|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 14
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:48 am: | 
|
Monty,
Mitre Square and no where else?
That's my feeling on the subject.
If all the ripper wanted to do was wipe his hands clean, would it not have made sense for him to get this brief process out of the way at the crime scene?
He needed only to have availed himself of Eddows' apron (still attached to her body) for such a purpose, and there would be no need to tear a piece off.
But he DID tear a piece off. Ergo, it is only reasonable to surmise that "hand-wiping" was hardly his chief incentive for removing a portion of apron. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1394
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 10:52 am: |
|
Ben
He did carry the articles in the apron, but for some reason discards it [ the apron ] at the Wentworth. Might he have lived nearby,close enough to carry them openly?
Of the above outlined theories, I'd be inclined to go with this one.
I'm sorry, but I don't see this at all.
By discarding the apron, not only would he have to carry the kidney unwrapped for the remainder of the journey, but he would direct the police's attention to the immediate neighbourhood of his home.
If he wanted to dispose of the apron, why wouldn't he just put it on the fire when he got home?
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 258
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:13 am: |
|
I would venture one supposition, nay two..
One. Jack did not need the piece of apron to wipe his hands.
Two. He did not carry anything in it at all.
No need to cut off the apron to wipe his hands. Besides, he probably knew by now how to do this not needing items found "by chance". Remember mr. "white hands"? He was not stupid. Neither did he need several minutes to wipe his hands.
The blood on the apron is inconsistent with anything having been carried in it. As I said earlier, try it out if you dont believe me.
So there was logically another use for the apron...
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 963
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 4:59 pm: |
|
N.Beresford;
My pleasure.
1. black straw bonnet
1. black cloth jacket
1. chintz skirt
1. brown dress bodice
1. petticoat
1. alpaca skirt
1. blue skirt
1. calico chemise
1. mans white vest
1. pair of boots
1. pc. of silk
1. handkerchief
1. blue stripe bed ticking pocket
2. calico pockets [ unbleached]
1. cotton pocket hanky
1. pair of stockings
1. pc. coarse linen
1. pc. of blue/white shirting
1. tin box with tea
1. tin box sugar
1. pc. of flannel
1. small tooth comb
1. tea spoon
1. table knife
2. blue bed ticking bags
2. short clay pipes
1. ball of hemp
1. pc. of old white apron
1. pc. of red flannel
12. pcs of white rag [ some bloodstained ]
1. red leather cigarette case
1. tin match box.....empty
6. pcs. of soap
---
52 items total...
Hope this helps..... |
Stanley D. Reid
Inspector
Username: Sreid
Post Number: 345
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Good job How!
I can see that you're not one of those clowns who get in the express lane with 25 cans of cat food and 6 packs of cigarettes thinking that's 2 items.
Stan |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 964
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:34 pm: |
|
Thanks Stan..
Numbers have always been of keen importance to me....why just the other day I went into my local taproom, in good spirits, and slapped my meat hook on the bartop and bellowed...
"Hey Barkeep...Gimme a 15 and make it snappy !"
The guy sez..."A 15 ? Sir,I'm not familiar with that drink.."
So I sez,.."Aw c'mon ....a 15 ! You know...
...a 7 and 7" ! |
Julie
Detective Sergeant
Username: Judyj
Post Number: 136
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 5:52 pm: |
|
Chris Phillips,
Just an observation re Catherine's apron. I feel it possible that when he was cutting the kidney out, he cut a small portion of her apron at the same time, accidently not purposely. He quickly wrapped the kidney in his large handkerchief (possibly)and ran with the piece of apron loosely attached. In his haste the apron fell to the ground without his knowledge, depending on whether or not one believes that he wrote the grafetti. It is a possible scenerio, what do you think?
regards
Julie
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 33
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 6:00 pm: |
|
People,
Just a thought. When one is cutting cloth along the correct grain (don't know the correct word for it), and is applying pressure upward with the other hand, it tears really and the scissors really just keep it going along if need be, but the hand doing the tearing is the real culprit. In this manner it is possible to tear a very nice rectangle of cloth off of something without really intending to make such neat work. Let's say you're attempting to butcher someone whose clothes are in the way. You might cut at the apron and then pull at it, and soon you've cut/torn a piece off. The tearing of the thread would be such atht it would be difficult to tell if it was torn by hand or cut or both. If it was torn, he would likely have had matter on his hand from the work he was doing. If he was caught up in the frenzy, it's possible that he didn't even realize the cloth was still in his hand when he left the area. As the adrenaline subsized, and he was perhaps feeling less monstrous, he could have just discarded the cloth in disgust.
I don't know how HG Wells and the time machine fit into this scenario, but I'm working on it.
Mike the Mauler
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 691
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 11:11 pm: |
|
Hi,
Hmmm, some good points have been made here. The one that has me thinking is the point that the piece of apron was probably cut away (or torn away) prior to the exposing of Eddowes abdomen for the mutilations.
That, to me, sounds very reasonable and probable for the purpose of this post at least, I'm going to accept that as a starting point.
The next piece of data we have is that the piece of apron was also removed from the crime scene and later deposited at GS. This indicates the killer took the piece he cut away, not as a trophy (or he would not have discarded it), but because it served some purpose, and by the point he reached GS, that purpose had been served.
Ok, so far, nothing too controversial I hope.
Now, from those two statements, I think it's fair to suggest that if they are both true, then it follows that the killer cut the apron because he knew he would require it for whatever purpose it served prior to mutilating Eddowes. That means, it wasn't cut because he unexpectedly got fecal matter on him (he wouldn't know this would happen prior to mutilating Eddowes), although it could be that it served a purpose that occured after he's cut her throat.
If the purpose was to conceal the organs, it seems unlikely he would discard the apron prior to getting home. I admit, it's possible, it just feels a bit strange and awkward. As such, it seems more likely that the purpose the cloth would serve is that of cleaning up (either his hands or wiping his knife; he must know they are both going to get bloody).
Now, at no other crime scene prior to Eddowes, is there any evidence that the Ripper had to find some "cleaning rag". That leaves a few possibilities to consider (I think):
1) at other crimes he stole hankies, or bits of cloth found on the victim that didn't require cutting their clothing
2) having learned from his previous crimes, he realised he would need something to clean up with.
3) he didn't realise he would need the cloth until after he cut her throat but before he mutilated her
4) at other crimes he had brought a cleaning rag with him, but did not have one this time
I don't think option 1 produces a comfortable fit though. Here's why, if he stole hankies from other victims, why didn't he just take one of the bits of cloth from Eddowes instead of cutting the apron? One might suggest he was scared away before he had a chance to search her pockets, but this doesn't work. Remember, it appears he cut the apron before he mutilates Eddowes, so he knows he needs the cloth well before he's scared away. If he stole bits of material found on his victims, then he would have just searched her pockets first, rather than cut her apron first. Of course, there are ways to make the idea fit, but it doesn't fit nicely.
Idea 2, that he's learned from other crimes that he needs a cleaning rag also can be made to work, but feels a bit awkward because if he's learned this, why hasn't he just brought some cloth with him? Why only think of it now? I think learning from other crimes would have worked well if the first crime shows the cutting of clothing and later crimes do not (suggests he's now bringing rags with him), but not this order.
Idea 3, that he only realised he would need it after cutting her throat, but before mutilating her, leads to an interesting possibility. That is that he cut himself when cutting her throat and required some sort of bandage. Once his hand stopped bleeding, he discarded the "bandage". My concern here, of course, is that I think the size of the piece of cloth was quite large, and probably too big to serve as a bandage?
The 4th idea, is that he normally has a cloth for wiping down, which he probably discards after useing it (as indicated by his discarding of the apron). They were not found before because in no other case would there be a reason to link a bloody piece of cloth to the murder; it's only this case where a piece of victim's clothing was used, which provides the link. Otherwise, in an area with lots of butchers, slaughter houses, etc, a discarded piece of cloth with some blood on it would just be another piece of trash with no reason to connect it to the murder.
In this case, the question becomes, why now? Why does he not have his cleaning cloth this time? One idea that occurred to me, and I admit this is highly speculative, but is "What if he's already used and discarded it?" Meaning, what if Stride is a Ripper victim, and the reason the Ripper needs a piece of cloth from Eddowes is because he's already cleaned his knife once, and tossed away his cleaning rag? If that were the case, he would know that he needs the cloth before mutilating her, and he wouldn't think to check her pockets because this isn't what he's done in the passed. But, cutting her apron isn't a hard one to figure out as a way of getting a piece of cloth. Maybe this slight change in his behaviour, and this one act that appears to be unique over all the crimes, reflects the unique fact that this is the only time we're dealing with a "second murder in one night".
Something to think about; no, it's not proof Stride is a Ripper victim, just an idea to toss around and mull over. A curiosity, perhaps.
- Jeff |
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
If I was butchering someone (again), I would wipe my blade off on the victim's dress or petticoats or something right in front of me. Why dirty up anything I have. She's not going to mind. The taking of the cloth for cleaning is not reasonable in my estimation.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1849
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 12:40 am: |
|
G'day,
I believe the Ripper took the piece of apron and left it outside a building full of Jewish tennants to lead the suspicion of police onto the Jews. He did not necessarily write the graffito!
He cut the piece of apron on purpose because it would have been proven to have belonged to the deceased. The neckerchief, the two white handkerchiefs, the piece of skirting and course linen etc were second-hand items that could have been purchased and dropped by anyone in the area that morning, and wouldn't have been linked to the murder.
Several of Kates items could have been picked up by her that morning from Petticoat Lane, which was between Bishopsgate Police station and Mitre Square.
You're right Steve, if the Ripper just wanted to wipe his hands/knife he could have done so just before he fled. For those people who think he wouldn't have had time, where did he find the time to secure the piece of apron?
It was just fate that he disguarded the apron underneath some graffiti that someone else had just written. I think this is more believable than believing that he happened to have a piece of chalk in his pocket and stopped long enough to write on a wall!
Dan Norder is right when he says that the Ripper letters weren't at that stage made public.
BEN: Suspicion would have been immediately drawn to a man carrying something wrapped in a piece of cloth.
He could have discarded the contents at or near home, then returned to Wentworth Street with a bloody apron to leave in an area that was dominated by Jews. He had three-quarters of an hour between the discovery of the body and the discovery of the apron.
