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

[Trevor Marriott]

You’re trying too hard to recreate the killers every minute move which is an impossibility. If you drop a piece of cloth on the floor then pick it up from near the centre with soiled hands you can easily use it and only soil the one side. The killer might have cut away the piece and dropped it on the floor next to him to pick up when he’d finished what he was doing. On finishing he picks it up and only soils one side. We can’t know exactly what he did and in what order so we can’t assume that something couldn’t be achieved.

He could just have used the cloth for cleaning the knife. Did he have blood on his hands? How can we know that he didn’t wear gloves to prevent this. I mentioned the possibility of the killer using gloves on the Chapman thread. I don’t see why this is impossible or even unlikely? Why couldn’t the killer have strangled his victim, taken a pair of gloves from his coat pocket and taken his coat off? He then mutilates, puts the stained gloves in his coat pocket then puts the coat back on to hide any bloodstains on his shirt/trousers.

Oh come on what is this coming to the killer wearing gloves now

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Herlock Sholmes]

So you accept that given the alleged actions of the killer in cutting a piece of the apron and then using it to either stem the blood from a cut or to wipe his hands or knife there would likely as not be blood stains on both sides of the piece?

As I have said previous folding would still involve the killer having to touch/handle and cut a piece of the apron with two bloody hands leaving traces of blood on both sides

For your information Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

You’re trying too hard to recreate the killers every minute move which is an impossibility. If you drop a piece of cloth on the floor then pick it up from near the centre with soiled hands you can easily use it and only soil the one side. The killer might have cut away the piece and dropped it on the floor next to him to pick up when he’d finished what he was doing. On finishing he picks it up and only soils one side. We can’t know exactly what he did and in what order so we can’t assume that something couldn’t be achieved.

He could just have used the cloth for cleaning the knife. Did he have blood on his hands? How can we know that he didn’t wear gloves to prevent this. I mentioned the possibility of the killer using gloves on the Chapman thread. I don’t see why this is impossible or even unlikely? Why couldn’t the killer have strangled his victim, taken a pair of gloves from his coat pocket and taken his coat off? He then mutilates, puts the stained gloves in his coat pocket then puts the coat back on to hide any bloodstains on his shirt/trousers.

[Kattrup]

Possibly, Kattrup, but I'd pose the following question.

How do we distinguish his familiarity from the victim's familiarity? In East London street prostitution, the woman leads the man; the man does not lead the woman.

Inspector Henry Moore:

"“What makes it so easy for him” – the inspector always referred to the murderer as “him” – “is that the women lead him, of their own free will, to the spot where they know interruption is least likely. It is not as if he had to wait for his chance; they make the chance for him."


In the general scheme of things, if a person traveling from point A to point B takes three times longer than expected it means he's slow; or that he has stopped somewhere along the way; or that he simply got lost.

But the idea that the Ripper was a man with great knowledge of the local geography has become such a popular part of the mythos of the case, that few care to entertain the third option.

Obviously there’s no way of knowing, as said I personally believe that he’d want a familiarity with the surroundings in order to strike with such impunity, but as we know it could very easily be the victims who led him to spots they persuaded him were secluded and safe.

I’m not aware that people are unwilling to discuss whether JtR had local knowledge, but perhaps I’ve missed your threads on the topic?

[Kattrup]

So you accept that given the alleged actions of the killer in cutting a piece of the apron and then using it to either stem the blood from a cut or to wipe his hands or knife there would likely as not be blood stains on both sides of the piece?

As I have said previous folding would still involve the killer having to touch/handle and cut a piece of the apron with two bloody hands leaving traces of blood on both sides

For your information Dr Brown as quoted in The Times Inquest report: “On the piece brought on there were smears of blood on one side"

Oh dear, sounds like someone is quoting a newspaper. Aren’t those unsafe to rely on, Trevor? Seems a bit blinkered to me, relying on newspapers to prop up your old unaccepted “theories”

but since you insist, let’s have the full sentence:” On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or a knife had been wiped on it”
Wow, so Eddowes wiped her hand or knife on this sizeable makeshift sanitary napkin? Your “theory” holds up so well to scrutiny, Trevor, doesn’t it just? No. I’m being sarcastic. It doesn’t.

[Trevor Marriott]

If the apron was cut at the murder scene,was it a forethought or afterthought on the part of the killer? Being as the clothing was bunched up around Eddowes midsection,it would hardly have been an afterthought,as the apron would probably have been inaccessable for cutting.So why was it cut before commencing the mutilations?

Hi Harry
And even if it were cut before and I see no logical reason for him to have done that, the killer would still have had to touch it with two bloody hands at some point thereafter for whatever purpose

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk