No Bloody Piece of Apron

[perrymason]

Dan buys groceries and shopkeeper gives him a bag to carry them home in.

Dan walks halfway home then discards the bag.

Whats the point of Dan taking the bag when he procedes to carry his groceries the rest of the way home?

Monty.

Monty,

Now why would Dan discard the bag while he still had Groceries to carry? And Why take the bag at all if not needed to carry items all the way home?

Again....shite and blood in anyones pocket, even a drooling incapable madman as many like to imagine him apparently, is still very easily avoidable by taking cloth to use to transport the mess.....hmm. Tough choice, but Ill take the answer that doesnt make him a complete idiot.

Since we have no records of any such potential carryall being left anywhere after the removal of Annies organs, it is quite possible that he might have used a personal cloth before, like even a monogrammed hanky, and therefore he could not leave it behind. That would be the same reason that he wouldnt discard the cloth that he wipes the shite off his hands with, and then has to resort to a makeshift for carryall.


Best Regards.

[c.d.]

Are we to believe that Jack targeted Kate because she had an apron?

c.d.

[Trevor Marriott]

I guess its a question of how everyones perception is regarding the various decsriptions of the apron piece.

I myself have been working on the basis that the apron piece was described as having a smearing of faeceal matter.

Now if he had wiped his hands on the piece there would have been more than a smearing I would suggest. There would mots certainly have been a mixture of blood and faecal matter incoproptared in the same stain.

Again everyone here can do another simple excersise get two different pots of watered down paint one red the other brown dip the hands in it and the wipe it on a white cloth see what size stain it produces and the colour of that stain.

This will go along way to show he didnt wipe his hands on the apron piece

[NOV9]

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.

Sam,

The killer could have easily wiped his hands on her apron at the scene.
However He took the time to cut the apron from her, not to transport the organ, as he would have planed to bring something along to place the organs into and transport it. I believe he wanted to scare Mary.

NOV9

[perrymason]

Just a quick reply to Sam.....

Your counters are all sensible Sam, as usual, but there is an implied complacency with having his hands still needing shite wiped from them as far from Mitre Square as Goulston St, that I cant buy.

Just because he can stomach blood and guts doesnt mean he couldnt be grossed out by someones shite on his person.

I agree with the notion his hands were cleaned with a rag of some sort at the scene, after perhaps wiping some on Kate as you suggest, and the reason we dont have that cloth is because he couldnt leave it....the apron piece, once empty, he could...because it only tracked to "a" killer, no-one specific, like a personal hanky might have done.

I think we are looking at a night where he has two carryalls available, and one was improvised on site when the primary carryall got used for something that was at the time more important than the organs after he cuts the colon, getting her guck off his hands.

Cheers Gareth, best regards.

[Doctor X]

How you get from:

The killer could have easily wiped his hands on her apron at the scene. However He took the time to cut the apron from her, not to transport the organ, as he would have planed to bring something along to place the organs into and transport it.

to:

I believe he wanted to scare Mary.

?

Seems there are like large space thingies between those claims and that conclusion.

--J.D.

[Mitch Rowe]

The killer could have easily wiped his hands on her apron at the scene.
However He took the time to cut the apron from her, not to transport the organ, as he would have planed to bring something along to place the organs into and transport it. I believe he wanted to scare Mary.
NOV9

Well..We dont know what JTR was thinking at the time. Perhaps he felt he didnt have enough time to completely clean his hands at the scene. It was dark and if he didnt get his hands clean the first time then he may be SOL without a rag unless he cuts from his own clothing.
The fact that JTR took the apron could be a clue that says JTR may have been worried his wife or some-one else would be seeing his hands soon and they had better be free of blood and feces.
JTR did take a risk by taking part of Eddowes apron with him. That could even be part of the excitement of it all.

[Observer]

Hi

Fact, the killer cuts a section of Eddowes apron and takes it with him.

Fact, It is retrieved by a constable in Goulston Street, a five minute walk away from Mitre Square

Why the delay in discarding the apron section?

By all accounts the apron section was quite substantial, too big to bundle into one of the killers pockets. But why would he want to soil his pockets with incriminating blood and faeces anyway, he also had Eddowes kidney and womb on his person?

It would be logical to assume that the killer used Eddowes apron to wrap the organs in but for one fact, he discarded the apron section in Goulston Street, if he had used the apron to carry the organs in what did he do with the organs? Three things spring to mind here

1. The apron section was not used as a carrying device, the killer pre planned the whole affair, and took some kind of bag in which to place the organs, the apron was cut away merely in order to wipe his hands. There are some problems with this scenario as Lawende did not mention his suspect carrying a bag. Of course the killer could have used a collapsible bag, and had it concealed on his person. If the apron piece was used exclusively to wipe his hands surely he would have discarded it at the murder scene.

