial killer gave a hoot about Jews & Gentiles are miniscule to none, at best.

Ben
26th December 2007, 10:31 PM
It would have been easier than you think. There were very few--almost no--Jews living in the Flowery Dean/Dorset St area that we think of as the heart of the killing area. Contemporary maps of London show that area to be relatively non-Jewish.

You're absolutely right, Chava. Contrary to (apparently) popular opinion, there were discernably Jewish enclaves littered throughout the district, of which the Middlesex Street / Petticoat Lane area was one of the better known examples. It certainly wouldn't have been a case of daily shoulder-rubbing and general "meshing" between Jews and Gentiles either. As you correctly observed, the Flower and Dean / Dorset Street end of Commcerical Street wasn't remotely Jew-populated.

If the killer sought to implicate the Jews, it wouldn't have had anything to do with political crusades. He would merely have been taking advantage of the fact that local suspicion was already focussed in a Jewish direction since the Leather Apron diversion.

All the best,
Ben

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:17 AM

monty
26th December 2007, 10:50 PM
So the area, between Mitre Square and Goulston street, that had Jewish dwellings, shops and vendours, Jewish market and a synagogue had no Jewish connnectioon what so ever then?

Monty

Ben
26th December 2007, 10:54 PM
Hi Monty,

Not sure if your message was intended for me, but the area you describe had strong and obvious Jewish connections.

Regards,
Ben

monty
27th December 2007, 12:10 AM
Not really Ben.

PerryMason
27th December 2007, 12:18 AM
So the area, between Mitre Square and Goulston street, that had Jewish dwellings, shops and vendours, Jewish market and a synagogue had no Jewish connnectioon what so ever then?

Monty

Its a fair question Monty, and Merry Christmas by the way

...I wonder if there are any known members of the International Club that had a connection with those model dwellings off Goulston. Perhaps he sought out a site where he knew someone in particular lived, or would pass by.

Whose to say this was a general proclamation,....it may have been a personal message.

My best my friend.

Sam Flynn
27th December 2007, 02:10 AM
Hi Ben (and belated greetings)
the area you describe had strong and obvious Jewish connections.
A pity it is, then (if Jack indeed lived in the general vicinity of Flower & Dean Street), that his route home would have taken him right through one of the more densely-populated Jewish enclaves in Spitalfields.

Ben
27th December 2007, 04:51 AM
Hi Gareth,

Hope you had an enjoyable Chrimbo!

If Jack lived in the general vicinty of Flower & Dean Street (or down a bit and left a bit, or wherever

), it would have been handy in the extreme (perhaps pre-planned, perhaps not) that his escape route took him through a Jewish enclave. It enabled him to kill two rather mangy birds with one stone; ditch the rag en route for convenience, and ensure that the investigative focus is sustained in a Jewish direction in so doing. Rather like stealing sweets from the local shop, and chucking the wrappers in the fat kid's backgarden on the way home.

All the best,
Ben

Sox
27th December 2007, 06:25 AM
If the killer sought to implicate the Jews, it wouldn't have had anything to do with political crusades. He would merely have been taking advantage of the fact that local suspicion was already focussed in a Jewish direction since the Leather Apron diversion.

All the best,
Ben

Taking advantage of what exactly? Confusing an already clueless police force.....by leaving a false trail to a man they had already cleared???? Rousing the locals against the Jews, getting more people out on the streets, raising the chances of vigilantes roaming the allyways of Whitechapel? I really cannot see this helping a killer who depended upon peace,quiet and solitude.

The investigation most certainly was not focused on Jews at the time of the double event, Pizer had been cleared by the police.

baron
27th December 2007, 09:44 AM
It enabled him to kill two rather mangy birds with one stone; ditch the rag en route for convenience, and ensure that the investigative focus is sustained in a Jewish direction in so doing. Rather like stealing sweets from the local shop, and chucking the wrappers in the fat kid's backgarden on the way home.

Ben,
Very convenient indeed, especially for someone clever enough to shift the focus to others. I think JTR was a Jew, of course, and that many of the things we attribute to Jack's cunning cunning shifting of blame, I look at as a Jew taking credit for and enjoying himself with it.

Cheers,

Mike

Fisherman
27th December 2007, 04:59 PM
Personally, I think that the issue of the apron being dropped in a predominantly jewish area is of very little importance. It has been shown over and over again on the boards (the latest time perhaps being post nr 52 on the "Where do you think the Ripper resided?" thread), that the area that was encircled by the five canonical murder sites is an area that housed huge numbers of jews. There were hundreds and hundreds of doorways that would have met the criteria of leading to housings dominated by jews in these streets. If you were to draw straight lines between all the murder sites on a map, all of these lines would cross such adresses on numerous occasions.

It would seem that for example Kelly died on gentile ground - the dwellings on Dorset Street held less tan five percent jews - but it would only take a very short stroll southwards, past the actual block where she stayed, to find the exact opposite on Whites Row, where the houses were to more than 95 percent filled by a jewish population! Heading north gives another adress but the exact same result.

