No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Chava]

Annie Chapman is unquestionably a Ripper murder, as is Catherine Eddowes. Like Eddowes, Chapman is missing certain organs--the uterus and ancillary bits and pieces. Now the question is, how did they leave the yard of 29 Hanbury St? There's no suggestion that any fabric was cut off Chapman's clothes. A pocket was found that had been ripped a bit, but it was still there (and it would have been ideal!) A uterus isn't huge, but it's not tiny either. Probably about the size of a medium-height woman's fist. And then there were the other bits attached to it. So did he just stuff the whole lot in his pocket? Possible, but messy and drippy and likely to render the jacket competely useless thereafter. Did he come prepared with a little oilskin packet? If so, did he bring it with him when he killed Eddowes? A lot of people on this board thought he cut that piece of apron to transport the kidney etc which argues that he didn't bring anything with him to transport his trophies.

I guess I have two questions here, neither of which I have any kind of answer to:

- He didn't take organs from Nicholls. Was he surprised before he could do this, or did this not occur to him? In which case his taking of Chapman's organs might have been an impulsive act. (However the Ripper doesn't strike me as an impulsive killer...)

- After he took the organs from Chapman, did he set out to take organs again? Or did he not think of this until he was in the middle of the murder? If so, did he cut that piece of material to wrap around the kidney or was that only to wipe his hands and blade while the kidney resided in its oilskin in his picket?

I'm not picking up the oilskin from the witnesses although I know someone saw a guy with an oilskin packet and I can't track that down now. However an oilskin would be the ideal material to use.

My point is that those organs never turned up, so he didn't discard them in the streets or wherever. Ergo he transported them home somehow. But there is nothing to suggest he took anything from Chapman's body to use, so he had to have had something with him. And if that's true for Chapman, it must be true for the rest. So the bloody piece of material in Eddowes' case was not used for the transport of organs...

[paul emmett]

-
My point is that those organs never turned up, so he didn't discard them in the streets or wherever. Ergo he transported them home somehow. But there is nothing to suggest he took anything from Chapman's body to use, so he had to have had something with him. And if that's true for Chapman, it must be true for the rest. So the bloody piece of material in Eddowes' case was not used for the transport of organs...

Hello, Chava.

If you think he did take the organs home, and I do, without subscribing to the dumped them en route and the scavengers got them theory, then your conclusion is just about the only one: Eddowes's apron wasn't for transport. Why change plans before you get home?

While I know it's a minority position, I see JTR as calculating; I think he did bring something to carry away his trophies, and I think that with Nichols he was interrupted. And, talk about minority positions, I think that he took the apron to lead folks to the GSG.

I'd like to know more about the guy with the oilskin packet.

[NOV9]

Annie Chapman is unquestionably a Ripper murder, as is Catherine Eddowes. Like Eddowes, Chapman is missing certain organs--the uterus and ancillary bits and pieces. Now the question is, how did they leave the yard of 29 Hanbury St? There's no suggestion that any fabric was cut off Chapman's clothes. A pocket was found that had been ripped a bit, but it was still there (and it would have been ideal!) A uterus isn't huge, but it's not tiny either. Probably about the size of a medium-height woman's fist. And then there were the other bits attached to it. So did he just stuff the whole lot in his pocket? Possible, but messy and drippy and likely to render the jacket competely useless thereafter. Did he come prepared with a little oilskin packet? If so, did he bring it with him when he killed Eddowes? A lot of people on this board thought he cut that piece of apron to transport the kidney etc which argues that he didn't bring anything with him to transport his trophies.

I guess I have two questions here, neither of which I have any kind of answer to:

- He didn't take organs from Nicholls. Was he surprised before he could do this, or did this not occur to him? In which case his taking of Chapman's organs might have been an impulsive act. (However the Ripper doesn't strike me as an impulsive killer...)

