1 red leather cigarette case with white metal fittings

[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?

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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 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,

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[Observer]

Hi Rain

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.

If this was his intention then it certainly worked, it didn't take the police long to link the cut off portion of apron with the apron as worn by Kate Eddowes. However the more I think about the scenario i.e. the killer purposely cut off a corner of Kate Eddowes apron in order to justify the message, the less likely I favour it. Sam and Bailey are probably right in stating that the killer cut the apron just prior to fleeing the scene, his sole intention being to wipe his hands they being soiled with faeces.

all the best

Observer

[Bailey]

Hi Sam


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.
Observer

Hey Observer

Absolutely! But (aside from those who might be inclined to argue for different killers) we don't know what kind of time pressure was influencing his actions at each scene. He seems to have had a fairly small window in which to do a great deal of work on Eddowes, and perhaps either by virtue of hearing approaching footsteps, or even knowing the officer's beat, he found himself having to take off sooner than he'd hoped. Maybe he felt a little more secure at Hanbury St? Or possibly, his interest in the mutilations was obviously growing, so he decided to spend more of his limited time on that and was less concerned with laying out trinkets.

Alternatively, if his hands are as messy as we'd think, maybe getting them clean was first priority before starting to root around through her possessions for his little exhibition. However, in this instance I'd expect the piece of apron to be dropped after use and left behind, rather than taken away.

B.

[rain]

A piece of cloth would be pretty crumpled and covered in blood if jtr used it to wipe his hands, and it would be a complete mess.

Was it mentioned in the police reports that it was covered in blood and all crumpled up?

[Jon Guy]

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?
Observer

Hello Observer

The thimble was amongst other items found by the left side of her body, as described by Insp Collard at the inquest :

in my presence Sergeant Jones picked up from the foot way by the left side of the deceased three small black buttons, such as are generally used for boots, a small metal button, a common metal thimble, and a small penny mustard tin containing two pawn-tickets. They were handed to me.

He took half the apron so that it could be reconciled with the piece still on Eddowes. I don`t think it was taken to clean his hands, we don`t know if he had faeces on his hands. He could have cleaned his hands on her clothes in Mitre Sq in the same time it would have taken to cut a piece off, and to clean on the move is suspicious enough, without having the dead womans apron on his person too. But, just, as they say, my opinion !!