The Apron

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi all,

I agree with Hunter, I feel he wanted to get rid of the fecal matter.

I always thought that it was a piece of apron, a small piece, not a large one. If it was already torn a bit, you can imagine the Ripper quickly tearing or cutting it to wipe his hands. I don't think he had plenty of time near the body to do that, he worked in a window of 15 minutes at the most. So he wiped his hands on his way to safety and discarded the piece of apron when he was done.

Greetings,

Addy

So how would he have been able to tell the diferenece between blood and faecal matter in the dark.

If the killer had been wearing dark clothing he could have wiped his hands on his own clothing blood or feacal matter stains would not be readily visible on dark clothing or in the dark to anyone he might have met when making good his escape.

If he had wanted to clean his hands another option might have been one of the many water troughs scattered around.

The decsription and condition of the apron piece in my opinion is not consistent with hands or a knife being wiped on it.

[Trevor Marriott]

The point is that most people who hunt or butcher or whatever are trained to immediately clean and dry their knives (tools). You do not leave them dirty or wet because that leaves them open to rusting and damage. And while he may not wanted to have stopped and cleaned his knife while standing over the dead body of a woman he just killed, taking her apron allows him to walk away and still clean it relatively immediately.


He may also have wanted to clean his hands as bloodstained hands is more of a noticeable giveaway than a discreet bag of organs. If he's stopped yes it doesn't matter, but someone walking by and seeing bloody hands might take notice.

The organs were not related to the apron most likely. They were in a separate container.

Tupperware

That reminds me I had a pair of underpants once made out of tupperware extremely uncomfortable but kept things fresh

[Ben]

I can understand that a hunter or slaughterer might follow a certain post-kill routine, but in the absence, in my opinion, of any reason to think the killer was either of those things, I doubt very much that such a routine was followed. I'm still in favour of suggestion that he transported the organs in the apron piece. One of the witnesses - I can't remember which, off hand - observed that one of the corners was very much saturated.

Trevor - if the killer only had one coat to his name, I doubt very much he'd sully it when there was free cloth available.

All the best,
Ben

[Phil H]

He made a blunder and cut through the colon and probably got fecal matter on his hands. A section of the colon was found lying by Kate Eddowes' left side. That ain't like just getting your hands bloody. Any hunter knows that you can field dress game without much of a mess as long as the stomach or intestines aren't punctured or cut. If that happens, the contents start oozing out real quick and as much as Kate had had to drink that night, I doubt it was real solid. He then cut the large intestines higher up and set it to the side so it wouldn't be coming out where he was trying to extract the uterus.

If he heard footsteps he would have cut the apron and left in a hurry, slowing down after a safe distance to wipe his knife and hands while still walking at a slower pace; discarding the apron, later, at some point along the way. Fecal matter was found on the apron.

Sorry to be so graphic, but I'd bet the farm that is what happened.
And Ally is correct. The first thing a hunter or slaughterhouse worker does when he's done is clean the knife off.

I agree pretty much with Hunter's earlier post which I have quoted.

I think "Jack" worked until he either heard the policeman's foorsteps or was disturbed by some other sound. He realised that he had yucky-stuff (technical term) on his hands, and quickly ripped off a portion of the apron so he could clean up as he went.

I don't think one need hypothesise that he was concerned about appearance alone - having dirty hands, particularly with what he had been playing with in Mitre Square, can be unpleasant!

So he walked and wiped and when he reached Goulston St, he threw the now unwanted apron fragment into the opening. He was neither aware of the graffito nor looked. It was a quick jerk of the hand to one side and the material was gone.

I find it VERY hard to credit even a calm "Jack", in the dark, at that moment, seeking out a specific opening to make sure it was the one with the graffito. Nonsense, IMHO.

The oldest explanation, kill, clean, discard, is the simplest and most believable.

Phil

[Steven Russell]

So how would he have been able to tell the diferenece between blood and faecal matter in the dark.
.

Smell.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Ben]

Cleaning up en roue is extremely unconvincing, in my opinion. It would have been alright if he was making his escape through fields or a deserted park, but in this case, we know he bolted through a heavily urbanized area where he could have been seen at any stage. It would have taken seconds to wipe the visible signs of gunk from his hands on the apron section as it still adhered to the body. For the residual smells, he had no option but to wait for an opportunity to use water. Unless he was happy with the idea of plonking fresh organs directly into his pockets, he obviously needed something to transport them in, and the freely available apron portion would have served this purpose. If he belonged to the working class poor, he was unlikely to have had spare containers lying around.

All the best,
Ben

[Ally]

And yet this was not the first time he had removed organs. If this was part of his plan to do so, I do not think he would have come unprepared and without his own container for them. Yes, he could well have forgotten to bring his "purse" or whatever he used the last time, but I sincerely doubt he'd have gone "wherever" and then disposed of the organs, then went back to plant false evidence in the amount of time he had.

