Apron placement as intimidation?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=ohrocky;420850]

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

Since the location had an advantage: the dado.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

In the National Archives in Kew and in the California Digital Library.

Regards, Pierre

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

[Sam Flynn]

If only I was Sherlock Holmes instead of Herlock Sholmes!

Don't underestimate yourself. He's probably thinking the same thing.

[Bridewell]

Would be appreciated if you could direct me to the sources that have led you to conclude that the fabric was not discarded but "placed there".

Thank you

I take it that you're asking Pierre and not me?

[Herlock Sholmes]

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

I'm certainly unaware of these sources. You read the evidence and make you're choice. I tend toward placed but I could be wrong. If only I was Sherlock Holmes instead of Herlock Sholmes!

Regards
Herlock

[ohrocky]

Hi Ohrocky

Just from my own point of view the alternatives 'discarded' or 'placed'. I'd say that there's no definate way of deciding which was the case.

For me it's down to what reason we accept for Jack removing the cloth from Mitre Square in the first place. If someone believes that it was just to wipe his knife or hands, or to bandage a cut then it could have been just discarded. If he took away body parts it seems likely to me that it was placed. Alternatively of course he could have taken it away purely to signpost a message that he intended to leave. Or as some kind of intimidation as has been recently postulated.

Regards
Herlock

I certainly do not disagree with you.

But Pierre has says that "the sources" have told him that the piece of cloth was "placed" there. This suggests that it was a deliberate, conscious act to place the piece at precisely that location. Pierre's "sources" also tell us that it was not "discarded" which I take to mean being recklessly just thrown away with no consideration of the location.

I just want to know where I can find Pierre's "source" that has led him to that conclusion.

(Just between you and I Herlock, I do not believe Pierre's source for this assertion actually exists as I am sure that I would have been aware of it by now. We shall see!)

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Ohrocky

Just from my own point of view the alternatives 'discarded' or 'placed'. I'd say that there's no definate way of deciding which was the case.

For me it's down to what reason we accept for Jack removing the cloth from Mitre Square in the first place. If someone believes that it was just to wipe his knife or hands, or to bandage a cut then it could have been just discarded. If he took away body parts it seems likely to me that it was placed. Alternatively of course he could have taken it away purely to signpost a message that he intended to leave. Or as some kind of intimidation as has been recently postulated.

Regards
Herlock

[ohrocky]

[QUOTE=Pierre;420306]

It was not discarded but placed there.

This is my understanding of the sources about a piece of fabric.

Cheers, Pierre

Would be appreciated if you could direct me to the sources that have led you to conclude that the fabric was not discarded but "placed there".

Thank you

[Herlock Sholmes]

Surely it was far too soon for him to make that assertion?

You're probably right there Harry. But I think it's just possible. Maybe. Slightly.

Regards
Herlock

[Mark Adam]

[QUOTE=Pierre;401805]

Wrong. Learn this, Fisherman, and everyone else here:

1) A handwritten paper from an inquest is a primary source. A transcription from such a source is not a secondary source but a transcribed primary source which can be compared to the handwritten source.

2) An article is edited. It is composed using handwritten primary sources for what journalists thought and wrote. Its position as primary or secondary can therefore be extermely difficult to determine.

3) Both primary sources in handwriting or transcription and edited material can be narrative sources. But the narrative in edited material is less reliable than the narrative in non edited material.

4) There is a source hierarchy. A clerk at an inquest has no interest in the process but journalists from various newspapers may have specific interests in the issues presented. Therefore the source produced by the clerk is more reliable.

Do not again give us the very ignorant an uneducated idea that newspaper articles per definition are "correct primary sources".

Pierre

... and who are you to be able to teach anyone here........?????
...AHHHHHH I know the still uncredited and unproven historian
or as i would call it
THE MOST ANNOYING LOUDMOUTH AROUND HERE.....even more annyoing than Trevor .... *brrrrrrrr*:

[Harry D]

Jack could have been saying : there's even been a murdered women found in the yard of a Jewish club yet the Jews still seem immune from blame.