- After he took the organs from Chapman, did he set out to take organs again? Or did he not think of this until he was in the middle of the murder? If so, did he cut that piece of material to wrap around the kidney or was that only to wipe his hands and blade while the kidney resided in its oilskin in his picket?

I'm not picking up the oilskin from the witnesses although I know someone saw a guy with an oilskin packet and I can't track that down now. However an oilskin would be the ideal material to use.

My point is that those organs never turned up, so he didn't discard them in the streets or wherever. Ergo he transported them home somehow. But there is nothing to suggest he took anything from Chapman's body to use, so he had to have had something with him. And if that's true for Chapman, it must be true for the rest. So the bloody piece of material in Eddowes' case was not used for the transport of organs...

My opinion is that he wanted to let Mary know that he was coming for her.
A well placed bloody apron just a few streets from where she lived.

You said "Or did he not think of this until he was in the middle of the murder?"

A murderer like Jack has it all planed out before he strikes, he would never forget or have second thoughts during his crime that would slow him down, and he has learned his lessons long ago.

NOV9

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nov9

My opinion is that he wanted to let Mary know that he was coming for her. A well placed bloody apron just a few streets from where she lived.

Well, if that were his aim, he might have considered placing it just a tiny bit closer to Dorset Street There must have been a few thousand women who lived closer to the Goulston Street doorway than Mary Kelly.

[perrymason]

Hi Chava,

Some assumptions that may be premature I think,....

1. Annie Chapman is unquestionably a Ripper murder, as is Catherine Eddowes. Like Eddowes, Chapman is missing certain organs--the uterus and ancillary bits and pieces.

I think what that tells us is that both killers may have shared objectives, the fact they lost abdominal organs isnt enough to conclude they had the same killer.

2...... how did they leave the yard of 29 Hanbury St? There's no suggestion that any fabric was cut off Chapman's clothes. A pocket was found that had been ripped a bit, but it was still there (and it would have been ideal!) A uterus isn't huge, but it's not tiny either. Probably about the size of a medium-height woman's fist. And then there were the other bits attached to it. So did he just stuff the whole lot in his pocket?

Maybe he did, but I tend to think that those deaths were to obtain organs, so he likely would have had a handkerchief or scarf with him which might be enough to take them away. Blood would ruin a coat pocket, and in a very poor area, coats aren't a dime a dozen to residents. Which makes it interesting that the apron piece wasn't drenched with blood, just smears and a wet area. I think he rolled his messy knife up in it.

- He didn't take organs from Nicholls. Was he surprised before he could do this, or did this not occur to him? In which case his taking of Chapman's organs might have been an impulsive act. (However the Ripper doesn't strike me as an impulsive killer..

He took Annies uterus clean with a bare minimum of cutting, and since Polly was almost identical in many aspects, aside from just the abdominal opening cut, I think Polly is the one that was killer interruptus...because with her opened like that, he just needed seconds more to excise a trophy.

- After he took the organs from Chapman, did he set out to take organs again? Or did he not think of this until he was in the middle of the murder? If so, did he cut that piece of material to wrap around the kidney or was that only to wipe his hands and blade while the kidney resided in its oilskin in his picket?

I dont think it can be considered seriously that Annie or Kates killers didnt have as at least a primary focus, if not the....the access and removal of abdominal organs. The arguments counter to that notion could never overcome the fact that rapidly in near dark conditions he does just that. You may have lots of folks tell you he just reached in and takes what he gets, maybe,...but those kills were at least in part to facilitate organ theft.

My point is that those organs never turned up, so he didn't discard them in the streets or wherever. Ergo he transported them home somehow.

Or takes them to someone who wanted them...or to a bolt hole.

But there is nothing to suggest he took anything from Chapman's body to use, so he had to have had something with him. And if that's true for Chapman, it must be true for the rest. So the bloody piece of material in Eddowes' case was not used for the transport of organs...


