1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Hi Observer,...why didn't they, or the other odds and ends in her pocket, finish up on the floor too? If the Ripper, as some believe, was "into" arranging his victims' belongings, he could have turned the paraphernalia that Eddowes lugged around into a display worthy of the Natural History Museum.

He He, absolutely, she was a walking second hand shop. I think the fact that her thimble was found lying next to her right hand is worthy of a thread though.,

Hi Bailey,certainly, time was paramount if the killer wished to remain a free man, but he took the time to go through Chapman's pockets, he also removed her two rings from her finger.

Dr G B Philips

"found a small piece of coarse muslin, and a pocket comb in a paper case lying at the feet of the woman near the paling, and they apparently had been placed there in order, or arranged there.

all the best

Observer

[rain]

Hi Sam
Why then cut off a section of Kate's apron to take with him on his journey to Goulston Street when there was ample loose material which would have served the same purpose?

all the best

Observer

If he wanted to link the murder to the cloth, he wanted to make sure that there was no mistaking that the piece of cloth came from Kate. If he had taken a whole uncut cloth, and put it there, it could be overlooked as something dropped by someone merely walking by.

He thought it would be like the missing piece of the apron... or in his mind, maybe the missing peice of the puzzle.

[Bailey]

The question is why did the killer go to the trouble to cut off a piece of Kate Eddowes apron when there was ample loose fabric on her person to do the same job.

My assumption would be that with a limited amount of time to do whatever, he (gender assumption there, never mind) would simply go with what was fastest and easiest. With knife still in hand, if you're covered in blood and other unpleasantness, you grab the first bit of cloth that comes to hand, hack it off, and scarper. Even more so if perhaps you hear the footsteps of an approaching bobby.

B.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Observer,

If he did root through Kate Eddowes pockets he would have been aware of the various pieces of fabric.

...why didn't they, or the other odds and ends in her pocket, finish up on the floor too? If the Ripper, as some believe, was "into" arranging his victims' belongings, he could have turned the paraphernalia that Eddowes lugged around into a display worthy of the Natural History Museum.

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Off topic perhaps but

How did the thimble come to rest just by Kate Eddowes finger? It's my contention that her killer placed it there, and to place it there he must have looked through Kate Eddowes belongings, as he did Chapmans. If he did root through Kate Eddowes pockets he would have been aware of the various pieces of fabric. Why then cut off a section of Kate's apron to take with him on his journey to Goulston Street when there was ample loose material which would have served the same purpose?

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Observer,

Hi John, to be fair the large white handkerchief was already stained with Eddowes blood, any of the other material would have done though.

We don't really know what the Ripper needed it for - perhaps the assorted pieces of cloth were too small. Besides - why would he suspect her pockets to have contained pieces of cloth anyway?

Meanwhile, back in cigarette-case land...

[Observer]

Hi John, to be fair the large white handkerchief was already stained with Eddowes blood, any of the other material would have done though.

all the best

Observer

[John Casey]

Hi Observer - thinking about it, it'd seem that "1 large white handkerchief" would pretty much do the job wouldn't it? Assuming that large white handkerchief meant pretty much then what it does now, that is.

Although I struggle to imagine any piece of material in Spitalfields at that time remaining white for long!

[Observer]

I think this has been discussed before, also I don’t know if this is in the right thread, I guess it is for Eddowes possessions are being discussed, but I was looking at the list of possessions found on Eddowes and one thing struck me, namely, the amount of loose fabric found on her person. They are.

1 piece of red gauze silk
1large white handkerchief
1 white cotton pocket handkerchief
12 pieces of white rag
1 piece of course linen
1 piece of blue and white shirting
1 piece of flannel
1 piece of flannel containing pins and needles
1piece of old white apron.

The question is why did the killer go to the trouble to cut off a piece of Kate Eddowes apron when there was ample loose fabric on her person to do the same job. It’s clear from Chapman’s murder that the killer went through her pockets, and there is some evidence to suggest that the killer searched Eddowes pockets too a thimble had been placed near her right fingers. Was the killer thinking ahead, did he cut off the corner of Eddowes apron in order to prove beyond doubt that if he left it in another location that is lying under a chalked message then that chalked message might be credited to him?

Like Bailey (Ducks behind the nearest shelter from the incoming torrent of derision).

All the best

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Bailey

From the top of my head, I recall the case being listed as empty? As opposed to half-full or arsenic obviously, but not containing any ciggies or other goodies that Eddowes might have used it to stash? If we had more info on its contents or where exactly it was found, it might be a better clue. On the other hand "if we had more info..." is practically the mating call of the Ripperologist!

Cheers,
B.

Yes it was empty, and even if it wasn't she couldn't have had a ciggy anyway, also from the list of her posessions 1 tin match box empty.

all the best

Observer

[John Casey]

Hi Suzi, thats what I was sorta thinking - cases. In which case, I assume they would be made to suit all pockets, rather than being essentially a luxury item. So would it be that surprising if Catherine was carrying a case?

[Suzi]

Hi John-
Sadly I don't know the answer-I believe cases were the norm,although how the ciggies were bought from the tobacconist.....boxes (wooden)I would imagine-probably in 50's or 100's, and then transfered to these wonderful cases. I went through a particularly floosyish period of affecting one at Art College,but kept running out and went back to the trusty No 6 at 4/= for 20!!!!!!
Am on the case........

Suzi x

[John Casey]

One question that comes to (my admittedly rather obscure) mind is this.

What would your average victorian have carried their ciggies around in? Would they have had the cardboard boxes we're familiar with, or would they all have used cigarette cases? Unfortunately I don't have the answers...only questions!

[John Savage]

Great Pictures Suzi.

Father's disguise had me completely fooled.

Rgds
John

[Bailey]

Silly people, we KNOW where the cigarette case came from - it was Maybrick's, he kept his drugs in it and he dropped it by accident.

(Ducks behind the nearest shelter from the incoming torrent of derision).

In all seriousness, however... The case does stick out like a sore thumb amongst her list of possessions. If it was indeed found on her - i.e. in a pocket or something - then the possibility that it was a gift, or something she'd pinched might tie it to the killer, but if it was found nearby then we could indeed be looking at a scene not unlike that presented in the diary narrative - "Jack" gets home safely and then goes for a ciggie to calm himself and realises he's lost his box.

I do like that image of her quietly picking the pocket of the man Lawende saw her with

From the top of my head, I recall the case being listed as empty? As opposed to half-full or arsenic obviously, but not containing any ciggies or other goodies that Eddowes might have used it to stash? If we had more info on its contents or where exactly it was found, it might be a better clue. On the other hand "if we had more info..." is practically the mating call of the Ripperologist!

Cheers,
B.