In the cases of Eddowes and Chapman the task would have been much easier as the abdomens of both had already opened by the killer. The end result would have been that the findings of the post-mortem would, quite naturally, have left everyone thinking that the killer had removed the organs at the murder scene, coupled with the belief that the killer had done so with some anatomical knowledge.
You may be asking why, if Chapman’s and Eddowes’ organs were removed, as I suggest, why weren’t any removed from the other victims? The answer is simple: these were the only two victims who were savagely mutilated to the extent that their abdomens were ripped open and their intestines removed. The other victims were not mutilated to this degree, so it would have been very difficult for anyone to remove the organs for fear of their absence being noted at the post-mortem. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were the only two bodies left unattended for long periods of time at the mortuaries.
There is one final important point to be mentioned with regards to the suggestion that the killer did remove the organs from Chapman and Eddowes and that is, it is a fact that Eddowes and Chapman were subjected to ferocious acts of mutilation committed in a frenzied attack. Having said that it is not logical for the killer having done all of that and then to suddenly compose himself sufficiently to be able to suddenly switch off, calm down to be able to remove these vital organs with medical precision. Further medical evidence would later come to light, which showed that the removal of the uteri from both victims was carried out in different ways, adding more weight to my theory.
The murder of Eddowes differs in a further respect from the previous murders discussed. After her body was discovered, just over an hour later there came to the notice of the police two pieces of what has been looked upon as “significant evidence”, which at the time was suggested as being material to the murder and has generally been accepted as so by many researchers up until the present day.
This “evidence” was found by a Metropolitan police officer Pc Long in a stairwell leading to dwellings in Goulston Street, a nine-minute walk from the Eddowes crime scene. Having examined all of this evidence carefully, I now suggest that perhaps the police and other experts have been wrong all this time about this “significant evidence”.
The first piece of “evidence” was a piece of apron, which was later matched to another piece of apron “found” on Eddowes. I use the word found as many researchers subscribe to the theory that Eddowes was in fact wearing an apron and the killer cut or tore a piece to take with him for the purpose of taking away the organs in, or for wiping his blood stained hands and knife on before depositing it in Goulston Street. The size of this apron piece has never been fully established, but is mainly referred to as a portion or a piece.
The apron piece found by Pc Long in Goulston Street has been described in different ways, by different people; both in official reports and in various newspapers of the day who reported on the inquest and these reports show many discrepancies and inconsistencies. The official reports are what should be accepted as being correct. The reports would have been in written form and would have been made out by the witnesses as soon as practicable after the event, when matters would have still been fresh in their minds. These reports would have been referred to by the witnesses at the subsequent inquest.
Pc Long’s official statement: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there appeared blood stains on it, one portion was wet.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I found a portion of white apron, there were recent stains of blood on it.”
Pc Long as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “I found a portion of a woman’s apron, there were recent stains of blood on it, one corner was wet with blood.”
As far as his statement is concerned and the subsequent press reports there are several differences. All state that the apron piece had bloodstains on it. One suggests that a corner was wet with blood, and another simply states that one portion was wet.
Dr. Brown’s official statement: “I have seen a portion of an apron produced by Dr. Phillips and stated to have been found in Goulston Street. I fitted the piece of apron, which had a new piece of material on it, which had evidently been sewn to the piece I have. The seams of the borders of the two actually corresponding. Some blood and apparently faecal matter was found on the portion found in Goulston Street.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report: “I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand of knife had been wiped on it.”
Dr. Brown in his official statement states that the apron piece was found with some blood on it and faecal matter. In the newspaper reports he states that it was spotted with blood, and smeared with blood on one side.
Several questions arise. When was the apron piece removed and by whom, and for what reasons? And how long had it been at the location where it was found? The police also believed the apron piece showed the direction in which the killer had escaped. Regardless of whether he had deliberately left it or accidentally dropped it. If the apron piece had been cut or torn by the killer why did he not retain it and send it to the press with the half kidney and the letter later sent to the press purporting to be from the killer. This would be very strong evidence in support of the letter being from the killer and the fact that he had removed the organs.
I must also ask why the killer would have cut off a piece of the apron. If it was for the reasons that have been suggested, there is no evidence of a similar act in any of the other murders. If it was to clean his knife with, he could have done that at the scene with one swift wipe across her clothing. If it was to clean his hands with, he could have done that at the scene without cutting off or tearing and taking away a piece of apron. Even if he did cut or tear it off, surely he would have discarded it long before reaching Goulston Street. He would not have wanted to be seen walking down the road in possession of incriminating evidence wiping his bloodstained hands, or a knife. Besides, the killer may have worn gloves and not needed to clean his hands.
