The GSG - Did Jack write it? POLL

[Harry D]

And if he did carry the organs in the apron what do we think he did with the organs when he took them out and dropped the apron in the entrance way of Goulston st . Put them in his pocket ?

One theory is that he returned the organs to his bolthole before coming out to drop the apron. This would explain why it wasn't there at 2:20am.

[FISHY1118]

If its being suggested that the apron piece was only used to wipe the killers knife and hands ,and that the organs weren't carried away in the apron . Then yes ,why didn't the killer just do it at mitre square . And if he did carry the organs in the apron what do we think he did with the organs when he took them out and dropped the apron in the entrance way of Goulston st . Put them in his pocket ? .

Or maybe the killer used the blood stained apron knowing the police would know it was from eddoews, to draw attention [ for whatever reason] to the graffiti on the wall which was found just above the apron . For without the apron, the graffiti would have had no relevance or importants . The police of the day certainly believed it was written by the killer. Just my thoughts

[Trevor Marriott]

Not to put too fine a point on it, $hit sticks, and perhaps he did try to wipe most of it off at the scene... on Eddowes' exposed intestines. That would explain how the faeces got smeared over them.



I'd have thought that a towel-sized piece of cloth would have been precisely what he needed.



Not all of it, but it would have smelt a whole lot worse to begin with. A good scrub with a "towel" in a concealed doorway, doubtless with some handy puddles of water nearby after the heavy rain, would have shifted most of the offending material.

You are in la la land, you really want do believe in this old accepted theory. A good scrub, there is no evidence to suggest that happened, and besides he could have done that long before he got to Goulston Street, and why carry incriminating evidence any further than is necessary?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

It would take less than five seconds to cut a piece of cloth with a sharp knife. He'd have had plenty of time, whether he was disturbed by Harvey or not.

Rubbish, if you were carrying out a murder, and you saw and heard someone coming you would not stop to cut a piece of material from an apron. which incidentally would have been underneath many other garments which had been lifted up above the waist

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Sam Flynn]

Wouldn't it have been just as easy and quick to just wipe the hands and knife at the crime scene

Not to put too fine a point on it, $hit sticks, and perhaps he did try to wipe most of it off at the scene... on Eddowes' exposed intestines. That would explain how the faeces got smeared over them.

Why cut a bigger portion of material than was needed?

I'd have thought that a towel-sized piece of cloth would have been precisely what he needed.

Would the smell have also been wiped away if the faeces had been fresh?

Not all of it, but it would have smelt a whole lot worse to begin with. A good scrub with a "towel" in a concealed doorway, doubtless with some handy puddles of water nearby after the heavy rain, would have shifted most of the offending material.

[Sam Flynn]

Not if he were disturbed by Harvey he would not have had time

It would take less than five seconds to cut a piece of cloth with a sharp knife. He'd have had plenty of time, whether he was disturbed by Harvey or not.

[harry]

Wouldn't it have been just as easy and quick to just wipe the hands and knife at the crime scene,and take one or two bits of the other cloths if felt necessary.Why cut a bigger portion of material than was needed? Perhaps the found apron piece did contain wet blood,but was the faeces moist or dry? Would the smell have also been wiped away if the faeces had been fresh?How to get rid of that if concealment was intended?

[Trevor Marriott]

A woman is found cut open and blood-soaked in Mitre Square, with her colon cut out and faeces smeared over her entrails. Faeces don't "smear" themselves - they need to be smeared. One or both of the killer's hands would almost certainly have been contaminated with faeces and blood, and it would have been sensible to wipe away this incriminating evidence before someone noticed it. This alone would be reason enough to cut himself a piece of cloth, whether it was used to carry the organs or not.

Not if he were disturbed by Harvey he would not have had time,and I would suggest as I have done previously both sides of the piece would have been stained in some way, and he didn’t even need to cut a piece to do that he could have done that on her clothing.

you can’t have it both ways ! This murder is the most interesting but it is the murder with the most flaws both in the evidence and all the theories about the apron piece and the graffiti

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

, what was the point in him cutting or tearing it and taking the piece away?

It’s not relevant to my post to ponder why he did it, the fact remains that he did.

But of course for him to have done any of that she would need to have been wearing an apron at the time of her death, and that is questionable, as is the conflicting evidence used to support the belief that she was

The evidence is not conflicting and it’s not a belief.
At present my posts were, however, not about that, but merely trying to learn from Simon Wood what he considered mysterious about Halse and others hearing about Long’s find.

[Sam Flynn]

if you accept as i do that based on medical tests etc, that the organs could not have been carried away in the apron piece or that the killer did not wipe his bloody hands or his knife on the apron piece, what was the point in him cutting or tearing it and taking the piece away?

A woman is found cut open and blood-soaked in Mitre Square, with her colon cut out and faeces smeared over her entrails. Faeces don't "smear" themselves - they need to be smeared. One or both of the killer's hands would almost certainly have been contaminated with faeces and blood, and it would have been sensible to wipe away this incriminating evidence before someone noticed it. This alone would be reason enough to cut himself a piece of cloth, whether it was used to carry the organs or not.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Simon, you're no salesman, that's for sure



The apron also existed before part of it went missing, only to be discovered later.
PC Long discovered a bloodstained rag, made of calico. Referring to it as a portion of apron is merely an anachronism.
Prior to the main piece of apron being discovered on the body, that half of it was apparently missing the cloth Long found was unidentifiable.

There's really nothing to be gained by making a mystery of something that is quite straightforward.

Nothing is straight forward in Ripperology if you accept as i do that based on medical tests etc, that the organs could not have been carried away in the apron piece or that the killer did not wipe his bloody hands or his knife on the apron piece, what was the point in him cutting or tearing it and taking the piece away?

But of course for him to have done any of that she would need to have been wearing an apron at the time of her death, and that is questionable, as is the conflicting evidence used to support the belief that she was.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Kattrup]

The piece of apron was taken into evidence by PC Long before anyone knew it was missing or even evidential. It's quite a trick.

Long found what he believed to be evidence of a recently committed violent crime. He searched the surroundings and took the cloth back to the station.
It was later in the night determined that he had been right: it was in fact evidence of a murder committed that very night.

In what way is that a trick?

What do you think happened, Simon?

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make

Jon's point was, as he said, straightforward. Whether it was a piece of calico apron or not, he'd found a cloth smeared in faeces and blood, some of it still wet. Enough in itself to raise suspicion, in the heart of a part of London beset with bloody murders on the streets, for which reason Long had been drafted in to police said streets.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Jon,

Sorry, I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

Eddowes had a chemise made from calico.

Are you certain about the apron?

Regards,

Simon

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I am under no obligation to carry any sort of burden. You'll learn that once you've written a book.

Hi Simon, you're no salesman, that's for sure

Archaeologically speaking, all these artifacts existed at one time or another, but then went missing, only to be unearthed later.

The piece of apron was taken into evidence by PC Long before anyone knew it was missing or even evidential. It's quite a trick.

The apron also existed before part of it went missing, only to be discovered later.
PC Long discovered a bloodstained rag, made of calico. Referring to it as a portion of apron is merely an anachronism.
Prior to the main piece of apron being discovered on the body, that half of it was apparently missing the cloth Long found was unidentifiable.

There's really nothing to be gained by making a mystery of something that is quite straightforward.