Surely it was far too soon for him to make that assertion?

[Bridewell]

Hi Bridewell,

Good questions!

It would not be known in the press.

Are you saying that the finding of the piece of apron elsewhere than the stairwell would not have come to the attention of the press? If so why?

It would not be connected to the GSG.

This assumes that there ever was a connection.

It was not discarded but placed there.

What is your evidence for this?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The Whitechapel police would have been keen to avoid stirring up any anti-seamitic feeling. And anti-hemitism, for that matter.

Herlock

[Sam Flynn]

I was secretly thinking, "Now this is the WHOLE PROBLEM! These male police officers didn't know the difference between a SEAM and a g@ddamn HEM!!"

The Whitechapel police would have been keen to avoid stirring up any anti-seamitic feeling. And anti-hemitism, for that matter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all

There are a few reasons why the killer could have dumped/placed the apron in the doorway.

I've never liked the suggestion that he could have used it to wipe his knife though. Surely it would have been far simpler and quicker to wipe the blade in situ without wasting valuable time in cutting away a fairly sizeable section of cloth. This would have also incurred the added risk of finding a spot to clean his knife as opposed to doing it in 3 seconds in the dark seclusion of Mitre Square.

Serial killers, as we know, often take souvenirs. But in this case the obvious, and difficult question would be, why discard it?

The 'bandage' solution is an interesting and possible one. The only question that I would ask is; to require that size of cloth it must have been quite a nasty cut. Would it therefore have stopped bleeding by the time Jack got from Mitre Square to Goulston Street? This 'solution' would also speak of a random discarding rather than a signpost to the chalked message.

The other option is that he used it to wrap body parts. I'd be interested to hear opinions on this one. As has been mentioned this one would definately imply that Jack wrote the message as he would have had to go 'home' to store/hide the body parts and then go back out to discard/place the cloth. He didn't need to do this as he would not have expected a police search of his room/house. He could have burnt it in the grate or slipped out the next day and chucked it over a fence somewhere.

The placing of the cloth could have been an act of intimidation as could the graffito. Jack could have been saying : there's even been a murdered women found in the yard of a Jewish club yet the Jews still seem immune from blame.

It this distance of time will we ever really know?

Regards

Herlock

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Bridewell;419692]

The idea that the piece of apron was placed where it was as an act of intimidation is interesting but not without problems of its own.

Hi Bridewell,

Good questions!

If you wanted to intimidate an individual or a particular family why would you not leave it on the doorstep or even through a letter box?

It would not be known in the press.

If you wanted to intimidate all the residents of the Dwellings, most of whom were Jewish, why would you not leave it on the stairs where it couldn't be missed, rather than in the stairwell where it might not be seen for days or before the GSG (assuming relevance) was obliterated?

It would not be connected to the GSG.

Various theories have been postulated as to why the killer took this item but I think, with one possible exception, that the consensus view is that it was the killer who took it.

Why, having taken it, did he discard it?

It was not discarded but placed there.

Did he do so at a time of his own choosing, (in which case the choice of location may be highly significant)?

It was a good place to put it. The dado was black. The dado was not too high up.

Did he discard it because it had served its purpose (e.g. because he had cut himself and the bleeding had stopped) - in which case the location was probably random.

It had not served its purpose but it would serve its purpose.

Did he discard it, not because he wanted to, but because he thought he had to?

The same thing.

In that case the location is relevant IMHO only insofar as it might identify the compelling factor.

If a factor is A, then the action is a and not b.

Personally I think the possibility of his having sustained an injury himself and used a piece of apron to stem the blood flow to be not without merit. There is also the possibility that he used it to wipe the blade of his knife - which would explain the presence of blood and faeces. Whatever the reason, while he retained a piece of the Eddowes apron he kept a metaphorical noose around his neck because being caught with it in his possession would surely have hanged him.

No. It was cut away.

This is my understanding of the sources about a piece of fabric.

Cheers, Pierre