The Apron

[Jon Guy]

With reference to Annie Chapman's neck scarf - it was still in place when she was killed, when she was examined and was among her possessions in the morgue.

Hi Lechmere

Indeed, she was wearing a neckerchief, and as Tim Donovan noted at the inquest:

She was wearing it on the Saturday morning when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner wise round her neck, with a black woollen sort of scarf underneath.

The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
Saturday, 15 September 1888.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The upper part of the dress had been torn open Dr Brown.

I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut Inspector Collard.

So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective.

The difference with the apron, of course, is that it could not be torn open from the front, as it was tied from the back (he couldn't simply pull the buttons and pop), so how does he gain access for his objective: he cuts the one item that is tied from the back.

Makes sense: the one item that was cut in two, was the one item that can't be ripped open from the front.

Edited to add: this idea would move away from the pre-planned knife wiping/organ carrying theory.

[lynn cates]

this could be the start of something big

Hello Mac.

"So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective."

Yes. Odd that he didn't do that to Polly or Annie. He just started with Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Yes Jon - according to Donovan there was also a piece of black woollen scarf under the handkerchief.
This must have been considerably smaller than the half apron, and by the description smaller than the folded handkerchief. It would also presumably have been very bloody after the throat cutting.
Would the Ripper have undone it, fiddling around under the bigger bloody handkerchief and carried it off with the organs?
Or if he took it off after strangling Annie and before cutting her throat, why didn’t he take the handkerchief?
It isn't mentioned anywhere from what I can tell apart from by Donovan so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it.

[Tom_Wescott]

"So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective."

Yes. Odd that he didn't do that to Polly or Annie. He just started with Kate.

Are you suggesting he didn't cut Chapman's clothes? Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

1 little, 2 little, 3 little rippers

Hello Tom.

"Are you suggesting he didn't cut Chapman's clothes?"

Well, unless I hear otherwise.

"Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?"

Wasn't that one Ripper for every girl? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. Consider yourself heard otherwise - the Ripper cut Chapman's clothing. But you evaded my other question? Okay, to be fair, I know you're not easily convinced by any person, so let me word it another way - do you suspect that the Ripper murders were...

1) Unconnected one-off homicides.
2) Connected homicides, but individual assassins.
3) Partial connected homicides (3 by the same hand, for instance) and the rest unrelated?
4) 2-3 murderers working together, but with a purpose other than 'sexual serial murder'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

"Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?"
Wasn't that one Ripper for every girl? (heh-heh)

After “alternative Ripperology“, "minimalist Ripperology“, it's time for a new approach, “monogamous Ripperology“.

But you evaded my other question?

Lynn, you've also “evaded“ deciding about the second translator and the macro-key search too. Are you interested in these ideas? Care to help out, perhaps? Please?

do you suspect that the Ripper murders were...
1) Unconnected one-off homicides.
2) Connected homicides, but individual assassins.
3) Partial connected homicides (3 by the same hand, for instance) and the rest unrelated?
4) 2-3 murderers working together, but with a purpose other than 'sexual serial murder'.

Don't try so hard Tom, your head is smoking.

[Fleetwood Mac]

After “alternative Ripperology“, "minimalist Ripperology“, it's time for a new approach, “monogamous Ripperology“.


Lynn, you've also “evaded“ deciding about the second translator and the macro-key search too. Are you interested in these ideas? Care to help out, perhaps? Please?



Don't try so hard Tom, your head is smoking.

I'm not sure which is more entertaining: The Maria and Tom Show, or the murder of a poor, defenceless, cloth obsessed woman.

[lynn cates]

"Cut!"--take 2

Hello Tom. Just had another go at Evans and Skinner's "Ultimate Companion."

Kent and Davis both reported clothes disarranged--but no mention of cutting. No mention, either, by Holland.

What of the coppers? Well, Inspector Chandler noted that:

"The pocket produced was found worn under the skirt. It was torn down the front and also at the side and did not contain anything." (p. 84) So, apparently she had a torn pocket. I submit that the pocket was torn when her assailant rummaged for her belongings.

Later, Chandler adds:

"None of the clothing was torn." (Loc. cit.) I presume he means other than the pocket?

Barry, no mention. Bagster, the same.

Was this in a press report?