Of course the housing on Goulston Street would have been known as predominantly jewish. But there would have been lots of opportunities to find buildings that were just as well-known to house jews on numerous places along the Rippers road to the Wentworth Model Buildings. For some reason he did not choose these. Maybe because Wentworth Model buildings offered deep doorways with lots of privacy for someone who, unseen, wanted to discard a bloody rag?

The best, all!
Fisherman

Ben
27th December 2007, 05:38 PM
Taking advantage of what exactly?

The fact that suspicion was already focussed in a Jewish direction, fuelled to a large extent by the scaremongering of press and public. Naturally, the idea that all suspicions against all Jews had disappeared with the clearing of Pizer is a nonsensical position to argue and one which I won't waste time engaging with. Suffice to say that Jewish directed resentment and suspicion was not instigated by Pizer alone.

I'm absolutely determined to expunge the mindset that "pretty much everywhere was Jewish, so it doesn't matter where he dumped it". No! Curse it to oblivion - no! There were areas that were predominantly Jewish enclaves and recognised as such by police and locals alike; the locality between Mitre Square and Goulston Street being a particularly well-known example.

Maybe because Wentworth Model buildings offered deep doorways with lots of privacy for someone who, unseen, wanted to discard a bloody rag?

Yep, Fisherman, I agree. I'm sure it served the function of a convenient and private disposal location en route, but I've no doubt whatsoever that he was also aware (like everyone else) of it's strong Jewish population (Goulston Street being one of five well-known Jewish Streets referenced by Charles Booth), and sought to take advantage of it, quite possibly on the spur of the moment. Dorset Street was indeed predominantly Gentile, but there are other ways of shifting blame onto the Jews besides directional "clues".

Shifting blame onto others is one of the oldest rules in the "naughty boy" book, and requires very little cunning, especially when the opportnity presents itself so conveniently.

Best regards,
Ben

Sox
27th December 2007, 05:57 PM
Ben,I think JTR was a Jew

I agree, and I think that after the double event the police did too. There is a tenuous link between Stride, Eddowes & Jews that had nothing to do with Goulston Street & Aprons (not that I can find anyway) and I have a notion that it is with the double event that Anderson & Co' become convinced that the Ripper was Jewish.

I have a question for our more able researchers: Do we know who lived in the Model Dwellings at the time of the murders?

Ben
27th December 2007, 06:07 PM
Interesting alternative, Baron.

Natrually, I can't rule out a Jew being responsible for the crimes, but I'm rather disinclined to think so. I just can't envisage the killer incriminating his community (and by extension, himself) in such a fashion. As for Anderson's belief in a Jewish involvement in the murders, this was prompted - as per his writings - not by the double event, but purportedly as a result of house-to-house searches. Not quite sure how these would have led to a generalised belief in Jewish guilt, but still...

Best regards,
Ben

ChavaG
27th December 2007, 07:13 PM
I have no deep community reason to assume the Ripper was not a Jew. But he would have had to have been a particularly self-hating, short-sighted, forgetful Jew to have left clues lying around that suggested the killer was part of the Jewish community. Probably 90%+ of the Jewish immigrant population of that area would have had direct experience of pogroms. And those pogroms often were instigated by people suggesting that the Jews killed women/kids in a bloody manner and then used their blood in religious ceremonies. No Jew who lived then would have so cavalierly incited the hatred of local gentiles in that manner. People were killed in pogroms, and not quickly either.

I think it's more likely that he thought the cops were somehow on to him and made use of the feeling aroused by the arrest of Pizer to put pressure on them to look in a Jewish direction. I can't otherwise believe a man who was restrained enough to kill only occasionally would go out and kill again right after almost being discovered. Received wisdom is that his passions were inflamed and he wasn't thinking straight. But I believe the Ripper was always thinking straight. He may not have been a genius but he wasn't stupid. If the police won't buy Pizer as a suspect, maybe the locals will believe it was another Jew if enough clues are left to point in that direction. It's only a slight change in his MO. He didn't implicate anyone in Nicholls or Chapman. He didn't need to. But someone or something happened to make him believe he might be in the frame this time IMO. And he reacted in a way that has been shown to work on other occasions. (Anyone who cares might look up the Hillsner Trial in Polna Bohemia at the turn of the 20th Century. A young woman went missing and was found ripped to pieces and buried on top of the skeleton of another young woman who had gone missing a year before. Word came down from Vienna to concentrate on looking for a Jew, since the Austro-Hungarian Empire wanted to divert the local peasants away from nationalist causes. The cops picked up a local Jewish ne'er do well and did him for the killings. He was found guilty but never executed, and was released after the end of the First World War. He was never seriously suspected of having killed the girls but he went down for it anyway. And the local peasants had themselves a few lovely pogroms in the process.)

