The Apron

[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

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Ben,

Ingenious!

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

Regards,

Simon

[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.

[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

[Lechmere]

Regarding the apron, I agree with the view expressed that it would be difficult to cut in what appears to have been a nice neat line – it would have taken a bit of time, probably longer than it took to kill Eddowes.

However I think he did cut it off somehow.

I have previously offered the possibility that he always had a rag to clean up with, but had used it up on the Stride attack which necessitated the need for another rag – hence the apron being cut.

The other possibility relates to the fact that this attack took place on Saturday night – the only attack which took place when the next day wasn’t a work day. It also was the earliest attack. All the other occurred further into the small hours of the morning.
In the other attacks may be he cleaned up at his workplace.
As on this occasion he wasn’t going to work as it was a Sunday, maybe he wanted to clean up before he went back to where ever he lived.
So in this instance he may have cut off some of his victims clothing to clean himself up a bit before going home.

I think it's expecting a lot for the murderer to write lucid statements at that moment. The slightly vague but still threatening and accusatory nature of the graffiti is perhaps the sort of thing that we should expect.

I also think there are valid grounds for being sceptical about Long saying he did not see the apron at 2.20 am. Just 9 months later he was dismissed from the Met for drunkenness. It was his first night on the beat in Whitechapel as he had been temporarily transferred from the West End. He said he didn’t know of the Eddowes murder at 2.55 am, which to me implies that he must have been keeping a ‘low one’. He says he didn’t see it at 2.20 am, but Halse was also in Goulston Street at 2.20 and they didn’t see each other. Add it up and it suggests to me that Long was skiving.

[ChrisGeorge]

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.

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

[Steven Russell]

Hello, Ben.
Let's face it, we're guessing here and your explanations are feasible. But I still feel he would have brought the wherewithal to transport the organs with him rather than relying on finding or fashioning something suitable at the scene. Overcoats are thick, heavy items and visible bloodstaining need not have been extensive if he simply rammed his trophies into a pocket. (Particularly if it were a dark garment.) Plus, those gaslamps look pretty pathetic if the James Mason film can be trusted. And, as you suggest, he may have taken a handkerchief, or even (gulp) a bag.

Nor do I believe we can safely deduce that the killer's home, or other place of safety, was close-by because he dared not walk the streets for too long with body parts about his person. We are not talking about a "normal" person here. He took much greater risks when committing the murders and mutilations. It may be that he enjoyed walking around with the body parts on him - quietly watching from the margins as the hysteria grew.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Monty]

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Why do you think the killer had time to wipe his hands in the square? Seeing as we have possible interventions for Watkins, Harvey and Morris.

Re cut or tear.

The inquest testimony is quite clear, it was cut. As the parts were matched and identified via a repair and matching its far easier to cut through a repair than tearing. I see no issue regarding cutting, that knife was sharp enough to cut through some pretty tough matter in Eddowes body.

Monty

[Steven Russell]

Hi Steve

You make some excellent points. Which could indicate that the piece of apron was taken to point to the graffito, even though many deny it was written by him, despite what the police at the time seem to have thought. If he took the apron piece to wipe his hands, he could have discarded it right there in Mitre Square and not carried it the distance to Goulston Street. So that indicates that there was another reason other than carrying organs or wiping his mitts.

Best regards

Chris

Thanks for the kind words, Chris. I find it difficult to accept that the apron piece was intended to draw attention to the graffito, though. But I will concede the distance between M. Sq. and G. St. is a bit of a puzzler.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just had a thought on this:

Let's say this apron is tied at the back.

He can't pull the apron up because it's tied at the back. And she's lying on her back, so he can't reach round and untie the bow.

So, he's left with two options: push her onto her front and untie it, or cut the apron, which would explain why such a big piece has been cut off. The latter would probably be quicker.

Once the apron is cut, although not planned, he may have grabbed it for future use.

Thoughts?

[Jon Guy]

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.

Hi Ben

Wasn`t Chapman`s scarf missing? I think it was Donovan who described her as wearing a scarf when she left Crossingham`s.