HOWARD: Kate had 52 items on her person and people just wrote/write them off as items that she carried around with her all the time. The area was full of costermongers selling anything, especially second-hand clothes and clothes that needed mending. If it had have been questioned why she took '12 pieces of white rag', '1 piece of white apron', '1 piece of blue and white skirting', '1 ball of hemp', and '1 bluestripe bed ticking pocket' with her when all she was doing was going to find her daughter, it might have helped police to determine her final movements.
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:31 am: |
|
Guys,
There is no need link between the graffito and the apron other than location. One does not refer to the other.
The faecal matter was supposed and not confirmed.
Blood was confirmed.
Apron was cut, not torn.
PC Longs beat took 35 mins
PC Watkins found Eddowes at aprox 1.45am. He saw no one other than Morris. Therefore its logical to suspect the killer left the scene at around 1.40/1.43am.
PC Long (going on my calculations) was in Goulston Street at 1.45am…or there abouts.
Goulston street is around a 5 mins walk away from Mitre Square via the most direct route.
If the killer left the square at 1.40am and headed straight for Goulston st he would be in the same street, or there abouts, as Long at the same time. Certainly be in the same area..
The scenario I propose is that the apron was taken as a trophy and discarded due to the possibility that Long was spotted, a panic reaction. The apron was a direct link to the murder.
As for the kidney, though obviously another link, not such as quickly established link (after autopsy only). Therefore not such a need to discard…though prepared to do so if need be.
Just ideas….that’s all.
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1350
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:32 am: |
|
Gareth,
Good points. It was probable then I suppose that the cutting of the apron was deliberate. In that case, I think it was probably to link it back to Kate. I also think it was to indicate that he had written the graffiti on the wall, but that's probably just me.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to 
Smile too much and the world will guess 
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 38
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:51 am: |
|
Monty,
While I agree that the report said the apron was cut, what does that mean? I propose that a piece of cloth torn in a regular looking rectangle would be assumed to have been cut, even if it wasn't. If it was more irregular the chances are it would have been cut. I have not seen a piece of the apron, so I can't say for sure. I'm also not saying one way or another as I have no idea. I also don't know what examinations of the cloth were performed. Did the detectives examine the threads and say, "Every thread was cut." Or is a combination of tearing and cutting possible?
Does it even make a difference? Maybe, who knows? I'm just saying that if I am cutting cloth, which I have many times, I will start it with scissors, but a lot of the work is done by the exertion of pressure as I life on the cloth. Am I cutting or tearing? The difference is it is much quicker to tear and it is much easier. It could mean the difference between accidental/incidental and planned activity.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1865
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:14 am: |
|
Mike,
“The difference is it is much quicker to tear and it is much easier.”
And far more noisier.
Yes, its quicker to tear but it wasn’t torn. It was cut. Why was it cut?
Either it was cut as part of the mutilating act, cut open with the clothes and finally the body.
Or it was cut with the specific intention of removing the apron. For whatever reason that intention may be. As a wiping cloth, to carry an organ or as a trophy.
If the latter then I return to my main question, why cut when ripping would be swifter?
Cut or tear may be the answer on if taking the apron was planned or improvised.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:31 am: |
|
Monty,
My point is, if the apron was cut into a neat piece of cloth, it had to be intentional. That's why I mull over the whole cut/tear thing. I'm just not sure I buy that the entire piece was cut. I really want to take the word 'cut' at its meaning, yet I find it hard to do. As far as it being a lot noisier to cut than to tear, it really depends on how threadbare the apron was. If it was new and neatly starched, I'm sure it would be loud, but if it was severely worn, tearing it would have been a whisper.
Maybe I shouldn't try to think this out so thoroughly. It's possible the police went through everything I'm thinking, and more and the word 'cut' means that they looked at the fibers through a microscope and found trace metal on the edges, so it had to be cut. I will say this, if you attempted to cut a piece of cloth with a knife, you wouldn't get nice, neat edges and a nice square or rectangle of cloth from the blade alone. It would have to be a combination of cutting and tearing. I tried this last night on some thin cloth with a very sharp knife, and all I got was a partially cut, mostly torn piece.
Does it really matter? Probably not.
Cheers,
Mike the Mauler
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1866
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 10:57 am: |
|
Mike,
I dont understand when you state you're not sure that the entire piece was cut.
The apron was in twain and it was cut. If not then the apron would be whole, joined at some part or reported as torn apart as opposed to cut.
If you a referring to a clean, straight cut then I would query that. However, a jagged cut (in similar fashon to Eddowes abdominal opening wound) seems more likely.
In other words, it was cut whilst on her body as opposed to being removed and cut.
This is why I favour the idea that the apron was cut before anything else, prior to mutilating, rather than cut at the last minute.
And yes, it does matter.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1867
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
Steve Swift.
I have a question for more capable researchers than I, does anyone know if there was a 'yard' near Goulston Street? Like somewhere you would leave a pony and trap maybe?
Yes there was a yard big enough for a pony and trap though Im not sure it was where a pony and trap (or any other animal/vehicle) was kept.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Baron von Zipper
Sergeant
Username: Baron
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:31 am: |
|
Monty,
Yes, I was talking about a clean, straight cut. I don't think that's possible with a knife. A jagged cut, yes. Of course I understand the apron piece was completely taken, my question was if it was completely cut, or was it a combination of tearing and cutting.