[Phil H]

Unless he was happy with the idea of plonking fresh organs directly into his pockets, he obviously needed something to transport them in, and the freely available apron portion would have served this purpose.

So what did he use to transport the missing body parts of Chapman?

I also don't see the walking and cleaning process as unusual or something that would draw attention. It could be done quite casually, efficiently and naturally.

How long it took need NOT be the same thing as finding a convenient place to discard the material. he might have stopped wiping his hands very soon, but only found a recess suitable for his purpose when he reached Goulston St.

So far as smells are concerned, the streets of Whitechapel/Spitalfields in 1888 would have been pretty foul by our standards, with market refuse, horse droppings, excrement and unwashed humanity (in that environment wearing clothes they changed rarely if at all) all competing for notice.

Phil

[Ben]

I also don't see the walking and cleaning process as unusual or something that would draw attention.

I would argue that it isn't particularly natural or usual to walk the streets wiping one's hands on a piece of rag in the small hours, Phil, and with police whistles undoubtedly sounding off as he made his escape, it entailed a high degree of unnecessary risk considering that he could have wiped the visible gunk off on the apron in about as much time as it takes to remove a piece of it.

As for Chapman, it is possible that he used a handkerchief or some other rag in her possession (he clearly sifted through her belongings). It isn't certain that organ removal was something he planned on doing before he encountered Chapman. He may have incorporated this element as part of the grisly experimental process, and stuck with it thereafter.

but I sincerely doubt he'd have gone "wherever" and then disposed of the organs, then went back to plant false evidence in the amount of time he had.

I agree this seems very unlikely, Ally.

All the best,
Ben

[K-453]

[QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;194606]So how would he have been able to tell the diferenece between blood and faecal matter in the dark. [QUOTE]

By the smell.

-------------


I like the “kill, clean, discard” hypothesis, but remember, the piece of apron was not only quite large, it was also found more than an hour after the murder, probably not being there before.
See this dissertation: http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/dst-graffito.html

Some theories, I know they are not very good:

“Jack” had some attack of madness and was straying around without really knowing what he was doing. (But was still clever enough not to be caught – or had unbelievable luck.) Not uncommon with serial killers!

He was fleeing. Someone was close on his heels, or at least he thought someone was. So he did not care much if he got close to the murder site again, all he cared for was some alley with no cop in it, some dark passage he could vanish into. On his way, he discarded the suspicious objects he had with him one after the other.
(I thought of that stray dog, too, by the way …)

He dropped the apron somewhere else, and somebody found it and, not knowing what piece of evidence it was, used it for his own purposes.

[lynn cates]

incrimination

Hello Jon.

"If someone takes evidence into the street, in most cases the reason is to 'plant' evidence, [ . . . ] to incriminate someone else . . . ."

Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[Steven Russell]

So far as smells are concerned, the streets of Whitechapel/Spitalfields in 1888 would have been pretty foul by our standards, with market refuse, horse droppings, excrement and unwashed humanity (in that environment wearing clothes they changed rarely if at all) all competing for notice.

Phil

Very good point, Phil, but having your hands covered in someone else's faeces would still have been somewhat disagreeable. For most of us anyway.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[K-453]

his own container

Maybe he had some pot like the ones workers carried their supper in with them.
Maybe there was even supper in it, and he dropped the organs in … Who would recognize human organs when they are covered with sauce and surrounded by potatoes and peas?

Bon appetite!
K

[Phil H]

Picking up a few points:

Smell - I was referring to whether anyone else would smell a particular item in that milieu. As far as "Jack" was concerned, I had already addressed the fact the might not have liked either the texture or the odour of whatever was on his hands.

On the oddity of wiping hands in the street - I don't think it would have been that strange. He might even have withdrawn into the recess to do it (though I believe that is too long a delay.

We can infer that something might have been taken from Chapman to carry "trophies" but not prove it. Thus we cannot construe a "practice" of carrying body parts in that way. We have only the apron scrap to go on.

"If someone takes evidence into the street, in most cases the reason is to 'plant' evidence, [ . . . ] to incriminate someone else . . . ."

Now you're talking!

I don't agree that that is logical. There are far more practical reasons which need to be considered first - for instance to use to "clean up". Evidence can also be taken away absent mindedly or by mistake, or as a trophy (but then the killer changes his mind). Planting evidence should be well down the list. It's an argument likely to be used by those theorists with a preconceived agenda, though.

He dropped the apron somewhere else, and somebody found it and, not knowing what piece of evidence it was, used it for his own purposes.

Why complicate things. We know Eddowes' corpse was leaking fluids, we know what was on the material found, why complicate matters without any evidence to support it.

Finally, I think the apron scrap was missed on the first "pass" by a PC who was neither focused nor thorough.

Phil

[Steven Russell]

Picking up a few points:

Smell - I was referring to whether anyone else would smell a particular item in that milieu. As far as "Jack" was concerned, I had already addressed the fact the might not have liked either the texture or the odour of whatever was on his hands.

Phil

You had indeed, Phil.
Apologies,
Steve.