Eddowes apron why?

[Jon Guy]

Hi Colin

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?

No help to you, I`m afraid!! I expect the apron was pretty filthy but I don`t recall seeing that it was that dirty. The apron is always referred to as a white apron.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Phil

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?

I`m not aware of any mention of it amongst the remaining files but the Police actively chased up Chapman`s rings at the pawn shops, and we don`t have much info on that line of inquiry, so maybe they were aware of the woolly scarf, or maybe they missed Donovan`s details at the Inquest, (we did have over a hundred years to pick up on this though).

[Errata]

I think the fact that the apron was covered in fecal matter tells us why he took it. Blood is nothing to a murderer. He wipes it off because he doesn't want to get caught. But it takes a special sort of killer to be okay with having been sprayed with feces. Especially if it hit him in the face. He clearly pierced her bowel, and the contents were sprayed sort of all over. Give the way her skirts were shoved up, her apron would have been at least moderately protected from that, so probably was the cleanest place on her. It makes it the best choice to mop off his face and hands.

And no other victim had her bowels erupt in such a way, so it might explain why Eddowes and no one else. That's even something he might stop what he's doing to take care of. Most of the things Jack did were gross. But covered in poop is just a whole different level for a lot of people.

[Errata]

Hi Phil



I`m not aware of any mention of it amongst the remaining files but the Police actively chased up Chapman`s rings at the pawn shops, and we don`t have much info on that line of inquiry, so maybe they were aware of the woolly scarf, or maybe they missed Donovan`s details at the Inquest, (we did have over a hundred years to pick up on this though).

She had been indoors between the time she left the boarding house and the time she was killed. Presumably while in jail, she took off her coat and scarf. She was also listed as having one red mitten. She might have had two, but when released from jail she left her scarf and one mitten in her rush to leave. Which might be why the police don't seem to look for it. They knew where it was.

[Phil H]

She had been indoors between the time she left the boarding house and the time she was killed.

Are we again mixing victims?

The scarf being referred to was CHAPMAN's. It was EDDOWES who had been in a cell, surely? Unless there's a new interpretation of Annie's doings on the night she was killed!!

Phil H

[Errata]

She had been indoors between the time she left the boarding house and the time she was killed.

Are we again mixing victims?

The scarf being referred to was CHAPMAN's. It was EDDOWES who had been in a cell, surely? Unless there's a new interpretation of Annie's doings on the night she was killed!!

Phil H

yeah my bad.

[Wickerman]

Hi Phil

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.

You live and learn....

When I wrote that old dissertation, A Piece of Apron, Some Chalk Graffiti and a Lost Hour, one of the points raised against the new theory being advanced, that the killer used Eddowes apron to carry off her organs was, that the killer of Chapman did not apparently need her apron to carry off her organs. And, no other item of clothing was missing or cut, that could have been used for the same purpose.

In all fairness, that dissertation was wrote before the Press Reports section of Casebook was created (still in its infancy) so we did not have the broad choice of witness statements that exist today.

Thankyou Jon G. for pointing this out.

Regards, Jon S.

[Spring heeled Jim]

Interesting discussion but my initial point has not been addressed. I seriously think he went prepared for all his killings and had a rag etc to clean up yet in the double event he used his rag on Stride and then had to improvise with eddowes apron hence the only real clue he left. Is that so radical a proposition? I am not interested in all the people saying you presume this you presume that etc I am just interested in this case and dont have a suspect theory to promote just looking for constructive analysis of the available data.

[Hutch Orris]

Hi Jim. I think what you’re proposing is as likely as most theories. We do know serial murderers often like to equip themselves with items other than weapons to better carry out their crimes.

This is the only occasion we know of when the killer took something from the crime scene and then discarded it shortly afterwards. There are two reasons to have taken the piece of apron. One, as a trophy and two, for a practical purpose.

Had it been a trophy it wouldn’t be so quickly discarded although it could have been dropped accidently as the murderer, by now away from the immediate vicinity of his crime, paused to catch breath and take stock.

The theory I favour is that in the dim light and working quickly and in a state of heightened excitement he accidently cut his hand and the portion of apron was taken to quickly bind the wound. Had he merely wished to wipe his hands and knife there was plenty of material on the body, not all of which would be blood soaked. Eddowes was wearing three skirts, a petticoat, a vest, a chemise, a bodice and a jacket apart from the apron.

Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown said at the inquest “Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion (of the apron) found in Goulston Street.” As far as I am aware this is the only mention of faecal staining on the dropped portion of apron and then only “apparently”. I am therefore disinclined to believe the Ripper suffered a major burst of faecal matter as he punctured the bowel requiring him to wipe himself down.

In practical terms he would have to grab the intestinal tube with his free hand before cutting through it. In addition he would probably have needed both hands to remove the intestines once freed to throw them out of the way to allow access to the major organs. This would have left his hands slimy and slippery making it more likely that as he cut away inside the body cavity, with what we know to be a razor sharp knife, his hand slipped and he cut himself. I hope it hurt like hell.

Again, Dr. Frederick Gordon Brown from the inquest “On the piece of apron brought on (produced as evidence) there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it.” I would contend you do not wipe a razor sharp knife by holding a piece of cloth in one hand and running the knife along it with the other!

The Ripper binds his hand with the piece of apron, crosses Duke Street and Houndsditch, along Gravel Lane then Stoney Lane, across Petticoat Lane and along New Goulston Street and then into Goulston Street itself. He ducks in to the entrance of 118-119 model dwelling housing to take stock.

P.C. Long at the inquest said “One corner of the apron was wet with blood.” Not smeared but wet. Perhaps where the apron had been in contact with the wound? The smearing noted by Dr. Brown occurring as the killer wiped the hand to inspect the injury.

The wound need not necessarily be severe but has cut the skin. He discards the dirty piece of apron and bandages the wound with a handkerchief or other material he has on him. Why not do this in the first place? He needs to finish his crime and leave the area as soon as possible. He cannot evaluate the injury under the pressure of time and he doesn’t want to be fishing around in his pockets for something better so he quickly cuts off a portion of the apron.

This may also be the reason, or part thereof, as to why October became a murder free month as he waited for the injury to heal. He would need two good hands for strangulation. Following on from this incident perhaps blood poisoning set in at a later date, obviously after 9th November, and he died of natural causes.

I have no idea how long death from blood poisoning takes or how it’s symptoms manifest themselves. I believe Jack Daniels of whisky fame died several years after kicking his safe, having forgotten the combination, and injuring his toe in the process resulting later in blood poisoning.
With an open cut infected with blood, faecal matter and mucous from the internal organs of his victim could this have led to death from blood poisoning within two or three months while leaving the sufferer capable to carry out his hideous crime against Mary Kelly at the beginning of November?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jim. I think what you’re proposing is as likely as most theories. We do know serial murderers often like to equip themselves with items other than weapons to better carry out their crimes.

John Perryman was hauled in off the streets and his bag searched...
"At the station the bag carried by the accused was searched, and in it were found two pairs of scissors, a dagger and sheath, and a life preserver."

A life preserver is a type of cosh (to whack someone over the head), almost a contradiction in terms.

So, if ordinary people carry such weaponry around with them, how are the police to know the good guy's from the bad guy's?

Regards, Jon S.