I would agree with that preliminary conclusion Chava...I think he did not soil his pockets with bloody organs at Hanbury, and so the killer in Mitre Square, if the same man, would be similarly equipped. Maybe he rolls his knife in apron piece, uses a sack or hanky to carry the organs...or maybe in a hat he holds rather than wears, when fleeing the scene, ....or maybe he takes something else from Kate, something that got feces and blood on it while he handled it, something not biological.

Cheers Chava.

[Dan Norder]

the fact they lost abdominal organs isnt enough to conclude they had the same killer.

They didn't "lose" abdominal organs like spare change under the cushion of a sofa. Someone killed them and then took the organs from them. Considering that they both had their necks slashed their intestines torn out and placed above their shoulders and that they were killed in the same month within a few minutes walk away from each other there's a better chance that they were killed by a badger that was high on mushrooms than that the individual responsible for Chapman's death wasn't also responsible for Eddowes' death.

[Doctor X]

They didn't "lose" abdominal organs like spare change under the cushion of a sofa.

I do not know . . . they are slippery . . . sometimes if I am distracted. . . .

. . . the individual responsible for Chapman's death wasn't also responsible for Eddowes' death.

I fear triggering a Storm of [CENSORED--Ed.] but is there a credible theory to suggest two different killers other than assuming the possibility? I think they were done by the same Jack, but I am always willing to be convinced otherwise.

--J.D.

[Chava]

With respect, Perry, I don't think you can conclude from the evidence we have that the removal of organs was his primary objective. It may have been, but the removal of trophies is not an unknown attribute of serial killers whose primary intent is to demonstrate their power over their victims by killing them.

The fact remains that he took a piece of cloth from Eddowes and did not remove cloth from Chapman although in both cases he took bits and pieces with him from the bodies and in both cases he would have had bloody hands and a bloody knife. At first I thought he simply slit her pocket, found her stash of menstrual rags, and used one of them. But there were no others found on or near her body, and those rags were not small bits of cloth--they were large and folded over and over again to catch blood and prevent it dripping therefore quite cumbersome. So either he takes one and leaves the rest--which he didn't--or Annie Chapman was beyond menopause and not menstruating. So no handy pieces of cloth there!

And I agree with Dann Norder, the chances of Eddowes and Chapman not being killed by the same guy are nil IMO.

[caz]

So the bloody piece of material in Eddowes' case was not used for the transport of organs...

By all means use the reported state of the material itself to argue that it was not used to transport bodily parts away from Mitre Square - or the fact that it was discarded in Goulston Street minus the missing bodily parts.

But I don't think you can use the events at Hanbury Street to reach the above quoted conclusion. If it's possible that the man who killed Liz Stride in Berner Street was spooked into aborting his mutilation plans (and please, Perry Mason et al, let's not turn this thread into another series of 'no, the ripper could not have killed Liz/been interrupted or spooked by anyone or anything' arguments), then it's also possible that he started out that night with something he could use to transport trophies (and I agree with everything you say in the above post, Chava) but dropped it accidentally as he fled towards Mitre Square, or quickly dumped it somewhere in case Liz had already been found and he was stopped and asked where he had just come from and why he was carrying an empty container.

Now I'm not arguing that it's any more likely than the alternatives, ie that Kate's killer didn't set out that night with anything specifically for transporting trophies, or that he set out with something and still had it when he got back to base. I'm just pointing out another possibility to consider before a firm conclusion can be reached.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Chava,

But there is nothing to suggest he took anything from Chapman's body to use, so he had to have had something with him. And if that's true for Chapman, it must be true for the rest

How about the following mentaility in the immediate aftermath of the Hanbury Street murder:

"Blimey, I've got gunk all over me coat pockets! I'll make sure I grab something from the scene to wrap 'em up next time".

I say "something from the scene" because if he was a member of the working class poor, he's unlikely to have spare cloth lying around.

Cheers,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I agree that after Hanbury Street, the experience of going back to base with messy innards for the first time could have brought out the Fagin in him and made him "think it out again" next time round.

