No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Natalie Severn]

My grandmother had a piece of American "oil" cloth.It was a bit of a mystery what it was for,but she said it was "first aid" and I think she had it handed down to her by her mother.In terms of bulk it was no more bulky than a piece of thick flexible plastic----very like that in fact.It was from a whale apparently.I never saw it used but can imagine it would be water proof ----and therefore blood proof.
I think that was a good idea actually, that he carried about with him some of this American cloth ,which itself may have been concealed by newspapers.I reckon he wore a loose sleeved garment and stuffed the American cloth and his knife up the sleeve of his coat.
And I reckon too he had planned on a chalk message that night----but not perhaps quite the one he wrote----since I believe he was interrupted in the case of Stride.

Natalie

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Observer,

Who would take notice of a man carrying a small bundle around with him in the early hours of the morning?

Who - against a backdrop of coarse, dark cloth - would notice the vague stains that a small quantity of blood might produce on a man's clothing?

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Who would take notice of a man carrying a small bundle around with him in the early hours of the morning?

Observer

[Robert]

Then try it with a bunch of grapes.

[Sam Flynn]

Experiments that all the family can try:

Take a tangerine and a plum, roll a tea-towel around them, and see if you can stuff the bundle under your jacket without leaving a conspicuous bulge. Try stuffing the bundle in a coat or trouser pocket, and see how fiddly it would be with all that extra "lagging" wrapped around the fruit.

[Mitch Rowe]

First off:
We dont really know if JTR took something off Annies body or perhaps something from the backyard as we have no conclusive evidence of what Annie was wearing or had on her at the time. We dont know what was in the yard before Annie and JTR arrive. But my idea is that JTR had at least some kind of light to work with in the backyard and JTR didnt need anything. If he did have blood on his hands he must have wiped the blood from them before leaving the backyard as there are no reports of blood on either front or back doors.

For all we know JTR could have been carrying a gladstone bag with him just like in the myth. I dont know how he transported them and its hard for me to speculate. I do know he must have as they were not found near the bodies.

In my mind Eddowes was not JTRs first choice. It was Stride. It was probably so dark in the corner of Mitre Square JTR cuts the bowels by mistake and then cuts the apron to wipe off the feces. Pure speculation but it seems the logical answer.

I would assume that if JTR simply put the organs in his pocket he would have trouble with the smell and flies buzzing around after a day or two.
All evidence points to the organs as JTRs main focus so JTR planning a means of transporting them is not out of the question. When Richardson brings the tableknife to the inquest it is quickly discarded as the murder weapon so we can assume JTR was prepared with a proper knife to do the job.

I firmly believe that if JTR was able to perform mutilations to Stride or Eddowes the way he wanted to then we would have seen the same technique he used with Annie and MJK.

Soo...Unless some-one performs a practical experiment and proves that JTR must have been a bloody mess after leaving the backyard I am just going to have to assume he wasnt much of a bloody mess. Maybe he was going to use the torn piece of pocket to wipe hands and knife but saw something else to use while cutting/tearing the pocket? That seems a better explanation than simple robbery to me.

The truth however could be as strange as our speculations and I always keep that sort of thing in my mind and try not to conclude anything definate when thinking of these things.

[Observer]

Hi Perry

I don't think you can safely assume that this Ripper killer did anything "off the cuff" when dealing with objectives actually...and I believe the cumulative data, (methodology, sequence, time required, number of superfluous wounds),...shows us that he likely makes the same first three moves each time....choke or throttle to suppress air passages, perhaps until the victim is unconscious, slit their throats deeply and thoroughly...probably partially for blood letting, and next he opens their abdomens. With Polly, Annie and Kate...excluding the real possibility for the moment that he cut Kates face after her throat,..I think its reasonable to conclude that at least one of his objectives, was abdominal organs.

Best regards all.

I agree that the killer had objectives regarding the actual kill.

But lets assume that he did write the Goulston Street message, and that's a big if, are you then suggesting that he left his abode that night, chalk in pocket, in the full knowledge that he would kill a prostitute, tear off a piece of her apron, walk to Goulston Street (or any other street for that matter,) chalk a message, and then in order to link the apron and message leave the torn apron next to a message he had chalked on a wall?

I think not

Observer

I really think this question relates much more to the issue of possible planning than it does the nature of the mess.

If he takes it for carrying organs, one would have to assume that he did not plan ahead for that contingency. If the same man also killed Annie Chapman, it would then be safe to assume he wasn't prepared for taking organs there either, but found a makeshift method that perhaps was less than satisfactory, hence the change to cutting cloth from the corpse. Had he found a satisfactory method for Hanbury, he would have continued it most likely.

The thing is I dont think the killer would go into the situation in Mitre, having gone through similar circumstances in Hanbury, without having something on himself to carry organs away in....assuming that was one of his objectives at both sites, which I personally believe it was.

