The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Wickerman]

Is it so extraordinary that a piece of rag would go overlooked in a doorway of a dingy London street, though, Jon?

Precisely so Sam.
So extraordinary that it bedevils the mind.
We've had some who prefer to believe PC Long was just mistaken, perhaps inexperienced, and that might be so to a point. What about Det. Halse, was he also mistaken or was he just covering his ass? There may be a case for doubting PC Long, but its not so simple for Det. Halse.
Two policemen lied or were mistaken and a mystery is born?

I don't know, but its the easiest thing to challenge the testimony, and claim what we think must be right and what they saw/said, must be wrong. Theories should always fit the testimony, unless there's evidence to the contrary, and in this case there is none.
And I don't see how the presence of faecal matter changes anything.

And consider the typical apron of her class in that period..

Take a look at the size, from waist to shoes, and from side to side.

Det. Halse said that the portion found was "about half of it".
(Jones & Lloyd, The Ripper File - pg 126)

Sir Henry Smith, who was actually at the mortuary said, "about half the apron was missing"
(Sir Henry Smith, From Constable to Commissioner - pg 152)

About half of one of those period aprons is a sizeable piece of material, several sq. feet, not so easy to overlook.

Regards..

[Ben]

Oh, I don't doubt for a moment that he gave his hands as good a scrub as possible, Gareth.

Besides, I daresay that taking a womb and a kidney straight out of one's pocket might raise a few eyebrows

Unless he kept them inside his pockets and consumed them in one of the big kitchens once everyone had congregated there to prepare their yummy victuals. Either that or he managed to nab one of the "cubicles" discussed in Jack London's People of the Abyss and marvelled at them into the wee hours.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Probably because the pooey cloth would create a conspicuous whiff once indoors.

...all the more reason to give one's hands a jolly good scrub before venturing indoors. Besides, I daresay that taking a womb and a kidney straight out of one's pocket might have raised a few eyebrows, too, Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Why jettison the cloth, if it was nicely wrapped around the (far more incriminating) stolen organs, handily keeping them from view?

Probably because the pooey cloth would create a conspicuous whiff once indoors. Not a problem if he lived alone, but if he lived with others...

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

My guess is that he was close to home when he approached Goulston Street

I'm with you there, Ben.

and reasoned that the rag had fulfilled as good a role as it could for absorbing the gunk from the innards, and that he had only a short distance remaining in which to transport them in an "unwrapped" condition, albeit still inside the coat pockets.

Why take time out to unwrap them at all? Why jettison the cloth, if it was nicely wrapped around the (far more incriminating) stolen organs, handily keeping them from view?

[Ben]

Hi Claire,

The transmission of organs theory doesn't really speak to me because, as has been pointed out, what would he do with them then (unless he went out again later, after cooking up at home, and tossed the piece)?

My guess is that he was close to home when he approached Goulston Street, and reasoned that the rag had fulfilled as good a role as it could for absorbing the gunk from the innards, and that he had only a short distance remaining in which to transport them in an "unwrapped" condition, albeit still inside the coat pockets.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Theorists would rather call the testimony of two policemen into question, rather than let go of some privately held preconceptions.

Is it so extraordinary that a piece of rag would go overlooked in a doorway of a dingy London street, though, Jon? Especially in the aftermath of a market day in Petticoat Lane, when presumably items of litter on said dingy streets wouldn't have been particularly rare.

The 'wiping-of-hands' theory tends to ignore the missing hour.

Just as the "non-wiping" theory tends to overlook the fact of the excrement found smeared over Eddowes' entrails, perhaps?

[Wickerman]

The transmission of organs theory doesn't really speak to me because, as has been pointed out, what would he do with them then (unless he went out again later, after cooking up at home, and tossed the piece)?

Well perhaps Claire, lets not forget the piece of apron was not found until 2:55 am, and testimony by both Det. Halse and PC Long state the piece of apron was not in that doorway at 2:20am - so where was it between 1:44, when it was removed, and 2:55 am when it was found?

Theorists would rather call the testimony of two policemen into question, rather than let go of some privately held preconceptions.

The 'wiping-of-hands' theory tends to ignore the missing hour.

All the best..

[claire]

Mm, it would really, because if (as seems very likely) he got his hands soiled with faecal matter too, it would also have transferred to the cloth. Anyhow, I'm not hung up on this (it only just crossed my mind), but it would explain why the piece was wet with blood (wiping doesn't suggest to me that the cloth would be soaked, or 'wet'). The transmission of organs theory doesn't really speak to me because, as has been pointed out, what would he do with them then (unless he went out again later, after cooking up at home, and tossed the piece)?

Mind you, there are good reasons to shy from a cut hand theory. One, it means we have to ask hard questions about whether he tossed the cloth right outside the building he was entering. Two, there will most likely be someone tempted by the idea that a makeshift bandage implies medical knowledge and then...well.

But if he did cut his hand... (Complicated theorising potential here!)

[Sam Flynn]

I suppose it is also possible that, in all his slicing and hacking and excising, he cut his own hand. Hence, apron piece was used as a makeshift bandage, soaking up his own blood as he travelled.

That would, of course, account for the blood, Claire - but not also for the fæcal matter found on the apron.

[claire]

I suppose it is also possible that, in all his slicing and hacking and excising, he cut his own hand. Hence, apron piece was used as a makeshift bandage, soaking up his own blood as he travelled. Once he figures the bleeding has stopped, or once he has to step into a public environment again, he ditches the piece. This would explain, I suppose, why it was reported to be wet with blood. There is, after all, no way to discriminate between the victim's blood and his in this context.

[Sam Flynn]

Carried over from a Chapman thread

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?

Because it had served its purpose. It was, after all, found with blood and fæcal matter on it.

[Chava]

Monty, I think only one person could have committed the crimes. There just wasn't room in Hanbury St for two people. I think it's a real stretch and not likely, but the presence of a man 'looking up the court' at the time Kelly was probably murdered means that I am (remotely) considering a lookout of some nature on that crime, which might mean on all the crimes. However I have to say that no lookout would have helped the Ripper if someone had come down to use the outside privy when he was killing Chapman, as no lookout, even if he was standing in the passageway, could have given the alarm in time.

I do believe that Eddowes was the last true victim, but the From Hell letter does not suggest that the Ripper stopped because he died after her killing. Unfortunately...

[Monty]

Of course, my final line should have read "as opposed to person or persons"

[Monty]

Chava,

Dr Brown felt one person comitted Eddowes murder and the jury gave a return of murder by some person unknow, as opposed to person.

Monty