The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

[Fisherman]

One interesting thing in this ongoing discussion is how we try to prove different things by pointing out that our suggestions are the most rational ones, that they make the best sense.

To some extent, I think we fall into this trap because of the apron - we either interpret it as something he used to wipe his hands on in order to escape detection, or we believe that he carried the organs in it.
Both these acts would be rational things to do, and we tend to look for rational solutions on the Rippers behalf.

I think that we are sometimes forgetting that what the Ripper did was something that does not tally with most peoples suggestions of a rational behaviour - he killed women in the open street, to be able to rip them up and get at their innards. To do this, he was willing to risk his life. And that goes to prove that his relation to a womans abdominal organs was not a "rational" one.
To put it in other words, he was obsessed, either by the thought of excising these organs, or by the idea of actually owning them - or perhaps by a combination of both.

If we speculate along the line that he wished to actually own the organs (something that is strengthened by the fact that the excised parts were not just thrown away), then we may also offer a suggestion that the organs meant very, very much to him. He would have been thrilled, overjoyed and trembling with triumph once he held them in his hands.

In such a situation, maybe he would actually cherish the thought of putting them in his pocket? To get them close to him, get the feel of them. Maybe he would have preferred to carry them against his naked skin if he could?

The notion that he must have acted in a rational fashion, providing some sort of transportation means such as a sort of jar, a bag, a quart ale can - or a cutaway piece of apron - may well be very far from the truth.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I can understand the thinking behind it, Fish, but it it's to be argued that he may have relished the prospect of getting residual organ gunk on his garments, he may also have relished the prospect of having gunk on his hands.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Victor]

(something that is strengthened by the fact that the excised parts were not just thrown away)

Hi Fisherman,

Is it a fact that the organs were not just thrown away?

They may not have been discovered in situ, but who's to say whether they were discarded just round the next corner?

KR,
Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

is it possible to distinguish with the naked eye the difference between a cut and a tear involving a apron piece of this size. I think not and to prove that point i have done some tests on a white apron.

One part of the apron was cut with a sharp knife the other with tearing. Almost identical to the naked eye.

Trevor - with respect - the appearance of the tear and the cut are radically different, and that difference is obvious to the naked eye.

[Sam Flynn]

They may not have been discovered in situ, but who's to say whether they were discarded just round the next corner?

Why not indeed, Vic. Jack might have cackled over his trophies at his leisure, but there's no reason why simply removing parts of the victim and then leaving them at the mercy of rats wouldn't have been a good enough "lark" from his POV.

[Monty]

The patch

There was a piece of material sewn onto the apron as a repair. This is how the two pieces were confirmed as one, the patch matched.

Now, has anyone tried to tear through a patch? the tear leaves a patch on 1 piece or the other, not both. Brown states the new material was on both pieces with supports Collards statement of a cut.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"if it's to be argued that he may have relished the prospect of getting residual organ gunk on his garments, he may also have relished the prospect of having gunk on his hands."

There is no telling whether he did or not, Ben. But one must of course tell the two things apart - in all probability he did not come for the gunk. If that had been the case, settling for the occasional visit to the public toilets would have kept him happy and clear of the gallows.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Victor asks:

"Is it a fact that the organs were not just thrown away?"

No, it is not. But since, for example, the Mitre Square murder place was swarming with people very soon after the hit, it seems strange that the parts were not found.
Also, if he had decided on discarding them from the outset, why go to any lengths to do so at a distance from the killing venue? It makes poor sense (says the guy who just warned against seeking sense in the Ripper...)

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"has anyone tried to tear through a patch? the tear leaves a patch on 1 piece or the other, not both."

Yep, Monty. Anybody who has seen a cloth shop assistant in work would know that. Depending on the type of cloth, it is either cut all the way through with a pair of scissors, or it is just given an initial cut in the side, and then torn in two. The tear will follow the direction of the scissors-cut.
But if that tear reaches a sewn-on patch, it will take a cut in the patch to proceed with the tearing. If the cut is not there, the patch will stay in one piece.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Victor asks:

"Is it a fact that the organs were not just thrown away?"

No, it is not. But since, for example, the Mitre Square murder place was swarming with people very soon after the hit, it seems strange that the parts were not found.

Quite a few East London alleys had their fair share of rats and stray cats, one would imagine. That being the case, I wouldn't rate the chances of a bit of prime meat surviving the night down some dingy back-lane as being particularly high.

[Fisherman]

Surviving the night, no. But surviving long enough to be found by the ones searching the premises soon after the deed, perhaps. And if they were carried away, one could always hold some hope for bloodstains.
No matter what, I still think that it would be odd to take the organs a street or two away only to discard them there. Itīs either throwing them away at the spot or not throwing them away at all, methinks.

The best!
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Perhaps, the rag was discarded after the hand-over to a fellow confederate ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,Not if the vertical cut was already there, Jon. My point is that it may have already been part cut-through, together with some other garments ...

Hi Gareth, way back on post #56 on this thread you mentioned the detached portion of apron may have already been cut vertically, along with the other garments... I took it that you were spectulating, but on another thread somebody also mentioned that, I think, her clothes were cut vertically so then also her apron(?).
Do you happen to know where this line of reason came from?

Can I assume you have Stewart & Keith's 'Sourcebook'?, on their page 203 (hdbk), we have the list of Eddowes possessions.
Eddowes wore three skirts, a petticoat and a bodice.
The bodice had a 5" long cut near the bottom.
Her chintz skirt has a 6 1/2" long cut extending from the waistband. Both her outer skirts had a cut 10 1/2" long, again from the waistband.
None of these garments were cut vertically in half.

In fact, the testimony of Watkins has her clothes "up above her waist". The cuts in the skirts then are consistent with the upper extent of her abdominal wound, from the waist upwards to her ribcage. Her skirts were essentially upside-down. The killer lifted her clother over her upper torso and proceded to cut her lower exposed abdomen from the pubes to her ribs. The upper extent of this cut then also sliced into the waistband of her skirts because they were essentially upside-down over her chest.

All this being the case, are you aware how this idea that her clothes were cut in half vertically to access her abdomen?
I'm suspicious that this error is now being transferred to the apron, when in actual fact neither garments were cut vertically from the hem, it was from the waistband. Which has no bearing on the outer apron.

[perrymason]

Monty,

I liked the explanation for why cutting or slitting was part of the removal process, because it was said to have shown both techniques. The ripping part would be rather loud in an empty echo chamber square, perhaps he started then cut for speed and noise. Pearce's window looked right onto the murder scene, and we know he was there in bed by his statement. The nightwatchman is in place with an open door. And two cops pass through there about 3-4 times an hour each. The allowed noise by the killer is I believe an indication that this event required on the spot thinking, and unavoidable actions. Which means he likely didnt have a hanky by planning ahead, like he should have after Annie. So he has another solution I think.....and I may have an idea about that. Leather Gloves, the kind up past the wrist. So why doesnt he use them this time to carry his lot away?....for one, he has more viscera to carry this time, and 2, they had "shite" on them, and he didnt want to keep handling that mess. So he folds the gloves in on themselves, puts them in his pockets, and makes a quick carryall....risking the noise.

Best regards Monty, all.

[Trevor Marriott]

well perhaps we should have a poll on the two pics i posted see how many can identify the piece which was cut with a knife.