Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 40 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 60 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - by Joshua Rogan 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
General Suspect Discussion: Favorite suspect/s? - (21 posts)
Witnesses: Caroline Maxwell Alibi ? - (14 posts)
Witnesses: What EXACTLY did Maurice Lewis say? - (5 posts)
Witnesses: Our Charles Cross - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Scene of the Crimes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1141  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:23 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,904
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre View Post
QUOTE=Trevor Marriott;396298



Hi Trevor,

I would like to make a few comments here if you donīt mind.

I have no problem with your theory even though I do not think that it is correct.

Anyway, you say here that there are four reasons given by researches for the killer supposedly cutting or tearing the apron piece and you say that they donīt stand up to close scrutiny.

I do not know what these four reasons are. But I am sure that the reason I have found is not one of them and, more important, that reason does stand up to scrutiny very well indeed.

I am not able to discuss it yet, but just to let you know: there was a very specific motive and that motive was the reason. It is also connected to the GSG which the killer wrote.



I really appreciate everything you write here, Trevor, and I think it is very important. Everything you say has an explanation, whatever statement you make. Good critical thinking.

Best wishes, Pierre
The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Last edited by Trevor Marriott : 10-16-2016 at 02:25 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1142  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:33 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
The maths doesn't seem quite right.

If he was there at 2.55 then before that at 2.20, would he not have been there before this - assuming the exact same speed of patrolling his beat - at 1.45?



Sorry Phil I don't see the logic here. Why do you think the carrier of the apron would have chosen the "shortest and quickest way from Mitre Square to Goulston Street"? I mean, if the murder of Eddowes occurred at about 1.40 and the apron was not deposited until after 2.20, it doesn't appear that the carrier of the apron chose the shortest and quickest route does it?
We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1143  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:40 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,157
Default

Also David,

Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1144  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:41 PM
PaulB PaulB is offline
Inspector
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,461
Default

I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1145  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:43 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,157
Default

As to why the carrier would walk that way..quickest way..into Goulston St..well..it takes a thief to catch a thief David..if YOU were the carrier. .would you be walk along the main road with the bloody rag or tey to dice down a dark back street?

Logic .less chance of if being seen



Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1146  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:45 PM
Roy Corduroy Roy Corduroy is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The four old accepted theories surrounding the apron are

1. He took the organs away in it
2. He cut it to clean his knife
3. He cut it to wipe his hands
4. He cut it because he had cut his own hand and wanted a bandage
Hi, again, Trevor. Again, the only thing which has anything to do with body parts is number 1. I know one person who wrote 1., Wickerman.

I know of no source for 2, 3, and 4. Do you? I know that none of these theories 1. to 4. are contained in Scotland Yard Investigates, by Evans & Rumbelow, a book which I know you haven't read, because you told me so on How Brown's site.

I'm not arguing any reason. I've never given a reason for why the killer cut a piece of her apron and took it. I don't have to. Simply the fact everyone from 1888 to today agrees it happened, because it is very clear from the physical evidence at the time. It doesn't need a reason. You are the only one arguing reasons.

You are the only one arguing that if there was no good reason, it didn't happen. Which is the opposite of evidence. The opposite of police work. What you said you did. The evidence is he cut the piece of apron and deposited it in Goulston Street.

You seem to be arguing against yourself Trevor. And believe, me, I'm Okay with that.

Roy
__________________
Sink the Bismark
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1147  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:49 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
We do not know WHEN the apron was deposited David.
It could well have been deposited before 02.20am without Long seeing it. We dont know. Can you guarantee he looked into and shone his lamp into EVERY entrance in Goulston St? Many are exsctly the same.
I understand that we don't know for certain that it was deposited before 2.20 but shouldn't your post have made clear that your premise is that PC Long's evidence was wrong and that it must have been deposited prior to 2.20? In fact, shouldn't you have made clear that your premise is that it was deposited as soon as possible following the murder?

Otherwise your claim about where the carrier of the apron "logically" would have been in relation to Long doesn't make sense does it?
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1148  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:52 PM
David Orsam David Orsam is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 7,916
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Carter View Post
Whether the mathematics of time is right or wrong. 01.45 or 01.50..the principle is the same.
The carrier of said apron vis a vis Long. Either Long is in frobt if him walking towards him from the Wentworth St entrance to Goulston St..or the carrier is behind him as Long walks towards Wentworth St walking down Goulston St
How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.
__________________
Orsam Books
www.orsam.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1149  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:52 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB View Post
I don't see the point of what you seem to be saying, Phil. P.C. Long wasn't asked if he had seen the apron before 2:20am, but that he didn't see it is implicit in his reply to whether the apron was there at 2:20am. It really doesnt matter when the murderer reached Goulston Street does it? Especially if he was able to clean up at a common lodging house. One could speculate that such a lodging was located between Mitre Square and Goulston Street, that the murderer went there, washed up, then left, passing through Goulston Street, where he threw away the apron piece. Again, I'm not saying that's what he did, I'm just saying that if the evidence supports such a speculation...
Pierre,

This is a point that shows dead theorising. Not just you. But many over the years.
We look at what we are told and believe it to be true. Look at the performance of the police in Goulston St. No uniform opinion as to content of writing nor placement. So...the police comments on the simplest of evidence is faulty.
Ergo..think outside the box. What if Long is just coceting his backside? Policemen do that. Often.

Long may not be telling the whole story.

And while you and others will croak about "sensationalism" etc... I take each comment on their merits. Given the debacle of evidence presented... I dobt HAVE to beliece the police were all that capable of doing their jobs. Warren..Swanson included.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1150  
Old 10-16-2016, 02:54 PM
Phil Carter Phil Carter is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 4,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Orsam View Post
How is the principle the same? Five minutes is a long time and Long could have been at many different places on his beat in that period. So how can you possibly say where the carrier would have been vis a vis Long?

And you need to premise your argument on what can only be an assumption that the carrier headed immediately from Mitre Square to Goulston Street after murdering Eddowes, which you haven't done.
Work it out yourself David. It isnt hard.
Im not here to help you. You don't seem to need it.


Phil
__________________
Chelsea FC. TRUE BLUE. 💙


Justice for the 96 = achieved
Accountability? ....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.