The Apron

[Ben]

Hi Steven,

What's wrong with an overcoat pocket?

If he only owned the one overcoat, it is highly unlikely that he'd risk it being sullied, especially when there were free rags available at the scene to prevent such an outcome. 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. Once in Goulston Street, it is likely that wiped any excess nastiness from the organs, transferred them either to a pocket or handkerchief, and headed for home (which can't have been far away considering that he was carrying exposed viscera in his pockets).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

I suppose we could say that Wearside Jack was attempting to claim credit for someone else's work, as opposed to deflect suspicion.

I realise that, Fleets. I was responding specifically to your argument that the act of deflecting suspicion would have been flawed in the ripper's case because he didn't narrow down the targeted group to a sufficient extent. My counter-argument was to point out that as long as the narrowed-down group (Jews in this case) excluded the real killer, the job was as good as done, and the fact that there were still a vast number of Jews is irrelevant.

Yes, it is always possible that the apron and message were unrelated, but if they did share a common authorship, the killer's purpose might have been to implicate the already scapegoated Jewish community, and in so doing, he wasn't behaving remotely "stupidly", but rather in accordance with the scapegoating antics used by a number of known serial killers. In answer to your question, yes, of course there would have been those who assumed the message to have been a gesture of defiance chalked by an actual Jew (modern theorists advance such an idea even today), but the explanation favoured by the police at the time was the one I've outlined, i.e. that the author wished to "throw the blame upon the Jews". Significantly, they didn't do what you do and reject the suggestion on the basis that nobody would be that stupid.

But, believing Long was mistaken really is ignoring key witness statements because they don't fit our conception of the event, which, I suppose, makes such a belief a non-starter.

No, Fleets. That is absolutely not the case at all. It is simply the most plausible explanation considering how implausible the alternative is - that he ventured back onto the streets again after committing the murder - and how easy it would have been for Long to overlook the apron on his first visit. Far from being a "non-starter", it is by far the most credible (and majority-endorsed) suggestion.

Yes, but having rifled her pockets why did he choose to do it the hard way?

Perhaps because there was nothing in her pockets of sufficient size to do the job of protecting his pockets from innard juice.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Ingenious!

Why didn't he cut off part of Chapman's apron?

Regards,

Simon

[Steven Russell]

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.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Simon,

It is possible that the killer's impoverished circumstances and living conditions meant that he didn't have much in the way of spare cloth lying around, and that he therefore fully intended to make use of the victim's apparel for the purposes of organ transportation.

Good to see you back!

All the best,
Ben

Yes, but having rifled her pockets why did he choose to do it the hard way?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Ben,

Hi Fleets,

But providing the targeted group didn't include the actual killer, its size is irrelevant, surely? It doesn't matter if the group consisted of ten people or 10,000. As long as the "narrowing down" process excluded the real murderer, the task of deflecting suspicion would have been achieved. There were a great many men with Geordie accents when the Yorkshire ripper was active, but because Peter Sutcliffe wasn't one of them, he was overlooked in consequence of John Humble's hoax tape. By disposing of the apron piece where he did, it is possible that the killer sought to validate the chalked message as his own. In which case, he was being a lot less blatant (or "stupid") than he would have been had he written "I am the killer and I am Jewish".

I suppose we could say that Wearside Jack was attempting to claim credit for someone else's work, as opposed to deflect suspicion.

Plus, the tape directly discussed the murders. It was the content and relation to the murders that convinced the police. In the event Wearside Jack had sent a tape in saying something to the effect: "look for x group of people" without mention of the murders, would the police have moved away from Yorkshire suspects? Wearside Jack was targetted because of his knowledge of the murders.

And, it is very relevant. The objective of the writing is everything really. If the argument goes that this was Jack attempting to deflect suspicion, then did one single person read the message and say: "he must be Jewish"? Surely such a unanimous take on the writing wouldn't be lost on Jack?

