No Bloody Piece of Apron

[Chava]

That profiler I had a chat with suggested that from what I'd told him, the Ripper most likely anticipated taking trophies, and brought something with him to transport them. He may not always have brought the same receptacle. The blood patterns on the cloth in the Eddowes case don't sound like the cloth was used to wrap anything up. So it's certainly possible it was hacked off to clean his hands with. I imagine he had something with him in the Chapman murder. It didn't have to be anything visible, he could have brought a paper bag in his pocket.

Sorry Sam, although its hard to imagine a story for the Chapman apron that doesnt involve addressing the other known time(s) he has taken organs, and the same issues that presented themselves.

He gets blood on him I think each time, how much may depend on how deeply he plunges his hands into the opened abdomens, ...so blood need not be addressed by a hanky or apron piece if he encounters it every kill,... he likely wears gloves. The bloody cuffs on the Batty Street Lodgers shirts might be all he usually gets on him. But with Annie the question is did he intend to take organs that time? The medical professional in charge thought it was his goal to do so,....and if so, he likely would have prepared for the taking of bloody flesh, so as not to ruin his coat.

Perhaps thats why Annies apron only had the inner pocket cut, and not a section of the apron...he already had something for the organs, because he intended to take some.

Best regards.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike/All,

If just for a hand wipe, then why carry it to Goulston, if just for organs, and to save his coat pockets, then why drop it before reaching home?

I've responded to this on an appropriate Eddowes/apron thread, here.

This is a Chapman thread.

[Ben]

I agree, Mike.

I'm sure it was used initially as a hand-wipe (i.e. at the scene), but I don't think that alone would account for it being taken away and disposed of where it was. It wouldn't explain why it was removed.

Regards,
Ben

As could an apron, the corner of which may have been either lying in the open body or in a gathering of blood whilst someone was mutilating Eddowes.

Which seems to make the article of little concern to him while he is still over the woman Monty, if he is allowing it to soak up blood. For a carryall, or a hand wipe, it becomes less useful each minute it is drawing up blood.

If just for a hand wipe, then why carry it to Goulston, if just for organs, and to save his coat pockets, then why drop it before reaching home?

Best regards Monty, as always.

[Sam Flynn]

Wiping your hands takes seconds.

Not necessarily, when they're covered in fæcal matter that you've just smeared over a woman's entrails, Jon. In fact, the smearing onto the intestines itself might have been an initial, unsuccessful, effort at removing the contaminant.

Edit: Sorry - just noticed that this was a Chapman thread.

[Monty]

As could an apron, the corner of which may have been either lying in the open body or in a gathering of blood whilst someone was mutilating Eddowes.

The old idea that the piece of apron (testified as 'half' the apron), was cut off and carried several streets to be dumped in a lighted doorway has always seemed a strained hypothesis.

Wiping your hands takes seconds, dumping the cloth as he leaves Mitre Sq. would be expected, but not to carry it through the streets, IF, all he was needing it for was to wipe his hands, and knife.

P.C. Long did testify that part of the severed piece of apron was "wet with blood", and, had "blood stains" (Daily Telegraph, Oct 12th). Wiping blood off your hands does not 'wet' the cloth, blood stains are smears they are not wet like water. However, an organ oozing blood while wrapped in such a cloth could very well leave the cloth 'wet'.
Of course we are attempting to determine what was meant by 'wet', but the record does mention both "blood stains" and "wet with blood", not one or the other, but both.

Hi Wickerman,

The section I emboldened is the crux.....If for cleaning only, he would not need to carry the cloth for perhaps 10 minutes, he would wipe and drop it soon after leaving Mitre.

Best regards, good points.

[Wickerman]

The old idea that the piece of apron (testified as 'half' the apron), was cut off and carried several streets to be dumped in a lighted doorway has always seemed a strained hypothesis.

Wiping your hands takes seconds, dumping the cloth as he leaves Mitre Sq. would be expected, but not to carry it through the streets, IF, all he was needing it for was to wipe his hands, and knife.
P.C. Long did testify that part of the severed piece of apron was "wet with blood", and, had "blood stains" (Daily Telegraph, Oct 12th). Wiping blood off your hands does not 'wet' the cloth, blood stains are smears they are not wet like water. However, an organ oozing blood while wrapped in such a cloth could very well leave the cloth 'wet'.
Of course we are attempting to determine what was meant by 'wet', but the record does mention both "blood stains" and "wet with blood", not one or the other, but both.

G'day all,

I think when you factor in a local man with little or no money, Ben's point on his experiences with Annie Chapman's organs is an important one....just how many coats would a poor man have to purchase if he just ruins his coat when he takes organs? Kate was wearing everything she owned, these people had nothing, so I dont believe, if he was a poor local man, that he would pop bloody organs in a coat he had to wear everyday.

Meaning if he intended to take Annie organs, as was suggested by the medical authority, then I believe he was prepared for Annie with some type of carryall rag. Perhaps in Kates case the choosing of organs was a decision made on the spot by the killer, or perhaps the apron was his choice... rather than what he brought for the purpose, or perhaps the apron was just to clean his hands.

The fact that he had even less desirable substances on him than just blood this time might have made him take the cloth, as Sam said.

But he cut and tore the cloth, in an empty square or courtyard, causing noise that puts him in greater risk for being caught. I dont believe the killer was incapable of some planning for events, he does escape without leaving traces to the astonishment of many police, so to make the noise required to sever that apron piece I believe bestows some importance on the object, rather than a mere hanky. He could have easily wiped his hands on her clothing.

Best regards all.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.