No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Carrotty Nell]

It has struck me as significant that the apron was cut. You cannot cut material with a knife. Ergo the killer must have had scissors on him. This gives us two possibilities. Either the killer had a pair of scissors on him because they were used in his job. Or he deliberately took a pair of scissors out with him for this express purpose.

[Chava]

All of this discussion brings me back to something which I shall put on the Eddowes thread. We know he transported organs. We know that he took nothing from the Chapman corpse to carry those organs. He probably came prepared to take those organs, so he had something with him to put them in--and when you think about it, that makes sense. He doesn't want to be seen running through the streets with blood dripping out of the side pocket of his jacket. Not does he want to be seen carrying a bloody newspaper parcel. Either way he's stopped and searched and probably taken in for questioning if the cops spot him. So I think he comes with some anonymous mode of container to put his trophies in. So then why does he take a piece of apron from a victim. A highly incriminating piece of apron??

I'm now going to continue this on the Bloody Piece of Apron thread where it belongs. I think he....

[Observer]

Hi Chava

It could be that the killer was working off the cuff so to speak, i.e. going with the flow. I doubt whether he pre planned the whole cut the apron, go to Goulston street, leave it where a chalked message appears etc,

Observer

[caz]

He doesn't want to be seen running through the streets with blood dripping out of the side pocket of his jacket. Not does he want to be seen carrying a bloody newspaper parcel. Either way he's stopped and searched and probably taken in for questioning if the cops spot him. So I think he comes with some anonymous mode of container to put his trophies in.

Hi Chava,

But newspaper would be entirely innocent-looking and not bloody on the way out, and a useful pocket liner on the way back. If he's stopped and searched it's just an innocent parcel of cats' meat. The police would have had to prove otherwise (and they couldn't do it a couple of weeks later with the Lusk kidney, so no reason why they could have done it with anyone's parcel of cats' meat either).

The apron piece was another kettle of fish entirely, which suggests our man was either crap at remembering to come with any trophy-gathering equipment (or somehow lost it before he arrived in Mitre Square), and chose to use something that would earn him a certain trip to the gallows if found on his person before he got safely back to base, or he had what he considered to be pressing reasons for taking it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

I'm just not convinced that using the apron piece for merely practical purposes such as avoiding mess or cleaning it up - or even for wrapping round a cut finger (I've just seen your post to the other thread and an infected cut has been suggested in the past to explain no murders in October) - would have been pressing enough reasons in their own right.

If the cut was severe enough to warrant half a large and totally incriminating apron for the job, and required this to be held in place all the way to Goulston, it was arguably too severe to discard the makeshift dressing there - unless we consider the oft-suggested scenario whereby he takes the apron back to base with him and comes out again later to dispose of it (and possibly decides at this point to use it for a false trail and/or to underline a little chalky mischief). In this case it would not be when he had unwrapped his trophies but when he had washed and seen to his cut.

Hi Observer,

I agree that he could have been working off the cuff as much as planning the night down to the fine details. In order to get away with what he did, I don't think he could have been the type to stick rigidly with one plan, but made his opportunities and then made the best of any further opportunities offered to him by the circumstances, able to think on his feet and turn on a sixpence if someone or something made it either necessary or desirable.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

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.

So the apron piece,.....which when referred to as being "cut" I believe meant by a sharp knife, not scissors, ...being used for transport of them in likely his third attempt to take organs makes no sense. The methodical manner in which these women were dealt with suggests he did want abdominal organs, so its unreasonable to think that he hadn't considered transportation on his third outing.

I believe what happened was a bad choice by him, sectioning that colon so that feces was also now part of his mess to deal with,.....and I think the only "off the cuff" actions were that colon section, Kates face, and his last minute need for something more than just what he brought with him to carry organs, he needed to clean his blade and hands. I also dont feel he would drop it on the way home while still carrying the organs, it would be like leaving a breadcrumb trail.

Thats why I think its appearance later might represent the organs being safely stored somewhere, and his other "off the cuff" action that night might be misdirecting Police searches of streets and alleys, using the section and a message that in some ways accuses, or denies actions, of Jews. Potentially inflammatory, and coincidentally potentially quite meaningful, using the Jewish Mens Club...the site of the first murder, as the link.

Best regards all.

[paul emmett]

The apron piece was another kettle of fish entirely, which suggests our man was either crap at remembering to come with any trophy-gathering equipment (or somehow lost it before he arrived in Mitre Square), and chose to use something that would earn him a certain trip to the gallows if found on his person before he got safely back to base, or he had what he considered to be pressing reasons for taking it with him all the way to Goulston Street.

I agree that he could have been working off the cuff as much as planning the night down to the fine details. In order to get away with what he did, I don't think he could have been the type to stick rigidly with one plan

There's a difference between adaptability and impromptu. And while I do think JTR could adapt--as Caz says, he didn't get caught--I also think that he started out with a plan. So with the above alternatives of stupid or "pressing reasons," I'm going with pressing reasons for taking the apron and risking being caught with it. And I think the apron, or something like it, is part of the plan, as are the Jewish clubs associated with both killings.