My reasoning was that, I too feel it was cut/torn first, because it was in his way. That would mean that it was necessary cutting of the material, not an intentional cutting for the purpose of leaving a clue somewhere as others have suggested. A methodical cutting of some uniform piece of material would indicate that it was done afterwards for a specific purpose.
I just don't believe there was a planned purpose for the cutting.
Cheers
Mike the Mauler
|
Steve Swift
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 8:18 pm: |
|
C.D. read my post again - I did not say the apron piece was a pointer to the writing....I said it was possible..but just as likely to have meant something else altogether.
Sorry guys I'm still not buying it, he lifted her clothes to mutilate, he cut that apron piece on purpose also.....
2 unbleached calico pockets, tape strings cut through also top left hand corners cut off one
1 blue stripe bed ticking pocket,waist band and string cut through(all three pockets)blood stained
Along with the 3 boot buttons found in the clotted blood, Sgt Jones picked up from her left side a small metal button,a thimble and the mustard tin with the pawn tickets in......
I think the killer searched her.
There was evidence that Polly Nichols had a ring removed from her finger, as well as the much publicised ones taken from Annie Chapman.In addition to the missing rings some items were also scattered about Chapmans body which included the envelope containing pills which was lying near her head.
Our man, in my opinion, was taking more than body parts. I think he searched Eddowes, and that is why I think he cut that piece of apron on purpose, she had ample items about her person to use as wipes.
If you listen to someone from the East End of London speak in 2005 you will find that they use the word 'nothing' in the same context as the word 'anything' as part of their slang.
The Juwes are
The men that
Will not
Be blamed
for 'anything'?
We have always assumed that because there was no money mentioned, coupled with the fact that these women we're paupers, that they we're peniless when they died, and yet Mary Kelly at least,had been with clients the night she was killed.Was the petty thief still a part of the killers makeup?
In my humble opinion the piece of apron was a purposful act and IF the chalk message was by our man then it points to him being little more than ant-semitic |
c.d.
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 1:51 pm: |
|
It seems to me that Jack's biggest concern had to be the organs. He could easily explain a way a knife..."Hey, it's a rough neighborhood and I needed protection", he could attempt to wash off any blood or possibly could explain it away, but it is being found with the organs upon his person that would put the rope around his neck. So, what if he simply wrapped the organs in a cloth and hid them near the scene of the crime and retrieved them days later when there was no police presence. Since it seems that obtaining the organs was the purpose of the attacks it might be hard for him to delay gratification but at least this way he would be relatively safe. Just a theory.
c.d. |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1399
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:12 pm: |
|
Isn't it quite possible that the killer disposed of both the organs and the apron? What would the chances have been of a piece of meat remaining unmolested for an hour on Goulston Street in the early hours? What would they be now? (Another experiment for Monty?)
Chris Phillips
|
Jeff Hamm
Chief Inspector
Username: Jeffhamm
Post Number: 692
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 4:13 pm: |
|
Hi Monty,
I like your idea of the Ripper tossing the apron because he sees PC Long, but I don't see a piece of apron being viewed as a "trophy". I would think something like Chapman's ring makes for a fine trophy type item, because rings are personal items. Aprons, especially cut pieces of apron, would just be a piece of cloth. I would think their hats, rings (or other cheap jewelry), scarfs, etc would be the kind of things that would appeal to the Ripper. Something that makes the item personal to the victim. Of course, this is just my opinion, which simply reflects that to me a cut piece of apron doesn't seem to carry the personal significance that a trophy represents. Now, I fully admit that what I find "personally significant" may be entirely different from what the Ripper found to be so.
And, as for wiping his knife on the clothes of the other victims, sure, he could have done that. He may even have been able to clean his hands up a bit that way. However, it seems to me that at the point the Ripper decides it's time to stop mutilating, that at this point his decision is to get away from the crime scene as soon as possible. Meaning, he wouldn't stick around to clean his hands up completely (if at all), rather he would clean them as he left the area. The piece of apron's most obvious use would simply be to wipe down his hands, and his knife if it needs it too. I doesn't sound like the apron was saturated in gore, so I don't think it was used to carry the kidney. Spotted and smeared have be used to describe it, he would have had to pick up her intestines to place them where he did, which provides the oppertunity for him to get fecal matter on his hands, and so, wiping his hands down would produce transfer of both blood and fecal matter from the body, to his hands, and then to the cloth.
Now, even if we do not agree on why he took the apron, that doesn't mean you idea that he tossed it simply because he spotted PC Long in the area, couldn't be right in both scenerios. I.e., he's cleaning his hands, spots Long, tosses the apron, shoves his more or less clean hands in his pockets, and continues on. If the apron was a trophy, he could have just hid it in his jacket, but if it's just a rag, he's probably more prone to tossing it away. Maybe, anyway!
- Jeff |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 973
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:16 pm: |
|
Chris:
Man...can you imagine someone finding both the partial kidney/ whole kidney and some innards along with the apron ?
Thats a pretty good and seldom posted scenario you have there.
