The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Ben,

But the organs Jack took were so small as to fit in the palm of his hand. The apron piece was very large and more conspicuous than, say, just putting the organs in his pocket or some other container brought with him. Unless you believe the Ripper murdered in a sudden impulse, then I think it far more likely he left his home knowing with full intent what he planned to do, and would have been prepared, particularly as he'd already done this before with Chapman, so if he'd made any mistakes in that murder, he'd plan not to repeat them in the next. Evidence of this 'learning curve' is evident in the murder of Chapman, where he quickly cut through her clothes, having learned from Nichols how difficult and clumsy it was to try and attempt his mutilation under her clothes.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

In that case, he's not much of a planner.

Let's see what he supposedly does:

a) Kills and mutiliates.
b) Takes the time to cut off a piece of cloth.
c) Wraps organs in cloth and legs it.
d) Stops in the street to take the organs out of his pocket, clean his knife, clean his hands, and return the organs to his pocket.

Doesn't seem like good planning to me, when the alternative was:

a) Take two pieces of cloth with you.
b) Kill and mutilate.
c) Take cloth out of pocket and wrap organs; take other piece of cloth and wipe knife and hands. Walk off down the street as calm as you like with no need to stop anywhere.

If it was planned, then it took the brain power of a squirrel to conceive said plan.

[K-453]

What if the apron was a trophy, too?
It is a very feminine piece of clothing after all, isn’t it?

[Ben]

a) Take two pieces of cloth with you.
b) Kill and mutilate.

But what are all these disposable pieces of cloth that the killer has conveniently lying around, Fleets?

Here's a much more convincing sequence of events that is consistent with both the evidence and the image of the killer as a reasonably competent "planner":

1) Kills and mutilates
2) Wipes hands and knife on apron (a few seconds work)
3) Tears of an apron piece to wrap up excised organs
4) Dumps apron piece once it has served its purpose as a fluid absorber and/or to validate the chalked message.

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

Perhaps "container" was the wrong word. It is likely that the apron's primary function was that of a gunk-absorber, which prevented his coat (perhaps his only coat) from being sullied unnecessarily. The larger the cloth, the more this was ensured. If the killer belonged to the lower classes, he was very unlikely to have had spare material lying around for the purpose, and undoubtedly knew that there was suitable rags to be found on his victims. Having said that, I agree entirely with your observation that the killer learned as he progressed and explored, and that the apron may have served the additional purpose of a means of authenticating the chalked message.

All the best,
Ben

[mariab]

I thought Trevor was all about the dog thing. You would have thought that a dog or rat would be knawing away at the dead body rather than running around with a crappy rag.

Maybe it was Occam's dog, and trained to fetch.

What if the apron was a trophy, too?

Trophy makes sense, since we know that he took (brass) rings from Chapman, and possibly Nichols. Perhaps his initial intention was taking a trophy/souvenir, but then he decides to throw it away, possibly to validate the chalked message. The fact that he was carrying chalk on himself can be understood either as a coincidence or as organized behavior.
When I say “coincidence“, I'm aware there's a risk of being branded a “minimalist“. LOL.

Do you recall that, in his investigation, Daniel Halse chatted up two blokes in the neighbourhood (I mean AFTER he left City turf) and thought their stories satisfactory? Wish we had a better accounting of them.

Lynn, where can I read about this please?

I find the views of writers like AP, refreshing ebcause they make you look again. Closed minds BAD, open minds GOOD, in my book.

If you are referring to AP Wolf, he knows the case quite well, but his (electronic) book is full of mistakes pertaining to the Stride case. For one thing, he's one of those folks who accuse Kidney for her murder.

[Sally]

I agree with Ben.

I don't think the doing the rounds lunatic need necessarily have planned to the extent being advanced here to have been capable of, and to have undergone a degree of planning - seems a bit of an 'all or nothing' argument to me.

The notion that he might realistically have planned to the extent whereby he took handy bits of cloth for organ transportation with him on his adventure strikes me as a little unfeasible - if he had been that sort of chap, then he wouldn't have done what he did. There clearly was a considerable degree of impulse at work.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. It's a matter of degree.

[lynn cates]

inquest

Hello Maria. Well, if I recall properly, they were in the inquest report when he testified.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

Hello Lynn, that's what I was hoping. Thank you so much for the speedy reply. (And I'll get back to you with some news soon.)

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Maria. Thanks. My pleasure.

Will try to look at that tonight. Right now, tea is almost over and it's time to go back for another huge lecture.

