Would a Doctor or a Policeman participate in major crimes such as these?

[Herlock Sholmes]

Yes, you have checked it and you disregard it that's fine, but you won't even consider or accept the additional evidence that I seek to rely on which creates doubt about the old accepted theory that the killer cut a piece of her apron and deposited it in GS. Police officers' evidence should not be readily accepted as gospel just because they are police officers, especially from what we know about some of their antics.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have considered it and I’m guessing that pretty much everyone interested in the case has considered it at some point and it just doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that an ‘old established theory’ as you call them just might be old and established for good reason. That it best fits the known facts.

[Fiver]

This suggestion of him cutting himself cannot be dismissed however if the killer's hands were both covered in blood when he cut a piece of the apron I would expect to see traces of blood on both sides of the GS piece because he would have to have used one of his bloody hands to wrap the apron piece around the cut.

You are making some assumptions here.
* That the killer would not have cut himself with one of his first cuts.
* That both of the killer's hands would have blood on them.
* That both his hands would be covered in blood.
* That there was blood on only one side of the apron.
* That the killer wrapped the apron piece around the wound instead of pressing it against the wound.
* That the killer did not fold the apron.

[Trevor Marriott]

I have considered it and I’m guessing that pretty much everyone interested in the case has considered it at some point and it just doesn’t hold water. There’s nothing wrong with accepting that an ‘old established theory’ as you call them just might be old and established for good reason. That it best fits the known facts.

It may fit the accepted facts but it has been proven that those old accepted facts do not stand up to close scrutiny. You only have to look at what has been discussed on this thread on this one topic alone and you must see that there are flaws in those accepted facts, you have tried desperately to prop up this part of the case by introducing gloves and overcoats taking coats off and putting coats back on and folding of the apron piece to avoid blood stains.

Was the man seen standing at the entrance to Miter Square wearing an overcoat?

and you have the cheek to call my theories unbelievable?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fiver]

Long did say that the apron wasn’t there so there has to be reasonable chance that it wasn’t but……and yes there’s always a but….can we be at all certain that Long wasn’t covering his own a**e? If he hadn’t actually checked the doorway properly at 2.20 he might have said that it wasn’t there just to show that he’d been diligent in his duty. Of course we can’t prove or disprove this but it remains a possibility imo. Unlikely perhaps but nowhere near an impossibility. And the fact that he was sacked 6 months later for drunkenness points at least to him possibly not being the most trustworthy of officers.

I agree on most points, but PC Long's drunkenness 6 months later may not be an indication of how sober he was on the night of the murder. Some people blamed Long for going for help instead of searching the entire building himself and for not knowing there was a back entrance to the building, even though it was his first night patrolling that beat. Long might have ended up blaming himself for not catching the killer and turned to drink later.

[Fiver]

Gentleman, I realize this isn't the main thrust of what is under discussion, but let me throw it out there, because I have an opposing view.

Isn't the concept of the murderer 'reemerging' or 'venturing out again' influenced by the widely held--but quite possibly mistaken--belief that the murderer was a local man, with a remarkable ability to allude the police, and maybe even some 'daring'?

Why must it be so?

If Long was not wrong, and I have no reason to believe that he was, the inordinate delay between cutting the apron and depositing the apron might be explained by the murderer not having particularly good knowledge of local geography; as he made his getaway, he got 'turned around,' lost his bearings in the dark, and was thus literally wandering the streets for the better part of 40 minutes.

He never 'reemerged' because if never returned home to begin with.

In short, his supposed expertise of local geography is not in evidence. He was flat-out lost.

That's an interesting theory. If the killer was wandering the streets lost, how do you explain him not discarding the apron piece until about 40 minutes after the killing?

[Trevor Marriott]

You are making some assumptions here.
* That the killer would not have cut himself with one of his first cuts.
If he had cut himself at that point he may well have not continued and if he bandaged such a wound then having a bandaged hand would cause him difficulty in trying to remove organs the same difficulty if he were wearing gloves

* That both of the killer's hands would have blood on them.
That is a fact he could not have avoided that because he would have needed to feel his way around the inside of the abdomen to locate the organs then he would have needed to take hold of the organs to remove them

* That both his hands would be covered in blood.
unavoidable

* That there was blood on only one side of the apron.
That is an irrefutable fact

* That the killer wrapped the apron piece around the wound instead of pressing it against the wound.

Then if he had blood on his hands he would first have to have taken hold of the apron before he could cut it leaving traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece

* That the killer did not fold the apron.

There is no evidence to support that but again with blood on both hands he could not avoid transferring blood onto both sides of the apron piece even when trying to fold it

The fact that there were blood spots/smears on only one side of the apron piece shows that that piece could have been between her legs and that it is common for vaginal and anal discharges in women and anal discharges in men using today's vocabulary commonly called "skid marks" resulting in those smears/spots on the apron piece which she had been using and then disposed of under the archway.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

It may fit the accepted facts but it has been proven that those old accepted facts do not stand up to close scrutiny.

