No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Celesta]

Hi Suzi,

You paint a pretty good picture! I see this happening everywhere in the city. That silence about the reasons for his dismissal may speak volumes, eh?

[Suzi]

Hi Celesta-
I feel that the fact that the beat coppers may have often popped in for a 'cuppa' or a chat with Mr K & T- or other watchmen around the area- is more than likely fact!!

Maybe on a "'Ello mate...what's the latest then?".....

(In fact this is more than likely true for many policemen on night duty at the time)

.....More than likely on most nights there was nothing to mention of any note maybe except something along the lines of...'Dya remember that woman in the house over there on the first floor...well she's ............................' sort of thing! 'Really??' says Harvey helping himself to another cuppa and possibly a biscuit or two!

Now time passes....Harvey realises that he must be back at his 'point' in a shorter than planned time...finishes his tea... jumps up....scans the square with his lantern....(Totally missing THE corner) and then wishing Mr K & T Goodnight mate... tootles back to where he should be at that 'point' on his beat.

The reason's for James Harvey's dismissal from the force on 1st July 1889 presently remain unknown

Hmmmmmmmmm

Suzi

[Celesta]

Hi Mont-
PC Harvey's statement at the inquest may not be totally inviolate- He may or may not have nipped down Church Passage and had a nip around the Square with his lantern...OR ... he may have stopped off for a cup of tea with the ex policeman nightwatchman at K & T- a highly likely scenario.

(When you consider that said watchman had allegedly heard or seen nothing 'unusual' that night/morning - Mind you what counted as 'unusual' sights or sounds in Mitre Square in 1888 must be open to question......

..bearing in mind that the odd (!) cry of 'Oh Murder!' was a matter of course not that far away.........!!!!)

Suzi

Hi Suzi,

I'm inclined to think that he was in there with the watchman also. This is not to imply that he spent the whole time there, but it coincided with the murder time. He went back out, after tea, to cast an eye around, found Kate, and then ran back to the watchman. As if to say, 'Oh, man, look what happened, while we were drinking tea!"

[Suzi]

Hi Mont-
PC Harvey's statement at the inquest may not be totally inviolate- He may or may not have nipped down Church Passage and had a nip around the Square with his lantern...OR ... he may have stopped off for a cup of tea with the ex policeman nightwatchman at K & T- a highly likely scenario.

(When you consider that said watchman had allegedly heard or seen nothing 'unusual' that night/morning - Mind you what counted as 'unusual' sights or sounds in Mitre Square in 1888 must be open to question......

..bearing in mind that the odd (!) cry of 'Oh Murder!' was a matter of course not that far away.........!!!!)

Suzi

[Monty]

Not absolute...

...just something more than a "Stewart Evans says....".

And before anyone suggests otherwise, my respect for Stewart is utmost and I am grateful for the help, education and hospitality he has given me.

Im wise enough to know his suggestion is plausible and I also know he wouldnt say it with certainty. However I have my own mind, we all do, I respect that.

[c.d.]

...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.

[Monty]

Michael,

So inquest testimony shouldnt be trusted? This is disturbing news. Im not disagreeing with Stewarts statement, in which he NEVER stated he was certain Harvey didnt venture down Church passage. Im saying that inquest testimony should be challenged with evidence, not just because a prominant and excellent author expresses a belief. And yes, Harvey could have missed Eddowes body.

[Suzi]

Did Jack ever need to cut a piece of clothing from his victims, before?

Now the piece of cloth he cut away from Eddowes apron was about half of the apron. Now from the photos that I have seen, of the aprons worn by the women in 1888, they were long. So if the killer were wiping his knives, and hands while he was walking several blocks to Goulston St, my guess is that he would have been seen, that is something I would have noticed. And after reading in the papers that the apron was found, I sure as hell would have remembered seeing him.

The killer would not have done that, and then dispose of it like he did, he was a risk taker but I doubt he was crazy.

I think he cut the apron away, not to carry off the organs, he had no problem doing this before, without the apron piece.

In my opinion he was sending a message to someone, that he was at Mitre Square, and that he was coming for his next victim in the area of the first 3 kills.

The killer would have like to scare the crap out of as many people as he could.

That last line says it all obviously!!!

There is (duck) always the occasionally proposed theory that the 'half a pinny' was actually dumped in that doorway by Kate herself PRIOR to her fateful meeting -and that still slightly irrationally -I cannot totally dismiss. Briefly the theory was that Kate,on leaving Bishopsgate Police Station, felt ....shall we say the 'turning of the tide' and menstrurating at the time nipped into a dark doorway...relieved herself of the problem (!) and tore off half of her apron to 'er tidy things up

The whole discussion on this possibility was sadly (or some may say for the best) lost during the 'Crash'.

I agree with Mont and SPE though that the assumed 'accuracy' of the Policeman's Beat at the time must be taken with a large amount of salt...or at least a cup of tea with a nightwatchman or two...........
Harvey wasn't infallible as many policemen weren't at the time and more than likely aren't today..in fact I've got a rather worrying modern example of this which I can relate.....