Cheers.
LC

[mariab]

apologies for a brief highjacking

Enjoy your break and lecture, Lynn.
I'll get back to you when finished with Schwartz and the Jewish Society.

[Phil H]

...he's one of those folks who accuse Kidney for her murder.

I haven't ruled Kidney out myself.

Phil

[niko]

Reply to Phil H

Hi Phil, whooo! slow down, remember I'm new on this and really have'nt got much of a clue, but I am delighted to debate with you. I was only expressing my thought's on thread 128. Just a hypothesis one of many, I could of mentioned another hypothesis, for example Jack COULD of cut himself murdering Stride, thus the reason for not mutilating her, then after recovering from the shock of cutting himself set out for another victim and to acomplish what he initially set out to do, which COULD have been to kill, mutilate, and extract organ's, he COULD of even took along with him a container for the organ's and even a piece of chalk for the graffito.

On murdering Eddowes he COULD of cut himself again, this being the reason for taking a piece of her apron, to use it as bandage for his wound. It seem's he did not calculate cutting a piece so large from the apron, OR did he calculate correctly because he needed a large piece because he was bleeding heavly, this being the reason the piece of apron was WET with blood. One thing is stained with blood and another is wet with blood.

Phil your right when you said I should of wrote COULD instead of MUST on thread 128, remember this is only a hypothesis, I will answer your question on the graffito on the coresponding thread, all the best,Agur.

niko

[Phil H]

"Jack" could have done all manner of things,but I believe we have to be careful in our putting together hypotheses not to go too fast or too far.

Sure "Jack" could have carried containers and chalk - but where is the evidence he did? The graffito CANNOT be evidence for him carrying chalk since the authorship of the writing remains unproven. The apron-fragment is significant because as has long been recognised, it is the only thing WE KNOW the murderer removed from a body and where it ended up.

That said, however, we do not know (though we can speculate) why he took it: cleaning himself, a wound, or to carry organs are POSSIBILITIES, no more. Without information on excatly HOW that apron-piece was stained, we cannot even infer very much.

We can suggest that he took something from Chapman to carry her missing body-parts in, but we cannot prove it. The assumption always used to be, without any problems, that the killer put them in his pocket. That may have been the case with Eddowes too.

The question of "Jack" having cut himself is an interesting example of how theorising and hypothesis solidifies into "fact" in these threads. I recall the idea first emerging - related to Eddowes - because there was (a) excrement around and thus a danger of infection if the killer had an open wound and got some crap on him, and (b) this was given greater substance by the interesting suggestion that an infection (a problem in 1888 before antibiotics) could explain why the killer took such a long break before killing MJK - assuming she was a JtR victim.

I find it amusing to see the self-wounding etc now being extrapolated BACK to the Stride killing, as we do not even know for certain that the man who killed Eddowes was ever at Dutfield's Yard.

Phil

[Carol]

Hello everyone!

I have two questions that someone might be able to answer.

1. Were the pieces of cut cloth (that were no doubt menstruation 'rags') ever described as being of the same sort of cloth as the apron?

2. Could the piece of apron found close to the graffiti have been used by Eddowes as a 'larger than usual' rag for a heavier flow of blood at the start of her period (which is usual). She was, by all accounts, a very clean woman. I know using her apron would have meant she was mutilating an item of her clothing of which she had only one, but as she was as particular with her own personal cleanliness as she could be under the very difficult circumstances in which she lived, I can easily imagine her doing so in an attempt to keep herself clean. She might not have been prepared for her period coming at the time it did. Mine very rarely did - it was always at least a few days out either side of the 'due' date.

I know Eddowes was meant to be getting her 'bed' money for that night but her period might have surprised her while she was out and she ripped off the larger piece of apron to have a 'rag' big enough to catch the flow of blood. The murderer would then have a nice piece of already bloodied apron ready for him. Yes, I know, what about the excrement? It could still have come from the cut colon.

Just 'juggling' with some thoughts!

Love
Carol

[mariab]

Carol,
The theory you're expressing is an old one, generated by Trevor Marriott.
It doesn't make much sense though to imagine that Eddowes would have destroyed her one and only apron to use a piece of it as a menstrual pad when she possessed tons of clean, recently unused menstrual rags in her pockets. Apart from this, it appears that the piece of apron was not simply drenched in blood, as if used as a menstrual pad, but also drenched in fecal matter and body liquids consistent with the extraction of her kidney, postmortem.
There are several threads about this question in the Eddowes sub-forum, where the best informed specialists in Victorian clothing and accessories, Jane Coram and Archaic, discuss this.