No Bloody Piece of Apron

[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.

[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.

[perrymason]

...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.

[perrymason]

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.

[Monty]

Nats & Perry,

Im moving the Harvey talk to an appropriate thread.

Apologies to Chava.

Monty

[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

[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 encyclopædia that discussed "apples" under the heading of "submarines", I'd be inclined to take it back to the bookshop and demand a refund!

[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...?

[perrymason]

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.

[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 encyclopædia 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

[Wickerman]

Some have made a point about Eddowes apron, whether it was severed to potentially carry away organs, while Chapmans apron was apparently intact. This seems to be the basis for questioning whether Eddowes apron was used to carry away organs at all. The point being, if it wasn't necessary to sever Chapmans clothes, or apron, as a means of carrying her organs away then 'obviously' the killer had brought something to carry the organs away in. He came prepared.
Then why wouldn't he have come prepared to the Eddowes murder?

At the Chapman inquest only James Kent made mention of Chapmans' apron, that it had been "thrown back over her clothes".
There is no description of the apron, whether intact or not, whether cut or not. The Chapman inquest was concluded 5 days before Eddowes murder.
There are no press reports about anyone returning to the Chapman evidence to question the condition of her apron.
The only reason Eddowes apron caused a sensation was because the removed portion was found.
The condition of Chapmans apron was never mentioned as no missing section (if any at all) was found.
This being the case, this is not a sound basis for questioning the use of Eddowes apron. A comparison is being made to an apron of unknown condition.

[Mitch Rowe]

Sadly. We dont know who took what to any of the Crimescenes. And we only know a little about what was left. Conditions for pretty much any aspect of an investigation into these Murders are sparse indeed. All that is left is speculation that we hope conform to the general aspects of each case.

Im more inclined to believe that JTR knew a little something about what he was doing. He was able to avoid intestines in Chapmans case because he had better conditions than with Eddowes. We can surmise JTRs "Ideal" conditions were at 13 Millers Court. Mitre Square must have been one of the most risque of all. In fact probably the most. JTR seems to tell us this with what condition he left Eddowes body. He is not taking the time to cut flaps of skin and lay them aside. He is working at a much faster pace. I think it is more likely JTR made a mistake while working under pressure. He probably used the apron to wipe his hands. Why he kept it so long we will never know.

As for how he carried his "booty"? We will never know. Most likely it was a way as to not alarm the victims before hand or witnesses after. Scratch that gladstone bag.

As for the amount of blood JTR had on him I havent a clue. I have never excised an organ from a recently deceased Corpse. I can guess it wasnt anything JTR couldnt handle on the spot. We dont know if JTR even took pieces of cloth or anything from any of the victims.

[The Good Michael]

For all we know, JTR took an apron from each victim to carry things in. These ladies wore all their clothing at times, so why not two aprons? Maybe with Eddowes he had the piece handy after stabbing at her and cutting or tearing it away, but with the others, untying the apron made sense.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

My view is that the excised colon and the presence of fæcal matter smeared over the intestines of Catherine Eddowes is the key to this - her cut apron almost certainly being used as a hand-wipe. It probably also may have served a dual purpose as an improvised "glove" to prevent the killer contaminating his pocket with fæces as he hid his filthy hand during his escape.

Although Chapman's colon was also cut, there is no record that her externalised entrails were smeared with fæces, which I'm sure would have been noted had that been the case. No smeared fæces means no reason for the killer to cover/wipe his hands, therefore no need to cut an emergency piece of cloth.

[Ben]

The point being, if it wasn't necessary to sever Chapmans clothes, or apron, as a means of carrying her organs away then 'obviously' the killer had brought something to carry the organs away in. He came prepared.

Either that or he learned the hard way at the Chapman murder, and sought to rectify matters next time, Wickerman. If he bunged the organs straight into his pockets after fleeing Hanbury Street, he may have resolved to come prepared next time to ensure gunk-free garments. I think it more likely that he used the victims' clothes for the purpose, rather than rags from home (there may not have been any to spare).

Gareth's view also seems reasonable (though I'd say that apron was big enough to accomodate his mucky hand and the organs until he got home), but I'm not too huge on the notion that he kept wiping en-route home.

Best regards,
Ben