Hi Fleets,

True, but then we might assume that these senior officials were at least capable of making rational judgments, and when they are offered by Charles Warren, Henry Smith, Donald Swanson and others, I feel they command particular attention.

Of course they are capable of making rational judgements.

But, that's not really how the argument goes.

The suggestion is that their views on this lend weight to the author being Jack. In other words: they were somehow in the know. Of course they weren't, beyond connecting the two due to proximity of apron. There was no evidence beyond a hunch.

The apron does not prove the point. A message to the effect: John loves Claire would not have been deemed to have been written by the murderer. So, there has to be something in the writing, and the term 'Jews' in an area with a sizeable Jewish community simply isn't enough for me.

I don't think he was hanging around at that time at all. I believe PC Long simply missed the apron first time around.

All the best,
Ben

It would seem the obvious answer. It's hard to believe that he would mess around near the crime scene an hour or so later. Similarly, it's highly unusual for a killer to stop to write messages while the search is going on nearby.

But, believing Long was mistaken really is ignoring key witness statements because they don't fit our conception of the event, which, I suppose, makes such a belief a non-starter.

[curious]

Would a crazy person have simply cut a piece of apron and took it away with him and I stand to be corrected here but was it not cut almost perfectly as i have said before having regards to her clothes being pulled up it would have been more difficult.

Besides if he did cut it surely it would have been the last thing he did and thefore the apron still attached to her would have ben clearly visible to the police and doctors but no they said her clothes were drawn up hardly likley to have cut it first.

Trevor,
I believe you are correct in that it was cut (or ripped) almost perfectly. That would not be terribly difficult with worn, modern-day fabric. I can not speak for fabrics from the 1880s. Have you never started a cut in a piece of fabric, then taken both hands and ripped it the rest of the way? It will rip much straighter than you can cut. Modern-day cloth tears in a straight line -- old sheets or towels or even aprons.

However, I see him cutting the fabric as being the first thing he would do after killing her because he wanted a handy-dandy carrier for the goodies he was about to remove from her body. Cutting his carrier first would also explain why he took part of the apron, for the pocket rifling would come later, possibly at the end of his little exercise. If he had cut the apron last, he had to stand around, ripping and juggling the goodies he intended to take home.

No, I think the apron was cut first. Then, after he had his carrier, he would have stretched the apron piece out on the dirty, wet ground, which would explain why it was so dirty.

It would also explain the corner soaked with blood because that was located closest to the body.

With his carrier in place, he worked feverishly, tossing the tidbits he was taking home over onto the apron piece.

This person was definitely "crazy" and daring beyond belief (or exactly like the "crazy" who would murder in a crowded yard or a square crawling with police). This crazy would not be adverse to running back out to drop the apron piece and write the graffeti just to see if he could -- he was flying high.

I'm not sure this is what happened, but I can see it unfolding . . .

curious

[Ben]

Hi Simon,

It is possible that the killer's impoverished circumstances and living conditions meant that he didn't have much in the way of spare cloth lying around, and that he therefore fully intended to make use of the victim's apparel for the purposes of organ transportation.

Good to see you back!

All the best,
Ben

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

If the perpetrator set out from home with the intention of excising organs, wouldn't he have thought to bring along a piece of cloth for the purpose of carrying them away?

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

Great news for the police, I suppose, as in the event they believed the author they could now narrow this down to say 100,000 people

But providing the targeted group didn't include the actual killer, its size is irrelevant, surely? It doesn't matter if the group consisted of ten people or 10,000. As long as the "narrowing down" process excluded the real murderer, the task of deflecting suspicion would have been achieved. There were a great many men with Geordie accents when the Yorkshire ripper was active, but because Peter Sutcliffe wasn't one of them, he was overlooked in consequence of John Humble's hoax tape. By disposing of the apron piece where he did, it is possible that the killer sought to validate the chalked message as his own. In which case, he was being a lot less blatant (or "stupid") than he would have been had he written "I am the killer and I am Jewish".