So now another important question must now be asked. Was she or wasn’t she wearing an apron at the time of her murder? In Victorian times the women wore two different types of aprons, the first being the type mainly now worn in this day and age, which goes around the waist and is tied at the back with two strings. The other version was a full apron, which started around the neck and in length went down in equal distance to the full-length dresses women of that era wore.
However, Eddowes may well have not been wearing an apron, but simply during the time leading up to her murder been in possession of two separate pieces of old apron, which had originally come from an apron that was of the type which fitted around the waist with two strings attached.
If that is the case is there any evidence to support this? The answer is yes, but we first have to go back to the movement of the body from the murder scene and the subsequent removal of her clothes at the mortuary, a process that took place there involving police officers and doctors. We first have to look at the timings following the removal of the body to the mortuary.
Body removed from crime scene 2.55am
Body arrived at the mortuary 3.15am
Body stripped and clothing listed
Persons present: Dr. Brown, Dr. Sequeira, Mr. Davis mortuary keeper, Inspector Collard, Dc Halse
In accordance with protocol the clothing would have been carefully removed and each item listed separately starting off at the top of the body and working downwards and removing and listing each item as it was removed. If Eddowes had been wearing an apron then it would have been one of the first items removed and would have appeared at the beginning of the list. Having regard to the suggestion that a portion or piece had been cut or torn I would have expected it to have been described as “white apron with
piece missing”. Below is the official list of her clothing as produced by Inspector Collard at the inquest:
“Black Straw Bonnet – trimmed with green and black velvet and black beads, black strings. The bonnet was loosely tied and had partially fallen from the back of her head, no blood on front, but the back was lying in a pool of blood, which had run from the neck.
“Black Cloth Jacket – imitation fur edging round collar, fur round sleeves, no blood on front outside, large quantity of blood inside and outside back, outside back very dirty with blood and dirt, two outside pockets, trimmed black silk braid and imitation fur.
“Chintz Skirt” – three flounces, brown button on waistband, jagged cut six inches long from waistband, left side of front, edges slightly bloodstained, also blood on bottom, front and back of skirt.
“Brown Linsey Dress Bodice – black velvet collar, brown metal buttons down front, blood inside and outside of back of neck of shoulders, clean cut bottom of left side, five inches long from right to left.
“Grey Stuff Petticoat – white waistband cut one and a half inches long, thereon in front edges blood stained, blood stains at front and bottom of petticoat.
“Very Old Green Alpaca Skirt – jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside front undercut.
“Very Old Ragged Blue Skirt – red flounce, light twill lining, jagged cut ten and a half inches long, through waistband downwards, blood stained inside, outside back and front.
“White Calico Chemise – very much bloodstained all over apparently torn thus in middle of front.
“Man’s White Vest – button to match down front, two outside pockets, torn at back, very much bloodstained at back, blood and other stains on front.
“No drawers or stays.
“Pair of men’s lace-up boots.
“One Piece of Red Gauze Silk – various cuts thereon found on neck.”
Note there is no mention of an apron. Listed below is the list of her additional property and her personal effects:
“One Large White Handkerchief – bloodstained.
“Two Unbleached Calico Pockets – tape strings, cut through, also top left hand corners, cut off one.
“One Blue Striped Bed Ticking pocket – waistband and strings cut through, all three pockets blood stained.
“One White Cotton Pocket Handkerchief – red and white.
“One Pair Ribbed Stockings – feet mended with white.
“12 Pieces of White Rag – some slightly bloodstained.
“One Piece of White Coarse Linen.
“One Piece of White and Blue Shirting (Three Cornered).
“Two Small Blue Bed Ticking Bags.
“Two Short Clay Pipes (Black).
“Two Tin Boxes Containing Tea and Sugar.
“One Piece of Flannel and Six Pieces of Soap.
“One Small Toothcomb.
“One White Handled Table Knife and Spoon.
“One Red leather Cigarette Case and Tin Matchbox (Empty).
“One Ball of Hemp.
“One Piece of Red Flannel Containing Pins and Needles.
“One Piece of Old White Apron.”
Note the item listed at the end, “one piece of old white apron”, clearly this must be an indication that she was not wearing an apron but as I suggest, originally been in possession of two apron pieces. It should also be noted that this piece of apron found with the body was not described as being cut or torn of had any traces of blood as you might expect if she had have been wearing it around her waist at the time of her death.
It can be seen that they removed from the body all of the clothing as they came to it as it was on the body. From the descriptions of the clothing it would appear that the killer stabbed Eddowes at least four times through her outer clothing, before lifting the lower clothing up above her abdomen.
