Apron placement as intimidation?

[Abby Normal]

In which case, why didn't he keep the apron as a trophy, or simply burn it or bury it in his bolt-hole? He could at least have stashed it for a little while, so why venture out again on the same night with incriminating evidence on his person, when he could bank on there being an increased police presence on the streets?

because he wanted to incriminate those pesky jews who kept interrupting him that night, who got a good look at him, and were going to be shortly giving his description to the police.

[c.d.]

Hello Abby,

I posted this previously in response but I think it might have somehow got lost in the shuffle.

This statement assumes a couple of things which may or may not be true. First, that Schwartz was telling the truth. And even if he was, there is the possibility that the B.S. man was just some drunk on his way home and not Jack.

As for Lawende and his friends, it assumes that Jack was aware that he was being looked at so much so that he was able to determine that they were Jewish. If so, it then begs the question of why he would go on to kill Eddowes so soon after being seen.

c.d.

[Abby Normal]

Hello Abby,

I posted this previously in response but I think it might have somehow got lost in the shuffle.

This statement assumes a couple of things which may or may not be true. First, that Schwartz was telling the truth. And even if he was, there is the possibility that the B.S. man was just some drunk on his way home and not Jack.

As for Lawende and his friends, it assumes that Jack was aware that he was being looked at so much so that he was able to determine that they were Jewish. If so, it then begs the question of why he would go on to kill Eddowes so soon after being seen.

c.d.

Hi CD
I believe Schwartz was telling the truth and BS man was jack.

and lawende and company sighting wasn't enough to stop him from killing eddowes-as long as they were all strangers.

[c.d.]

Strangers or not, they could still identify him could they not as in give the police a description?

c.d.

[Wickerman]

In which case, why didn't he keep the apron as a trophy, or simply burn it or bury it in his bolt-hole? He could at least have stashed it for a little while, so why venture out again on the same night with incriminating evidence on his person, when he could bank on there being an increased police presence on the streets?

I wouldn't want a trophy with poop all over it

[Sam Flynn]

because he wanted to incriminate those pesky jews who kept interrupting him that night, who got a good look at him, and were going to be shortly giving his description to the police.

Why couldn't he have done that on his way home? He could have just slung the apron into the doorway of a Jewish dwelling, which would have sufficed as a "plant", surely, without also writing the graffito.

[Sam Flynn]

I wouldn't want a trophy with poop all over it

Smell, they say, brings back the fondest of memories

[Sam Flynn]

Hi CD
I believe Schwartz was telling the truth and BS man was jack.

Nah! Stride wasn't killed by Jack. Even if she were, it's extremely unlikely that he'd have felt in danger of being recognised by some random Jew who'd wandered past for a few fleeting moments in the dark.

[Wickerman]

but surely it would have been quicker, safer and more efficient to just drop the apron at goulston st. right after he left mitre square and skidaddle home right?

Are you suggesting he didn't want the organs?

I mean he still has the incriminating evidence of the bloody apron with him even if he unloads the organs at home and heads back out, no?

I don't think incriminating evidence was his concern.
The knife is always there even after he throws away the apron.
One thing about blood is, you can't wipe it off.

This is not a case of touching blood then wiping it off.
This killer had his hands in contact with blood for several minutes, after several minutes just try to wipe it off, both your hands and a metal object like the knife.
Everything is sticky, whatever had blood on it for several minutes remains sticky, so any policeman doing a search will see straight away that this mans hands & his knife are sticky.

Busted!

[Abby Normal]

Strangers or not, they could still identify him could they not as in give the police a description?

c.d.

Maybe. Maybe not. He has his victim right where he wanted her. There brief sighting of a stranger wasn't enough in his mind to deter him from his goal.

And perhaps the gsg was his way to get back at them anyway.

[Abby Normal]

Why couldn't he have done that on his way home? He could have just slung the apron into the doorway of a Jewish dwelling, which would have sufficed as a "plant", surely, without also writing the graffito.

Not enough in his mind I think. He needed to get the word in there too.

[Abby Normal]

Nah! Stride wasn't killed by Jack. Even if she were, it's extremely unlikely that he'd have felt in danger of being recognised by some random Jew who'd wandered past for a few fleeting moments in the dark.

I think it was a combination of being pissed off at them and also throwing police off... in the Jews direction.

[Abby Normal]

Are you suggesting he didn't want the organs?



I don't think incriminating evidence was his concern.
The knife is always there even after he throws away the apron.
One thing about blood is, you can't wipe it off.

This is not a case of touching blood then wiping it off.
This killer had his hands in contact with blood for several minutes, after several minutes just try to wipe it off, both your hands and a metal object like the knife.
Everything is sticky, whatever had blood on it for several minutes remains sticky, so any policeman doing a search will see straight away that this mans hands & his knife are sticky.

Busted!

are you suggesting that the bloody half of the victims apron in his possession isn't incriminating?

[Robert St Devil]

is it 10 minutes from mitre square to wentworth 108-119??

whittington-egan put a crimp in the PC Spicer story, wickerman; honestly, he did seem a bit naivé, and never learned that even reputable men can have disreputable moments. still i get the drift if im to understand that, without knowing his motivation, who knows what the rippers plans for that night were... 2, 3, 4,...

PC Spicer did say that he was walking backwards that nite, which is in line with the other reports. would the constable still have been in goulston street if we go with the "jack the ripper ditches the apron" scenario, considering he may have been by that doorway on his walk-arounds at 1:50a?

[Wickerman]

are you suggesting that the bloody half of the victims apron in his possession isn't incriminating?

No, what I meant was that even if he did throw the apron away after leaving the square, his hands and his knife are incriminating him, sticky fingers, blood in his fingernails and the pores of his skin.
At the very least he would be greeted by a firm, "Come with me sir", if stopped.