No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Hi O!I guess the point is that any such info would be lost to anyone unaware of this discussion. If someone were looking for Eddowes-related material, it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't think of looking in a Chapman-related thread. If I bought an encyclopędia that discussed "apples" under the heading of "submarines", I'd be inclined to take it back to the bookshop and demand a refund!

I understand fully what you are saying here, but I wonder if it would be beneficial (if the topic turned turtle during a thread) to let the thread run it's course, and then from the point where the break occured re-allocate it to it's proper place.

A lot more hard work for the individuals who run the site of course.

Observer

Sam,

I think Im just getting the notion of responsibility regarding thread continuity...my apologies for straying so often.

I forgot that we are to some a library....me included.

My best Gareth.

[Chava]

I started this thread knowing it would have Eddowes implications, so all fault here is mine. However I didn't know where else to start it, given that it in fact deals with the Chapman murder and what I see as its implications for the apron discussion that I started ages ago on the Eddowes thread. I did try a while back to cart everyone off with me back to Eddowes, but no one followed!

I hope the mods don't mind me making a suggestion. and that is to have a general thread in the victims category where we can run cross-referenced discussions like this one. That way we could have threads dealing with subjects like this that might be fruitful to discuss, but which run over more than one 'victim'. I know we have the general category, but that has so much stuff that it's sometimes difficult to find the threads you want. It is a series of killings, so maybe we could have a 'series observations' thread or some such...?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi O!

Surely it would be better to go with the flow, because if you stop discussing a topic mid stream the momentum is lost, OK the the messageboard would be nice and neat, but vital new input might just be lost.

I guess the point is that any such info would be lost to anyone unaware of this discussion. If someone were looking for Eddowes-related material, it's reasonable to assume that they wouldn't think of looking in a Chapman-related thread. If I bought an encyclopędia that discussed "apples" under the heading of "submarines", I'd be inclined to take it back to the bookshop and demand a refund!

[Observer]

Hi

Firstly let me say that I did not realise that this was a Chapman thread, so my apoligies for discussing Eddowes here in this thread.

But a question, If a particular thread suddenly takes a turn and everyone starts discussing an entirely new subject what is one to do? Lets take this thread as an example.

The thread started out as a Chapman thread, soon Eddowes was being discussed, are we to break the flow of the posts mid stream and start a new Eddowes thread?

Surely it would be better to go with the flow, because if you stop discussing a topic mid stream the momentum is lost, OK the the messageboard would be nice and neat, but vital new input might just be lost during the stutter of forming a new thread.

Observer

[Monty]

Nats & Perry,

Im moving the Harvey talk to an appropriate thread.

Apologies to Chava.

Monty

Ok.....it seems we have some conflicting ideas here about Jack the Ripper's means, based on the repeated suggestion he could easily stick bloody feces smeared organs into his pocket or under his coat, instead of using the ever more practical apron section, which he takes extra time to obtain.

The conflict is.. Jack is supposed to come from the area, so he is poor, the women he kills maybe worse off...but he is poor. Poor people in Victorian London wear their entire wardrobe daily. Jack the Ripper supposedly killed 5 women, 3 had bloodied organs taken from the scene.

Are we really to imagine a man with increasing amounts of blood staining on his clothes... as the murders are occurring?

And if thats ok by you...then the apron can only be to wipe his hands, then maybe to help authenticate a message.

Which means....a man carrying bloody feces smeared organs in a coat that has blood stains from the last time he did this, is also carrying the evidence to convict him of her murder...which the organs alone might be harder to do.....wiping blood and shite off himself for 5-10 minutes...he might have had to wait out beat cop passes, or someone walking the streets...all the way to Goulston, then just tosses it, co-incidentally near some message referring to Jews and Blame. Then proceeds on, fresh stains over the old ones, smelling of shite and blood, to his hovel. While the first murder investigation is in full swing. And a beat cop, or anyone searching the streets doesn't see it for an hour almost.

You know....that seems less likely than a man needing something to carry organs in that he doesn't have to wear every day after that....and ridding himself of it when it no longer served purpose.

Why was it so important that he cuts and tears it free...(time, noise, enclosed square..nightwatchman with door open)...and yet within an hour... or much less, its useless. And why didnt it appear to have hand smear imprints?

Best regards all.

...I dont think we need to provide absolute proof to suggest it was done, and may have been by Harvey.

Hi Michael,

.......uh, isn't this a complete 180 from your usual view that all witness testimony is written in stone and should never be questioned?

c.d.

Hi cd,

Surely you know thats not a "stance" of mine, just look at my reaction to Hutch for a reminder...

This is to address Montys comments too....I dont think anyone should dismiss testimony given under oath, but I also dont think a group of men without their own timepieces synchronized would all get times accurate, nor do I think Harvey in this case does anything extraordinary if he skipped walking that passage once...it just happened to be the wrong time if so. And if he did walk it, its almost certain Eddowes has her killer over her. If he did his full duty, he would have scanned the entire square visually before turning and leaving.

But can he admit that later when it comes out the time he said he was there was when the killer must have still been there....and now he would seem a fool for letting him slip through his fingers.

Im not disparaging him, or his comrades, Im saying people are people, and white lies sometimes blow up in your face.

Not that he did pass that check of the passage...just that I would believe that before Id believe he did make the check, fully scanned the square, and missed seeing a murder happening.