This can be seen by the descriptions of the downward cuts as described on some of the items of clothing, which ran from the waistline down towards the lower abdomen, and across the midline of the abdomen. This also goes to show that the killer had no design on the organs, otherwise why would he risk damaging organs by thrusting a long-bladed knife wildly and blindly into the stomach and drawing it down and across into the abdomen.
As with the apron piece found in Goulston Street, there are conflicting accounts and descriptions given by the police officers and doctors, both in their official statements, and as reported by the press in the various newspapers with regards to the apron piece from the mortuary.
The official statement of Dr. Brown I believe adds real corroboration to the fact that she wasn’t wearing an apron. “My attention was called to the apron it was the corner of the apron with the string attached.” This shows that the apron piece from the mortuary was of the type which originally had two strings attached.
However, he describes it as a corner piece with a string attached, so that would mean that it was either the left or right hand corner nearest to the waistband. So that would have meant that if she had been wearing the apron at the time of her death and the killer had cut or torn the apron piece found in Goulston Street then the rest of the apron would be left behind still attached to her body and still fixed with the two strings still attached, and would have been described as an old white apron with piece missing, not as was described as old white apron piece, and would have been of significant size for the doctors and police to document it as just that. But because the piece found in Goulston Street matched the piece from the mortuary what was accounted with the two pieces was in effect one half of an apron.
However, as previously stated there were discrepancies and conflicting reports both from official statements of officers and doctors alike.
Dr. Brown as quoted in The Telegraph Inquest report:
“Coroner: Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street?
“Dr. Brown: Yes I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.”
Note he refers to strings suggesting that the apron was still fixed to the body. This press report is incorrect and misleading. As has been previously stated the body arrived at the mortuary at 3.15am and was then stripped. The Goulston Street apron piece was at that time in the hands of Dr. Phillips who was at Leman Street Police Station and after receiving it later on, took it to the mortuary for it to be matched with the mortuary piece, but he did not arrive at the mortuary till after 5.20am so Dr. Brown could not have fitted the Goulston Street piece at the mortuary while the mortuary piece was affixed to the body.
Again with the police officers there are inconsistencies with the reports, Inspector Collard’s official statement: “I produce a portion of the apron piece the deceased was apparently wearing which had been cut through and found outside her dress.”
Note he says “apparently wearing” why was he not specific in his statement after all he was at the mortuary when the body was stripped, he produced the lists of her clothing and personal effects surely he must have know whether she was or wasn’t wearing one?
Inspector Collard as quoted in The Telegraph: “It was then taken to the mortuary, and stripped by Mr. Davis, the mortuary keeper, in presence of the two doctors and myself. I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut.”
Inspector Collard as quoted in the Times: “The body was taken to the mortuary. A portion of the apron was found on her, and the other portion picked up in Goulston Street, would also be produced.”
His quotes from the above newspapers do not help in clarifying the matter.
Dc Halse who accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary in his official statement states: “I accompanied Inspector Collard to the mortuary I saw the deceased stripped and saw that a portion of apron was missing.”
In this statement Halse does not help either way in proving or disproving whether she was or wasn’t wearing an apron.
Dc Halse
quoted in the Times Newspaper: “I then saw the deceased undressed and noticed that a portion of the apron she wore was missing.”
Dc Halse quoted in The Telegraph: “I saw the deceased and noticed that a portion of her apron was missing.”
The question must be as to what made him take specific note of the missing piece and when? The Goulston Street piece was not found until 2.55am and then the officer conveyed it to a police station arriving at about 3.15am that would have been the same time that the body of Eddowes arrived at the mortuary and was stripped. After all I would have thought the torn clothing caused by the knife and the wounds of Eddowes would have been more noticeable and warranted noting down. Or was it a case of him becoming aware of the significance of the apron piece much later?
The arguments and heated debates amongst researchers will continue to go on and on, many choosing to accept the press reports as being correct simply because some of the contents of those reports go towards the theory that she was wearing an apron at the time of her murder and the killer did cut or tear a piece from it for the reasons previously suggested, a view that I do not share.
If we accept that the piece of apron was correctly identified, as being connected to Eddowes’ and the killer did not cut it or tear it, what other explanation could there be? I will put forward two plausible ones, which, many experts have foolishly chosen to disregard. However, as there is very little direct evidence in any event to prove the other theories, it would be unwise to dismiss anything which may add additional weight to existing evidence and, likewise, new explanations which could suggest that earlier theories have been wrong all these years.
My first explanation revolves around matters of personal feminine hygiene, which would account for the blood and faecal matter on the apron piece and the description of how it was described when found. In Victorian times women of the lower class, when menstruating, did not use sanitary towels, as we know them today. If they bothered to use anything at all, it was a cotton rag.
Jack the Ripper: The Secret Police Files Page 5