The Apron

[Phil H]

"I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."

Pardon me for pointing out that the quote makes no mention of size.

I couldn't give a monkey's, frankly, how big the apron-piece was - we don't know. You are extrapolating from ASSUMPTIONS abouut Eddowes apron.

Who stated it was cut for removal?

Monty, I don't know what you are implying - clearly something or some other purpose?

The logic, it seems to me, is that the apron-piece was found in Goulston St, and there is no question it came from Eddowes.

Leaving aside the only marginally sane claims that it was a Victorian do-it-yourself sanitary towel, or that Eddowes herself had cut it off and discarded it, and that it was covered in blood and fecal material, it seems likely that the killer removed it, by cutting or tearing (a tailor would, of course, be skilled in cutting material with a blade) and the simplest explanation is that he took it to where it was found, or so close as to make no difference.

End of story.

Phil

[Ben]

I can tell you from experience that its not that easy to remove that kind of stuff very quickly, but you do want it off your hands as soon as possible

I appreciate that, Hunter, but my point was that the killer hadn't a hope it hell of removing it completely until he found a water source. The best he could have achieved before he reached his bolt hole was the removal of the visible signs of the stuff, and this expedient would have taken as much time as it takes to remove a large piece of apron. If he wrapped it bandage-style around the organ (which he could easily have done on the move before he even got as far as Duke Street), it could have fit easily into an overcoat pocket. Note that if the killer had limited clothing, he would have been especially anxious to avoid sacrificing a handkerchief or sullying a coat unnecessarily. As I mentioned earlier, the condition of the apron when discovered is consistent, in my opinion, is organ transportation.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Phil,

Cut out the pomposity, it does you no favours.

You are jumping to the ASSUMPTION it was cut solely for removal. This may be so however there are other options out there. No, I'm not following Marriotts lame arguement it was used as a sanitary towl (chances of me agreeing with Trevor on that one are less than me mating with a female crocodile).

Another option is it was cut as Eddowes killer was opening her clothing and taken as an afterthought, and its merely an option.

Monty

[Monty]

And I believe Brown stated it was cut, not torn.

This because a tear would follow a line of least resistence, not through a patch repair which it did with Eddowes apron.

Monty

[Phil H]

Cut out the pomposity, it does you no favours.

Not sure what you have taken objection to in my post - maybe just that I had the temerity to disagree with you, or question you.

thank you for your advice, Monty, but Ill continue to write my posts in the way I choose.

You are jumping to the ASSUMPTION it was cut solely for removal.

I haven't jumped to any conclusions, but I do think one explanation beats most others because it is the simple and obvious one.

This may be so however there are other options out there.

Thank you for the acknowledgement that there are other views!

No, I'm not following Marriotts lame arguement it was used as a sanitary towl (chances of me agreeing with Trevor on that one are less than me mating with a female crocodile).

But it is and was an alternative explanation - I gave my opinion of it above.

Another option is it was cut as Eddowes killer was opening her clothing and taken as an afterthought, and its merely an option.

I don't think that would account for the way it was cut - at least given the descriptions I have read. But even so, he still TOOK it away and the discussion is really about WHY he did that - not when it was cut.

[Monty]

Phil,

Sure, write your posts as you deem fit, and we shall judge likewise.

I was merely bringing into question the impulsiveness of the killer.

Monty

[ChrisGeorge]

Det. Sergeant. Halse:
"I noticed that a piece of her apron was missing. About half of it. It had been cut with a clean cut."

Jon
2 for the price of one (Monty/Chris)
:-)

P.S.
Ok, Henry Smith was actually present so I guess we can also give him a little credit for this:
"....the first discovery we made was that about one-half of the apron was missing. It had been severed by a clean cut'."

Thank you, Jon. That's the information I was thinking of that indicated that the material deposited in Goulston Street entranceway had to be a substantial piece of material. Thanks also for posting the illustration which well demonstrates how big those aprons were that the women wore, from waist to ankles.

Chris

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Or the throwing away of the apron may tell you 'why he took the organs in the first place'?

[Fleetwood Mac]

The point is that most people who hunt or butcher or whatever are trained to immediately clean and dry their knives (tools).

Yes, but this isn't some fella living off the land in a legal manner.

He's cutting women up, and who is to say he's cold and calculated.

In the event we are discussing what should have happened logically, assuming this man was in a rational state of mind at the time, then the logical thing to have done would have been to wipe his knife at the scene rather than take the time to cut the apron and wipe his knife later.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Certainly not the killer

Trevor, I read you take on the apron in your book the other night. Not a bad idea at all. And, imagine in it were Eddowes who chalked the message. Let's face it, there is much as much chance she had a grievance as there is Jack did.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleets,

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

I have no problem with him taking the time to stop; other murderers/rapist have taken the risk.

The problem I have it is this: would someone really kill a woman in order to blame 'the Jews'? I don't think so. And, that leaves the suggestion that he was claiming credit for his work - the usual serial killer de rigueur - which of course it appears he wasn't.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Would he, though, Hunter? In the event he heard footsteps, would he really take the time to cut a piece of cloth?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Not a bad idea at all. Seems more viable than most to me.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

Yeah, good point.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Hi Ben,

I personally don't think it would have been much of a risk; he could even have stepped inside the building out of view. Take a breather, compose himself etc. I feel the taking of the apron doesn't make sense and perhaps there's something missing from the consensus view.

He didn't take any cloth at previous murders, although something may have happened with the earlier ones to suggest it was a good idea for him.