If the "parts" were wrapped up inside the apron,its hard to imagine a dog,for an example, not carrying the whole "package" with it or at least in the effort of freeing the "parts" from the apron, leaving traces or bits of the "parts" on the sidewalk.
Anyone consider that the apron piece was also taken the length of the journey and then used to wipe off the Ripper's hands before he went to the job of chalking?
But then again....why would the author of this message worry about a pair of clean hands to write the message? Why not gore it up a bit,eh?
|
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:20 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
My apoligies for the belated reply.
If he wanted to dispose of the apron, why wouldn't he just put it on the fire when he got home?
I would respectufully submit that the above presumes too much insight into the ripper's living conditions. If JTR's dwelling was a lodging house, for example, what is the likelihood of his having access to a fire-place? And even if he did have the relative luxury of such swift disposal at "home", might it have been a communal facility?
but he would direct the police's attention to the immediate neighbourhood of his home.
I agree, such action would appear to be indicative of a lack of prudence and forsight on the part of the ripper, but who's to say that our man was especially prudent or foresighted? I would surmise that he was lucky more than anything else.
Presumably, the police investigated the immediate locality of Goulston St. in the aftermath of the grisly apron discovery, but just how far did they look, and moreover, how thorough was the police search?
Garry Wroe, in his excellent E-book, offers what strikes me an entirely rational explantion:
"Disposal too close to home would have greatly increased the risk of police swarming in and about his residence. Too far away and the fluid-absorption exercise would have been rendered entirely pointless". |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:30 pm: |
|
Hi Jeff,
wiping his hands down would produce transfer of both blood and fecal matter from the body, to his hands, and then to the cloth.
Yes, but if "hand-wiping" was uppermost in the ripper's mind after the murder of Eddows, why did he bother to remove a portion of apron and take it away with him?
The apron was right there - conveniently attached to the body, thus presenting an excellent hand-wiping garment.
He could have "wiped" at his leisure, there and then.
(Message edited by BenH on September 14, 2005) |
Ben Holme
Sergeant
Username: Benh
Post Number: 17
Registered: 8-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:39 pm: |
|
Leanne,
Suspicion would have been immediately drawn to a man carrying something wrapped in a piece of cloth."
Hmmm....I'm disinclined to think so. Not at so late an hour. If he were strolling along with exposed viscera, that would be a diffrent matter entirely.
However, your theory:
He could have discarded the contents at or near home, then returned to Wentworth Street with a bloody apron to leave in an area that was dominated by Jews.
...is altogether more reasonable.} |
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:17 pm: |
|
G'day,
BEN: 'Yes, but if "hand-wiping" was uppermost in the ripper's mind after the murder of Eddows, why did he bother to remove a portion of apron and take it away with him?
Exactly my thoughts! That's why I believe that cutting the piece of apron from the body and disposing of it in Goulston Street was a deliberate action to implicate the Jews. A piece of the deseased's clothing was sure to be linked with the murder, whereas a hankerchief could have belonged to anyone! He wanted the police to find the apron, but I'm not so sure about the graffiti. But then again, he could have picked up the piece of chalk from home when he went back!
Perhaps he often took bits of meat home from work, and half of Kate's kidney was in the package. If he was stopped by a policeman, who wanted to know what was in his parcel, he could have said it was meat from work.
LEANNE |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 975
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:38 pm: |
|
Leanne:
Why would you assume or anyone else for that matter, that the Ripper had a parcel on the way from Mitre Square to where ever it was he went after the stop on Goulston St. ?
Thank you....
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1852
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 2:27 am: |
|
G'day Howard,
I've never assumed that mate! Eddowes was found dead in Mitre Square at 1:45am. The apron piece was discovered a short distance away in Goulston Street at 2:20am. That leaves a space of 35 minutes.
I am assuming that he went home with a parcel BEFORE he went to Goulstone Street to dispose of the apron. After that he had nothing.
LEANNE |
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1868
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:05 am: |
|
Steve,
I think the killer searched her.
You and me both. Sort of Chapmanesque isnt it?
Question is did he search prior to mutilating or after?
Monty
PS Mike, I see you point and agree.....to a degree.
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1400
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:07 am: |
|
Leanne
I've never assumed that mate! Eddowes was found dead in Mitre Square at 1:45am. The apron piece was discovered a short distance away in Goulston Street at 2:20am. That leaves a space of 35 minutes.
I think it was discovered not at 2:20 - when Long said it hadn't been there - but about half an hour later on his next visit.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 259
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:10 am: |
|
If I may, I must say I am absolutely convinced that the piece of apron was discarded to blame the Jews.
Why not? The Jews were blamed by "everyone" else at the time. It did not take an Einstein to figure out that if you were Jack and not a Jew, it might be in your interests to keep those suspicions alive.
But, I must repeat, I do not think Jack carried anything at all in the piece of apron. And I also think it is highly probable he wrote the GSG.
Let me explain by recapitulating what I think we DO know.
The apron piece was rather big. It would have made a big "parcel". Not logical IMO if the purpose was to carry anything as stealthily as possible, but very logical if it was imperative that it should be found.
