The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Sam Flynn]

The apron piece was described as being spotted with blood that is not consisietnt with wiping hands or a knife on.

That may be true, Trev - if it had been consistently described as being "spotted with blood", that is. Whereas Dr Brown, at the inquest, indeed uses the phrase "spotted with blood", he also states that the apron had "smears of blood on one side... as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it".

[Wickerman]

Timing is always a significant factor, especially with a substance that dries quickly like blood.
Dr Brown does not say when he first saw the piece of apron, only that he conducted his post-mortem 11 1/2 hours later, at 2:30 pm.

The earliest description we have of the condition of the apron was by the PC who found it. At the inquest he described it as "a portion was wet", in the Daily Telegraph, Oct 12th, Long is reported as saying it was "wet with blood".

If this is an accurate description we can only wonder how the wiping of hands would 'wet' the apron.

[Sam Flynn]

The earliest description we have of the condition of the apron was by the PC who found it. At the inquest he described it as "a portion was wet", in the Daily Telegraph, Oct 12th, Long is reported as saying it was "wet with blood".

The statements aren't contradictory, Jon. Halse actually says of the apron "one corner of which was wet with blood" (as reported in both the Telegraph and the Times), and - in his signed inquest deposition - that "there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet". The fact that one corner (or portion) was wet doesn't exclude the fact that the body of the cloth apparently also had blood (and faecal matter) smeared on it as well. Dry (wiped) blood and a wet corner can happily coexist on the same piece of cloth.

[Monty]

Trevor

It only gets boring wet the same cannards are repeated. The apron had smears consistant with hand wiping.

Why does a wet portion have to be a result of hand wiping?

[Canucco dei Mergi]

I do not think it really matters if the apron was used by the killer(s) to wipe their hands upon it or if blood and faecal matter happened to be on it because the butchery got a bit 'off side'.

The question that matters is why half of it was taken away.

In both above cases you do not understand why the killer(s) should take away with him (them) a portion of incriminating evidence even with the thought of getting rid of it as soon as possible.

Why to lose time at cutting the apron (half of it) on the scene instead of wiping the knife on it while it was on the body of the victim.

Incidentally when you speak about the possibility of wiping the knife on the apron of the victim while still attached on her your thoughts are brought back to the woman Stride murder scene where the oblong clotted blood on her right hand lying on her chest has always been considered a mystery beginning with the testimony of Dr Phillips.

If we think about her murderer having just cut the throat, his first istinctive action right after would have been to clean the knife.
Since it seems to be acceptable to place him curbed on the body by the right side of it, well the first place where he could wipe his knife would be right on ...the chest of his victim.
It happened probably so that he did it (it was dark) on the hand instead of the dress.

To come back at the woman Eddowes and the apron...for what has been said above, difficult not to believe that the cut-in-half piece of apron, whatever the accessory usage, was only aimed at bringing the investigators on Goulston street.
Other explanation seem by far far away in logic from that one even if there will always be the guy who, defending the conception of the affair as that of a serial killer one, will explain that the killer had probably cut himself and taking a piece of apron to stop blood from flowing (but why then only half) and throwing it away by pure chance under a mysterious graffito.

Of course, if you believe that the apron was aimed at tying the graffito with the murders you will be brought to wonder why the graffito was not written on Mitre Square above the victim.

We could indeed wonder also how the murderer(s) could have been so sure that the PC on the beat would not miss the apron or that this same apron would not have been taken away by a passer-by, a rat or a dog, making disappear the connection stated here above.

There could be a lot of answer but before answering we should notice that the number of the flats-block where the apron was abandoned are 108-119, thus reflecting (read from right to left) the date and the hour of the would-be-next-in-the-horrible-series of murder discovery of the body (Dorset street).

After having noticed that element you would think back at all the fuzz that had been made about the bloodhounds since at least the woman Chapman murder.

Was the apron meant for not only tying the murders with the graffito but also for letting Burgho and Barnaby follow the track ?

If this is a possible answer it reflects back to the crime scene in Berner street and to another little mystery over there: the cachous.

What the hell are they making there.

The same serial killer aficionado that I cite above will tell us that there is no mistery, that Occam's razor..., that the victim for a mysterious reason kept them in her hand while strangled with her scarf and fell to the ground grasping them tight because of natural spasm and so on bla bla bla bla......

If you think about the two same bloodhounds I named previously and accept the idea that the apron could clue us on the fact that the murderer(s) could have had them in their mind, you might also accept the idea that the cachous were purposedly placed by the said murderer(s) on the crime scene to prevent (yes, this time to prevent) the dogs (if used) to backtrack them to soon.
They likely would have tried to improve their chance to get to Mitre Square and to do what they had to do.
This could give us a way of thinking that would conceptually (if not materially) bond the two crime scenes of the double-event.

You know how Hercule Poirot was used to say: you do not discard anything but you do must explain all little elements, if one does not fit your theory, you put it aside waiting later if it can with new elements but if you find another oddity that you can't explain...pfffttt, you throw away the theory.


Oh Lord, but this would mean all the classical scenario of the serial killer disturbed with the woman Stride in Berner street and falling by chance on the woman Eddowes in Mitre Square crumbling to pieces.
Good grieve, this could lead weak minds to suggest premeditation, organization, planification, in short...a conspiracy.
A conspiracy, what for ? To kill prostitutes ? Com'on, it can't be serious.

