Kates Cuts

[JeffHamm]

i dont think the ripper cut kates apron to wipe his hands. he could have just done it on her clothes then and there and saved himself time and the risk of being caught with clear cut evidence (the bloody apron) later away from the crime scene when all he had to do was wipe his hands on her clothes before he bolted.

and considering where the apron was found-underneath the GSG, and other circs of that night point IMHO that he cut and took the apron away for other reasons.

Probably to carry her organs in and or to use to sign the GSG.

Hi Abby Normal,

He could have cut it to carry the organs I suppose, but my problem with that line is it becomes odd for him to throw it away before he got home (he's not done carrying the organs after all). On the other hand, there is testimony that suggests he may have already got home, and then went out again to discard the apron piece, so that can be reconciled of course. Taking it "in order to sigh the graffiti" presumes he had the notion of leaving a message at the time he killed her. If he did write the graffiti, and it is certainly not a proven fact that he did, that seems more likely to have been a spontaneous thought at the time he got rid of the apron; meaning, while the apron might link the graffiti to him, I don't think JtR was intentionally leaving the apron as a "signature" to the graffiti.

Also, to copy/paste from Steve's previous post (below in quotes), the stains are described as appearing to be from either hands or a knife being wiped on the cloth, which is not consistent with them being used as a wrapper but as being used to clean up.

"Inquest report in The Times, 5th October:

Mr. Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
Witness: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought in there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

The witness in question was Dr Brown.
"

Offenders do learn from previous crimes, and modify their actions as a result. He may very well have recognized the benefit of having a piece of cloth other than his own clothing to clean up after he finished. I don't think anything more complicated than that is necessary to explain why he took it. Certainly there might have been more complicated notions going on in JtR's head at the time, but if so, the evidence we have is insufficient for us to work out what those might have been. And, in the end, they may be nothing more than a convoluted set of notions which, in the end, also just allow him to clean up and so, in his mind, reduce the risk of being spotted with blood and such on his hands that might be visible to others.

- Jeff

[Abby Normal]

i dont think the ripper cut kates apron to wipe his hands. he could have just done it on her clothes then and there and saved himself time and the risk of being caught with clear cut evidence (the bloody apron) later away from the crime scene when all he had to do was wipe his hands on her clothes before he bolted.

and considering where the apron was found-underneath the GSG, and other circs of that night point IMHO that he cut and took the apron away for other reasons.

Probably to carry her organs in and or to use to sign the GSG.

[Fiver]

The truth hurts doesnt it ?

Dr Brown
"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You appear to be misremembering Dr. Brown's report.

"My attention was called to the apron, particularly the corner of the apron with a string attached. The blood spots were of recent origin. I have seen the portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. It is impossible to say that it is human blood on the apron. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it (which had evidently been sewn on to the piece I have), the seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street."

[Fiver]

So now in addition to having the time to walk into the square with the victim, kill, and mutilate her abdomen, remove a kidney and uterus, then rifle her pockets, and then cut a piece of her apron, finishing up by artistically carving out her face. all in under 5 mins.

Come on wake up to reality !!!!!!!!!!!!

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Perhaps you should take a look at what the inquest actually said, specifically surgeon Frederick Gordon Brown

[Coroner] How long would it take to make the wounds? - It might be done in five minutes. It might take him longer; but that is the least time it could be done in.

That's a minimum, not a maximum of 5 minutes for the mutilations. It does not count the time "to walk into the square with the victim" or to "rifle her pockets" or to "cut a piece of her apron". That 5 minute minimum also doesn't include the time for wrapping up removed organs or the killer wiping off blood and fecal matter.

[Sam Flynn]

Using an apron piece as a makeshift towel is a reasonable explanation, but in that case wouldn't the killer discard the blood and feces covered apron piece at the scene

Not if he had to get out of there quickly. A fæces-smeared hand can take quite some cleaning, and I don't think he'd want to be hanging around at the crime scene trying to decontaminate his cacky hand, particularly if he'd heard PC Harvey and/or Watkins approaching. (Not that he knew their names, but you get my drift.)

rather than carrying it around for at least half an hour.

Indeed, but Goulston Street is only about a 5 minute walk away from Mitre Square.

Also, what witness described the bloodstain as a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it".

Inquest report in The Times, 5th October:

Mr. Crawford: Is it impossible to assert that it is human blood?
Witness: Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought in there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence.

The witness in question was Dr Brown.

[Fiver]

Given the sharpness of the Ripper's knife, a cut hand would probably have released a lot of blood onto the apron, causing a decent-sized patch of bood to be apparent somewhere on the cloth. As it was, what was described was a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it". I'm inclined to believe that this description fits pretty much exactly what happened; the killer got blood and caca on his hand, and used the apron piece as a makeshift towel.

Using an apron piece as a makeshift towel is a reasonable explanation, but in that case wouldn't the killer discard the blood and feces covered apron piece at the scene rather than carrying it around for at least half an hour.

