piece of apron

[Wickerman]

I tend to agree the killer, if we are indeed dealing with just one of course, came prepared. His method is quite organized. One might even say methodical. So yes, I see it very likely he brought "storage". I am still not convinced the killer would have to be all that messy though. The notion of gloves doesn't seem too far fetched if he can plan ahead so to speak. And he has learned something from the Chapman murder. Might also explain some of the "sloppiness" with Eddowes.

Quite, whether he was messy enough to need wiping down is also an assumption, apart from his hands being bloody, I would say not.
I was told Chapman's scarf was missing, I never did look into that point. So, possibly that was also what he used to wrap her uterus in?

[Wickerman]

Accept it you and all the others over the years who have subscribed to this theory have now been proved wrong

On the contrary, the stained cloth you posted is precisely what we should expect to see.

And I will later post a pic of kidney after removal to prove you wrong yet again

The only blood associated with a kidney is what surrounds it when you remove it, and due to the fatty membrane blood does not stay on the kidney.

Test what happens to blood when you drip it on to fat Trevor.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon.

"A rather long way to carry it don't you think?
Also, for a man to be seen running through the streets away from a crime scene is one matter, but to be actively wiping his hands & clothes at the same time would project a memorable sight to any casual passer-by.

Being caught carrying a bloodstained rag is an immediate clue to culpability."

Yet another reason to believe that the piece should be near one of the three entrances to Mitre sq.

Cheers.
LC

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.
There is something counter-intuitive about that.

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

[lynn cates]

not certain

Hello Jason.

"How certain were the police that the message wasn't already in existence before the murder?"

Not certain at all.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"Why? He could have done that before he left the scene on her clothes no need to cut a piece off."

True enough. But we all, on occasion, do things the difficult way, yet later regret it. (Some of us are married. heh-heh)

"And has already been said why would he be walking down the road wiping his hands with incriminating evidence."

Well, not far beyond the exit. By the way, with your flair for research and re-enactment, why not have a go at the scenario I suggested? That could give an answer to how far he'd need to wipe.

"It wouldnt have taken him that long to wipe his hands and he could have got rid of the piece long before Goulston St."

Absolutely. We agree that there is no reason for the piece to be there.

"Beside wiping bloody hands on the cloth would have left the cloth much for stained than is described."

But the description is quite ambiguous.

"And the cruncher. How could he cut a piece of her apron off when she wasn't wearing one?"

The coppers said otherwise.

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

How certain were the police that the message wasn't already in existence before murder I remember reading that two policemans beats crossed over just by where message was and I think that was main reason why they assumed it was a recent message

[pinkmoon]

If my memory serves me right and I might be wrong here didn't I read something in one of my many books years ago that police officer who discovered message and apron was sacked for drinking on duty two years later.Also I think the story implied he received money from newspaper for his story

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. It makes sense that he wished to wipe his hands with a piece of cloth.

The cloth turning up on Goulston, however, makes no sense.

Agreed halfway?

Cheers.
LC

Why. he could have done that before he left the scene on her clothes no need to cut a piece off.

And has already been said why would he be walking down the road wiping his hands with incriminating evidence.

It wouldnt have taken him that long to wipe his hands and he could have got rid of the piece long before Goulston St.

Beside wiping bloody hands on the cloth would have left the cloth much for stained than is described.

And the cruncher. How could he cut a piece of her apron off when she wasn't wearing one

[lynn cates]

plant

Hello Jason. Thanks.

The best exit for that location would be Church Passage. But if the killer exited there, he should have run bang into PC Harvey, right?

But, even so, he is walking all that way with the cloth? Don't think so.

Looks more like someone trying to "plant" evidence. What do you think?

Cheers.
LC

[El White Chap]

Hello EWC. Thanks.

"Whoever killed Eddowes took the piece of her apron with him all that way to Goulston Street from Mitre Square"

Can't agree. But I CAN accept that the killer cut the piece initially.

Cheers.
LC

Cheers Lynn. What exactly, makes you suspect that piece of apron turning up a few roads away from where Kate was murdered was not the killers doing? I'm interested to hear how you would otherwise account for it landing there.

[lynn cates]

Es ist ganz verboten.

Hello Jason. Thanks.

"[P]lease nobody mention masons and royal coaches and William Gull please."

I forbid it. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

1/2

Hello Trevor. It makes sense that he wished to wipe his hands with a piece of cloth.

The cloth turning up on Goulston, however, makes no sense.

Agreed halfway?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo pinkmoon.

Lynn my dear I still think my original point is still valid it wouldn't have been very hard to leave no doubt that the message was genuine.Don't forget he's done the really hard bit my committing at least one murder and removing organs just a little bit more effort and he's got even more attention after all what's he writing message for if not for attention....please no body mention masons and royal coaches and William Gull please

That might be the only theory you are safe from. At least one removed is something, right?

[pinkmoon]

Lynn my dear I still think my original point is still valid it wouldn't have been very hard to leave no doubt that the message was genuine.Don't forget he's done the really hard bit my committing at least one murder and removing organs just a little bit more effort and he's got even more attention after all what's he writing message for if not for attention....please no body mention masons and royal coaches and William Gull please

[Trevor Marriott]

Thanks for the pic. I do wonder if the cloth might be less bloody if the person the uterus came from was already dead from a severed carotid artery and had been drained of much of their blood. The pic does illustrate how potentially messy just the uterus could've been. Now put the uterus and kidney in the same carrying device, possibly cloth itself, and then wrap the apron around it. Is that implausible? I know your stance on the organ removal business. I'll let you go into that at your leasure. Thanks again.

One pic is worth a thousand words and no matter how many pics are put before those who want to beleive the killer carried the organs way in they will not accept otherwise.
I set out to prove or disprove this theory in an unbiased way
That excercise I say again clearly shows the killer did not take away the organs in
Further tests also show he didn't wipe his hands on it or his knife.

So there has to be alternative explanation for the apron piece turning up on gs