Fisherman
27th December 2007, 08:24 PM
Ben writes:

"I'm absolutely determined to expunge the mindset that "pretty much everywhere was Jewish, so it doesn't matter where he dumped it"

...and that makes me wonder: why? If you walk from Mitre Square, and pass Houndsditch in the general direction of George Yard or Hanbury Street (a line drawn from Mitre Sq, through the Goulston Street doorway points to the area between these venues), you will delve into areas that were genuinely Jewish. In the vicinity of Middlesex Steet and Wentworth Street there are precious few possibilities to find a non-jewish doorway for that rag if I read the maps correctly. Thus I fail to see why it would be recommendable - let alone wise - to disregard that fact.
Maybe the Ripper pondered the possibility that the public would feel justified in pointing to the jews if the rag was found in a Jewish doorway. Maybe. But I feel that the total domination of Jewish housings along the stretch renders such a notion useless, since I subscribe to the notion you are determined to expunge: If you threw that rag away in any randomely chosen doorway, the chances that it would be Jewish would be huge.

You add:

"Dorset Street was indeed predominantly Gentile, but there are other ways of shifting blame onto the Jews besides directional "clues".

...and I will add that the reason I mentioned Dorset Street in my former post, was to point to the fact that though it was very much predominantly Gentile, it took no more than a few steps to find an area where the opposite applied and the Jews had a +95 percent dominance.

The very best, Ben!
Fisherman

Ben
27th December 2007, 08:44 PM
Hi Fisherman,

In the vicinity of Middlesex Steet and Wentworth Street there are precious few possibilities to find a non-jewish doorway for that rag if I read the maps correctly. Thus I fail to see why it would be recommendable - let alone wise - to disregard that fact.

I'm not disregarding it at all. It's the very point I'm emphasising. The fact that a heavily Jewish "stretch" ley en route between the crime scene and the GSG suggests that the killer could conceivably have selected the murder locality with the Jewish factor in mind. With the only eyewitness description to date having implicated a "foreigner" in Hanbury Street, it would have been very much in a gentile killer's interest to maintain the investigative focus in that direction, hence murders being committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs and synagogues etc.

Just a suggestion based on the geography of the crimes and the fact that Jew-related suspicion and resentment ran rampant at the time, but a reasonable one. It could be counter-argued that this consideration played no significant role in his movements on the night of the double event, and he merely thought "Here's a handy doorway to get rid of this....even handier than Jews live here", which would be equally reasonable. On the other hand, if there wasn't a Jewish enclave en route, perhaps he would have retained the rag all the way home?

Best regards,
Ben

PerryMason
28th December 2007, 12:08 AM
Hello all,

If the killer lived in the East End, and only used the rag to clean himself, then why would he leave that bloody piece of a crime scene, in plain view, in the East End, at least an 8 minute walk from the square? Why not wipe his hands and knife while walking out of the square, in the alley, and then just drop it in a city bin somewhere? Why carry it almost home, leading investigators to believe he was returning to the East End? Why not leave them guessing where he went?

For one, its not going to rid him of incriminating evidence because he still has organs to contend with on him, and if he is so concerned about being caught with evidence on him, the organs are far more damaging, and dangerous to have on him, rather than just that apron piece. So even if he drops the apron before going home, in the East End, shortly after killing Kate, he has not rid himself of dangerous artifacts by any stretch.

So why drop it at all, ....and why would there be a delay in doing so, if the officers didnt miss it lying there during their passes just after 2:00am?

I submit when its dropped, its the last bit of murder evidence on him at that time, otherwise, there is no need to rid himself of it at all, and certainly not while he still has more damaging evidence on him, the organs.

And for a Jew to leave evidence of a murder in almost exclusively Jewish surrounds, makes the liklihood of him actually being Jewish, or living near there, slim. Why implicate his own race, and his own neighbourhood? You may say he didnt implicate Jews in his message, but Warren disagreed heartily.

My best to all.

monty
28th December 2007, 12:23 AM
Unless he was caught with it red handed, the apron had no convicting 'qualities'. Forensically, in 1888, its worthless. So theres no concern if its dumped in a bin, which were few, or the street or doorway.

cd
28th December 2007, 12:31 AM
Hi Michael,

Welcome back.

Just a few thoughts here -- We assume that Jack kept the organs rather than throwing them away but we really don't know for sure. So it might not have been a case of throwing away an incriminating apron piece while having incriminating organs upon his person if he had already discarded the organs somewhere.

I believe the apron was rather large and might not have fit in his pocket easily.

He might have started to clean his knife at the murder scene but was interrupted by a noise or a perception that someone was approaching. It might simply be the case that he started to run without really realizing that he had the apron in his hand. At some point, he became aware of it and dropped it at the first opportunity.

Good to have you back.

c.d.

Fisherman
28th December 2007, 01:22 AM
Ben writes:

"I'm not disregarding it at all. It's the very point I'm emphasising. The fact that a heavily Jewish "stretch" ley en route between the crime scene and the GSG suggests that the killer could conceivably have selected the murder locality with the Jewish factor in mind. With the only eyewitness description to date having implicated a "foreigner" in Hanbury Street, it would have been very much in a gentile killer's interest to maintain the investigative focus in that direction, hence murders being committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs and synagogues etc."