2. The killer used the apron as a carrying device and discarded the organs shortly after discarding the apron, the problem here is why were the organs not found?

3. The killer used the apron as a carrying device, and for some reason only known to the killer he decided to take the organs from the apron in Goulston Street, leave the apron (possibly next to a message he had written on the wall) and carry on home with the organs. If he used the apron to carry the organs and discarded it in Goulston Street, then it is possible that he lived very near to where he discarded it, it would then be a matter of simply carrying the organs until he reached his abode.

Observer

[caz]

Hi All,

For those who argue that the killer needed to get his hands mess and smell free on his way back to base, and therefore took the apron piece for that purpose only, why discard it in Goulston Street? Because it was too incriminating to risk taking any further? Too messy and smelly? Perfectly fair on both counts.

But it was incriminating full stop - from the moment he separated it from its owner and decided to take it from the scene. And if he only took it to deal with the mess and smell on his hands, that mess and smell was with him full stop - from the same moment, regardless of what got transferred from hands or knife to cloth and when.

The most dangerous part of his journey back to base would undoubtedly have been the first part, made doubly dangerous by the large, tell-tale apron piece and the mess and smell that accompanied him every step of the way to Goulston, over and above the bodily trophies and murder weapon.

But he presumably considered it safe enough to take the organs and knife (and any residual stains on skin or clothing) right back to base with him, and was also prepared to convey the apron piece and his evil smell as far as Goulston. So I'm not sure I can buy the whole argument: that he needed to take a piece of Kate's apron with him in the first place; needed it with him until he had put several streets between himself and the crime; then needed it gone by that point - and that the only reason for the entire risky palaver was to sweeten his little hand with it. Seems to me he needed that apron piece with him like he needed a hole in the head - or a piece of chalk.

It's only a short stretch from there to that sweet little hand round the chalk, after having dropped off his incriminating trophies and his incriminating knife, cleaned himself up and removed any incriminating stains, then wondered how best to dispose of the worst of the lot - his victim's pinny. On the fire? Ripped to shreds and put out with the garbage? Down the drain? Or left in all its smelly, incriminating glory in the entrance of a building housing Jews?

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi Caz

That scenario escaped me. Use the apron as a carrying device and return home, and then after depositing the organs, and knife, return to Goulston Street with a piece of chalk write the message and discard the apron next to the chalked message in order to link the two. This would also imply that he lived near to Goulston Street.

Observer

[Doctor X]

Wonder if--assuming he wrote the graffito--that he was not just playing silly buggers. Left the piece of apron to give validity to his graffito.

--J.D.

[Monty]

Guys,

I cant help remembering Gavin Bromelys article on the Eddowes murder.

He plausibly argued that it was possible for Jack to have escaped prior to Harveys trip down Church passage at 1.42am.

Therefore Jack may have left the Square approx 1.41/2am.

The time it takes to get to Goulston Street is roughly 3 to 4 mins at a brisk walk.

Lets say Jack went straight to Goulston St, his arrival would have been approx 1.46am.

Taking Longs beat time of 35 mins, working back from when he says he was certainly in Goulston Street (2.20am), puts Long in the same place at ??

Monty

[caz]

Hi Observer,

It's a scenario that was suggested, I believe, by Jon Smyth (sp?) some years ago, and suggested since by several others.

It would address the argument that no bloodstained killer fleeing from his murder scene with organs and knife on him would dream of lingering anywhere en route to write a meaningless message on a wall.

In this scenario, once the apron piece is safely on the ground, he is merely an antisocial graffiti artist with no apparent connection to the murders. After all, that's what can and has been claimed about the message - no apparent connection to the murders.

Tidy.

If you are trying to promote the idea that a Jew is responsible, it doesn't work if you put "I'm a Jew and I am responsible - please see pinny below as proof". But you can pander to a public perception and strengthen it by making an anonymous statement like "The Jews won't be blamed for nothing" and underlining it with evidence of something to blame them for.

Love,

Caz
X

[Observer]

Hi Monty

Split second timing, with Long missing the Ripper by seconds. The same applies regarding Mary Kelly and why she was not detected by Prater, or Cox, leaving home again after her sing song.

Hi Caz

It stands to reason therefore that the killer lived reasonbly near to Goulston street.

Observer

[Monty]

Hi Observer,

What if the Ripper didnt miss Long though?

Just thoughts, nothing more.

Monty