No Bloody Piece of Apron

[caz]

Hi Perry,

By saying 'this was also a double event' I merely meant the Bowman case featured a double event in addition to the features I already mentioned about it in my preceding paragraph. I wasn't saying 'this was a double event like Jack the Ripper's'. Although I believe Jack probably did commit both crimes, as Sally's killer did, I am not so far gone yet that I would state it as fact.

Having said that, I did actually edit my post before seeing yours, because of another possible parallel if our Jacky Boy did the deed in Dutfield's Yard:

He immediately began looking for another opportunity and found it as Sally got out of her former boyfriend's car (it had been parked and they had been arguing in it for over an hour - for those who think Kidney killed Stride, or that the ripper could not have killed her in the wake of her encounter with BS) and began walking the few yards to her front door.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam

The apron piece was as described "An apron piece" not as you keep stating that it was half the apron

Please go an buy an apron from a shop and experiment by cutting half of it off and then fold it up as you suggest the killer did.

You will see that it becomes a very large unmanageable package to big i would suggest to put in a pocket. So if the killer did take the organs away as you suggest in half of the apron he would have had to carry it. If that be the case how did the organs come to be detached from it in Goulston St. The answer is they werent because they were never removed from the victims at the crime scene.

This is the second simple excersise which anyone can do to prove or disprove theories about the Ripper.

The other one i put forward was in relation to George Hutchinsons statement and his description of items the man seen with Kelly was wearing. where i suggested readers purchased several different coloured pendants and then went outside at night and stood under a street lamp. This would show that it would be almost impossibe to identify different colours. This then shows Hutchinsons statement to be unreliable.

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,It's a way of pointing out that the amount of residual blood left in those organs was not as vast as one might think, and what little that may have penetrated to the outside world wouldn't have been that detectable against the backdrop of the typical menswear of the time. Much less detectable than a layer of steaming excrement lining one's pocket, for example, or coating one's hands.

In terms of using the apron as a cartage item, apart from being hardly necessary from a "stain-proofing" point of view, is that a wrapped half-apron with a kidney and uterus at its core would have made the payload more bulky than necessary.

Hi Gareth,

Accepted, but why do we need to have a man who doesnt mind blood stains, or smellier traces, in his coat pocket? Wouldnt most people prefer not to have those things in your pocket, particularly if its your only coat? And by wrapping his bundle of knife and organs he would just look like any one of plenty of butchers carting meat about at night. And save his coat to wear again.

Maybe Surgeons and Butchers didnt mind being covered in dried blood and gore...for Surgeons at that time a filthy smock meant experience, sterilzation was just making headway after Lister.

So my question to you is, if this is the man that kills Kate and takes the apron piece, and its the same that took organs from Annie without requiring a carry-all, then why take the apron section at all? If he doesnt mind dark stained soggy pockets, why not pop them in at the scene, and wipe himself on clothing that he will leave behind..that which is still on Kate. Then nothing to dispose of. Why would he choose to have something that implicates him in murder if not important...but not so important that he keeps it forever.

All the best Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam

So if the killer did take the organs away as you suggest in half of the apron...

Not me, Trev! Whilst I might have thought so a few years back, I've long since worked my way over to the "hand-wiping" (or, possibly, "cut-hand") side of the rickety fence.

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam

Are you mellowiing in your old age? pretty soon you will be agreeing with my suggestions !

[Sam Flynn]

Sam

Are you mellowiing in your old age? pretty soon you will be agreeing with my suggestions !

Oh, no I won't! (I'll work on it, though )

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
With reference to 'American cloth' did not our elusive Hutchinson mention that Astracan carried a parcel wrapped in American cloth?
Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Perhaps Jack realized that in the process of cutting Kate he had also cut through the apron. Another quick cut gives him a souvenir. Running away with it in his hand, he realizes that carrying it is probably way too risky so he simply dumps it when convenient.

c.d.

[perrymason]

Caz...I was just teasing, I know you weren't insinuating it as fact.

cd, heres my overall impression of the problem with some arguments here regarding the need for and use of the apron section. They do not factor in his need for discretion, the likelihood that he could not afford to ruin a coat each kill, or might object to just re-using the same blood stained one, and the fact it was important enough to take,... cut and torn free, but not to keep.