But if it brought out the boy scout in him, he'd want to "be prepared" if he could, and not leave it to chance that there would be something suitable he could grab from his next crime scene. He could have brought along a newspaper, however poor he was, and that would have saved his pockets from gunk, whether it was the blood and guts variety or a greasy fish and chip supper.

Also, it was a considerable risk to take something from the scene that could not have come from anywhere else but his latest victim's person, as was so obviously the case with Kate's apron. Not very "prepared" at all, if he planned to do something like this beforehand for no other reason than to get his trophies back to base with no mess.

I tend to think that night was a mixture of planning and improvisation. If his plans had included leaving some sort of chalked message somewhere, he would have thought to bring some chalk with him this time, in which case he could also have thought to bring newspaper if he had got messy last time.

But what if he wanted to try and leave a false trail, for instance (but not necessarily any writing on any walls)? A bloody newspaper left in Goulston Street wouldn't prove the killer had come that way. This would require something unequivocally from the scene of crime, along with the risk, calculated beforehand or improvised while in Mitre Square, of having something 100% incriminating on his person long enough to serve the purpose. It was far more incriminating than messy hands and messy pockets, and even a bloody knife and some offal could have been explained away, but the apron piece? Not a chance in hell.

So I have always been wary of the notion that he would have carried that apron half, half as far as he did, purely for matters of cleanliness. After all, what's a bit of mess to a member of the working class poor?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Agreed on the whole.

It may have been used to authenticate the message (if it was ripper-generated) and/or facillitate the deflection of suspicion in a Jewish direction, but I believe cleanliness was a consideration too. No need to sully a coat and risk potentially incriminating stains when there was an easy way to avoid it.

Best,

Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Agreed - a consideration.

If his thinking included avoiding potentially incriminating stains, I would expect it also to include avoiding having a 100% incriminating apron piece on his person for a second longer than it would have taken to deal with any such stains - unless he had a further purpose or two for it, such as transporting trophies or leaving a false trail.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

A few counter points.....

Eddowes and Chapman have some very similar injuries inflicted, and some quite dissimilar ones...and no one person has been accused of any Canon kills, let alone assuredly so for 2 of them.

The apron section was I believe cut and torn...one of which would cause some noise in a deserted and enclosed square. Which means the killer risked that noise to take it, if correct....which leads one to conclude he deemed it important in some way.

Since its discarded, it was not likely a trophy or souvenir....it did not appear, or was not described as showing clearly that hands were wiped with it, or a knife...and since he could have cleaned either by wiping them on her clothing, it seems an unnecessary risk to make unneeded noise, or to delay his departure.

Which leaves he perhaps took it to use to authenticate the written message at Goulston, or he took the piece to either wrap organs or the knife, or maybe his gloves. If he took it to wrap organs, and it is the same killer as Annie, you would have to assume then he learned nothing from having organs to take away from Hanbury, or he didnt plan for taking organs at Mitre,...which considering the light, the speed and the organ extracted seems unlikely... or he could care less about bloody pockets or staining with either kill.

I think what it was likely used for may be answered if it was not there when the Constable takes his 1st pass by shortly after the murder. It was likely a carry-all that he no longer needed after dropping off the organs somewhere. If he dropped it while still holding the organs, then using it to prevent staining or mess was a meaningless gesture...because he will still have to carry the organs in something from Goulston to his home....and if its just pockets, or another piece of cloth, why take the apron piece at all...why risk the time and noise?

IMHO, it was dropped after the contents were off his person.

Best regards all.

[paul emmett]

I think what it was likely used for may be answered if it was not there when the Constable takes his 1st pass by shortly after the murder. It was likely a carry-all that he no longer needed after dropping off the organs somewhere.

Hi, Michael.

I certianly see your logic here. But if he does get back to base and then come BACK out with this most incriminating evidence, that itself must say something about where base is and how much he wants the apron to be found where it is found--and I would say that is to call attention to the graffito. On the other hand, this does explain the Constable not seeing the apron 45 minutes earlier.