(I'll try to answer your other question separately.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Tom. In regards of your other question, I answer with trepidation being aware that this could be considered off topic.

I am not far from your 3 & 4. I am confident that Jacob Isenschmid killed Polly and Annie. I am also confident that Kate was a fairly well done copy cat crime. MJK, collateral damage due to the meeting a few days earlier between Sir Edward Jenkinson and Michael Davitt when Sir Ed needed Davitt to promise to keep quiet about Frank Millen in the Parnell Commission meeting about to begin. He kept his word, but in return Davitt was able to extract information from Sir Ed--ostensibly about Sir Ed's array of spies (many of whom were barmaids, etc.)--for use at the Commission meeting.

Actually, this was the same way that Clan-na-Gael was able to finger Dr. Cronin, and Davitt was involved in that too. (No I don't think that Davitt intentionally spilled the beans--but information thus obtained has a way of leaking.) To cut a long story short, you recall how Dr. Cronin was assassinated? He was butchered by an ice axe by a Clan-na-Gael "removal" team.

For Liz I am still researching the Okhrana/Anarchist interface.

Now, I'd better shut up before being chastised for being off topic.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

reply, sort of

Hello Maria. Well, there is a good deal to be said about monogamy--some day I shall figure out just what. (heh-heh)

Regarding your proposal, I really don't understand it. Email me?

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hi Greg,

A psychopath displays instinct, as we all do.

Bundy may have drove around with body parts, and others may have kept them at home, but the police would have had to have stopped them to work this out, and there was little chance of that happening.

The point with Jack is that it's being suggested that he deliberately walked into a place where the police were stopping people, he walked into that place an hour so after the murder, he walked into that place with incriminating evidence.

In other words, the argument goes that Jack was putting himself into a position where there was a good chance he would be caught and would hang.

Using Ted Bundy as an example, as bizarre as it is, the police would have had no reason to stop him and therefore the risk he was running was minimal (except perhaps a head rolling out the car door or something when he parked up and tried to get out, much to the consternation of Mrs Brown who's only popped out for some fish and is looking forward to a fish pie when she gets home and so she rings CSI Miami to sort it out).

Anyway, do you know of anyone who has pulled such a stunt? If you want to understand human beings then look at whay they do, and if something is so unusual it means that there's an exceedingly good chance that Jack was no different in that he wouldn't have done such a thing either (unless of course he had no other viable option).

not quite, with regards to Bundy, the police were already searching for his Volkswagen Beetle ( cream/ yellow colour ?), plus they also had a rough description of him too.

but with JTR, they had absolutely nothing to go on, he is therefore far safer returning to Dutfields ( and remaining at range ) than is Bundy turning up in his Adolf Hitler car.

this is quite interesting, because Sutcliffe was stopped in a similar manner, to what JTR would've been, if he was driving a Ford Cortina too and cruising the streets of Whitechapel looking for Eddowes.

it's easy to trace the owners of cars/ DNA/ weapons inside etc, so it's no good running off is it, but it's bloody hard to catch this same criminal that's running off back in 1888 and impossible to trace him later, especially if you went up to him on your own and he's just stabbed you !......because JTR would definitely stab you if you stopped him and said, ``i need to search you sir`` and it's highly unlikely that he'd leave you alive, you're a witness, he'd have to kill you.

JTR was therefore relatively safe, if confronted by one policeman only, but at huge risk at a road barrier etc...... so yes, as i've said, if he did return to Dutfields, there is no way that he could get close......fact!

but this doesn't mean that he didnt try, he might have thought... ``this place will be crawling with police, you need to try again tomorrow, oh well i'll just have a quick look``.

plus, if there's a huge crowd that's gathered behind the barriers, then JTR is safe, he can watch for the next 1/2 hour, but i'm quite happy with the apron/ graffiti being dumped soon after he killed Eddowes, because this makes the most sense.

[Malcolm X]

it isn't important but it would be very interesting to know where he put the kidneys

[Malcolm X]

Or if in fact the killer did cut the apron piece ?

Because if you elminate the organs being taken away, the handwiping and the knife wiping what are you left with ?

oh for Gods sake, this is what you think, not the vast majority .

answer this
1..... who cut the apron piece off
2......who removed the organs
3......who the bloody hell dumped it in Ghoulston st.

logic tells you..... ONLY THE KILLER.