So...I think the apron piece shows us how he handles things when "s*** happens"....I think his primary take away cloth got used to wipe feces off himself, and he quickly found a substitute piece...a larger size piece of cloth only because he cuts and tears it hastily, and didnt attempt to take only a size that he would need.

If that has any merit....then I think you have to conclude he was probably off the streets from 2-ish until 2:30, 20 to 3 perhaps. If he used the apron piece from Kate to carry organs, and the hanky he brought to carry them was already used to clean himself of feces, then its not likely he would discard the apron section until it was empty, and the organs off his person... if he used cloth to wrap the organs in in the first place, then it suggests he had better ideas than just stuffing bloodied organs into a coat pocket.

Maybe that was a learned behaviour, by mistakes he had made leaving Hanbury.

That train of thought does suggest that the apron section wasnt just discarded when he was near home, it was taken from a safe bolt hole, carried on his person, and left at a location purposefully. I mean, why take it back out at all, if its safe indoors, and he can just trash bin it later or burn it?

I think that leads to closer examination of potential meaning of the message, because I would be inclined to think if the cloth was left somewhere on purpose, he knew its discovery would also reveal a less noticeable note scrawled nearby. One he either wrote himself, or used to misdirect.

Best regards all.

[Chava]

I see we are all taking trips into the wide blue yonder, accompanied by human waste and romantic ideals about broken hearts!

The reason your meat doesn't drip blood when you buy it is because it has been hung to mature for a while, and there is little blood left in the tissues. The difference between buying a piece of liver at the butchers and harvesting your own offal from a very recently killed whore is huge. The uterus has a plentiful blood supply even after menopause, and would be dripping quite dramatically. And even a little blood is going to smell dreadful after a while. You have an odd idea of life in the East End in the '80s if you think that the inhabitants were so used to filth that blood-stained garments wouldn't have bothered them. Even the Ripper probably had to interact with other people sometimes. And he would have stunk to high heaven if he'd shoved those organs into his pocket and left them there to drip. Yes, personal hygiene standards were different. But no, people weren't so degraded that they would wear clothes that smelled so bad if it could possibly be avoided. The Ripper was someone who could approach a whore and get her to come with him even at the height of the terror. That doesn't jibe with the idea of some blood-thirsty ghoul shoving bloody pieces of meat in his pocket without a care. Even those poor degraded women would have thought twice about a john with a leer and a very nasty smell about him.

However a little oil-paper parcel--what could be more innocuous? And hygienic!

[caz]

I blame Jack's mother. He probably couldn't go anywhere or do anything without muvva calling out "K.Y.B.O" after him.

"Keep your bowels open, lad. And if you can't open yours, open someone else's."

Thanks Nats. But the only job I'd be good for on the stage is wiping it - preferably not with half an apron already smelling to high heaven.

Love,

Caz
X

[steje73]

I can only assume that's true, having never personally violated a bowel.

[Doctor X]

Such as ------I cant name any off hand, Doc, but there are several ex-policemen on the boards who would confirm that it happens quite often.

I am unaware of that happening with a serial killer. Nevertheless, Jacks "dooky" would go--on a cold London night--where?

Unless . . . he . . . found the time to strip naked prior to killing the victim . . . which would, somehow go unnoticed?

The feculence came from the the fact the victims bowels were violated. It is a common complication of violating bowels.

--J.D.

[Natalie Severn]

Such as?

--J. "You Can't . . . You Can't Dust for Vomit" D.

Such as ------I cant name any off hand, Doc, but there are several ex-policemen on the boards who would confirm that it happens quite often.
Natalie

[Carrotty Nell]

For example.....what if Kates killer wasn't an East End resident, but wanted to leave the impression he was? Could that delay, if the piece wasn't there at the first pass after the murder, be time that he used to rid himself of incriminating things, discover that a woman was killed earlier, and perhaps devise a sly way to convince them The East End killer did this one too.

Some very good ideas. Earlier it was also suggested it might have been a message for Mary. But what about the Goulston Street tenement block itself? Has it occurred to anyone that it could be the tenement block which is significant, and not just because it is inhabited by Jews. Lots of places are inhabited by Jews. Rothschild buildings or the step of the Great Synagogue would be even more significant if you just want to implicate the Jews. What if someone lives in the Goulston Street tenement block who is important to our killer? A woman who had dumped him for instance and broken his heart.

[Natalie Severn]

Thanks for the plain speaking here Mike.I think it demonstrates the difficulty and discomfort that he "could" have been in after such a high risk double event [ thats if you accept a double event].Two events in less than an hour with police running all over Whitechapel like a rash.We dont know how near he got to being caught in either place but my guess is that it was a close shave in both events.
It did occur to me though that the chalked message could have been about him realising suddenly that his "interrupted "throat cut" murder outside the Jewish club might look as though it was done by one of the Jews who went there.So he takes the apron,cuts it in half and says "look-the proof ,it is I ,the one you call "the Ripper" who did BOTH these murders tonight ---so dont go blaming the Jews for them -they are both all my own work and I am giving you this clue- go match up the apron piece!"
Best
Natalie