I am having some difficulties to fit this post in with what you wrote earlier:
�I'm absolutely determined to expunge the mindset that "pretty much everywhere was Jewish, so it doesn't matter where he dumped it". No! Curse it to oblivion - no!�

Think I am going to need some clarification here.

Also, there are some other issues that leap to mind.

If we are to surmise that the Ripper killed Stride, are you suggesting that he, unsatisfied with the outcome in Dutfields yard, decided to try to kill somebody in the vicinity of Mitre Square, since that would ensure that his flight afterwards would be conducted along Jewish housings�? �the killer could conceivably have selected the murder locality with the Jewish factor in mind�?

As you know, I don�t see Stride as a Ripper victim at all, so in my book we are dealing with something completely different here.

Also, if we are speaking of a killer that chose killing venues close to Jewish Clubs and synagogues, then what was he doing on Dorset Street, an island of non-Jewishness in a sea of the opposite? Or are we to see this as a demonstration of preferring indoor hunting grounds offering Gentile victims, with as few Jews as possible around? A guaranteed non-Jewish striking ground?

I am not saying that the rag could not have fuelled hatred towards Jews; there is every possibility that it could. What I am saying, is that I fail to see the agenda being there, and that I see no other intent within the Ripper but to kill and mutilate. I think that occupied one hundred percent of his thoughts as he went out to kill.
Maybe the Ripper did see the use of the �subtle� placing of the rag and the even �subtler� message. But my guess is that he did not do so until the papers and local gossip pointed it out to him. And that does not mean that he was necessarily overjoyed by the result, since he may of course well have been Jewish himself.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

PerryMason
28th December 2007, 01:25 AM
Hello there vd,

Thanks for that, although only a Holiday return for now, its great to see y'all too.

.... it might not have been a case of throwing away an incriminating apron piece while having incriminating organs upon his person if he had already discarded the organs somewhere.

Thats exactly what I'm thinking was the case, its explains the delay, if it occurred, and the apron then being discarded when it is the last bit of Mitre Square murder evidence on his person.

I believe the apron was rather large and might not have fit in his pocket easily.

But it would make a convenient carry-all, with layers wrapped around itself so blood or faecal matter are'nt visible. Carried like a wrapped parcel.

He might have started to clean his knife at the murder scene but was interrupted by a noise or a perception that someone was approaching. It might simply be the case that he started to run without really realizing that he had the apron in his hand. At some point, he became aware of it and dropped it at the first opportunity.

If he ran from the scene, then he holds onto the cloth for around 5 minutes minimum. And two policemen miss seeing it there before it is recorded as being found. A piece of cloth in ones hand at 2am is odd, perhaps a wrapped parcel isnt. If he used it as a parcel, then why discard it at all...why place the organs into his pocket now, when he has possibly carried cloth from the victim so that he neednt soil his clothing. And if he dropped off the organs first.....he doesnt then need the apron piece to go back out. So why would he take it?

And why is in plain sight?

c.d.

I think the apron piece is potentially signifigant trial evidence Monty...it was determined to have been Kates, and it is well East of the crime scene. If they arrested an East End man for the crime, it would be circumstantial evidence showing his return home.

My best gents as always.

cd
28th December 2007, 01:41 AM
Hello there vd,

Thanks for that, although only a Holiday return for now, its great to see y'all too.

I think the apron piece is potentially signifigant trial evidence Monty...it was determined to have been Kates, and it is well East of the crime scene. If they arrested an East End man for the crime, it would be circumstantial evidence showing his return home.

My best gents as always.

Hi Michael,

Boy I sure hope that was just a typo.

c.d.

cd
28th December 2007, 01:53 AM
I was referring to your greeting of course.

c.d.

monty
28th December 2007, 02:35 AM
Heh-heh, vd!

Sorry, childish I know.

Michael, not forensic evidence though.

**pearlyanna** · 02-27-2008, 01:19 AM

Celesta
28th December 2007, 03:10 AM
Hi Michael,

Welcome back.

Just a few thoughts here -- We assume that Jack kept the organs rather than throwing them away but we really don't know for sure. So it might not have been a case of throwing away an incriminating apron piece while having incriminating organs upon his person if he had already discarded the organs somewhere.

I believe the apron was rather large and might not have fit in his pocket easily.

He might have started to clean his knife at the murder scene but was interrupted by a noise or a perception that someone was approaching. It might simply be the case that he started to run without really realizing that he had the apron in his hand. At some point, he became aware of it and dropped it at the first opportunity.

Good to have you back.

c.d.

This makes sense, especially if you consider how close he probably came to being caught in Mitre Square, not by one but by two constables that morning. He may barely have gotten out of there after the constable, whose name escapes me at the moment, came to the end of the passage and then turned back. He may have actually been in the square and booked it as soon as this policeman was out of hearing distance. A panicked run with the shred of cloth makes sense. He may not have been implicating anyone, merely trying to get to safety.

