piece of apron

[El White Chap]

Hello (again) Thomas. Thanks.

"That doesn't take much of a LEAP of logic for me if I'm honest."

But it takes a good bit of explanation. He needs to be ESPECIALLY slow.

Cheers.
LC

1.35am last sighting of Eddowes with unknown male Church passage
1.45am Eddowes found murdered
2.20am P.C. Alfred Long walks past Wentworth dwellings without noticing anything in the archway, neither GSG or piece of apron.
2.55am GSG and piece of apron found, more than an hour after Eddowes is found murdered and mutilated.


This would suggest 4 possibilities:
1. The ripper hid in the area/close to the area between Mitre Square and GS. That there was some safehouse/hideout available.
2. Returned to the area within the 1hour+ to leave the apron there.
Seemingly unlikely and illogical given the police presence at risk levels.
3. It was planted by a third party. Enter the many conspiracy theories...
4. The apron was in the archway of the Wentworth dwellings much earlier than it was found and was overlooked during that time.

Are there anymore realistic/solid possibilities? No animal theories please!

[lynn cates]

Hope springs eternal . . .

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"Ah at last we agree on something!"

Indeed. Perhaps some day you will agree with me that Kate's killer was a cunning and calculating chap trying to pass off Kate's demise with the first two killings.

Cheers.
LC

[Monty]

Tests based on descriptions, I'd be a bit weary about those. Experiments based on inexactitudes can and are most likely to be awfully flawed.

Blood will dry with relative quickness, possibly in a matter of minutes. But other such bodily fluids? Faecal etc are a whole different ball game. Might I add these were also said to be found on said apron piece.

I like you El....you can stay.

Monty

[lynn cates]

slow

Hello (again) Thomas. Thanks.

"That doesn't take much of a LEAP of logic for me if I'm honest."

But it takes a good bit of explanation. He needs to be ESPECIALLY slow.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

pointed remark

Hello Thomas. Thanks.

". . .how do we not know the ripper hadn't already gotten rid of the apron piece inside/closer to Mitre Square, and it was then moved all that way by a third party?"

But that is my WHOLE point.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

matter

Hello Trevor.

"On a footnote blood on a persons hands when exposed to the atmosphere will dry on its own in a matter of minutes. The actual time will depend on the temperature of the persons body and the external elements."

Quite. But the stain remains.

Of course, faeculent matter will still be there.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

alternates

Hello Thomas. Thanks.

"Piece of Eddowes's apron ends up a few streets down/couple minutes walk from the scene of her murder, but can't have been put there by the ripper?"

Can't? That's a grave level of modal involvement. "Unlikely" strikes me as more suitable.

"C'mon, let's not rule it out, especially as there is nothing to prove otherwise."

A "proof" is deductive; we are doing induction. And I do not rule it out. But if the cloth is to wipe hands, it should be completed LONG before Goulston.

"Hypothesising that piece of apron was planted there by the another hand to create an impact next to the GSG is only opening 'more cans of worms'. Maybe it was Rebecca Brooks and The News Of The World?"

Haven't met her. But I am open to alternate suggestions. Have any?

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks for posting that.

"Now take a look at the results as shown in the photo even despite the lack of oxygenated blood the cloth is heavily blood stained."

I would describe that as wet--but mostly with serum/plasma. In fact, consonant with one of the descriptions.

However, I agree that the piece were not used for organ transportation.

Cheers.
LC

Ah at last we agree on something !

[Trevor Marriott]

Tests based on descriptions, I'd be a bit weary about those. Experiments based on inexactitudes can and are most likely to be awfully flawed.

Blood will dry with relative quickness, possibly in a matter of minutes. But other such bodily fluids? Faecal etc are a whole different ball game. Might I add these were also said to be found on said apron piece.

You are correct they were they were but not all in one place which is where you might expect to find them if the killer had wiped his hands blood and faecal matter mixed in. Again the apron piece was not described in that way.

Note the apron piece was also described as also being wet now how did it get wet under the archway?

I have discussed these issues many time on here and I say that if you want to believe the old theory that the killer did all of these things with the apron piece then so be it. But don't be to dismissive of the results of new researche and new theories on the topic.

[lynn cates]

wet

Hello Trevor. Thanks for posting that.

"Now take a look at the results as shown in the photo even despite the lack of oxygenated blood the cloth is heavily blood stained."

I would describe that as wet--but mostly with serum/plasma. In fact, consonant with one of the descriptions.

However, I agree that the piece were not used for organ transportation.

Cheers.
LC

[El White Chap]

But it MAY be a leap of logic.

Hello Lynn. It's a distinct possibility, it simply cannot be ruled out, that the apron was left in GS by the ripper himself.

That doesn't take much of a LEAP of logic for me if I'm honest.

[lynn cates]

leap

Hello Thomas.

"Carrying a piece of apron concealed on one's person from Mitre Square north a few streets is hardly a leap of magic."

Quite. But it MAY be a leap of logic.

Cheers.
LC

[El White Chap]

Yes, BUT, he should have gotten rid of the cloth earlier.

Hi Lynn. Going on what you said earlier, you seem to be more than open to the possibility it was planted in GS by someone else. On that train of thought, how do we not know the ripper hadn't already gotten rid of the apron piece inside/closer to Mitre Square, and it was then moved all that way by a third party? Having already hinted toward that scenario beforehand.

[lynn cates]

one bifurcation

Hello DLDW. Thanks.

"It's just simpler that way."

Indeed. But it is still quite ambiguous. In the main it could mean:

1. You Jews won't take any blame.

2. If we Jews are to be blamed, then here is something to blame us for.

Notice that, in these two alone, we have one by a Gentile; one by a Jewish person.

Not terribly concise or helpful.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

intuitive

Hello Jon. Thanks.

"Indeed it should, and I cannot see a murderer standing under a lamp, for all the world to see & identify, while wiping blood stains of himself."

Nor yet I.

"There is something counter-intuitive about that."

And this is the BEST way to put it. Trained intuitions are the way to go.

"Isn't it far more likely he took the darkest route staying away from lighted areas, especially lampposts."

Yes, BUT, he should have gotten rid of the cloth earlier.

Cheers.
LC