No Bloody Piece of Apron

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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 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 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?

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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!