As for Mr Evans, he is one of the few people I dont argue with ....because I wont live long enough to learn what he knows now about the Police of London and Jack the Ripper cases. And Im sure if he suggested that timing wasnt precise, and perhaps beats not exact all the time, it was not a negative...just an acknowledgment that Policemen were also just "men" too.

Sorry for the extended diversion Sam...just wanted to respond.

Cheers and best regards.

[Doctor X]

. . . nor was their any suggestion that the organs were held, dripping, while he decided what to do with them. So it seems more than probably to me that the killer came prepared with his own carrying case.

Indeed. The bits are not too big and are easily wrapped up and put under a coat.

. . . but with respect, I don't see him taking the chance of prancing around with a pocketful of offal which would be extremely hard to explain if he was stopped.

Now, come on, who has not been stopped by the police with a pocket full of intestines?

--J.D.

[Chava]

No less hard to explain than his prancing around with a bundle of offal wrapped in a piece of a murdered woman's apron.

However Sam, I'm not one of the people who think he did prance around with a pinnyful of nasty! I'm one of the people who views that apron piece as ancillary to the killings etc.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Chava,

Sam, I know that dark cloth would hide bloodstains, but with respect, I don't see him taking the chance of prancing around with a pocketful of offal which would be extremely hard to explain if he was stopped.

No less hard to explain than his prancing around with a bundle of offal wrapped in a piece of a murdered woman's apron.

Thanks for pointing out that this is - was - a Chapman thread!

[Chava]

Guys, when I started this thread it was about Chapman, not Eddowes, and the implications of the fact that none of Chapman's clothes had been disturbed in any way, nor was their any suggestion that the organs were held, dripping, while he decided what to do with them. So it seems more than probably to me that the killer came prepared with his own carrying case. And if he did that in Chapman, he would have gone out with it on the Double Event night as well. I suggest that he always came equipped with a receptacle for his trophies--and an innocuous-looking receptacle at that--so he could walk through the streets without someone challenging him. And Sam, I know that dark cloth would hide bloodstains, but with respect, I don't see him taking the chance of prancing around with a pocketful of offal which would be extremely hard to explain if he was stopped.

[Natalie Severn]

I was at the conference Nats, and remember what Stewart said. Basically beat PCs cut corners.

What Im saying is Harvey is testifying at an inquest. Stewart didnt cover that. At an inquest the witness is obliged to tell the truth. Failure to do so risks legal action. Unless your name is Burrell.

If you question Harvey then you must provide the evidence, not just conject.

....on the other hand Monty, if PC Harvey had been drinking.......but I agree,we need to know whether that was likely----why he was sacked........six months later?
Drinking for example, when he should not have been, might,to him, have felt it was worth lying about.I am not saying he did or didnt do this.Just suggesting its a possibility....
Best
Nats

[Trevor Marriott]

As far as the apron piece is concerned i dont know where the suggestion has come from that this was a large piece. No where does it say the size. There is no way it could have been 3`6 x 2` that would have been more than half.

if it had been that big it would have been mentioned and not described as a "piece"

I am afraid the suggetions about the apron piece are geting narrowed down. Some of the original ideas have been blown out of the water. Its time some people re assesed their opinions on the apron piece

[Mitch Rowe]

There are a number of different reasons that the killer could have taken the part of the apron. Unfortunately there are people who, like with so many other things in this case, refuse to admit that we just don't have enough facts to say with any certainty what happen and try to rule out so many of the scenarios based upon the most flimsy rationalizations.

If the apron section was taken explicitly for the purpose of validating that the message on the wall was written by the killer and not one of the many other people out there hoaxing messages, that certainly works.

If he took the apron to carry the organs obviously he at some point got the organs where he wanted them and didn't need the apron anymore, that works too. Suggesting that he would have had to have discarded the apron first doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. He takes the organs home, cooks them or stores them or whatever, and then wants to get rid of the filthy apron section to limit the evidence or to remove the smell or also to validate the message on the wall.

If he took the apron part to clean his knife and/or hands with as he escaped, it's ridiculous to say it would have taken less time to do so there before he leaves as the point is he wanted to leave right away and it cutting the apron off would have taken mere seconds (and the idea that a knife couldn't cut an apron is simply not accurate).

He could have used it, as suggested earlier, to wrap a cut on his hand or something.

Maybe the part of the apron came off as a natural result of gutting Eddowes and it got caught in his boot or something, and as he left at some point he spotted it and then tossed it aside.

Maybe that hypothetical dog ran off with it.

When we are faced with very little information, we need to recognize the fact that there are countless different scenarios that could all be plausible. For some odd reason people seem unwilling to do that. They first start talking about what they for some reason consider slightly more likely, then it become a lot more likely in their heads, then all the other scenarios have some odd reasons why they couldn't possibly be right, and then at the far end of the scale of deceiving oneself we have the people who try to claim that not only is their theory the best one but that no other theories even exist (such as how Paul Begg chose to describe the incident in his deceptively-titled book, Jack the Ripper: The Facts).

People need a basic reality check here.

Right!
For all we know JTR could have ate the organs and used the Apron as a napkin!
Its all speculation..We dont have the Apron to even test our theories.
The most obvious answer could be correct. Or the most ridiculus answer could be correct. We will never know...We will just have to go with our gut feelings. Hope we are right. And hope it leads us closer to exposing the Wacko.