PerryMason
28th December 2007, 03:58 AM
Hi Michael,

Boy I sure hope that was just a typo.

c.d.

LOL...."OH what a goose am I"....Im so sorry buddy, just being sloppy.

The real point I was hinting on the evidentiary value Monty is that if he discards this just shortly after killing, then he is still carrying far more damning evidence than some bloody cloth,....so what additional problems does he have by holding on to it? Her organs are on his person. He gives himself absolutely no advantage by divesting himself of the cloth in a "plain sight" venue, while still carrying her organs, and in fact does himself great harm potentially if he lives near where its found, or in the East End at all.

The cloth wasnt seen in place until over an hour after Kates murder, barring the possibility it may have been missed twice, by separate officers, ....he had no reasonable reason at all to still be holding that cloth by that time..... unless it still was being used, or he saw nowhere else to discard it in his 60 minutes on the streets hiding, .....or, more in keeping with the recorded time of it being seen, if it did arrive near 3am, he must have had it on him intentionally, or it continued to serve some purpose....certainly more plausible than a handkerchief

...after all this time. If its to transport organs only as far as a bolt hole....then why take the risk by having the apron on his person when he goes back out?

I think this is very much like assuming Ms C5 went out searching for clients after 1am without any evidence that supports that position on record,.. that is credible

....that the cloth was there just before or around 2am and two officers passing by just missed it. Like Richardson must have missed seeing Annie when trimming his boot...or that Hutchinson must have been Wideawake

.

That apron piece may have still been on, or rather in the possession of, the killer... for an hour after the murder. He then casually drops it after cleaning hour old excrement off his hands and knife? Balderdash.

My best Holiday wishes...

Sam Flynn
28th December 2007, 06:39 AM
That apron piece may have still been on, or rather in the possession of, the killer... for an hour after the murder. He then casually drops it after cleaning hour old excrement off his hands and knife? Balderdash.
Precisely, Mike. The most reasonable explanation is that PC Long simply did not notice it earlier.

CitizenX
28th December 2007, 01:22 PM
What also makes me curious is the fact that PC Long who found the rag, appently did so before news had filtered back to him about the exact circumstances of Eddowes murder.

What strikes me most is, what was so special about a dirty discarded cloth in a run down area such as whitechapel, that took the constables eye so much. Most people finding such a cloth, without the complete details of the murder which had just taken place would not , i presume, link it directly to a murder that had happened some way away.

My first thoughts would be that it was a piece of cloth discarded by a woman who had been "caught short" , not that it was evidence from a murder. I'm guessing, like others, from the description that it was a large piece of cloth with a blood soak corner with some faecal matter, so for the size of the cloth the blood and faeces probably amounted to only a small percentage of the total area of the cloth. Certainly not "dripping" with blood.

I could understand the PC suddenly remembering seeing the cloth after it was noticed it was missing at the morgue, but that was much later in the day i believe. The constable was so struck by the cloth and message that he left the scene and returned to report it to his superior, leaving his beat at a time you would expect him to be on the look out for a possible murderer?

All I can presume is that the cloth and writing on the wall as individual items were commonplace in that area, but together in close proximity, the constable made the link with the murder, having gained minimal information on it. Not bad for an average constable who was fired a few months later for drunkeness.

My point being (finally!!).....is

for JTR to leave this as a clue to his identity would have to rely on.

1) The cloth and writing being found in the first place, whitechapel is a large area.
2) The clues being found by somebody with the intelligence to make the link
3) Someone to decifer the obtuse "The Juwes...." message......dont forget that we still cant!!

This all seems a bit complicated when he could have just left his "message" on the body of Eddowes for all to see.

Kevin

monty
28th December 2007, 02:35 PM
Kevin,

Stop being logical you silly boy.

Long said that he had initially thought there was a murder in the building, this because he had found the apron piece bloodstained, or rather bloodspotted.

Now, what is interesting is Longs inquest testimony. Which reads...

Mr. Crawford: What is the entry? - Witness: The words are, "The Jews are the men that will not be blamed for nothing." [Coroner] Both here and in your inspector's report the word "Jews" is spelt correctly? - Yes; but the inspector remarked that the word was spelt "Juwes."
[Coroner] Why did you write "Jews" then? - I made my entry before the inspector made the remark.
[Coroner] But why did the inspector write "Jews"? - I cannot say.
[Coroner] At all events, there is a discrepancy? - It would seem so.
[Coroner] What did you do when you found the piece of apron? - I at once searched the staircases leading to the buildings.
[Coroner] Did you make inquiry in any of the tenements of the buildings? - No.
[Coroner] How many staircases are there? - Six or seven.
[Coroner] And you searched every staircase? - Every staircase to the top.
[Coroner] You found no trace of blood or of recent footmarks? - No.
[Coroner] About what time was that? - Three o'clock.
[Coroner] Having examined the staircases, what did you next do? - I proceeded to the station.
[Coroner] Before going did you hear that a murder had been committed? - Yes. It is common knowledge that two murders have been perpetrated.
[Coroner] Which did you hear of? - I heard of the murder in the City. There were rumours of another, but not certain.
[Coroner] When you went away did you leave anybody in charge? - Yes; the constable on the next beat - 190, H Division - but I do not know his name.
[Coroner] Did you give him instructions as to what he was to do? - I told him to keep observation on the dwelling house, and see if any one entered or left.

