The woollen scarf is certainly conspicuous by it`s absence.
The other item around her neck, the neckerchief, certainly gets lots of mentions by witnesses and medical staff, but no mention of the scarf.
No mention of it in Inspector Chandlers run down of what Chapman was wearing.
Also, considering it`s position around the neck, did the killer have to remove it ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that list of possessions culled from various newspaper reports, primarily (but not entirely) from Inspector Chandler's inquest testimony as reported in more than one newspaper? As such, he was responding, in piecemeal fashion, to various questions raised at the inquest; he was never asked to recite a structured inventory, and neither did he. As such, the list can't be considered definitive, so we can't really be sure whether Chapman's scarf was missing or not.
Chandler does provide details of Chapman`s clothing at the inquest, as reported in The Leeds Mercury 14th Sept 1888.
Sorry Gareth, I had problems uploading it.
Here goes ...
Did you search the body: I searched the clothing at the mortuary. The outside jacket - a long jacket coming down to the knees -had blood stains on it. There were blood stains around the neck on it. There were blood stains round the neck of it, both inside and out, and two or three spots on the left arm. It was hooked at the top
Was there any evidence of a scuffle: No. There was no pocket in the jacket, in fact, there were no pockets in any of the clothing at all. The pockets were worn under the skirt. It was torn down the front and also at the side. It was quite empty. The dress was a black skirt. There was little blood on the outside, at the back cause by the woman having lain amongst the blood. There were also two petticoats.
Were they blood stained: Very little. There were two bodices. They were stained with blood round the neck.
Had they been injured: No, there did not appear to be a cut in the clothing at all. The chemise was stained with blood at the bottom and more or less all over. There was no corset. She had striped stockings and laced up boots, all old. None of her clothing was torn. Her boots were on her feet. The stockings were not blood stained.
To secure it in place, perhaps? For extra warmth (she was ill, after all)? Besides, unless she had a giraffe's neck, it's hard to see how a neckerchief and scarf could not be one on top of the other.
I've never heard of a woolen scarf needing to be held in place.
These neckerchiefs were normally worn around the neck for convenience, typically they were pulled up over the head to cover the hair, like a hood.
I'm sure you've seen this many times.
This might be why it was worn above the scarf. If the woolen scarf was worn over the neckerchief it would defeat the purpose.
As you point out, she was ill. So, quite reasonably she puts on a woolen scarf for extra warmth that night, but her regular neckerchief is tied around her neck and pulled up over the head if it rains. So, naturally when the neckerchief is pulled back down it will sit above the woolen scarf.