Which ‘facts’ don’t stand up to scrutiny? And by ‘don’t stand up to scrutiny’ I don’t accept that to be the case just because you disagree with them.

You only have to look at what has been discussed on this thread on this one topic alone and you must see that there are flaws in those accepted facts,

There is no ‘flawed fact’ that changes the absolute certainty that the killer dropped the cloth in Goulston Street. The chances of an alternative explanation being correct are within a hair’s breadth of being impossible. So I dismiss them with confidence. That the killer dropped the cloth can safely be regarded as a fact. No further discussion should be required. You should just accept it and move on.

you have tried desperately to prop up this part of the case by introducing gloves and overcoats taking coats off and putting coats back on and folding of the apron piece to avoid blood stains.

And in your long career as a ‘detective’ I assume then that when one of your colleagues said “you know what Trevor, I think that the killer wore gloves,” that you proceeded to fall about laughing at the sheer outlandishness of such a suggestion?

Was the man seen standing at the entrance to Miter Square wearing an overcoat?

It didn’t have to be an overcoat. Any kind of coat/jacket would have hidden bloodstains on a shirt. The simplest and easiest of precautions. Nothing remotely unlikely about it.

and you have the cheek to call my theories unbelievable?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yes I do. And everyone appears to agree with me. Maybe we could start the smallest club in the world and call it “People Who Agree With One Of Trevor’s Theories?” Although it would be easier solving the case than to find members.

[FISHY1118]

This new theory is becoming an old unacceptable theory very fast.

[Parisi North Humber]

Given the knowledge and expertise shown in Mitre Square,it is highly unlikely that Jack the Ripper wore gloves.

Gloves would have hampered his feeling of touch necessary to locate and remove the kidney.

What if the gloves were employed after the crime to cover blood stained hands and possibly cuffs.

Helen x

[Trevor Marriott]

Yes I do. And everyone appears to agree with me. Maybe we could start the smallest club in the world and call it “People Who Agree With One Of Trevor’s Theories?” Although it would be easier solving the case than to find members.

Criminals who wear gloves do so to hide their fingerprints, not to carry out the removal of the organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness while holding a long-bladed knife, which along with wearing gloves would hinder greatly that process, but of course, you know as well as I do that the killer didn't remove the organs

I think there has been a good case presented on this thread to cast doubt about the old accepted theory surrounding the apron piece, again your failure yet again to be able to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence has again clouded your judgement.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[DJA]

Criminals who wear gloves do so to hide their fingerprints, not to carry out the removal of the organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness while holding a long-bladed knife, which along with wearing gloves would hinder greatly that process,

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Yet there was no fingerprint technology in 1888.

[Trevor Marriott]

What if the gloves were employed after the crime to cover blood stained hands and possibly cuffs.

Helen x

Hi Helen
But with gloves on or without the killer could not have failed to leave traces of blood on both sides of the apron piece because he would have to have first taken hold of the apron to cut a piece and before he put the gloves on he would have had his hands in the blood-filled abdomen and supposedly taking organs so the blood from the gloves/hands would still be transferred to the apron piece

And on the subject of the apron as another poster has correctly pointed out if she had been wearing an apron when the killer lifted her clothes up above her waist the apron would have been the furthest away from him making it the least item of clothing accessible to him. So with that in mind if the killer had wanted to wipe his hands or his knife he could have done so on any of her items of clothing which would have at that time been more accessible to him than the apron.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

Yet there was no fingerprint technology in 1888.

I didn't say there was

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[harry]

The biggest problem,as I see it,is that almost every piece of so called evidence.is little more than belief.In the matter of the apron piece,it is pure belief that p.c.Long and dr Brown are giving honest and unquestionable reporting.Verylittle of what they say can be corrorborated by another source.
In addition to what I have already written,here is anotherof Long's statement that stands alone.That is, only Long states that tha chalk writing appeared fresh.

[Elamarna]

Criminals who wear gloves do so to hide their fingerprints, not to carry out the removal of the organs from a blood-filled abdomen in almost total darkness while holding a long-bladed knife, which along with wearing gloves would hinder greatly that process, but of course, you know as well as I do that the killer didn't remove the organs

I think there has been a good case presented on this thread to cast doubt about the old accepted theory surrounding the apron piece, again your failure yet again to be able to assess and evaluate the facts and the evidence has again clouded your judgement.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I have largely abstained from this debate, but it about time a few home truths got told.

You continually talk of discredited old theories, of ideas that do not stand up to scrutiny. Unfortunately in general the only place those theories are discredited or fail to stand up to scrutiny is in the world you have constructed for your own theories.


Trevor, you have not presented any arguments on this thread or any other that challenge the apron, which themselves stand up to even the mildest form of serious scrutiny. That you have convinced yourself that they do, is very endearing.

Steve