Don't we know that the classical scenario of the serial killer (was it 'nondus satiatum'?) going from Berner street mad from having been disturbed - by who anyway ? -to Mitre Square to absorb its madness it's a 'truism' (word taken on this board).

When 'fanatics' take the place....

Thanks for your patience.
Excuse my english.

Canucco dei Mergi.

[Pippin Joan]

What is wet?

Isn't the meaning of "wet" the point here? I don't think it means soaked or dripping, but that the blood is fresh, in a liquid form. It is not an old rag with some old dried blood on it. For forensic purposes, a large piece of cloth, probably the size of a pillow case, which is marked with fresh blood is found tossed into a doorway not far from a murder scene. Obvious to the police, this should be paid attention to. If it had been a weathered and dusty rag with old crusty blood, it would have been dismissed immediately. I think it was used to clean up, until Jack realized he was actually worsening his lot with the fecal matter.

My opinion about the graffito is that it was purely coincidental. I can't imagine Jack stopping at that point, when he was running for his life, to neatly inscribe his garbled message. How much light would he have had at that place and hour? Where did I find the information that the letters were actually quite small - capitals about 3/4" high? I think it must have been written by someone loitering in that doorway earlier, but it had been ignored and overlooked by everyone until the rag was found on a night the police were scouring the alleys. Imagine finding a murder clue in a men's room stall, and suddenly all the silly graffiti scrawled in the booth becomes "meaningful". "FOR A GOOD TIME, CALL GINGER AT 555-5555".

[Trevor Marriott]

Are we honestly expected to belive that jack after killing eddowes cut the apron piece and walked away with it wiping his hands as he went along and then some distance away decided to discard it. Cos if you beleive that then a reality check is needed.

As has been said before if he had wanted to clean his hands or he knife he would have done so using her apron at the scebe no need for him to cut a piece off and take it away. come on people please think sensibly and logically

[Sam Flynn]

Are we honestly expected to belive that jack after killing eddowes cut the apron piece and walked away with it wiping his hands as he went along

He could have deferred the hand-wiping until he got to a safe distance, as Monty pointed out earlier, Trevor - sounds reasonable enough to me. I am reasonably certain that the probability that Jack got faecal matter on his hand(s) has something to do with it as well. It would have been a tall order for him to have removed such a clingy substance, if all he had done was give his hand(s) a quick swish against Eddowes' clothing in time-pressed Mitre Square.

[DVV]

Sensible and logical to me.

[Fisherman]

Canuccio dei Margi writes, on the topic of the bloody right hand of Elizabeth Stride:
"Since it seems to be acceptable to place him curbed on the body by the right side of it, well the first place where he could wipe his knife would be right on ...the chest of his victim.
It happened probably so that he did it (it was dark) on the hand instead of the dress."

Not that this is the thread for it, Canuccio, but I think you are missing two points here:
1. Wiping a knife against skin does not produce oblong clots.
2. Even if it did, it would not produce them on the back of the hand as well as on the inside of the wrist.

Interesting try, though; haven´t heard it before!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:
"It would have been a tall order for him to have removed such a clingy substance, if all he had done was give his hand(s) a quick swish against Eddowes' clothing in time-pressed Mitre Square."

I agree fully. There is every chance that what sent the Ripper on his way may have been the sound of approaching footsteps. Such a thing would have forced him to make a dash for it, and if he knew that his hands were both bloody and crappy, it would be a tremendous risk to take to the streets in that fashion. So he needs to leave and he needs something to wipe his hands on. That leaves us with very few solutions, the cut-off apron being perhaps the most obvious and logical one.
Add to this that his main priority would have been to get out of there quickly, whereas the wiping would have been priority number two, and it becomes easy to see a man who hurries through, say, St James´passage, having tucked away the apron piece as well as he could since he knew not whether he would meet anybody as he entered St James´place and the streets beyond.
After that, it was all a question of putting ground between him and the police to an extent that allowed him to stop and get the wiping done. Goulston Street, a few minutes away, seems a good answer to that question to my mind. And if we allow ourselves the guess that he put as long as possible a distance between himself and the police before he did the wiping, then it becomes a compelling guess that he was close to home as he took care of it: As safe as possible distancewise, and unwilling to bring physical evidence into his lodgings, it ends up in a doorway close to his quarters. That´s my guess, anyhow.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fisherman

There are so many scenarios regarding this aspect of flight with the apron. Here are just a few of my thoughts

1. The aprons cutting was one of the first acts he did, not the last.

2. Like you, either Harveys approach or Morris opening the door triggered him to flee though he may have simply finished.

3. The description of the apron speaks volumes, yet some ignore that.

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

One of the first acts? What do you base that assumption on? And in what way is your answer on that point connected to your third point...?


The best, Monty!
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fisherman

How was the clothing on her body found? How did he get to her body? What would he have done?

The apron was described as smeared, ergo something was smeared upon it. Elementary.

[Trevor Marriott]

If jack never removed the organs then his hands would have had very liitle blood on them and certainly no faecal matter.
As to the issue of faecal matter the apron piece was described as having a smearing again thats not consistent with someones hands having been covered as sam would have you all beleive.

The other issue is that if the killer did get blood on his hands and wanted to clean them quickly he could have easily wiped them on his clothes if he was wearing dark clothing the blood stains would not have stood out in the dark, or used one of the many horse troughs scattered around.

Besides even using the apron piece would not have totall removed blood stains from his hands