We do know there were fecal matter on the apron piece, because it is stated so at the inquest. There would easily be, because Eddowes' intestines had been cut in several places. But more importantly, we know there were blood on the piece. And we know Jack either wiped his hands or his knife - or both - on it. It is stated at the inquest... So the smears are not from the body parts.
There was, however, also wet blood IN ONE CORNER of the piece. Again, not what you would expect if you used it to wrap up body parts. Rather what you would expect if the piece either accidentally, or by purpose, happened to be dipped in a pool of blood.
And if Jack wanted to use the apron for the purpose of being a) found, b) being connected with the crime, c) to connect the environs of where it was found (Jewish residence) to the crime...it follows that it needed to be dipped in blood.
Without the blood it was just another piece of rag in the streets.
Furthermore, there was light enough to write the GSG on the jamb of the entrance at night. I have calculated this from the distance of the gas lamps and their known light output. I cannot give an exact analysis yet, because of problems obtaining accurate position of lamps, but the available light would be more than adequate IMO given that Jack (or anyone out in those dim lit streets for some time) would have had developed a good night vision.
Add to this the probability of Jack wanting to blame someone in the first place...and it seems like the biggest coincidence of all times that the grafitto also mentions blame and...lo and behold... speaks about the Jews as well...
Of course, this does not establish a link between the GSG and the piece of apron with 100% certainty. But what would have? The message had to be short. Jack would hardly have signed the message. He COULD have alluded to the murder, that would make things easier, but he did not. What should he have written.? "I killed a woman, and I am a Jew"? Sounds a bit contrived to me. Why would a Jew write that? Why would anyone write that?
Jack was not stupid. He knew he had to write something that might be considered genuine. To me it makes perfect sense. The Jews were allready blamed, he simply states that they need not be blamed for nothing. Or, alternatively, that they do not want to be blamed for anything. Take your pick. This implies either way they have something to be blamed for in the first place..
Which they didn't have, but that is what Jack wants us to believe.
There is also something wrong with the time spent supposedly wandering about the streets from Mitre Square to Goulston Street, IF Jack only was on his way home, and discarded the apron randomly. The time spent may indicate that he first disposed of the body parts, perhaps at home (but that is a big maybe). At any rate, the time involved tells me Jack had time to actually DO something. Perhaps it was this simple..he needed to find an appropriate place to discard the apron AND write the GSG.
But he needed not spend 35 minutes doing this, he was long gone when Long appeared at the scene ;)
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Leanne Perry
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Leanne
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
G'day,
CHRIS: I knew there was quite some time between the discovery of the body and the discovery of the apron. To find the exact time difference in a hurry I consulted the 'Ultimate Companion' and read the line from a report by Inspector James McWilliam: 'The officer Halse went in the direction of Whitechapel and passed through Goulstone [sic] Street - where part of the deceased's apron was subsequently found at 2:20 a.m.'
After reading Alfred Long's inquest testimony in the next chapter: 'I was on duty in Goulston Street, Whitechapel on the 30th September, about 2:55 AM. I found a portion of a woman's apron which I produce......I passed the spot where the apron was found about 2:20, the apron was not there when I passed then.' You're correct!
LEANNE |
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1401
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:04 am: |
|
Leanne
McWilliam's report looks like one of those classic examples of badly constructed sentences that are over-dependent on the correct punctuation - like "Mary Queen of Scots said her prayers half an hour after her head was chopped off."
Chris Phillips
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:17 am: |
|
Chris,
Isn't it quite possible that the killer disposed of both the organs and the apron? What would the chances have been of a piece of meat remaining unmolested for an hour on Goulston Street in the early hours? What would they be now? (Another experiment for Monty?)
Great point.
Im game....just worried by that unmolested remark....
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 458
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:32 am: |
|
Interesting discussion.
Was not a piece of paper smeared with a small amount of blood found at the Annie Chapman site too? |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 459
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:39 am: |
|
Interesting discussion.
Was not a piece of paper smeared with a small amount of blood found at the Annie Chapman site too? |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 460
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 7:42 am: |
|
Now I know how you post a double message:press the "Back" button after completing the first one,
then mistakenly think you haven't, and press "Post message" again!
Sorry. |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 262
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:20 am: |
|
Monty,
If you do that experiment (that sadly will prove nothing except what COULD have happened IMO), would you be so kind to get something that will really seep blood, thus prove me right about the apron NOT having been used to carry anything at all..
And try not to get arrested, will you..
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1402
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:45 am: |
|
Helge
I must say I'm not entirely convinced by your suggestion that the apron couldn't have been used to carry the organs.
The kidney was removed whole, so I don't see why it should "seep" blood, unless you are thinking of some blood flowing out of the renal artery. The post mortem describes a "stump" only of the uterus remaining. Would there have been that much blood?
I'd be interested to hear what substitute tissue you used in your experiments.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 263
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
Hi Chris!
Well, let me first say that my experiment was quite unscientific, I used wrapped and soaked pieces of cloth, and that probably behaves very differently from the real thing.
I could have deduced the results anyway, and, as a matter of fact, did.
But the main point here is that you can either use the apron as a kind of bag, or wrap the body parts in it, and none of the methods will produce stains like the ones reported.
It was clearly stated that it seemed like hands or knife had been wiped on it, and the stains had not "gone through" the fabric. This is inconsistent with blood seeping out from any organ. It does not take much liquid blood to actually penetrate to the other side, this is why it was considered in the first place that something had only been wiped on the cloth.
