piece of apron

[c.d.]

Hello Jason. Good observations.

But at least, the apron is real enough.

My problem is now, and ever been, WHY is that apron piece so far away? Ideas?

"I think when you apply simple logic things do look a lot clearer."

Shhh, "Jack the Ripper" himself might go away then. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

The killer (ah what the heck, I'll just say Jack) might have cut himself and used it to stop the bleeding or to clean his hands. He might also have taken it as a souvenir. If the former, he might have run off not even realizing that he still had it in his hands and dropped it when he became aware of it. If the latter, at some point, he may have decided that this was a really bad idea and got rid of it as he was heading home. Just some ideas.

c.d.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Hello DLDW. Good reasoning.

Yes, it looks like the killer is the natural choice for apron deposit; however, it would not be natural to hold onto the cloth for so long.

Cheers.
LC

Might that not depend upon the reason for taking it? Or simple opportunity perhaps? I'm happy you didn't say a dog placed it there. Don't think my sanity could take it currently.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Lynn.

Why should the apron be any closer or further away from where it was?

[lynn cates]

hold on

Hello DLDW. Good reasoning.

Yes, it looks like the killer is the natural choice for apron deposit; however, it would not be natural to hold onto the cloth for so long.

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo pinkmoon.

The two points I was trying to make the communications would have had much more impact if there was no doubt they were genuine.Also it wouldn't have been that hard for the killer to do that .I will agree with you that Liz stride might not have been ripper victim

I know what you are getting at. You used the "L" word. I was compulsed to break it down some. I would bring up the point that it may have been the killer's intent to not provide certainty.

[lynn cates]

logic

Hello Jason. Good observations.

But at least, the apron is real enough.

My problem is now, and ever been, WHY is that apron piece so far away? Ideas?

"I think when you apply simple logic things do look a lot clearer."

Shhh, "Jack the Ripper" himself might go away then. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[pinkmoon]

The two points I was trying to make the communications would have had much more impact if there was no doubt they were genuine.Also it wouldn't have been that hard for the killer to do that .I will agree with you that Liz stride might not have been ripper victim

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo pinkmoon.

Our murderer has just killed one woman nearly been caught red handed and has headed of looking for another victim.On murdering another victim and removing her kidney in a dark court yard which police patrol regularly he decides to chalk a strange message and places part of the victims apron underneath the message to prove its genuine.Later on our killer sends the kidney and a nasty letter to a nice man whos trying to help catch him .Why if this message is so important to the killer (and it must have been because it's delaying his time to escape ) does he not do something to prove beyond doubt it's from him.Surely it would take a few seconds to scrawl something like "just killed two" or draw a line pointing down to apron .Also why didn't he keep a small piece of apron and send it with kidney surely they can be no doubt then it's from him.The obvious conclusion is killer didn't write message or send the kidney I think when you apply simple logic things do look a lot clearer

The problem is the number of assumptions being made here. So logically it is not as sound as it might appear to be.

1. We do not know if Stride was murdered by the same individual who killed Eddowes.

2. We do not know, if indeed it was the same killer, that he set out to find another victim. Could have been just going home or distancing himself from Berner Street and an opportunity presented itself.

3. We do not know the GSG was written by the killer hence we can not be sure it was placed under it intentionally.

4. We can not be perfectly certain the apron was placed there by the killer. Although it is probably the most likely possiblity to anything else. May be the one thing here we can be the most certain of.

5. If the killer did scrawl the GSG we do not know that it delayed his escape. He could have already escaped and then returned to deposit the apron and write the message. He could have lived close by. There is a time descrepancy if one is to take the PC who was on patrol word.

6. We do not know that the message was of any importance to the killer if he did write it. Could simply be a matter of distraction.


7. Why should the killer, if he did write the message, leave the apron, and send the kidney, care to prove the kidney was genuine? He knew it was.

Hope this is helpful in some way.

[pinkmoon]

Our murderer has just killed one woman nearly been caught red handed and has headed of looking for another victim.On murdering another victim and removing her kidney in a dark court yard which police patrol regularly he decides to chalk a strange message and places part of the victims apron underneath the message to prove its genuine.Later on our killer sends the kidney and a nasty letter to a nice man whos trying to help catch him .Why if this message is so important to the killer (and it must have been because it's delaying his time to escape ) does he not do something to prove beyond doubt it's from him.Surely it would take a few seconds to scrawl something like "just killed two" or draw a line pointing down to apron .Also why didn't he keep a small piece of apron and send it with kidney surely they can be no doubt then it's from him.The obvious conclusion is killer didn't write message or send the kidney I think when you apply simple logic things do look a lot clearer