I don't place too much store in this because it's an opinion that doesn't require police training

True, but then we might assume that these senior officials were at least capable of making rational judgments, and when they are offered by Charles Warren, Henry Smith, Donald Swanson and others, I feel they command particular attention.

He is so keen to deflect suspicion that he's hanging around between 2.20 and 2.55

I don't think he was hanging around at that time at all. I believe PC Long simply missed the apron first time around.

All the best,
Ben

[Trevor Marriott]

Perhaps the killer was out every weekend looking for a chance to murder. It
must have been very difficult to find the 'right' circumstances. When he eventually had a chance to kill Stride (I think he did kill her) the very fact that he couldn't mutilate her must have driven him even crazier. He took a definite risk with killing Eddowes but I think his need to mutilate a woman was beyond his control by that time. The fact that the mutilations seem to have been done 'uncarefully' I think was just him completely out of control.

Carol

Out of control is spot on, frenzied and ferocious attacks but are we to be believe that suddenly he regains control to carefully remove organs and carefully cut a piece of apron ?

[Trevor Marriott]

a sailor is a damned good suspect, but for this to work you definitely need to find victims elsewhere

Astute comments by both of your goodselves

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's a screamingly simple premise, Fleets, and "deflecting suspicion" has been a tactic resorted to by many serial killers. I'm "scratching my head" in disbelief that anyone should resist this possibility so staunchly. By depositing the apron in a very Jew-concentrated locality, and writing a message explicitly mentioning the Jews (if the killer was responsible for both expedients), he may well have been seeking to implicate the Jews, and some of the police seniority believed that this was precisely what the author was trying to achieve. They certainly didn't rule out the possibility for the reason you do, i.e. that nobody would be "stupid" enough to deflect suspicion in such a fashion, and I personally go with the stupidity-barometer used by the police at the time.

Problem with this Ben is that:

a) Who exactly is the object of this tactic: a group of people known as 'the Jews'? Great news for the police, I suppose, as in the event they believed the author they could now narrow this down to say 100,000 people.

b) The message certainly mentions 'the Jews'. From there, you or the next man is guessing as to the message's intent. There has to be something in the writing to bind this to the murder. So it comes down to this: Jews are mentioned and Jews live nearby. Whoever scrawled the message had ' the Jews' in mind and Jews certainly did live nearby; but that is the case no matter the author and the intent of the message (in other words: there is nothing in this message that lends it to the murderer any more than it does to anyone else in the vicinity).

c) Yes, some of the senior police did consider that possibility. I don't place too much store in this because it's an opinion that doesn't require police training, and of course some people will disagree with me by virtue of being human beings.

So, the argument goes like this: Jack wanted to deflect suspicion, so his method was to write a message that renders the reader unclear as to who is the author, Jack or not, and what exactly is the intent of the message (a Jew with a grudge or a gentile with a grudge). He is so keen to deflect suspicion that he's hanging around between 2.20 and 2.55, except he must lose committment to this tactic as he begins to chalk because he doesn't bother to make it clear what exactly he is saying, nor does he pinpoint anyone outside of 100,000 people.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Serial murderers are known to leave/send messages and that is a known fact!

True enough.

But, how many have done so in a built up area, knowing the police would be there in a matter of minutes, 1/2 hours after the murder (while the police are searchng that area)?

I'd guess very, very few.

[Fleetwood Mac]

dont me silly

hang around yes i would..... 5 for a pound means 5 victims, but i dont steal from them and get the victims here in Whitechapel...... hay, this is better than the actual graffiti.... well done

Thanks, Malcolm.

Although no murderer, I could make it as a second rate graffiti artist.

The point is this: there must be something in the writing to make you think the writing and apron are connected. For instance, in the event the writing stated: John loves Claire, you wouldn't connect the two.

So, what excatly in the writing connects the two?