Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GSG Conclusion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

    There a bit like you posts then !

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
    You mean 'they're a bit like your posts then'.

    Nothing kills a cutting remark like sh*t grammar Trev.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

      You mean 'they're a bit like your posts then'.

      Nothing kills a cutting remark like sh*t grammar Trev.
      on a par with yout posts then

      www.trevormarriott.co.uk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

        on a par with yout posts then

        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
        Golf as well I see.

        Why don't you confine this particular line of utter nonsense to a more appropriate place:

        https://forum.casebook.org/forum/rip...1-kate-s-apron

        Comment


        • Originally posted by caz View Post
          Afternoon All,

          I do wonder if after the killer had subdued and cut Eddowes's throat he immediately cut/tore off that piece of cloth and laid it to one side, before it could get soaked in blood by the subsequent mutilations. He could then use it afterwards if needed for a swift clean-up. Alternatively, he may have wanted something provably from this victim, either to indicate a false direction of travel or to place a false clue ...
          Hi Caz,

          You know me. You know what I'm going to say. I'm going to say it anyway.

          I would strongly suggest that this is exactly what Jack did - and I'd go further in suggesting that he knew Goulston Street, knew the entrances to Wentworth Dwellings, chose the east side entrance in advance, intentionally took the apron as a pointer to the graffito he had practiced many times and which he wrote with tailor's chalk (ordinary chalk being far too think for those small bricks). I suggest that he returned to his bolthole (as others have suggested), cleaned-up, changed, left his knife, then went out again with the apron secured about him. If he was smart, he'd have left the apron somewhere in the shadows of Goulston Street before he wrote his graffito (which he could blame on his anger with Jewish people if he was caught doing so). Once he was convinced that he hadn't been seen, he'd have retrieved the apron, dropped it at the foot of the entrance, and kept walking calmly back to his bolthole.

          Why did he choose the east entrance rather than the slightly nearer west entrance? Presumably to watch what happened from the safety of his room in Middlesex Street.

          Ike
          Iconoclast
          Author of the brilliant Society's Pillar
          Link: HistoryvsMaybrick – Dropbox
          Author of the even more brillianter Society's Pillar 2025 (available in all good browsers soon-ish)

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

            and why would he do that there is no evidence of him doing that on any of the other murders

            www.trevormarriott.co.uk
            Again you’re claiming to know how a serial killer would think. Maybe for the other murders he’d brought a piece of cloth with him but this time he’d forgotten it so he needed to improvise.
            Regards

            Sir Herlock Sholmes

            “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

              Where does it say it is accepted, there is nothing to show that the two pieces made up a full apron or were ever matched to make up a full apron

              www.trevormarriott.co.uk



              what are you talking about-they matched the apron piece from goulston street to the one she was wearing lol
              "Is all that we see or seem
              but a dream within a dream?"

              -Edgar Allan Poe


              "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
              quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

              -Frederick G. Abberline

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                what are you talking about-they matched the apron piece from goulston street to the one she was wearing lol
                who knows. as theories go, this one is nuttier than a squirrel in a heavily laden oak tree stocking up for the winter

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                  Again you’re claiming to know how a serial killer would think. Maybe for the other murders he’d brought a piece of cloth with him but this time he’d forgotten it so he needed to improvise.
                  and maybe one day a man will walk on the sun

                  www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                    and maybe one day a man will walk on the sun

                    www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                    So you’ve now hit the stage where you’re even prepared to state that a man couldn’t possibly forget something. That’s weak even for you Trevor.
                    Regards

                    Sir Herlock Sholmes

                    “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Aethelwulf View Post

                      who knows. as theories go, this one is nuttier than a squirrel in a heavily laden oak tree stocking up for the winter
                      Regards

                      Sir Herlock Sholmes

                      “It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into.”

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                        Where does it say it is accepted, there is nothing to show that the two pieces made up a full apron or were ever matched to make up a full apron

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk
                        Hi Trevor,

                        You might have missed this:

                        Daily News 5 Oct 1888 - Inquest - Dr Brown:
                        My attention was called to the apron which the woman was wearing. It was a portion of an apron cut, with the string attached to it (produced). The blood stains on it are recent. Dr. Phillips brought in a piece of apron found in Gouldstone street, which fits what is missing in the one found on the body.

                        Cheers, George
                        “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                        “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post

                          Neither of the pieces of apron were described as having cuts, or in my opinion sufficent stains of blood consistent with the frenzied attack on her abdomen in fact the mortuary piece did not have any blood stains on it at all.
                          Umm...
                          See George's post above

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by caz View Post
                            Afternoon All,

                            He must have had a very good reason not to dump it right there at the scene if he used it to wipe the worst of the muck off his hands.

                            I suspect most men would have been aware by 1888 that bandaging an open wound with a filthy, stinking piece of material like this was asking for it to go septic and do the hangman's job but more swiftly. This killer was back in business on 9th November.

                            Love,

                            Caz
                            X
                            Stopping the bleeding of a wound would seem to be a very good reason.

                            Long testified that one corner of the apron was wet with blood and Brown said there were stains consistent with wiping hands/knife. So with his hands in the body cavity he cuts a finger. The wound is already contaminated. He wipes the excess off the finger and uses the corner of the apron to bind the wound (the wet) and hold the apron so that he is then able to also wipe his hands/knife (the stains) on the remaining surface.

                            If the wound did turn septic and he died, we then have a reason why the serial killings stopped, and MJK was the victim of someone else. A search of hospital records, if they still existed, might be very revealing?

                            Cheers, George
                            “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                            “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

                              Again you’re claiming to know how a serial killer would think. Maybe for the other murders he’d brought a piece of cloth with him but this time he’d forgotten it so he needed to improvise.
                              Hi Herlock,

                              Or maybe he wasn't forgetful, but he used the cloth he bought with him to wipe his hands/knife in Church Passage and he discarded it after that?

                              Cheers, George
                              “Contrariwise,” continued Tweedledee, “if it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be but as it isn’t, it ain’t. That’s logic.”

                              “Oh, you can't help that,” said the Cat: “we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.” “How do you know I'm mad?” said Alice. “You must be,” said the Cat, or you wouldn't have come here.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by GBinOz View Post

                                Stopping the bleeding of a wound would seem to be a very good reason.

                                Long testified that one corner of the apron was wet with blood and Brown said there were stains consistent with wiping hands/knife. So with his hands in the body cavity he cuts a finger. The wound is already contaminated. He wipes the excess off the finger and uses the corner of the apron to bind the wound (the wet) and hold the apron so that he is then able to also wipe his hands/knife (the stains) on the remaining surface.

                                If the wound did turn septic and he died, we then have a reason why the serial killings stopped, and MJK was the victim of someone else. A search of hospital records, if they still existed, might be very revealing?

                                Cheers, George
                                Thats a big call Georgyboy , but i think its would be a will Goose chase .lol
                                'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are . If it doesn't agree with experiment, its wrong'' . Richard Feynman

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X