The Apron's Significance

[etenguy]

With pleasure: https://www.casebook.org/dissertatio...or-design.html

Sam

An excellent article concerning Catherine's murder and much wider than this topic - fascinating anaylsis. The part of the article concerning how the murderer became contaminated by fecal matter is well explained and certainly accepted by me. That he cleaned his hands somehow is also reasonable to expect. It could well be he used the apron to do this - but if that were the case why cut away a portion and why take it with him? Possibly he needed to get away quickly and that might explain it, but then we are left with descriptions of the soiled apron that do not match expectations if that were the case, but I have to accept the descriptions are meagre.

[etenguy]

Hi Eten.

Concerning those four proposals in post #1.

#2 was the original assumption at the time of the murders, but why officials were satisfied for a killer to carry that bloodstained rag through several streets, while wiping his hands, is perplexing.
If that was the only reason, that rag (which was quite large) could have been discarded as he left Mitre Sq. - why run the risk of being stopped carry incriminating evidence?

Hi Wickerman

I agree with you that carrying the apron portion all the way to Goulston Street seems unlikely if the apron was taken solely to clean himself. In terms of incriminating evidence, however, he did have the organs on him in any case.

#3 doesn't work for me either, the wound can't have been that serious if he discarded the apron before he was able to treat the wound at home.

Agree - I think this is unlikely.

However, I notice you dismiss #1 with a question, not a proposal.
And yet, one of the reasons you propose in option #4, is equally applicable to all four options. Namely, that he used it as a decoy, to send the police in the wrong direction.
Which means #1 is still viable.
The complete proposal in option #1 was that he went home, or to his bolt-hole, unloaded the organs, then returned to the street with the intent to lay a decoy.

The rag was found in the doorway, or archway directly below the graffiti, so it is difficult to argue that PC Long missed it on the previous pass.
Also, and I've mentioned this so many times. A beat constable is required to try all windows and doors accessible at street level to see if the occupant has left them unlocked, or if they have been forced.
This is PC Long's duty regardless what beat he is on, and as there was a door inside that entry, so accessible from the street, he would naturally step inside to grasp the door handle. Thereby stepping over the rag in the archway.

PC Long couldn't miss the rag had it been there on his previous pass through Goulston St.
And, lets not forget, DC Halse also passed that same spot at 2:20 am, and he said he didn't notice it either.

So option 1 is a possiblity even if option 4 is also true - we agree on that. I said I thought it unlikely he used the apron to transport the organs as he had demonstrated another method in relation to Annie Chapman and my assumption is that he did the same here. But it may be true that both options are true - which does have the added benefit of explaining why the apron was found later by PC Long. I do wonder whether having travelled to safety he would chance the streets again, carrying incriminating evidence. But if he thought of the decoy ploy after getting to safety then he might do that if he was worried he had pointed the police in the direction of his home. It would anchor his home/bolthole in the city area as he would not have time to travel further west and get the apron to Goulston Street - and if it was a decoy he was sending police in the opposite direction.

[etenguy]

I was going to say that I think both are very much possibilities: PC Long could have missed the apron the first time he passed it, or the killer could have deposited it later. But Wick's post is making me rethink that. If PC Long's duty required him to go to a door that would have required him to step on or over the apron, I don't see how he could have missed it.

Hi Lewis C

Yes, I think Wickerman's post does make sense - I still have some doubt about the murderer getting to safety and then coming back onto police filled streets carrying incriminating evidence - but if he had a strong enough motive he might do that.

[Wickerman]

. . . I said I thought it unlikely he used the apron to transport the organs as he had demonstrated another method in relation to Annie Chapman and my assumption is that he did the same here.

Tim Donavan last saw Annie at his lodging house wearing a black woollen scarf, but when her body was found the inventory of her possessions did not include the scarf.
The killer could have used it to wrap her uterus and take it away.

I do wonder whether having travelled to safety he would chance the streets again, carrying incriminating evidence.

We can't know what his plans were, but prowling the streets at night intent on murder, doesn't make sense to me either, but he did it.