Of course, I admit I am not an expert on how much a uterus and kidney freshly butchered might have bled. And if they don't bleed at all, establishing that is the best way to prove me wrong
However, if they don't bleed (IMO unlikely, especially for the uterus), the very reason for wrapping them in anything is no longer valid. Jack could just as easily put them in his pockets (which he probably did, IMO, but wrapped in something else althogether..although this is, of course, speculation)
And if they don't bleed we still have to explain the WET part of the apron. Now this part is consistent with blood seeping over it, but in the wrong place! It seems to me utterly contrived to manage to bundle up the body parts in the piece of apron in such a way that only one corner of it gets really wet with blood. I could not do it.
It might be possible to do it, but only, IMO, in a very contrived way.
And...if the parts were not bleeding, why on earth wrap them in a piece of cloth that actually WAS bloodstained and partially wet from blood to begin with? That does not make sense.
That is why I don't think the apron was used to carry anything. The blood stains, as reported, simply does not fit that scenario.
And this is actually why I think Jack wanted the apron to blame the Jews and wrote the GSG, not the other way around.
The apron could very easily have been used to wipe the knife or hands. Actually it would be reasonable to think Jack had blood and fecal matter on his hands at the time he cut it off. It seems natural that he would wipe it off on the piece of fabric that he held in his hands there and then, no matter what his other (if any at that point) intentions with the apron were.
The "wet" blood could have accidentally or purposely gotten on the piece either before or after he cut it off.
So, if he did not need the apron to carry anything (why should he, he never did before?), and if he did not need to carry it with him to clean himself (at least not that distance), there can only be two possible explanations. (that I can think of)
1) He wanted it as a souvenir.
2) He wanted it to be found elsewhere to plant a false lead.
The first possibility fails to explain why he then proceeded to toss it away. If he got spooked by someone possibly seeing it, why not fold it up and carry it under his jacket or whatever, it was as easy as that...
The second possibility may, or not, include a desire to blame the Jews (I think it was), or, I admit, it might only be an attempt to fool the police, with the actual spot being randomly chosen.
To blame the Jews would effectively enhance the general beliefs and anti semitism around, and would be very effective if the police fell for it (which they did not). The other possibility could be that he wanted to give the impression that he was heading in a different direction than what he actually was.
The latter explanation is rather weak, and would also necessitate him backtracking, thus being a more dangerous, and IMO, less likely course of action. And the police had no clue as to where he lived anyway. Why he thought he needed to mislead as to direction is not easy to comprehend.
All this presupposes that Jack was not a raving lunatic at the time, of course. If he was, he might have done a number of utterly illogical and random things. However, that he actually got away, seems to indicate he was able to behave logically and coherently.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
Monty
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Monty
Post Number: 1872
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:19 am: |
|
Helge, Chris,
Seeing as the kindeys function is to clean blood I would say it would be a very bloody piece to take away.
Helge,
The first possibility fails to explain why he then proceeded to toss it away. If he got spooked by someone possibly seeing it, why not fold it up and carry it under his jacket or whatever, it was as easy as that...
Stop/search was public knowledge. Its ok to say why not fold it up in a pocket but would you risk walking past a PC with that sort of evidence on you?
A new beat PC at that who is especially liable to stop/search if he felt the need to.
Third possible explanation you dismiss too easily. He wanted to wipe his hands and due to lack of time fled with the first available piece of cloth.
Cheers,
Monty
My prediction? 3-0 to us. 5-0 if the weather holds out. - Glenn McGrath
|
Glenn G. Lauritz Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 4020
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:42 am: |
|
As has been said here, it was clearly stated by at least one source, that it seemed like blood and faceal matter was 'smeered', like something had been wiped off on it. There is really no reason to assume that the piece of cloth from the apron was used for carrying organs. It is most likely that the killer used his pockets for this (unless he brought something with him), since he didn't tear off any other fabric in connection the other sites for that purpose.
As for blood traces, I would say very little blood or matter would actually derive from an amputated inner organ. According to those who have experience in gutting animals, an organ leaves very little blood or fluid of any kind - if any.
As for raving lunatic, no one has ever said that Jack the Ripper was a raving lunatic (with the possible exception of Martin Fido). For those who have any knowledge or experience from psychotics or insane individuals, it is quite clear that they can act rational and logical on occasion, and insane killers are generally no raving lunatics. Things aren't just black and white.
As for myself, I fail to see why the Ripper would stop and write a message, written in a neat school boy's hand and with very small letters, in a rather dark environment while leaving a crime scene and probably knowing that the police would be on his tail at any minute. I admit that it is a weird coincidence that the apron was found underneath this message, but in an anti-semitic climate, with Jewish markets just outside the dwellings and around the corner, I would assume such writings were not totally uncommon and my guess is that the writing was there already. All the writing tells us, is that it incriminates the Jews in some way, and that could just as well refer to a bad product anyone had bought from a Jewish seller. There are loads of explanations.
It is quite probably that the Ripper didn't write any letters or communications to the police or the press, so it is fair to suggest that he wasn't the kind of character that wanted to get that kind of attention. Why he therefore all of a sudden would leave behind him a cryptic message goes beyond me.