So, at some stage during or after his visit at 2.55am he WAS aware of Eddowes murder and rumours of a possible second murder (Stride).

How did he hear this and when? prior to locating the apron or was it off 190H?

This is fundemental in establishing if Long was vigilant before or after he had heard of the murder(s).

Monty

jcoram
28th December 2007, 04:32 PM
Couple of interesting thoughts there Kevin and Monty..... they have overcome the glut of Christmas pud and got my brain working again.

All I can think, (being logical

) is that it was the corner of the piece of apron that triggered the most alarm bells. Blood splatters could have been from a nose bleed or accident, but the blood soaked corner would be a bit more disturbing I should imagine - enough to provoke a more proactive reaction.

I also wonder if he went to check up the stairs on the building, because he remembered that Martha Tabram had been found on a first floor landing and thought the same thing might have happened here? If he had heard rumours of another murder, (and it seems certain he did) then this tenement buildings was almost a duplicate of George Yard Buildings, what would be more natural than to check up the stairs?

Right that's it, the Christmas pud has taken over again.

Happy New Year to everyone.

Love

Jane

xxxx

ChavaG
28th December 2007, 06:52 PM
Yeah, I assumed that Long found the cloth ahead of hearing about the murders, but it's not clear to me one way or another from the inquest.

OK, what I'm going to say now will sound like Anti-Jewish Conspiracy 101. But it isn't!

The Ripper always cuts the throats of his victims, but more often than not, it seems to me that they are already dead from strangulation. Certainly there's no mention of huge blood splashes far from the body which would have shown up if they'd been alive when their throats were cut. Although I don't think this ritual of throat-cutting has anything to do with an implication of the Jews, I do think the Ripper was familiar with shechita, the ritual of kosher meat-slaughter. He'd seen it more than once, I think. It's possible he was a Jewish slaughterman, but for the reasons I've outlined earlier I think it's unlikely. But he'd watched and taken notes and possibly was excited and aroused by the process. (I'll check but I am pretty certain gentiles are not allowed to take part in animal slaughter for kosher meat.) This suggests to me that he does live or work in an area close to the Jews and might well know which dwellings were heavily Jewish. He may not even have noticed the graffito while he was on his way, but dropped the cloth outside the tenement because he knew there were a bunch of Jews there.

tom_wescott
28th December 2007, 08:08 PM
I wonder if there are any known members of the International Club that had a connection with those model dwellings off Goulston.

I have a flyer from the club for a tailor's strike which was to commense from the Jewish baths in Goulston Street, across the road from 108-119. These walks would often end in Mitre Square, except when the City Police would catch wind of the marches and have guards blocking the entrances, in which case they go to the Mile End Waste on Mile End Road. Blah, blah, blah.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ben
28th December 2007, 08:11 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Also, if we are speaking of a killer that chose killing venues close to Jewish Clubs and synagogues, then what was he doing on Dorset Street, an island of non-Jewishness in a sea of the opposite? Or are we to see this as a demonstration of preferring indoor hunting grounds offering Gentile victims

As I mentioned before, there are other ways of ensuring that the investigation remained Jewish-directed without the clue being of a directional nature. On balence, though, he probably sought an indoor location because he no longer considered it safe to kill on the streets, courtesy of the stepped-up police and vigilante presence, and the prostitutes would not have lived in the heavily Jewish localities.

All the best,
Ben

CitizenX
28th December 2007, 08:33 PM
I never doubted that PC Long knew something of the murder in the city, i said he did not know the FULL circumstances of it. It was after all only three streets away and there was probably much commotion in the area. I was commenting on how he actually made the link of finding a bloodstained rag, to....it's evidence belonging to a possible murder having taking place.

No one has properly described the piece of apron so we are all only guessing on its actual size and appearence. But from the vague descriptions we have been given so far, no one seems to have described it as "covered in blood" or covered in "substantial bloodstains" so we can only assume that for the size of the cloth, the staining and faeces were not that dominant...it just had "some??"

One mans "bloodstains" is another mans "bloodspots" its just too subjective

.

Yes it makes much more sense that Long assumed that a murder had also been carried out on his beat rather than making an immeadiate assumption that it had been discarded by a fleeing murderer from Mitre Sq. But I dont think that was the case..i think he linked it immeadiatly....within ten minutes of carrying a search of six or seven staircases "to the top" what a fit man!! He had rushed back to the station (carrying the rag??) and left the other PC to watch the building "to see if any one entered or left." NOT specifically to guard the grafitti.

