Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eddowes apron why?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Eddowes apron why?

    Well first forgive me I know that this subject has been discussed many many times on here but I just wanted to give a possible reason for the apron piece having been used and discarded if we presume it was the killer of Eddowes and Stride that deposited the apron piece.

    If you don,t surmise that these two murders are not linken then that is a VALID supposition but please don,t derail this thread if your only motive is to prove these killings are not linked as I say if you did that would be a valid point but would send this thread off on a tangent.

    Deep breath anyhow here goes!

    My theory as to why the apron piece was used/found is thus

    Jack kills Stride and for whatever reason can't carry out hs mutilations (thats a whole other thread people!) so has to cleann his knife and leave sharpish forgive the pun. Now I think when Jack went out to kill he kept something with him to clean his blade/hands after a kill and I think he did this after the Stride killing.

    Then with his lust for mutilation not satiated he proceeded to the Eddowes murder but after this his usual hand/knife cleaning rag/cloth etc had been used on Stride hence the need to get some of Eddowes apron to do the job.

    Am I talking nonsense or is this plausible? Forgive me if I have missed anything that shows this to be ridiculous

  • #2
    First, I think, you have to decide 9on the evidence) did Jack kill both women?

    For the jury is still out on that.

    But as no piece of material has been found that was taken from Stride (as the apron undoubtedly was from Eddowes) then you are surely hypothesising something that does not exist. Thus you have to invent something?

    Why?

    We do not even know why he took the piece of apron from Kate - it had blood and faeces on it, so it is LIKELY it was used to clean himself, but that is only surmise. Maybe it was because his hand was soiled with excrement rather than to clean his knife...

    Also, and in my view a more fertile area for thought, is what he used to carry away Chapman's missing body parts. Did he just use a pocket, or did he carry a bag or some cloth (as you seem to suggest he did on the next murder)?

    I'd welcome some clarification from you as to why you see this as important.

    Phil H

    Comment


    • #3
      why?

      Hello Jim. I shall abide by your stated wishes and accept your premise.

      Let's say "Jack" had one cloth for wiping but expended it on Liz. Now he kills Kate. Did he go through her effects? If so (as the evidence shows), did she not have several pieces of cloth? So why cut the apron?

      Hope this helps.

      Cheers.
      LC

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi Phil

        Originally posted by Phil H View Post
        Also, and in my view a more fertile area for thought, is what he used to carry away Chapman's missing body parts. Did he just use a pocket, or did he carry a bag or some cloth (as you seem to suggest he did on the next murder)?
        Wasn`t Chapman`s woolly scarf missing from the crime scene?

        Comment


        • #5
          Hi Lynn

          Originally posted by lynn cates View Post
          Did he go through her effects? If so (as the evidence shows), did she not have several pieces of cloth? So why cut the apron?
          Was it because the apron was big, white and the first thing the Ripper would have encountered, and the pieces of rag (if indeed these are the cloth you refer to?) would have been in one of her many pockets?

          Comment


          • #6
            Wasn`t Chapman`s woolly scarf missing from the crime scene?

            I'd never heard one was. Source?

            Phil H

            Comment


            • #7
              How White?

              Was it because the apron was big, white and the first thing the Ripper would have encountered?
              Hi Jon,

              How white was the apron? I'm sure I read somewhere that it was so dirty that it was only recognisable as white on close examination. Is that right or have I mis-remembered?

              Regards, Bridewell.
              "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

              Comment


              • #8
                Hello Lynn ,

                Let's say "Jack" had one cloth for wiping but expended it on Liz. Now he kills Kate. Did he go through her effects? If so (as the evidence shows), did she not have several pieces of cloth? So why cut the apron?
                So how dark was it in that corner of the square , and how much visibility would the killer of had ?

                cheers ,

                moonbegger

                Comment


                • #9
                  perhaps

                  Hello Jon. Thanks.

                  Not impossible. I suppose it depends on how thoroughly her pockets were searched.

                  Cheers.
                  LC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Dr. S

                    Hello MB. Thanks.

                    According to Dr. Sequiera, it was the darkest corner, BUT was light enough to see how to perform the extractions and mutilations without additional light.

                    Cheers.
                    LC

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hi Phil
                      Originally posted by Phil H View Post
                      Wasn`t Chapman`s woolly scarf missing from the crime scene?

                      I'd never heard one was. Source?

                      Of course, Daily Telelegraph, 11th Sept 88:

                      Timothy Donovan, the deputy of the lodging-house, 35, Dorset-street, was recalled.
                      [Coroner] You have seen that handkerchief? - I recognise it as one which the deceased used to wear. She bought it of a lodger, and she was wearing it when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner ways, placed round her neck, with a black woollen scarf underneath. It was tied in front with one knot.


                      and Chapman`s possessions:

                      Long black figured coat that came down to her knees.
                      Black skirt
                      Brown bodice
                      Another bodice
                      2 petticoats
                      A large pocket worn under the skirt and tied about the waist with strings (empty when found)
                      Lace up boots
                      Red and white striped woolen stockings
                      Neckerchief, white with a wide red border (folded tri-corner and knotted at the front of her neck. she is wearing the scarf in this manner when she leaves Crossingham's)
                      Had three recently acquired brass rings on her middle finger (missing after the murder)
                      Scrap of muslin
                      One small tooth comb
                      One comb in a paper case
                      Scrap of envelope she had taken form the mantelpiece of the kitchen containing two pills. It bears the seal of the Sussex Regiment. It is postal stamped "London, 28,Aug., 1888" inscribed is a partial address consisting of the letter M, the number 2 as if the beginning of an address and an S.


                      No woolly scarf.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Interesting. I had never latched on to that.

                        So the police of the day could have had another "clue" to pursue. is there any evidence they did?

                        phil H

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Is it not possible then that the scarf was used as a bag to carry the grisly trophies? The killer hurries off with the scarf bundled under his arm and the knife wrapped in apron for later ab/use?
                          If so, then the scarf would have gone back to the killers abode along with whatever it held. I always felt it was probable that he wiped his hands and knife clean on the Vics clothes when he had finished, in the case of Eddows however, he had severed the lower bowel and was also covered in its contents which needed more work to remove. It is also quite possible that he heard footsteps approaching and had no chance to clean himself at the site, so took the piece to use as he fled. Of course the most obvious reason for taking the piece of apron may have been to bring attention to the GSG which would have otherwise gone unrelated.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            miakaal4:

                            "The killer hurries off with the scarf bundled under his arm and the knife wrapped in apron for later ab/use? "

                            I think you are confusing days and victims here. The black woolen muffler was worn by Annie Chapman, and as the killer left the backyard of 29 Hanbury Street, he had no apron with him. Nor would he procure any such item on that morning.

                            The best,
                            Fisherman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You are right there mate, I thought this was an Eddows apron thread and failed to notice the name Chapman in the post. Oh well, I was getting excited and all!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X