Also, what witness described the bloodstain as a smear "as if a hand had been wiped on it".

[JeffHamm]

Originally posted by JeffHamm View Post
Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

No the first priority if you hear some coming is escape

He could only have cut it if she was wearing an apron, there is enough evidence to show that she may not have been, but lets not go over all that again.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

But I keep saying that the clothes were up above her waist the apron would have been the hardest piece of clothing to locate and cut quickly, and why would he have done that when here were other clothes that were more accessible to cut.

As to wiping his hands or a knife he could have done that on her clothes, no need to cut and take away an apron piece and he ceratinly didnt take away any organs in it

- Jeff

i have said before many of the old accepted theories do not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Well, changing the word "distance" to "escape" is just describing the same thing Trevor, so we actually agree.

And I'm pretty sure the police at the station described her as wearing the apron, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's described as part of her belongings, and the portion found at Goulston Street was compared with it. So, as far as evidence goes, there's a sum total of zero to say she wasn't wearing one.

you're presuming when he cut the apron. We don't know. He may have cut it before starting on the abdominal mutilations. Maybe his experience with Chapman prompted it? Maybe the apron, when he shifted her clothes, was still accessible and he grabbed a piece and cut it? I don't know, but it's not hard to imagine a bunch of specific situations where cutting a piece of cloth off her apron would be trivially easy, if you think outside your box for a little bit. What I do know is she was wearing one, a piece of material was cut from it, and later found in Goulston street.

Sure, he could have stuck around and wiped his hands on her clothes, but if he had cut the apron when it was easily accessible because his experience with Chapman taught him that might be useful, then when PC Harvey arrives, as you say, his priority is to escape by putting distance between himself and the crime scene. Having that piece of cloth would allow him to wipe up once he's distanced himself enough.

- Jeff

[Harry D]

Thinking out of the box is a trait that some do not seem to be able to do.

As opposed to thinking out of one's tree, which is your forte.

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

No the first priority if you hear some coming is escape

He could only have cut it if she was wearing an apron, there is enough evidence to show that she may not have been, but lets not go over all that again.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

But I keep saying that the clothes were up above her waist the apron would have been the hardest piece of clothing to locate and cut quickly, and why would he have done that when here were other clothes that were more accessible to cut.

As to wiping his hands or a knife he could have done that on her clothes, no need to cut and take away an apron piece and he ceratinly didnt take away any organs in it

- Jeff

i have said before many of the old accepted theories do not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance.

Exactly. Goulston Street was just far enough away to put "clear blue water" between the killer and the crime scene, but not so far away that he'd be at risk of capture by staying in the open for too long.

[JeffHamm]

But if that had have been the case he could have done that with the apron piece within a few yards of leaving Mitre Square. There would have been no need for him to carry the apron piece that distance before discarding it with the added the risk of being found with incriminating evidence on him.

In addition to the fact that if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut the apron piece.

But yet again we are going over old ground that that be gone over countless times over the years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes, those things seem strange. But then, if you're fleeing a crime scene, the first priority is just distance. The apron piece he obviously took, but when that happened we don't know, we just know he cut it and took it, and it ends up in Goulston Street. Why he chose to take it that far (or go back there later with it), is a mystery. The idea of heading back to the scene in order to get rid of the apron is harder to reason through than the idea of him dropping it while exiting the location, and just taking longer for some unknowable reason.

Cutting the apron probably would require 2 seconds (grab the cloth, cut it), but I suspect he cut it at the point he removed the colon and got his hands soiled, and not at the point PC Harvey showed up. I think you're right on that, at that point, there's no time for cutting cloth.

- Jeff

[FISHY1118]

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

If id had said that about Herlock Sholmes during our long drawn out debates on the Chapman thread, i surely would have been banned ....... oh wait i was. For a lot less i might add.

cue, jmenges ?

[Sam Flynn]

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

I'm just playing back your own take on how Kate's facial wounds came about.

[Trevor Marriott]

Or, according to Trevor’s idea, as she plunged her own face repeatedly onto the knife to avoid getting her throat cut!

Now you are showing clear evidence of a ripperologist with his head stuck up his on backside

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

So, as I was saying, the simplest explanation to me is that JtR took the apron piece to clean his hands/knife, discarded it once he had time to flee the immediate vicinity and clean up a bit, did not write the graffiti, and continued on his way home (where ever that may be), and the police constable patrolling the area missed it the first time around.

- Jeff

But if that had have been the case he could have done that with the apron piece within a few yards of leaving Mitre Square. There would have been no need for him to carry the apron piece that distance before discarding it with the added the risk of being found with incriminating evidence on him.

In addition to the fact that if he was disturbed by Pc Harvey he would not have had time to cut the apron piece.

But yet again we are going over old ground that that be gone over countless times over the years.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk