The Apron

[Scott Nelson]

Well, he could have written the graffitti with his uninjured hand. Yes, that's probably it. The missing time element is when he was getting a bite to eat.

[GregBaron]

Who's bleeding?

Hi all,

I believe someone suggested that Jtr himself was bleeding from the massacre. This makes some sense as organs or a knife wipe wouldn't cover an apron with blood but only spot or smear it.

This idea would also make writing graffiti less likely with presumably an injured hand.

Could also account for the missing time as he went somewhere to treat his wound.

Just some thoughts. Now rip them apart.


Greg

[Fleetwood Mac]

Of course he could fling it up if the apron began at her waist which it did. It would be flung up as I said over her upper body along with all her other lower garments.

Chris

If the apron began at her waist? Is this mentioned in contemporary documents?

Are we not talking about an apron that goes round the neck and is tied at the waist?

[ChrisGeorge]

The point I'm making, Chris, is that if the apron was tied at the back, he might not have been able to fling it up, and so needed to cut it.

Of course he could fling it up if the apron began at her waist which it did. It would be flung up as I said over her upper body along with all her other lower garments.

Chris

[Monty]

I've just been through the Sourcebook looking up all references to the apron. One thing is clear: It is the portion found with Eddowes' body which shows "spots" of blood; the Goulston St. piece is much more heavily stained, Dr. Brown even stating, "... as if a hand or knife had been wiped", and PC Long, "... covered in blood".

Just mentioning this as a few people seem to think the spots were on the G. St. piece.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Yes Steve,

It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene.

Monty

[Steven Russell]

Spotted or covered?

I've just been through the Sourcebook looking up all references to the apron. One thing is clear: It is the portion found with Eddowes' body which shows "spots" of blood; the Goulston St. piece is much more heavily stained, Dr. Brown even stating, "... as if a hand or knife had been wiped", and PC Long, "... covered in blood".

Just mentioning this as a few people seem to think the spots were on the G. St. piece.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hello Fleetwood Mac

Yes but you fling all the garments up, over her upper body, petticoats, dress, apron and everything, to display the abdomen for mutilation. You don't need to cut the apron to get to the abdomen. Take a look at the sketch of Eddowes as she looked lying in Mitre Square.

Chris

The point I'm making, Chris, is that if the apron was tied at the back, he might not have been able to fling it up, and so needed to cut it.

[ChrisGeorge]

Just had a thought on this:

Let's say this apron is tied at the back.

He can't pull the apron up because it's tied at the back. And she's lying on her back, so he can't reach round and untie the bow.

So, he's left with two options: push her onto her front and untie it, or cut the apron, which would explain why such a big piece has been cut off. The latter would probably be quicker.

Once the apron is cut, although not planned, he may have grabbed it for future use.

Thoughts?

Hello Fleetwood Mac

Yes but you fling all the garments up, over her upper body, petticoats, dress, apron and everything, to display the abdomen for mutilation. You don't need to cut the apron to get to the abdomen. Take a look at the sketch of Eddowes as she looked lying in Mitre Square.

Chris

[Jon Guy]

As far as Chapman is concerned, we know he sifted through her belongings, and it is quite possible that he found a suitably-sized rag for the purpose.

Hi Ben

Wasn`t Chapman`s scarf missing? I think it was Donovan who described her as wearing a scarf when she left Crossingham`s.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just had a thought on this:

Let's say this apron is tied at the back.

He can't pull the apron up because it's tied at the back. And she's lying on her back, so he can't reach round and untie the bow.

So, he's left with two options: push her onto her front and untie it, or cut the apron, which would explain why such a big piece has been cut off. The latter would probably be quicker.

Once the apron is cut, although not planned, he may have grabbed it for future use.

Thoughts?

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

Thanks for the kind words, Chris. I find it difficult to accept that the apron piece was intended to draw attention to the graffito, though. But I will concede the distance between M. Sq. and G. St. is a bit of a puzzler.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Monty]

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Why do you think the killer had time to wipe his hands in the square? Seeing as we have possible interventions for Watkins, Harvey and Morris.

Re cut or tear.

The inquest testimony is quite clear, it was cut. As the parts were matched and identified via a repair and matching its far easier to cut through a repair than tearing. I see no issue regarding cutting, that knife was sharp enough to cut through some pretty tough matter in Eddowes body.

Monty

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Ben.
Let's face it, we're guessing here and your explanations are feasible. But I still feel he would have brought the wherewithal to transport the organs with him rather than relying on finding or fashioning something suitable at the scene. Overcoats are thick, heavy items and visible bloodstaining need not have been extensive if he simply rammed his trophies into a pocket. (Particularly if it were a dark garment.) Plus, those gaslamps look pretty pathetic if the James Mason film can be trusted. And, as you suggest, he may have taken a handkerchief, or even (gulp) a bag.

Nor do I believe we can safely deduce that the killer's home, or other place of safety, was close-by because he dared not walk the streets for too long with body parts about his person. We are not talking about a "normal" person here. He took much greater risks when committing the murders and mutilations. It may be that he enjoyed walking around with the body parts on him - quietly watching from the margins as the hysteria grew.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[ChrisGeorge]

I don't like the apron-piece-as-organ-carrier argument because:

1) What became of the organs after the apron piece was discarded in Goulston St? Since they were not found, does this mean the Ripper took them away with him? If so, he had some other means of carrying them so did not need the apron piece for that purpose in the first place. And,

2) Annie Chapman. Some of her organs were carried away without the need to mess about with aprons.

What's wrong with an overcoat pocket?

Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

[Lechmere]

Regarding the apron, I agree with the view expressed that it would be difficult to cut in what appears to have been a nice neat line – it would have taken a bit of time, probably longer than it took to kill Eddowes.

However I think he did cut it off somehow.

I have previously offered the possibility that he always had a rag to clean up with, but had used it up on the Stride attack which necessitated the need for another rag – hence the apron being cut.

The other possibility relates to the fact that this attack took place on Saturday night – the only attack which took place when the next day wasn’t a work day. It also was the earliest attack. All the other occurred further into the small hours of the morning.
In the other attacks may be he cleaned up at his workplace.
As on this occasion he wasn’t going to work as it was a Sunday, maybe he wanted to clean up before he went back to where ever he lived.
So in this instance he may have cut off some of his victims clothing to clean himself up a bit before going home.

I think it's expecting a lot for the murderer to write lucid statements at that moment. The slightly vague but still threatening and accusatory nature of the graffiti is perhaps the sort of thing that we should expect.

I also think there are valid grounds for being sceptical about Long saying he did not see the apron at 2.20 am. Just 9 months later he was dismissed from the Met for drunkenness. It was his first night on the beat in Whitechapel as he had been temporarily transferred from the West End. He said he didn’t know of the Eddowes murder at 2.55 am, which to me implies that he must have been keeping a ‘low one’. He says he didn’t see it at 2.20 am, but Halse was also in Goulston Street at 2.20 and they didn’t see each other. Add it up and it suggests to me that Long was skiving.