If the rag contained the organs, it would naturally be well wrapped so as to not leak blood, I expect it would be under his coat out of sight. Which is not as conspicuous as hurrying through the streets wiping the blood off his hands with a large rag.
Likewise, after depositing the organs I expect the rag would again be folded up and tucked out of sight so as not to attract attention.

Perhaps he did not intend to drop it in Goulston street, but saw a constable coming up from the other direction and quickly threw the bundle in the nearest doorway.
In this case the graffiti was not his doing, it was just typical innocuous racist scribble common in the East End.

[Wickerman]

. . . If PC Long's duty required him to go to a door that would have required him to step on or over the apron, I don't see how he could have missed it.

In the 1889 Police Code, under Beats, pg 29, the list of responsibilities for the beat Constable are given. The last reads:
"(g) To see that doors, windows, gratings, cellar-flaps, fan-lights, and places through which a thief might enter, or obtain access, are not left open."

[Wickerman]

You can see the door just to the left of the stairs.

[caz]

Thanks Herlock - had a health issue which took some time to recover from, but back now and looking forward to catching up on what I have missed.

The Apron has always been niggling at the back of my mind - I am sure it tells us something, but whether my ruminations are close or not, still can't say for sure, but it seems to make sense to me that taking the apron was deliberate and with purpose.

Hi etenguy,

Good to see you back, and trust you have made a full recovery.

It would also have been quicker to take the whole apron with him, leaving no evidence that one was missing from the crime scene. Yes, it would have been larger to transport, but not too much difference tucked under a heavy coat, for instance.

I do think he would have realised that the portion he took would be positively identifiable with the piece left in Mitre Square, and that this was by design, as was discarding it out on the street so it could be connected to the latest murder. The piece was certainly large enough for this purpose to be achieved.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Remember that Eddowes' extruded intestines were "smeared over" with fæcal matter, and her killer had cut through and lifted out a section of the digestive tract where fæces are fully formed (i.e. the descending colon). It is thus highly likely that the Ripper contaminated one or both hands with fæces and tried to wipe them on a "clean" part of her intestines, thus causing them to be "smeared over" with fæces.

If, as seems likely, this effort was only partly successful - that stuff takes some shifting! - it's quite probable that he cut off part of Eddowes' apron to use as a makeshift towel. Once he'd had a chance to "scrub up" at a safe distance from the crime-scene, perhaps in the shelter of a doorway, he just jettisoned the "towel" and continued to head home.

I've been pointing this out for years, including a Ripperologist article of nearly 20 years ago, but it rarely comes up in discussion. I think it should be seriously considered, if for no other reason than the apron piece was stained, not just with blood, but with fæcal matter.

Hi Sam,

So why not take the whole apron, giving himself a larger "towel" for a faster clean-up job and quicker disposal? Nobody finding the body would know she was missing it, and surely it wouldn't have been too large to scrunch up or conceal from prying eyes before he could dump it.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Tim Donavan last saw Annie at his lodging house wearing a black woollen scarf, but when her body was found the inventory of her possessions did not include the scarf.
The killer could have used it to wrap her uterus and take it away.



We can't know what his plans were, but prowling the streets at night intent on murder, doesn't make sense to me either, but he did it.

If the rag contained the organs, it would naturally be well wrapped so as to not leak blood, I expect it would be under his coat out of sight. Which is not as conspicuous as hurrying through the streets wiping the blood off his hands with a large rag.
Likewise, after depositing the organs I expect the rag would again be folded up and tucked out of sight so as not to attract attention.

Perhaps he did not intend to drop it in Goulston street, but saw a constable coming up from the other direction and quickly threw the bundle in the nearest doorway.
In this case the graffiti was not his doing, it was just typical innocuous racist scribble common in the East End.

How can racist scribble ever be called 'innocuous', Jon, when it is by definition offensive and potentially harmful to whole groups of people?

I do see the GSG as intentionally racist, which most certainly would not rule out a typically bigoted serial killer.

Love,

Caz
X