JTR was a local tailor

[Jason Ellis]

Between the two murders on the 30th of September, it seems that JTR changed his clothing, including the coat. The first reports cited a man in a dark or black coat (possibly cutaway). The man seen with Eddowes wore a flecked or patterned coat that was looser fitting (as well as other garments).
This seems to imply that Ripper got changed between murders.
To do so in that timeframe means that he had to live (or work) nearby. The likelihood, given the dangers of going around the streets with bloodied clothes, would have been that he lived closer to the first murder (near Batty st). Indeed, it would make sense for the second murder to then take place at some distance from the first and from his home (hence Mitre Sq). Dropping the apron piece on Goulston Street may have been an attempt to lead pursuit away from his home as well.
So why do I say JTR was a tailor?
The second coat was loose fitting. It was very likely not his coat. Clothes were precious commodities; to have been able to steal a coat that night seems out of the question. Besides, after the news reports, surely an owner of a stolen coat matching a description and stolen on the night would have come forward. A tailor, however, mends clothing. A tailor would be in a perfect position to use, wash and return various clothing without causing suspicion.
Just a thought.
Jason Ellis (Australian but not very)

[Gumshoe]

Quite the concept - a thread dedicated to a tailor instead of the other way around.

Mr. Ellis presents some good and novel arguments here, certainly some I hadn't heard or thought of before - such as the Ripper nicking someone else's coat to confuse any potential witnesses. Perhaps this might have also been in an attempt to throw the bloodhounds off the track?

And most tailors then were probably Jewish, so this concept fits well in several more orthodox theories.

But did tailors actually WASH clothing back then? This is news to me as well.

[Adam Went]

Yes it is an interesting theory, and it's always possible that JTR was a tailor, but I don't think the whole changing clothes between murders scenario really makes much sense.

First, there would have been minimal bloodstains on the clothing he wore during the murder of Elizabeth Stride in any case, as he didn't have the oppurtunity to mutilate her as he did with the others. Any blood that he did have on him would not have shown up on a dark coat in the middle of the night in a poorly lit area anyway.

Second, witness descriptions are not 100% reliable - it was probably the same outfit. Again, the same point about poor lighting and the fact that they probably weren't paying all that much attention to the appearance of the man. It's not easy to tell what the pattern is on anything in almost pitch black darkness.

Third, after the murder of Catherine Eddowes, JTR planted the apron and possibly the graffiti on Goulston Street - does this mean that he went back home and changed into a third outfit before going out again? After all, his clothes would have been more bloodied after that murder than the first one - therefore, more risk. I don't think that's very likely.

Basically, IMO, it's just a case of mistaken witness descriptions - that, or the man somebody saw was not JTR.

Cheers,
Adam.

[WRITEFX]

Hi Jason,

It is an interesting topic - the clothing. Made me think about it too.

What about him wearing 2 jackets one on top of the other and discarding one somehow?

Or even just wearing one but it was reversible??

Re washing the coat - if it was woollen then washing would have been difficult I would imagine as water is bad for it, - no idea how they cleaned those garments back then.

[Jason Ellis]

Thanks for your responses to a newbie.
Some ideas.
1. Prostitutes don't solicit in absolute darkness, or they would never have customers. They would have used thrown light from alehouse windows etc. So this brings up two issues: one, witnesses could have been quite accurate in what they saw, so that the more detailed descriptions might well be closer to the truth; and,
2. JTR had to change his clothing because to get close enough to a prostitute (given that they solicit in the light), he needed to be clean of blood. After, getting away, it wouldn't matter, and I agree that a man covered in blood could have stayed hidden easily in those dark streets.
3. As for washing coats, I also agree that would be quite difficult. I tend to think JTR usually removed his coat before the fatal strike, most likely after rendering them unconscious via strangulation.
4. This reasoning tends to support the idea that, with Stride, he was interrupted. This might have happened before removing his coat, and therefore, in this scenario, JTR killed Stride not from blood-lust so much as to stop her fingering him from her close-up look at his face. Having killed her in a rush, he would have got more bloodied than usual, and hence had to change coats before he could find another victim. Or perhaps he didn't get blood on the coat at all, but felt that a description of a man in a long dark or black coat would have been put about at once, and he wanted to escape detection.
5. The question of witness veracity is a fraught one. Even as, taken together, they appear highly contradictory, the likelihood would seem to be that some witnesses are just inherently more observant and accurate than others. The trick, then, isn't to take all witnesses with a grain of salt, but to choose, from a sense of their abilities and from the likelihood of scenarios arrived at, which witnesses are more dependable.
6. As for him possibly wearing several coats: I tend to think he had a certain practiced confidence. It's hard to imagine that he thought he might err so greatly as to require new clothing on the one night.
Just some thoughts!
Jason Ellis
Australian, but not into crocs

[Dustin Gould]

I think one of the most fundamental problems with eyewitness descriptions, is that it causes us to believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person witnessed with the victim last was the actual killer. Even when there is proof of such. Much like today, prostitutes were constantly prowling for tricks. No sooner had the finished with one, were they seeking out another. It's possible the person described was just your atypical john, and when the victim was finished with him, it was then she encountered the Ripper. London being a maze of alleyways and dimly-lit streets, it is entirely conceivable nobody ever laid eyes on him.