[NOV9]

Hi Nov9Well, 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.

Sam,

A few streets more or less, I was looking at the direction he took from Mitre Sq. to Mary's place. Looks like he was heading back to his buffer zone, and knew that where he dropped the apron it would make the news, I'm still thinking it was a personal message to Mary, this guy knew that she would read about it.
My personal opinions get me in trouble around here. So sometimes I need to quote some experts in order to get my point across.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nov,

If I understand what you mean, I'm OK with the concept of Jack's "return to his buffer zone" - at least in principle.

As to Jack's leaving the apron knowing that Mary would read about it, he was sure of achieving as much if he'd stuck at the dreadful mutilation of Catherine Eddowes. It's not as if the murder would have escaped the notice of the press (or Mary Kelly) if he'd left the apron intact in Mitre Square.

[perrymason]

Just another thought.......since we have no reason to suspect that the Ripper would leave crime scene evidence casually, as we have the benefit of knowing who they thought he killed after The Double Event, and there is no other example of such disregard for some evidence that ties its carrier to a murder by this killer before and after....it is likely that it was puposefully left.

Whether that purpose was to authenticate a "school boy" handwriting level chalked message, or to intimate that this was his path home, I cant say.

But I think he may have laid a false trail with it.

For example.....what if Kates killer wasn't an East End resident, but wanted to leave the impression he was? Dont these investigations once tagged with the Ripper label seem to be solely focussed on The East End Serial Killer Jack the Ripper? What about the fact she is in the city when killed, and her killer may not even know about Berner St yet. 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.

There is nothing in Goulston, save an interpretation of the chalk message, that says the guy who killed in Mitre Square.... and took the apron piece, knew anything at all about a murder in Berner St before his in Mitre.

Best regards.

[Celesta]

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

Hi Caz, Chava, & Gang,

This in bold type is a good point. Other than leaving a piece of her, a verifiable piece of her clothing, would be the next best thing, wouldn't it? The piece of apron, clearly cut, or cut then ripped off, would be ideal. It could easily be compared to the remaining piece of apron and seen to be a fit. He could have dipped the corner of that into her blood, or it could have flopped down into her abdominal cavity while he was at "work." Or whatever theory one believes. The point is there would be little doubt it was the matching piece to Kate's apron.

What sort of sacking materials were available to transport wet organs? He could tuck an old waterproof, ie oilskin, sack if such existed, or one he devised from such material, into his pocket before hand, having learned his lesson from Annie's death. Didn't people carry things around with them in sacks all the time? He might not even stand out, in the short bit of time he needed to get to a safe house.

Like Sam, I'm not so certain that he was in any way trying to get MJK's attention. If he had wanted to do that, he could have left it on her door step.

My best to you all.

Celesta

[Sam Flynn]

The amount of "seepage" from a "wet" organ could easily be camouflaged by the typical dense, dark fabric of a Late Victorian's pocket. The one thing that sets Eddowes' murder apart from the others is the indisputable presence of faecal matter in conjunction with the corpse. The leaving of dubious "signals" aside, the most obvious reason for the removal of the swatch of apron cloth was that Jack got his hands covered in excrement, and felt compelled to wipe it off.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

the most obvious reason for the removal of the swatch of apron cloth was that Jack got his hands covered in excrement, and felt compelled to wipe it off.

He could have done that at the crime scene in as much time as it would take to remove the apron.

Not this debate again!

[Chava]

But if he felt compelled to wipe off the faeces, why was he so happy to prance around town with a hunk of (very) bloody meat in his pocket? I don't think it's a given that he would sever a uterus or a kidney or whatever and just cram it in his pocket. For a start, if he was a working-class man, he wouldn't have too many jackets to wear. And whether or not the blood is concealed by the colour of the fabric, no colour on earth is going to be able to conceal the smell.

[paul emmett]

But if he felt compelled to wipe off the faeces, why was he so happy to prance around town with a hunk of (very) bloody meat in his pocket?

I agree with Ben that it's not about feces(or blood) because for that he could have cleaned off and dropped the apron at the crime scene in no time at all--and certianly before Goulston Street. I agree with Sam that it's not about Kelly because it's just too far away. I agree with the folks that said he planned it out and brought a to go bag because that just seems reasonable. I agree with Michael that it's either about leading the police to the GSG or to the wrong way home because, while the latter doesn't seem worth the risk, the former seems to fit in with the other Jewish connections of the night which, in turn, seem to me calculated by JTR and, hence, important to him.

I know this was brought up earlier, but are we sure that Jack's knife could cut an apron in two?

[Jane Coram]

Hi Paul,

Almost any knife could have cut through the apron if tension was put on it; certainly the one that Jack used to inflict the injuries would cut through it very easily providing he pulled against it to stretch the material slightly. If it was just dangling freely, then it would be almost impossible to cut through it, even with the sharpest knife as there would be no resistance.

Basically, he must have grabbed hold of the corner with his free hand and pulled against it in order to cut the piece off. It is possible that at least some of the matter on that piece came from him holding the material to cut it. It might not explain all of it, but possibly some of it.
Hugs

Jane

xxxx