The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just a quick question regarding the apron:

Let's assume he lives in the heart of Met territory and he's making his way home.

In the event he stops to wipe his knife, what would be the point?

Presumably he still has the organs (or does he?), so wiping the knife is pretty much useless to him as a stop and search would reveal the organs.

This would suggest that the point was just to get rid of the apron.

If he has taken the apron to carry the organs, then what changes? Why, at Goulston Street, does he no longer need the apron?

If he's going to take the organs into his home, then why not the apron? Both are incriminating.

So what is going on here? there seems to be no reason to suddenly discard the apron.

Except one:

His hands may have given him away on the way home, so the whole point was to wipe his hands. But then, it is claimed Jack had ample time at the scene, so why didn't he wipe his hands at the scene? Just cut the apron off and wipe your hands. Plus, under pressure in Wentworth Street, would he be able to wipe away all of the blood with a piece of cloth? Would it smear, stick under his nails etc?

Any ideas?

Is the answer that he no longer had the organs, and therefore didn't need the apron?

[Trevor Marriott]

Just a quick question regarding the apron:

Let's assume he lives in the heart of Met territory and he's making his way home.

In the event he stops to wipe his knife, what would be the point?

Presumably he still has the organs (or does he?), so wiping the knife is pretty much useless to him as a stop and search would reveal the organs.

This would suggest that the point was just to get rid of the apron.

If he has taken the apron to carry the organs, then what changes? Why, at Goulston Street, does he no longer need the apron?

If he's going to take the organs into his home, then why not the apron? Both are incriminating.

So what is going on here? there seems to be no reason to suddenly discard the apron.

Except one:

His hands may have given him away on the way home, so the whole point was to wipe his hands. But then, it is claimed Jack had ample time at the scene, so why didn't he wipe his hands at the scene? Just cut the apron off and wipe your hands. Plus, under pressure in Wentworth Street, would he be able to wipe away all of the blood with a piece of cloth? Would it smear, stick under his nails etc?

Any ideas?

Is the answer that he no longer had the organs, and therefore didn't need the apron?

At the risk of inciting another riot on here I would suggest that perhaps he never ever had the organs in the first place

[Wickerman]

I don't see a problem with him living near Goulston St. he had to live somewhere. If he used the apron to carry the organs away he may have reached home, removed the organs and chose to throw the apron where it was found.
Whatever conjecture is offered will likely raise more questions than solutions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fleetwood Mac]

At the risk of inciting another riot on here I would suggest that perhaps he never ever had the organs in the first place

I hadn't thought of that, but I had wondered whether or not the apron was placed there by Jack.

So, who took the organs?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I don't see a problem with him living near Goulston St. he had to live somewhere. If he used the apron to carry the organs away he may have reached home, removed the organs and chose to throw the apron where it was found.
Whatever conjecture is offered will likely raise more questions than solutions.

Regards, Jon S.

No issue with hime living near Goulston Street, but why discard the apron? for what purpose?

The organs are incriminating, so not much point in discarding another piece of evidence. Why not take both the organs and apron into his home? What would be the point in discarding one but not the other?

[Wickerman]

No issue with hime living near Goulston Street, but why discard the apron? for what purpose?

The organs are incriminating, so not much point in discarding another piece of evidence. Why not take both the organs and apron into his home? What would be the point in discarding one but not the other?

A solution to the question, "why keep the organs but not the apron?" can only be resolved when we understand why he took the organs in the first place.

If someone takes evidence into the street, in most cases the reason is to 'plant' evidence, either to incriminate someone else, or to throw the police off the track.
Maybe he threw the apron and it's contents in the same archway, the missing player might be, .....one stray & hungry dog?

Jon S.

[Trevor Marriott]

I hadn't thought of that, but I had wondered whether or not the apron was placed there by Jack.

So, who took the organs?

Certainly not the killer

[Ally]

Just a quick question regarding the apron:

Let's assume he lives in the heart of Met territory and he's making his way home.

In the event he stops to wipe his knife, what would be the point?

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.

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

If he's going to take the organs into his home, then why not the apron? Both are incriminating.

So what is going on here? there seems to be no reason to suddenly discard the apron.

Unless he hoped that by discarding the apron where he did, he established his authorship of the Goulston Street message in the minds of the police. The organs could have served a similar purpose, but he probably had further designs on those for when he returned home (which can't have been far away if he had fresh innards in his coat pocket). I don't think the apron was removed purely for knife/hand-wiping purposes. It takes less time to wipe a knife than it takes to remove a piece of apron, and wiping an exposed and bloody knife en route home doesn't seem a credible proposal.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

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.

[Magpie]

Tlet me preface this by saying it's pure (but not unreasonable) speculation, but I'm wondering of the Ripper used the piece of apron to use as a makeshift bandage if he nicked his hand during the kidney extraction. Once he had a chance to staunch the bleeding and perhaps clean the wound, he would have no further use for the apron and so discarded it.

Just putting in out there.

[Wickerman]

Tlet me preface this by saying it's pure (but not unreasonable) speculation, but I'm wondering of the Ripper used the piece of apron to use as a makeshift bandage if he nicked his hand during the kidney extraction. Once he had a chance to staunch the bleeding and perhaps clean the wound, he would have no further use for the apron and so discarded it.

Just putting in out there.

Just a reminder, the piece of cloth was estimated to be half the apron. That would be a large piece, several square feet of material.
You could make enough bandages out of that to serve a hospital ward

[Magpie]

Just a reminder, the piece of cloth was estimated to be half the apron. That would be a large piece, several square feet of material.
You could make enough bandages out of that to serve a hospital ward

Good point.

I'll shut up now.....

[Barnaby]

Unless he hoped that by discarding the apron where he did, he established his authorship of the Goulston Street message in the minds of the police. Ben

I prefer this explanation. I also have a weird idea that he wrote the message before killing Eddowes while enraged after being interrupted with Stride. On his way home after murdering Eddowes, he dropped the apron as a "See what you caused?" type message. Note the location is a reasonable path he would take from Berner Street to Mitre Square.

[Addy]

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