And, I assume -NOV9 -that the 'piece ' would have been approx 3' 6" ish by 2' max if you've ever torn slightly worn fabric then you'll be aware that fabric tears in a particular way - sometimes along an iron/pressing line and sometimes along a 'wear' line through sheer wear!
Suzi
And yes!!! Harvey could have done it!!!............as could many local bobbies at the time....trusted chaps etc etc

Caz,

I think you tapped the true source of my itch, and that is are we to be expected to assume that his evading capture, excising of organs quickly and in the dark, and even his reasons for doing so, are just a related to his madness, and therefore likely incomprehensible or meaningless actions,... never thoughtful or cunning?

Are we not considering him capable of planning, ordered actions, creativity, and clever deceptions?

And to Monty....since Stewart apparently made the point at the conference that PC's might shave off some per functionary tasks on their beats, like a laneway check,.. for lots of reasons...being behind in his time after chatting, making earlier passes that were quiet,...I dont think we need to provide absolute proof to suggest it was done, and may have been by Harvey. His time has him looking in when the killer must have been there. If you like the perspective that was applied to Richardsons testimony..."well she was lying there, he just didnt see her"..this one must be one of your favs.

My best regards Monty, Caz.

[NOV9]

Bloody Apron

Did Jack ever need to cut a piece of clothing from his victims, before?

Now the piece of cloth he cut away from Eddowes apron was about half of the apron. Now from the photos that I have seen, of the aprons worn by the women in 1888, they were long. So if the killer were wiping his knives, and hands while he was walking several blocks to Goulston St, my guess is that he would have been seen, that is something I would have noticed. And after reading in the papers that the apron was found, I sure as hell would have remembered seeing him.

The killer would not have done that, and then dispose of it like he did, he was a risk taker but I doubt he was crazy.

I think he cut the apron away, not to carry off the organs, he had no problem doing this before, without the apron piece.

In my opinion he was sending a message to someone, that he was at Mitre Square, and that he was coming for his next victim in the area of the first 3 kills.

The killer would have like to scare the crap out of as many people as he could.

[NOV9]

Hi all-

It's not beyond the bounds of possibililty that the piece of apron was used merely to clean up hands/knife etc then dropped off (IMHO) in an already 'graffitied' doorway at the trot- and that the bits and pieces were safely (!) pocketed in a dark coloured coat of some kind as chummy scuttled off to his hideyhole to do with 'the bits' whatever he did with these 'trophies'.

(Presumably not just hook them out from behind his bowtie though!!!)

As to explaining his pocket contents to 'his wife'............where did SHE come from??

Suzi

Hi Suzi,

The Wife was mentioned earlier, as he needed to wipe the blood from his hands, so his wife would not ask questions.

In my opinion, Jack could be married, but not to an unfortunate.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

I'm happy to go along with what Dan has just said, and accept that there are various possibilities for the apron, including that it might even have been taken accidentally, and when Jack reached Goulston Street, he suddenly went "Ugh, what the hell's that??"

But that's about where I draw the line. If we could 'easily be' looking at 2 separate non-rippers operating that night and providing us with the double event, as you suggest, then I'd say we are both in dire need of Dan's basic reality check.

But I have found it very interesting to see all the suggestions for why he took it with him and deposited it where he did, if he took it with any specific purpose in mind. It was undoubtedly a reckless act if he chose to walk away from his latest murder with something so large that tied him to the crime almost literally by his victim's apron strings, whether it was purely for hand-sweetening purposes, trophy-transporting, a temporary bandage, or a cunning plan to lay a false trail and/or underline a chalked message - or a combination. It's up to the individual to judge whether this reckless act served a practical purpose that made it the rational act of a man thinking rationally at the time, or a wholly impractical purpose that made it the crazy act of a madman - the kind who would kill and take a kidney home in the first place.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

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.

To address your post Dan, you are quite right that there could be many different reasons for that apron to be found in that entranceway...but many, like him still wiping his hands as far as Goulston St...or discarding a cloth while he still might need it to transport things, or that he was completely unprepared to have organs to transport are not really plausible or reasonable.

Nor is the hypothetical dog scenario.

There seems to be a safety threshold among many Ripperologists, its ok to just add up the numbers, but dont dare suggest a total.

Im not trying to provoke a response Dan, I just think telling people that they cannot use their own brain to add things up, but instead must trust the totals given to them by the experts, is a rather elitist position.

There are answers for these issues, its just no-one has come up with any of them yet. Even from the elite students. So... if the answers are within the realm of untested theories...arent we obligated to explore some? If we are seeking answers here of course.

Good ideas are good ideas, and they can come from anyone, and from discussions.

Best regards.

[Natalie Severn]

Nothing to say he was "covering himself"Monty, but as Stewart said at the Wolverhampton conference-----"dont set too much store by exactitude regarding times of beats etc" it is unlikely to have actually happened with anything like that precision" or words to that effect....
Best
Nats