He obviously thought the killer was in the building somewhere which is why he did not search anymore of the area. What really causes confusion for me is Longs statements and testimony dont add up sometimes, its as if he was trying to hide something.

"Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell." Quote from Sherlock Holmes The Adventure Of Copper Beeches...

cheers monty!!

Kevin

monty
28th December 2007, 09:45 PM
Tom,

These Jewish baths, had they been pulled down before the Wentworth dwellings were built?

Infact, the building opposite was built at the same time during the regeneration of that end of Goulston street in 87 and, if you look at the 2 buildings, you can see they were built to the same spec.

That said, I could be wrong, maybe Jake or Rob can clarify.

Monty

CitizenX
28th December 2007, 10:18 PM
Quote:
Also, if we are speaking of a killer that chose killing venues close to Jewish Clubs and synagogues, then what was he doing on Dorset Street, an island of non-Jewishness in a sea of the opposite? Or are we to see this as a demonstration of preferring indoor hunting grounds offering Gentile victims

Whites Row Synagogue which is the next street south of Dorset St and no more than a 100 yards away (as the crowflies). No 2 is directly opposite to Millers Court. It was originally a roman catholic church but was a Synagogue from 1870-1896

JCR-UK: White's Row Synagogue (Federation) - closed, London E1

http://www.jewishgen.org/SIGs/JCRUK/London/EE_whites-row/index.htm

Kevin

"Crime is common. Logic is rare. Therefore it is upon the logic rather than upon the crime that you should dwell"

tom_wescott
28th December 2007, 10:43 PM
These Jewish baths, had they been pulled down before the Wentworth dwellings were built?

No, because the flyer for the march I was speaking of was in 1889.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

monty
28th December 2007, 10:53 PM
Tom,

Interesting, thanks for that. I assumed the building directly opposite the wentworth building was dwellings also. Seeing as the fascade is the same.

Monty

tom_wescott
28th December 2007, 10:57 PM
Now I see what you're talking about. I didn't say "directly opposite", I said "across the road", meaning on the other side of the road. It's across and up just a tad I believe.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

monty
28th December 2007, 11:15 PM
Tom,

You are correct, my apologes. Though Id say south, nearer to New Goulston street.

Its interesting to note two baths in Goulston street.

Sam Flynn
28th December 2007, 11:18 PM
These Jewish baths, had they been pulled down before the Wentworth dwellings were built?
Hi Monty,

They remained operational for some considerable time after 1888. This from Jerry White's excellent book "Rothschild Buildings - Life in an East End Tenement Block, 1887-1920":
In the middle of Goulston St - in a part once grandly known as "Goulston Square" - were the public baths and wash-houses for the Whitechapel District. They had been built for the poor of Whitechapel by private philanthropy and opened in 1848. Twenty years later they were leased to a local speculator called Pilbrow, who allowed them to decay, closed them and offered them for sale for demolition in 1871. The local squirearchy, including Samuel Barnett and F.D. Mocatta, formed a committee to save the baths, and they were modernised and reopened in 1878.

There were eighty-nine baths - sixty-eight for men and twenty-one for women - divided scrupulously into first and second class. All modern conveniences were provided, including "those useful articles, flesh brushes", and charges ranged from 6d (warm, first class) to 1d (cold, second class). Three swimming baths - one for women and two for men, first and second class - were added when Rothschild Buildings were nine years old, to make Whitechapel's facilities possibly the best in London.

It was these public baths, then, to which many of the people from [Rothschild] Buildings would go. They were only five minutes' walk away in the heart of Jewish Whitechapel, conveniently close to home, work, and school.
Note the bit in bold - the Goulston St baths were not only still in use, but were extended and improved in 1896, when Rothschild Buildings had been open for nine years. Indeed, Goulston Street Baths appear to have remained in use until 1990 (yup - 1990), when they were closed down. They were finally demolished in 2001 [source: here (http://swimlondon.org/index.php?page..._EE&st=hist).]

monty
28th December 2007, 11:38 PM
Gareth,

Those are different wash houses.

The ones you are referring to Im aware of and have a connection to the McKenzie case as you know.

The ones Tom mentions are on the opposite side of the road to the dwellings, or am I wrong again Tom?

PerryMason
28th December 2007, 11:44 PM
Precisely, Mike. The most reasonable explanation is that PC Long simply did not notice it earlier.

Hi again Sam, all,

My last post again for a while........Ive started a new business, which is why I left for a bit, and Its going to get my attention for awhile. Hopefully Ill see you all again soon in the New Year.

On your point above Sam, did he miss seeing it, or did his mind not "register" a piece of meaningless cloth his eye picked up on a sideways glance?

Because my money is on his having glanced into that alley. If nothing else, he is looking out for a man who uses alleys and lanes quite effectively, ...as a self defense precaution alone, I think Long would have glanced in to that space. And once the eye has an image, the data is stored. How its used, or accessed, or what it means is for the brain to figure out....but if he looked, and it was there early, his eye would have captured an image of it.