Option A: If he wrapped organs and his knife in it, he discards it only when those items are no longer being carried, not when he can now pop them in his pocket and discard the cloth before that has occurred. If he was going to put them in his pocket anyway, he would have done so in the Square and saved himself the hassle of cutting something to use. That likely means he doesnt place the section there until nearly 3 when its found.

Option B: If he used it to just wipe his hands, and puts the organs in his pocket, then discards the section casually, then it was probably there when the Constable made his first pass by. But the Constable didn't see it.

I think a sentient killer would use example A, and see example B as reckless.

I think an underlying flaw in many of these objections is that many people dont see Jack ever thinking about what he is doing.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike,

Option A: If he wrapped organs and his knife in it...

Option B: If he used it to just wipe his hands, and puts the organs in his pocket...

I think a sentient killer would use example A, and see example B as reckless. I think an underlying flaw in many of these objections is that many people dont see Jack ever thinking about what he is doing.

I'd hardly think it reckless of him, or contend that he wasn't thinking, if he decided that wiping the faeces from his hands was a good idea. Indeed, the fact that faecal matter was smeared over Eddowes' externalised intestines suggests that he made an attempt to get rid of at least some of the mess whilst he was still in Mitre Square.

However, this was never going to get rid of all the offensive matter - so what was he to do? If he surmised that hanging around the corpse was not a good idea, what more thoughtful conclusion could he have come to, other than that he needed to go elsewhere to complete his ablutions? If he reckoned that his clothing could be contaminated by excrement if he'd slid his hand into his pocket, might not he reason that he needed to insulate his contaminated hand? How much more thoughtful might it have been for him to realise that a makeshift towel would come in useful on two counts - not only as a temporary "glove", but also as a wet-wipe to be used later? Finally, doesn't the possibility that he chose to put a safe distance between his improvised "wash-room" and the murder scene reveal further intelligence on his part?

[c.d.]

Hi Michael,

Well I for one don't have any problem with envisioning Jack as someone who acts in a rational manner on some occasions and who also acts irrationally at other times. This would put him in accord with most human behavior. You also have to factor in the emotional aspect and the thrill of the kill. All of that adrenaline might interrupt the thought processes.

I can see calculating and spur of the moment living happily side by side.

c.d.

[Monty]

Simplify

Jack takes apron to carry organs.

Jack disgards apron.

Long finds apron.

Long doesnt find organs.

Simple and most logical explanation?

The apron wasnt used to carry organs.

Monty

[Dan Norder]

Jill robs a bank and then steals a car to make a getaway. Jill takes money home and then discards car. Cop finds car, but no money. Thus Jill didn't rob the bank.

What?

[Monty]

Dan buys groceries and shopkeeper gives him a bag to carry them home in.

Dan walks halfway home then discards the bag.

Whats the point of Dan taking the bag when he procedes to carry his groceries the rest of the way home?

Monty.

[perrymason]

Jill robs a bank and then steals a car to make a getaway. Jill takes money home and then discards car. Cop finds car, but no money. Thus Jill didn't rob the bank.

What?

As I was reading your post I was searching for my own logical pathway to help illustrate the same point.

For the truth of the matter is probably more like Jack cuts organs out, but Jack also cuts a colon section this time, which means that Jack gets feces on himself this time, so Jack being capable of thought uses the cloth intended to carry organs in, to clean himself,.. Jack now needs a new carryall, so Jack cuts a suitable piece of cloth cloth off Kate, Jack puts organs and knife and wraps them in the cloth, the size of which would easily aid in hiding stains because of multiple fabric layers as a result of the rolling items inside it, Jack splits.

Sometime between 2 and 3, he leaves the cloth, because its now empty. Barring Jack the Magician...that means he either chucked, or saved, whats inside.

Since I believe he sought organs, I doubt that "chucked" is the answer, and if the apron was there for the constables first pass, Jack almost certainly had dropped off the items first, and was on route home.

However, If the apron section was not there until just before 3am, then there is no need to conclude that where he dropped it was on route home anymore. He had time to drop the organs anywhere close, and place the apron anywhere, possibly where it would appear as if we have a hasty East End retreat after Mitre. But he could have actually gone further into the City to drop off organs, and backtracked using alleys and lanes to the East End in Goulston to set the apron...and maybe write the message.

Of course we cant know if it was there earlier....we'll never know, but I for one figure this guy thought ahead...organs, carryall, escape routes, maybe cops beats, ...and a casual discard seems too convenient, and not smart.

My best regards.