Although I can't totally rule out that it was written by the killer, the GSM is, as far as I am concerned, a red herring in the case.
All the best
(Message edited by Glenna on September 15, 2005)
G. Andersson, writer/historian
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 11:43 am: |
|
Monty
Seeing as the kindeys function is to clean blood I would say it would be a very bloody piece to take away.
Well, on the inside, maybe...
The only way to be sure would be to do the experiment, I suppose, but it wouldn't be a particularly pleasant one. Lie a pig down, slit its throat, let the blood drain out for a bit, then open it up and cut out the whole kidney cleanly.
No doubt a bit of blood would have got on to the outside of the organ, and some would escape from the severed blood vessels, but I'm not convinced there would necessarily be a large amount.
Chris Phillips
|
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 264
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 12:28 pm: |
|
Monty,
I am not dismissing the possibility that Jack simply needed to clean his hands. I said he would not need to do it all the way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street. And if he did, we need to find an explanation as to why he waited so long/why it took so long.
Possible explanations seem contrived to me.
The significance of the apron in the public search scenario is insignificant up against the possibility of finding a bloody knife, most of a uterus and a kidney plus bloody hands (you don't actually wipe all trace of blood off your hands, it needs to be washed off). If Jack had been searched, I'm sure he would have been caught. And I'm sure he knew he would have been, apron or no apron.
Chris,
We should indeed do a proper experiment here. Anyone know a butcher? Maybe we do not need to actually slit the throat as long as the organs are taken out ASAP? Obviously we need a better qualified opinion than mine on this anyway.
Glenn,
I was using the "raving mad" word in a totally unscientific way, I agree. My point was that if he did not think rationally, we cannot use logic to analyze his behaviour. But as I'm sure you understood, I don't suppose that he was behaving irrationally at all. On the contrary.
But again, my mistake, I was using words in a conversational way, not at all in a precise manner.
I'm just trying to be honest and look at the alternatives. If a voice and apparition of the Virgin Mary told him to take the apron to Goulston Street (not likely!), all our efforts to analyze anything of what he did and why he did it are in vain. But I'm sure we agree that he did, in fact, act, at least for the most part, logically and rationally.
I'm pretty sure Jack never wrote any letters to the newspapers, though, so we agree there. But again, we can never know for sure.
Anway, back to the blood issue. If organs don't bleed too much, that is news to me (although I'm not disputing it if that is indeed the case), but keep in mind the uterus was actually cut across. It would bleed, I'm sure.
Also (and this may expose my utter lack of knowledge of anything remotely like slaughtering or butchering), is it not so that animals are bled before organs are taken out? And is not this why those organs don't bleed?
This is not a rhetorical question. I simply do not know.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2523
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 2:23 pm: |
|
A simple explanation for the removal of part of the apron could be something like this:
The Old Bailey. May 15th 1834.
'JOHANNA COLEMAN was indicted for stealing, on the 22nd of April, 4 half-crowns, the monies of William Millward , from his person .
WILLIAM MILLWARD. I have been in the East India Company's service for thirty-nine years. On the 22nd of April, I was in the Black Horse, Well-street, about half-past three o'clock - I saw the prisoner there - I had six half-crowns in my purse - I took it out to pay for what I had, and left the purse on the table - the prisoner drew it off into her apron.' |
Helge Samuelsen
Inspector
Username: Helge
Post Number: 265
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:08 pm: |
|
AP,
Yes, it is possible, but why cut off part of the apron even if there was a pocket in it.. Unless the pocket was really hard to get to (sewn up???), or something like that.
Besides, "into her apron" does not necessarily mean into a pocket.
But if there were no pocket in our instance surely there would be no reason to take the apron at all? And if the pocket was "hidden", surely it would have been cut open just as easily as cutting off the entire piece?
And would not such a pocket have been in the upper half of apron? (if at all) And would not the existence of such a pocket in the part in question have been commented upon? After all, the piece of apron was obviously scrutinized by several people, none commented on that.
Helge
"Logic is the beginning of wisdom; not the end." -- Spock (Star Trek VI)
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 2524
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 3:59 pm: |
|
I don’t know Helge.
Merely convinced that all is not what it seems.
For instance this statement from a woman who was seriously attacked in the same year, where her blooded apron and hanky led to the conviction of her attacker:
‘MARGARET McNIELL re-examined. This is my bag - the handkerchief and apron are mine - there is blood on them - they are covered with blood…
JURY. Q. How do you account for the blood being on the handkerchief and apron? A. I had them on - the blood was the consequence of the assault - that is not one-fourth or one-tenth part of it.' |
Howard Brown
Chief Inspector
Username: Howard
Post Number: 976
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 4:21 pm: |
|
Chris P :
Maybe someone who knows a butcher [ kosher,halal,or regular ] could ask him about a pig's kidney and the volume of blood it leaks after it is removed from a healthy fat pig.
Leanne:
I'm sorry lassie !! I misunderstood your point.
What you are positing is that the Ripper had a package with him before and during the time he was murdering Eddowes...took the package home in the interval of time before he went to Goulston Street...left the grip at his house....and then went to the Wentworth...correct?
Thanks.... |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
