|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1478
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:14 pm: | 
|
Hi Phil
You are correct that Jon and I are making the assumption that the apron found in two pieces, on Eddowes and in Goulston Street, was large, based on the contemporary photographs of East End women. And you might be right that it was a smaller apron than those sizeable aprons we see in the photographs.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
I'm lost why does it matter how large the apron was?
Jenni
"Stay away from that trap door,
Cos' there's somethin' down there"
|
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 581
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:33 pm: |
|
Jenni - the argument is being deployed that a piece of coarsish material some four square feet in size, would have been almost too large to use easily simply to wipe one's hands.
Edited to get the size of the cloth, as suggested above, right.
(Message edited by Phil on May 20, 2005) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1479
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Hi Phil, David, and Jen
I might add that if the piece of cloth was large, it was taken to make a statement, and so the police would know it belonged to the rest of the cloth still on the body. He could have removed the apron in total, supposedly, by just cutting the strings. Why did he not do that?
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 887
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 7:48 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Well, I agree with you that the apron was large. My own opinion is that the quickest and most convenient way to remove it, if, as I believe, there was a rush because someone was coming, would be to just cut right down the front of it. Seems to me the strings might have been a little tough to get to with the darkness and gore; then that's two cuts you have to make, one side and then the other.
I just see very direct movements, his taking what was right in front of him; it just turned out to be a large section of material he took. I don't see any intent in the size. I really do think someone must have been very near and that he must have felt rushed at the end.
But it's all perception I guess, and I think you and I picture the Ripper somewhat differently. I tend to think he practiced an economy of movement and that's what helped him elude capture. To me, the message was in Mitre Square, not Goulston street. A possible human error by PC Long could really be responsible for a misperception of events, the idea of the Ripper lurking and roaming about the area, or utilizing a bolthole and then disposing of the apron when he could just as easily burned it in a fireplace or hidden it. People always do what is easiest; I firmly believe that. So, I believe he messed up and got this gunk on his hands, someone was coming so he took what was handy, and when he'd wiped his hands reasonably clean (4 minutes is Monty's time to Goulston street), he simply dropped it and walked on.
Like you say, there's plenty of room for opposing viewpoints and I don't claim to be certain about any of it.
Cheers,
Dave |
Phil Hill
Chief Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 585
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 1:46 am: |
|
But if you look at the drawing/painting of Eddowes body in situ, by Frederick William Foster (reproduced in the Ultimate Sourcebook and elsewhere) the apron was NOT "right in front of him". Indeed the apron is not an obvious garment at all in that depiction, cut or uncut.
|
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 86
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 5:43 am: |
|
There is one fact that would be obvious to the Ripper,if not after the Nichol's murder,certainly after the Chapman killing,and it is this.He could not expect to mutilate and handle body parts,without part of him becoming soaked with blood and other matter.
Unless he made some attemt to clean up,if only temporily,there was a good chance he was going to leave a blood trail.
Mad or not,I do not think the Ripper was devoid of reason,therefor it is likely he took this into consideration prior to each killing.
I also think he would have been anxious to avoid blood congealing on his person and clothing,but this being almost impossible,he sought victims within a reasonably short distance of his dwelling.
So the question of why he needed the apron piece seems obvious.It was cleaning material,nothing more,and when he finished with it,it was cast aside.
If he took the kidney away in something,that would be material that could not be traceable to a victim.A handkerchef or neckerchef for instance,that could be washed and used again.
In the case of Nicholls and Chapman,it was material on his own person that was used,as none seems to have been taken from the victim,or if it was,it seems not to have been found. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1480
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:30 am: |
|
Hi Harry
What you say is reasonable. However, your last statement kind of negates what you said in the beginning about the taking of the apron. You end by saying, "In the case of Nichols and Chapman, it was material on his own person that was used, as none seems to have been taken from the victim,or if it was, it seems not to have been found." This then brings up the matter that he probably came prepared for those murders. Why was he not as prepared for the Eddowes murder? Could it be, for one thing, that he had used whatever rag he brought with him earlier in the evening, after the Stride murder, and therefore had to take something from his second victim of the night? Just thinking aloud here. . .
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 607
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 7:55 am: |
|
Hi Dave,
You say you firmly believe people always do what is easiest. Although I don’t know if they always do, I agree that that they tend to.
But, if wiping his hands was the only reason for taking the piece of apron, why didn’t he just wipe his hands while the piece was still attached to the rest of it? In the time it now took him to cut the piece loose (2-3 seconds), he could have wiped his hands reasonably clean. I don’t think that would have been a big problem.
But still, in case he did take the piece of apron just to wipe his hands, then why didn’t he cast it aside much earlier? Four minutes seems an extremely long time for just wiping one’s hands. I think 2 or 3 seconds would have been enough to roughly clean his hands and I’m sure it wouldn’t have taken much more than 15 seconds to do quite a thorough job.
If the Ripper left because someone was coming, but was afraid he might get caught because of his bloody and gory hands, he may simply have thrust them into his pockets. He could have gotten rid of some of the blood and gore in there and have tried to further clean his hands in a place that was safer, a bit later on.
That’s why I tend to think he mainly cut the piece off for another reason. Wrapping the body parts in it seems quite appealing, although, of course, it does remain a mystery why he would not cast the piece aside any earlier than he seems to have done.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 888
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 9:31 am: |
|
Hi Phil
I can see it very clearly in the sketch--it's pushed up onto her chest. Apparently he cut from the corner. I'm not sure about Jon Smyth's dimensions, but if he took half of the apron, I reckon it was a pretty good amount of material, while keeping in mind we're talking about a fairly short person. But size doesn't matter (I keep telling myself)! 
Hi Frank, thanks for the response. Why not clean in the square? Apparently because someone was coming (see my post above).
The problem I have with his wrapping the organs up in the apron is that by the time he reaches Goulston street, he suddenly doesn't need it anymore (i.e. he's no longer carrying organs). Instead of their disappearing or his finding a new container, the apron in Goulston street would seem to indicate that he had found some safe haven, home or a bolthole, left the organs there, and then went back out again for some reason, deciding to depose of it in Goulston street specifically. Here's my sticking point: he's safe, and then decides to venture outside again, apparently because he decides to write the graffiti and wants to use the apron to legitimize it. He remembers the Model Dwellings is a Jewish residence and so a good spot for the graffiti; that's why he returns to that particular spot. If he returns to Goulston street, he must be specifically targeting the Model Dwellings as opposed to some other spot, right? If this scenario of the ripper returning to the area is true, then the apron is not really a viable clue in regards to the direction of the Ripper's home because he could have been coming in from any old direction, right?
Of course, I favor the scenario I talked about in my earlier post. When people talked about the apron being wet, they're referring to the marks Dr. Brown saw; it's just that Brown's giving a little more detail. They're smears on one side of the apron, as if someone had wiped their hands or knife on it, wipe-marks. To me, there's no mystery at all here; four minutes isn't a great distance; particularly if people were around, the idea would be low key and not making a big show of scrubbing your hands. He needn't have been constantly wiping his hands for four minutes non-stop, not if he didn't want to be noticed. The distance from Mitre Square to Goulston street might indicate how dirty he was, or perhaps Goulston street was the first point where he found himself alone enough to toss it without being seen. We can't know for sure. What's important (I'm only talking about my opinion here) is that the apron tells us he didn't have time to clean up in Mitre Square, and of course the direction he took after leaving the crime scene, presumably the direction home was.
All just my opinion of course!
Cheers,
Dave
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 609
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
I know (in the scenario you described) it was someone coming that made the Ripper cut off the piece of apron. The point you seem to have missed is that if he had time to cut off the apron piece, he would have had the same amount of time to wipe his hands. Of course, the longer the cutting off would take, the fairer my point would be - and the other way around.
But I agree, he may have gone for certainty and cut off the piece anyway. There’s no way of knowing this.
Still, from whatever angle you look at it, your favoured scenario holds the same mystery as the one I was referring to in my previous post. Both Halse and Long were positive that the apron wasn’t there at about 2:20 am, long after the 4 minutes to walk from Mitre Square to Goulston Street had elapsed.
By the way, you make a good point suggesting it might have taken the Ripper some time before he could wipe his hands and knife without the chance of being seen. On the other hand, the distance was well over 500 yards and it seems a bit hard to imagine that there wasn’t one single suitable spot where he had 10 to 15 seconds to wipe his hands and knife. Well, who knows, eh? I certainly don't. 
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 889
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 21, 2005 - 2:15 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
We have different ideas of how dirty his hands were. You seem to think it would have been the work of a few seconds to clean them, but the distance between the square and the spot where the apron was dropped suggests to me that they were a little dirtier than that. Your point about there being other likely spots before he came up to Goulston street is fair; I guess my response would be that if there had been, he'd have dropped it there. Maybe those spots were populated; maybe he wasn't as clean as he wanted to be. Apparently, Goulston street was the spot where he thought he was both satisfactorily clean and relatively alone.
Halse wasn't positive the apron wasn't there at 2.20--in response to questioning, he readily admitted that he could have missed it because it was off the street (Ultimate p. 261). We're left with Long, and I think he very well could have just been mistaken. No mystery in that.
Of course, I don't know that's how it happened. I just think it did.
Cheers,
Dave |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 3:53 pm: |
|
If Jack were on his knees in the dark attempting to slash or cut his victim, it would be very difficult to do so without steadying himself with his non-knife hand. In the dark, using a sharp knife and with adrenaline surging through him, I would think it would be quite easy to cut himself. Under the circumstances, I could see where even a small cut with a sharp knife might make him think that he had a serious wound (a sudden, sharp pain heightened by the adrenaline). Remember that he had just seen a lot of blood flowing. A knee jerk response might be to cut a piece of apron to staunch the flow of blood lest he be seen bleeding on the streets. After running a short way he realizes that his cut is superficial and that he can simply put his hands in his pockets and that it is dangerous to carry the apron. He discards the apron as soon as he has calmed down and begun to think clearly. Just a thought. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, May 20, 2005 - 8:49 pm: |
|
Hi Chris.
Until the last few posts, I must admit that I never seriously thought about the size of the cut-away piece of apron. A small hand-towel in my bathroom, which I measured at approx. 30ins. x 18ins., is about the size I've always envisioned.
Certainly big enough to secrete the extracted organs, but I don't believe that was it's purpose.
While I certainly have no evidence to argue with Phil's simple conclusions, I still personally believe that the piece of apron was deliberately planted, to bring the whole focus of the police investigation to Goulston St. As I said previously, I think that the Ripper was forced by Watkins' approach, to leave Mitre Square in a direction that he didn't want to go.
I believe that safety for the killer lay across the boundary, and in the City. Having used the apron to wipe his hands & knife, and thinking on his feet, I believe that he planted it, & concealed himself somewhere close by. When police attention descended on Goulston St, he then doubled back quietly to where he had all along intended to go.
The graffito may not have been written by the Ripper, but it was a remarkable coincidence if he just happened to leave the piece of apron so close to it. Of course, there may not be a single word of truth in my whole scenario here, but it's what I've always believed, and unless anyone can prove this conclusively wrong, I'll maintain my personal beliefs.
Best wishes Chris.
DAVID C. |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 87
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:20 am: |
|
Chris,
An earlier post of mine on this thread,did mention the possibility of the Stride killing as needing material to clean up.As I believe Stride to have been a Ripper victim,then my last post does allow for the need of extra material.
Regards. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 6:35 am: |
|
Hi Harry
Ah, thank you, Harry, I missed your earlier post. As I also hold the traditional view that Stride was a victim of JtR. I concur that the possible need for material to clean-up after the two kills in one night might bolster Stride's candidacy. As we are saying, he could have used what material he had brought along for the purpose after the Dutfield Yard murder. I am glad we agree on the matter, Harry.
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
See "Jack--The Musical" by Chris George & Erik Sitbon
The Drama of Jack the Ripper Weekend
Charlotte, NC, September 16-18, 2005
http://www.actorssceneunseen.com/ripper.asp
|
Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil
Post Number: 2
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 9:57 am: |
|
Harry and Chris - Since the amount of blood involved in the Stride killing would have been comparatively small (even if she was a victim of Jack); and no clean-up material other than that in Goulston St was ever found, I find your assumption one with scant evidential basis and thus difficult to justify.
phil |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 610
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi Dave,
Just for jolly, I took a jar of sticky strawberry sauce and a pot of peanut butter (containing little pieces of peanut!) and thoroughly rubbed my hands and wrists in it. They were completely dirty and I didn’t like the smell of it either (double yuck!).
Then I waited for 4½ minutes (more yuck) before I took a piece of old rag and wiped my hands & wrists and a knife on it. I used a stopwatch. It took me about 20 seconds before my hands were almost as clean as a whistle. I hadn’t paid any attention to how I used the rag, just wanted to do it as fast as I could, but it turned out to be stained on both sides.
You seem to be suggesting that the apron piece may perfectly well have been there already at about 2:20 am (something I would agree with, by the way). If so, then there would be no problem for the ‘apron piece as wrapping material’ scenario either.
At the very least it would then fit just as well as the scenario you favour. IMHO it would even fit better, because I still think more than 500 yards is a long way and especially Halse's testimony gives a good idea of how populated the streets between Mitre Square and Goulston Street actually was shortly after Eddowes' murder.
The scenario would be something like this. He wrapped the organs in the apron piece so that he wouldn’t have to stuff the bloody and possibly leaking things into his own pockets. By the time he had reached Goulston Street he was probably quite close to his bolthole. As he thought he couldn’t get into his lodgings with a wet and bloody parcel in his hands, he checked if the organs were still leaking, but they seemed to have stopped. So, he took out the organs, maybe even cleaned them up a bit, stuffed them into his pockets, wiped his hands and knife, dropped the rag and then got the hell out of there.
This is just my preferred scenario, of course.
Cheers,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3457
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
Your scenario is not impossible, but according to one testimony, the matter on the apron looked like it was "smeared", like someone cleaning something off.
Besides, as you say, if he used it for carrying the organs, then one must assume that he lived nearby, because otherwise it doesn't add up with that he suddenly threw in in Goulston Street. From where I sit, that is a too speculative an argument, based on too narrow assumptions.
I personally find it more logical that he tore off the apron at the scene of the crime, because he heard someone approaching, and therefore had to clean off his hands (and knife?) while he left the scene instead of doing so in Mitre Square and then later threw it in the doorway as he passed it.
Furthermore, unless he brought something with him, there is no sign of that he used some cloth to carry away the organs after the Chapman murder.
Just my thougts.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 22, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 890
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:46 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
That's quite an experiment, I thought I smelled jam! I take my hat off to you for checking it out. There's no question that going as fast as you could, you could clean your hands in seconds. But I think if you really want to do it up right, you ought to try it this way: at night, walking down semi-populated streets, and without trying to attract attention. Would you clean up the same way?
I don't think that would be a good idea, though--I'd hate for you to get in trouble, Frank! You would have some trouble explaining the peanut butter and jam
My problem with the bag idea is that no one at the inquest describes it as such, but the most detailed observation, Brown's, describes wipe marks. So there's no documentary evidence (unless I'm missing it) that the apron was used to carry anything.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what it was used for--what matters is that we agree that the Ripper had some use for the apron, whatever it was, and he deposited it in Goulston street. We also seem to agree that it's possible it was left there much earlier than was supposed, or at least we're open to it.
Of course no one can say your scenario didn't happen, but taking organs out on the street sounds a little risky to me. As for his bolthole being close, we don't know if it was or not. I think there was discussion of Flower and Dean street (Foster).
Cheers,
Dave
(Message edited by oberlin on May 22, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3458
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 12:49 pm: |
|
David,
Very good post. I agree with everything in it (no offense, Frank -- can I borrow some jam by the way...?).
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 611
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Sorry, Glenn, I tossed it in the garbage bin - it wasn't the same jam anymore after the experiment.
Dave, I guess we just remain having different views, but that's OK since, like you said, ultimately it doesn't matter what the rag was used for. We at least agree on an important point: that it's possible it was left there much earlier than was supposed. And if it weren't for you I wouldn't have done the jam and peanut butter experiment! I wouldn't have wanted to miss that.
Cheers mates,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 413
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 2:47 pm: |
|
Just a quick note here...
It could be possible and I hope it doesn't offend...Its not entirely implausible that the Ripper....ate the organ...took the apron...left it underneath the message [ writ by him or otherwise ] and went on his way.
Being as objective as possible,despite "having" a suspect, this possibility has been on my mind for a while...I am inclined to believe that "my suspect", nor any other really...could not overlook the distinct possibility he wouldn't be stopped for a random search on the street. Planning a crime also has to look for the "worst case scenario" if it is to be fulfilled. Moving around with a kidney in your pocket,under your tie, or in a clenched fist is as risky as committing a murder.
How Brown
Donston1888@aol.com
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 612
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:42 pm: |
|
Tjena Glenn,
I hadn't read the message you posted before Dave's, so here's a short response. My take on this was/is really a bit the same as with Stride.
As I saw too many dissimilarities between her case and the other 'outside canonicals', I started looking for alternatives and Kidney as her killer is one of them. Although there's not much to go on, to me he seems a more likely suspect than the Ripper.
It's a bit the same with this apron business. There a couple of facts that make me have doubts about the apron piece only being taken to wipe his hand(s)and/or knife.
First of all, it's quite possible that (perhaps the bigger) part of Halse's route from Mitre Square to Wentworth St. and Goulston St. was the same as the route the Ripper took (see testimony F.W. Foster). On his way to Goulston St. and back to the square again he only saw 2 men. Considering he had given instructions to search the neighbourhood and stop and examine every man, that isn't a lot, which tells us something.
Secondly, well over 500 yards seems quite a long way, certainly if you think that the wiping of the hand(s) and/or knife wouldn't have been as difficult as Dave sees it (no offense, Dave). He didn't really need light, I think sense of touch would have sufficed to a large extent. Darkness would actually make it easier, as it reduced the chance of being seen. Plus I doubt if he would have wanted his hands and knife really squeaky clean. Roughly clean to me seems more likely.
That left me with the question: if not exclusively for wiping hands and knife, why then? Wrapping the organs in it seems a plausible alternative. The Ripper would have wanted to get off the streets as quickly as he could, so I think it's fair to say that he probably did live quite close to Goulston St. So, there he found the relative privacy of the entrance, took out the organs, etc.
So yes, my scenario is quite speculative, but it's only there because I don't think the 'for wiping only' explanation adds up.
Now, 'nuf said on the subject. On to the next one!
Skål!
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 613
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 3:49 pm: |
|
Sorry again Glenn, I see that I promised the response to be short and I had actually thought it would be short, but I failed. Sorry!
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3459
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:35 pm: |
|
Hi Frank,
No sweat; what matters is if the content is interesting, which is usually is in your case.
Just a quick one:
"Secondly, well over 500 yards seems quite a long way, certainly if you think that the wiping of the hand(s) and/or knife wouldn't have been as difficult as Dave sees it..."
I am not sure what you mean here, but certainly he didn't need to clean his hands for 500 yards. Only that he tore it off to wipe off his hands as he went along and then for some reason didn't dispose of it until Goulston Street.
Why he dropped it there, we can't know.
Well, we have to disagree on this one, I guess; I think most facts indicate that he used the apron piece in order to wipe off his hands and knife.
As I said, according to one of the testimonies (Halse's?), the faeceal matter looked like it had been wiped on the cloth, which I find would be unlikely if he only used it to carry the organs.
Assuming that he might have lived close to Goulston Street is drawing unsupported conclusions, as far as I am concerned. And we have no indications on that he needed a cloth to carry the organs from Chapman. Sorry.
All the best
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 614
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:08 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
The last one then, from my part at least.
First, thanks for the compliment. Then, I admit I didn't put it very clearly, but I didn't mean that he needed to wipe and clean for the whole 500 yards. I meant that he had well over 500 yards (or better yet, the time it took him to cover the distance, which was plenty I'd think) to do it in.
Like I said to Dave, it would seem odd to me if he wouldn't be able to find one single suitable spot to wipe his hands unseen. And if he did it while walking, I think he wouldn't have needed much more than a stretch of 60 yards or so to finish cleaning, which is not a lot.
But you may well be right in saying that he had finished cleaning some time before reaching Goulston St. and only deposited the rag there - that thought had crossed my mind, too.
"As I said, according to one of the testimonies (Halse's?), the faeceal matter looked like it had been wiped on the cloth, which I find would be unlikely if he only used it to carry the organs."
It was Brown who suggested it and I didn't suggest that the piece was only used for wrapping up the organs but also includes wiping.
Now, I'm off to bed.
Sweet dreams,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 432
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:15 pm: |
|
Hi Howie,
In response to your last post......I would have thought that a possibility (well maybe) if it had been some other organ, but from what I have heard, the uterus is almost impossible to chew and digest. Not the sort of thing most nice girls want to know!
If I remember rightly, was it Chikatilo that said he 'nibbled' on the uterus of one of his victims (sorry gross much) but that it was impossible to eat - being too tough? Might have been Albert Fish, but one of them anyway.
So sorry my dear Howie, I have to say that I don't think it's very likely.
Love you lots though
Jane
xxxxxx
(Message edited by jcoram on May 22, 2005)
(Message edited by jcoram on May 22, 2005) |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3461
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 7:32 pm: |
|
Jane,
That is what we call "al dente" over here.
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Howard Brown
Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 415
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 8:59 pm: |
|
Jane:
Sweets, he took Eddowes kidney. Maybe you were thinking about Mrs. Chapman.
Hope all is well for you...
How
How Brown
Donston1888@aol.com
|
Jane Coram
Inspector
Username: Jcoram
Post Number: 433
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 9:42 pm: |
|
Oh Howie,
Please don't throw anything at me, but I thought he had taken a part of the uterus as well.......not all of it, but a lot of it..........
Do you still love me?
xxxxxxxxxx
 |
Phil Hill
Police Constable
Username: Phil
Post Number: 3
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 1:48 am: |
|
As we don't know the Ripper's route, or the circumstances of his departure from the Square, explanations must always be conjecture.
However, I don't think it sound reasoning to build conjecture on conjecture - ie using a piece of cloth that was said to be "smeared" not soaked with blood and faecal matter as a bag to hold bloody organs!! The timings. Whether he ate or "nibbled2 any of the organs etc. There is no evidence for any of this - but they are built one on the foundations of another, BEWARE.
If Jack had to leave the square in a hurry, his first instinct might have been to put some distance between himself and the body - quietly and effectively. So it might have been some seconds, even a minute or tow before he paused to begin to clean up, or thought about the need to do so. he may have cleaned his hands and/or knife as he walked, or by sheltering either in a doorway or alleyway of a succession of both.
The entryway at Wentworth dwellings would have been, IMHO, the first place he came to, once he was done, to discard the cloth.
We simply do not know whether in appearance, character, confidence or style Jack was the sort to walk boldly down a street , maybe nodding to those he passed; or more the sort who would skulk in shadows and be furtive in his escape. A Druitt or a Tumblety might act differently from a Kosminski. Whether he lived locally and was making for his place of residence or a bolt-hole might also have affected his behaviour.
Against that background, I think it right to be cautious in our speculation - rather than constructing towering fantasies without foundation.
Phil |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 88
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:21 am: |
|
Phil,
I am aware that there was very little need for much cleaning after the Stride killing,but there would have been some on the Knife.
Suppose he used what material he had to clean the knife ,and retained it,as it was not saturated.Then he kills and mutilates Eddowes,after which event there was need for much cleaning,and a need for something in which to carry the body part.So he simply uses the initial piece of material in which to place the kidney,then cuts the apron to clean up.He didn't have to be a genious to solve the problem,but enough sense to understand the apron part had to be deposited a suitable distance from his home base.
Start off with this picture in mind.He is crouched or stood over Eddowes,with a kidney to carry away,and his hands and cuffs of his coat saturated and dripping blood.
What do you think he did?. |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:26 am: |
|
Hi All,
It's not certain of course (very little is!), but it's likely that Jack took Annie's rings as well as her womb. So I was wondering if he may have wanted a permanent trophy from each of his victims along with the perishables. The rings would have been fairly anonymous, losing any obvious association with the crime over time. But half of Kate's pinny would have been a cracker - if he had dared to keep it of course.
Dropping the apron piece where he did, with the message above (whether this was by accident or design) provided the one definite clue we have today of where Jack went after one of his crimes. It smacks of territory marking to me; a calling card - which is how I see today's graffiti artists; the emotionally stunted and frustrated making their presence felt.
If the Lusk letter was a hoax, its author must have had a flash of genius to send half a 'Kidne', to add to the half of Kate's apron clue. It adds to the calling card idea - a killer desperate to claim his kills somehow, if anonymously.
The fact that Lusk was the target, and could have thrown the thing away and never told a soul, makes me less convinced it was a hoax somehow, not more - but I can't really explain why. It feels like something the sender had to get off his chest, a personal affirmation of his actions rather than a sick desire to shock as much of the public as possible.
Just thinking out loud really.
Love,
Caz
X |
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3464
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:28 am: |
|
Phil,
"If Jack had to leave the square in a hurry, his first instinct might have been to put some distance between himself and the body - quietly and effectively. So it might have been some seconds, even a minute or tow before he paused to begin to clean up, or thought about the need to do so. he may have cleaned his hands and/or knife as he walked, or by sheltering either in a doorway or alleyway of a succession of both.
The entryway at Wentworth dwellings would have been, IMHO, the first place he came to, once he was done, to discard the cloth."
This is pretty much the scenario I see as well, and if one avoids unnecessary speculations -- this might be a credible scenario, if we look at the very few available evidence. At least in my view.
Then, on the other hand I can understand why some are prepared to see it as he used the cloth for carrying the organs, because I'll admit it would be rather practical.
After all, he had TWO body parts to conceal: according to Dr. Brown's medical report it was not only the kidney that was taken, but also the largest part of the womb ("The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments").
Of course nothing rules out the possibility with certainty, that he used the piece of the apron for BOTH cleaning and carrying the organs. Still, I would be more inclined to buy it, if the cloth itself also was missing. If he lived in Goulston Street or its vicinity, why drop it in the doorway and leaving behind a clue that close to his home, when he just as well could have taken it home with him inside?
And if he didn't live there, why drop it if it was that important for carrying the items in the first place?
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 23, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1649
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:03 am: |
|
Jeff and Don,
Jeff,
Not nonsense at all, your scenario is very much a realistic situation.
Don,
You wont hear me arguing.
I feel Halses time would have been worked out from the stop/search he did moments earlier. Though Long was new to the area he was still an experienced Officer, thats something that should be remembered. He turned up at the inquest without his notebook. Thats a cardinal sin that is, one which would result in a dressing down from my boss I did that. Either he wasnt the 'brightest farthing' or his notebook was being 'used' by someone.
As a side note and regarding producing notebooks. Im not particularly knowledgeable on court procedures in 1888 but I have had a little experience with todays courts. I was told that if I was a witness, I should memorise that particular entry in my notebook which refers to that particular incident. This as opposed to actually reading out from my notebook.
Why?
Well as soon as I produce my notebook in court, the notebook can then be viewed by the prosecutor......who then would find fault with everything inputted in there. I know that Long was an inquest witness as opposed to a prosecution or defence witness but I can help but feel that the reason he appeared without his notebook is because he knew once it was out in the open, it could be viewed by the coroner and jurors. Is it possible that there may be something he didnt want them to see?
Of course, pure speculation on my part and the fact that Long did later produce the notebook without showing it to those present indicates its more likely I am wrong than correct.
Regards,
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 615
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 6:19 pm: |
|
Hi Glenn,
Although Phil’s of course right in saying we should beware of the swamp of unfounded speculation, I couldn’t resist.
“If he lived in Goulston Street or its vicinity, why drop it in the doorway and leaving behind a clue that close to his home, when he just as well could have taken it home with him inside?
IF, and it’s a big if, the rag’s first function was to negate the problem of body part seepage, it’s quite possible that - if he was living in one of the many lodging houses in the district - he thought he wouldn’t get into his hideaway carrying a parcel wet with blood.
If so, he would have tried to hold on to the rag for as long as practically possible, but at the same time wouldn’t have wanted to dispose of it too close to his home - which, certainly to our modern eyes, still may have been relatively close.
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 670
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 1:09 am: |
|
Hi Monty,
Unfortunately, it's one of many possible stories that hinges on a lot of dangerous assumptions. We have to, for example, assume that the estimated times for Long's route reflected how long it took Long on the previous few circuits. If he was "held up" or "went faster than usual", etc, he quickly gets out of sync. In some cases, this may work for us, in others it would work against. And, as per usual, we don't have anything to to indicate which is what.
And, of course, we don't even know if Jack wrote the graffito. But, the idea doesn't really require that he does. He could have just stepped into the doorway to "hide", saw the writing, etc.
Anyway, the information we do have certainly makes it possible for Jack to have been just behind Long, dropped the apron, and then continued on his way. Long wouldn't pass by this location for another 35 minutes or so, and if he's then "on the lookout" for suspicious people rather than "suspicious rubbish", he could easily have missed it on his 2nd pass through the area.
- Jeff |
Don Blankenship
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 5:57 pm: |
|
Although I have not posted to this forum before, I have been reading the posts and other information at the casebook for a while. It seems to me that there is a lot of speculation as to why JTR discarded or placed the apron half at the Wentworth Dwellings. Isn't it possible that regardless of his motive for taking the apron piece, he may have simply dropped it by mistake, not planted or discarded it?
Just a thought. |
micky F
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 4:20 pm: |
|
My first post - so be forgiving!
Having read these recent posts about the piece of apron cut off and found in Goulston St, one thing I have not seen mentioned is that this was from the second murder of the night, and he may have used his prepared rag to clean his knife after the Stide murder and discarded it while escaping. He needed a second piece after the second murder. The reason this rag was significant was because it could be matched to the Mitre Sq victim.
Now I'll just await all the flak. |
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Glenn -
Which testimony states that the Goulston St fragment was "smeared" with anything? Dr Brown's inquest statement mentions "some blood and apparently faecal matter", elsewhere I've read of the apron fragment being "wet" with blood, but I've not seen the word "smeared" used anywhere.
As one who favours the "parcel" over the "hand-towel" hypothesis, I think it's important to establish whether or not "smearing" was ever mentioned in any witness statement.
Grateful if you could help point me to the particular testimony you had in mind. |
David Cartwright
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Monday, May 23, 2005 - 10:24 am: |
|
Hi All.
For all the good points that have been made here, I am still of the belief that the apron was put there deliberately. As Phil rightly pointed out, with the absence of blood-typing, and the rest of the modern scientific aids to detction, the killer would not see it as leaving a clue. NOT, that is, in the medical sense.
But it would certainly have been gross carelessness if he lived in the near vicinity of Goulston St.
WHY, when he left not a trace of a clue at the other murder sites, should he display such carelessness on this occasion?? Why give the police any help at all??
As both Glenn and myself have previously pointed out, the killer didn't take any material from Annie Chapman, with which to secrete the organs he had removed, so I go along with Phil, in that the piece of apron was taken purely to clean up his hands and knife.
But I firmly believe that there was a reason for leaving the apron where he did, and if so, I can't imagine any other reason for it, than that it aided his escape in some way.
All purely one person's opinion of course, and I wouldn't rule out any of the other theories put forward here, with the sole exception that he ATE the organs. If you'll pardon the expression, I'm not swallowing THAT one.
Best wishes all.
DAVID C. |
Frank van Oploo
Chief Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 616
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 2:14 pm: |
|
Hi Gareth,
Since Glenn hasn't answered yet, I take the liberty of responding - I'm sure he doesn't mind.
The Times of 5 October 1888 reads:
"Mr. Crawford. - Could you say whether the blood spots on the piece of apron produced were of recent origin? Witness (Dr. Brown). - They are of recent origin. Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street.
Mr. Crawford. - It is impossible to assert that it is human blood? Witness. - Yes; it is blood. On the piece of apron brought on 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."
All the best,
Frank
"Coincidence is logical"
Johan Cruijff
|
Marsh
Police Constable
Username: Marsh
Post Number: 1
Registered: 5-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
hi all iam marsh following on about the bloody apron found in Goulsdon st it could have been left there by some slaughterman on nis way home.slaughterhouses were two a penny in the area, someone bloodstained would hardly be noticed.but saying that the police were convinced that it was part of the victims apron afterall |
Ken Proctor
Detective Sergeant
Username: Gizmo
Post Number: 84
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 6:21 pm: |
|
Hello All, Is it not true that practically all forensic specialists adhere to the statement that almost all knife murderers do in fact cut themselves in the act of murder. I know from personal experience that in gutting an animal to retrieve the heart, liver or kidneys i have frequently cut my free hand that i use to find the proper passage for the knife. This i may add is through no lack of experience or carelessness and done in daylight hours. I strongly suspect that Jack did in fact use this small piece of material as a bandage. Oh! what the d.n.a. could tell us now. "GIZMO" 
"Hey Rookie----You were good" (Field Of Dreams)
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3466
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Frank,
No, of course I don't mind; I am quite busy. Thanks.
Yep, that's it. It shall be noted that this interview with Dr. Brown was made at the inquest, so I'd say it's fairly reliable.
---------------------
David Cartwright,
Many good points and I agree with much of it. However, I don't see any specific indications (if we disregard the writing on the wall) on why it should have been left there on purpose. I personally believe it was left there at random, but there is of course a possibility that he might have left it there on purpose for one special reason -- namely to throw the police off his path and mislead them. But again, all speculation.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 24, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1656
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 11:04 am: |
|
Guys,
Dont see the need to throw the Police off the scent. Its not as though they were on it, and Im fairly confident the killer would have known this.
Monty
"You got very nice eyes, DeeDee. Never noticed them before. They real?"
|
Phil Hill
Sergeant
Username: Phil
Post Number: 13
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:26 pm: |
|
micky f - welcome.
I would just point out that the view that Stride was a Ripper victim is now being questioned by some of us. there is both circumstantial evidence that the killing was not Jack's sort of style or location; and that there was motive for her ex-lover michael Kidney to have killed her. In those circumstances, there would have been no earlier murder to have used his hypothesised "prepared rag" (for which there is absolutely no evidence). neither is there any evidence he had material with him on the night of any other murder in the series.
The most likely scenario is that he got particularly dirty (especially with faecal matter) in killing Eddopwes and used the most convenient material as a cleaning cloth.
Marsh - I am not sure I understand the point you are making. Why bring slaughtermen into the reckoning? We know conclusively (as conclusively as any evidence in the whole JtR case) that the cloth was part of Eddowes's apron. No one but her killer had the opportunity to take it? is not the position absolutely clear?
Phil
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 3468
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Monty,
I guess you're right, old boy.
I was just desperately trying to come up with a good reason for why he should have put the apron piece there deliberately (since I believe the GSW is a red herring and had nothing to do with it). But I have to agree with you.
Phil,
The voice of reason and common sense -- as usual.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on May 25, 2005)
G. Andersson, author/crime historian
Sweden
The Swedes are the men That Will not be Blamed for Nothing
|
Gareth W
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 - 4:34 pm: |
|
Frank,
Thanks for the snippet from the Times, however the words "On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood... as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it. It fitted the piece of apron in evidence" are clearly not the words of Dr Brown, any more than the preceding "Dr. Phillips brought on a piece of apron which had been found by a policeman in Goulston-street" are. These are clearly either reportage by a journalist in attendance at the hearing or a clerk-of-court's description of the action in the court room at the time.
It is therefore wrong to state with any confidence, as Glenn did (no offence), that "according to one testimony, the matter on the apron looked like it was smeared, like someone cleaning something off" if these words came from a court observer giving his impression of events at the inquest, rather than an expert witness examining the cloth at the time (or soon after) it had been found in the doorway.
For that we should turn to Brown's (earlier) post mortem report, which states simply "Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion that was found in Goulston Street". No mention of smears or hint of any (possible) sensationalism and/or imagination that the stains had been caused by a wiped knife is evident in this. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