Now, if he did as I suggest, and his eye detected something his mind didnt register to, then later, when he sees it clearly, for what it is, he would have likely had some recall of having seen "something" there his earlier pass.....something his mind didnt trigger to initially.

In the Daily Telegraph of Friday October 5th, Long was asked about that issue, whether it might have been there earlier, and the exchange was as follows;

[Coroner] "Had you been past that spot previously to your discovering the apron?"
[Long]- "I passed about twenty minutes past two o'clock."
[Coroner] "Are you able to say whether the apron was there then?"
[Long] - "It was not. "

He didnt say it may have been, or perhaps I didnt see it, or I could have missed it, or I didnt really look that closely, or I thought it was a rag, or any one of a multitude of things to that direct question, that would allow himself some wiggle room if it is later discovered somehow that it was there, and he did miss it.

He needs few words to answer the question whether there is any possibility it was there on his earlier pass........It was not, he said.

When you consider that the killer left Mitre Square before 1:45am, and Long's passes were approx 20 minutes or so apart, then there is every reason to suspect if he goes straight home to his lair in the East End, he drops that cloth before 2:00am.....making that 2 passes that Long misses seeing it. Unless he doesnt go straight to Goulston, and just gets there somewhere between 25 minutes and 40 minutes after Kates killing, ....but I think the truly reasonable answer is not that he missed seeing it twice Sam,

....but that it was placed there between 2:30 and 2:50am approx.

And if thats correct, he has wiped his hands and knife already, and he has likely dropped off his "take" somewhere. Hell, if hes a butcher, slaughterman or doctor, he could just leave the organs among the other bloody bits and pieces lying around an office or warehouse....and no layman would recognize they were human remains. So when he drops off the apron piece, it is likely the last bit of evidence of Kates murder scene he has on him.

It wasnt there earlier Sam,

Long himself said so.

My very best dear friend, and Happy New Years to you and everyone here!

cd
28th December 2007, 11:52 PM
Hi Michael,

Again, we go back to how much weight to give the evidence that we have. It was dark, the apron was dark. He was not looking for something so mundane as a piece of discarded cloth at the time. He could have easily missed it. Not all evidence is written in stone.

c.d.

Sam Flynn
28th December 2007, 11:59 PM
The ones Tom mentions are on the opposite side of the road to the dwellings, or am I wrong again Tom?
Sorry, Monty - I missed the bit about "opposite 108-119". As to Tom's flyer, I doubt that "THE" Jewish Baths would have referred to anything other than the larger premises down the road in "Goulston Square", but I may be wrong.

Fisherman
29th December 2007, 12:36 AM
CitizenX writes:
"Whites Row Synagogue which is the next street south of Dorset St and no more than a 100 yards away (as the crowflies). No 2 is directly opposite to Millers Court. It was originally a roman catholic church but was a Synagogue from 1870-1896"

...and thanks for that, CitizenX, though I think it slightly misleading to place it "opposite to Millers Court", since the entrance had the address 2 Whites Row. Whites Row was situated immediately south of Dorset Street, and it was a street that was inhabited almost exclusively by Jews, whereas Dorset Street held less than 5 percent Jews. And holding less than 5 percent Jews was not very common in those quarters, which is why I pointed to Millers court as a venue that differed from the notion that the Ripper my have sought out murder sites near synagogues or Jewish clubs. If this was the case, I feel Dorset Street would have made an extremely poor choice.

Ben, you write:
�As I mentioned before, there are other ways of ensuring that the investigation remained Jewish-directed without the clue being of a directional nature. On balence, though, he probably sought an indoor location because he no longer considered it safe to kill on the streets, courtesy of the stepped-up police and vigilante presence, and the prostitutes would not have lived in the heavily Jewish localities.�

There is no disputing that Jewish prostitutes and brothels were non-existant. The one thing that offers itself to debate here is whether the Ripper made a conscious choice of an indoor venue, or if it just was an opportunity that opened itself up after him accepting Kellys offer. But since that question involves a discussion as to whether Kelly was out and about after having entertained Blotchy or not, it�s best avoided for the moment being�!

What I tried to point to was that your suggestion that the killer perhaps chose Eddowes murder site out of a wish to be provided with a heavily Jewish dominated area to pass through on his way home (if this was where he was headed) after the strike.

If we place the Rippers home somewhere in the vicinity of George Yard, which is pretty much in the centre of the five canonical murder sites, and if we make a circle connecting these five sites, I would say that it would not matter very much from what point on this circle you started the journey to George Yard � it would take you past housings that lent themselves eminently to the purpose of casting guilt on the Jews. And thus I think that the suggestion that this would have been the purpose of the Ripper is rendered worthless, more or less. Mathematically, the value of such a theory would have been very big if there had been one single predominantly Jewish housing in the area, but of course, with every Jewish housing that is added to the final sum, the theory�s worth is decreased. And with a community like Whitechapel, with such a dense population of Jews, the potential of the theory is diluted beyond the waste water mark.

All the best!
Fisherman

Announcement

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment