No Bloody Piece of Apron

Have you the evidence that contradicts Harveys inquest testimony?

Monty

I wish I did have the smoking gun my friend, that would make debating this point so much easier.

The assumption that Lawende saw Jack is mostly based on the time available before Kates death and mutilations. Lawende saw the couple at approx 1:35, not yet in Mitre Square. Harveys pass by estimates of his route time should have been at the entrance to the square at approx 1:42-1:43...in fact at Inquest he says he should have been there while the murderer was still there, but saw nothing. Less than 1 minute later, Watkins enters.

If Harvey was there looking in when the killer is still over Kate, that means the only route available for him to use to leave is the carriageway...Harvey is just leaving using one passage, and Watkins just entering the other. Watkins or Morris might have heard bootsteps across the square and out a well lit carriage entrance.

I think considering the amount of time available as a whole, the killer must still have been there or just leaving when Harvey says he looked in. Harvey knew his statement had him there at the time of the murder, but he gave that before he knew Watkins times exactly, or whether Morris might have heard bootsteps. He couldnt change it later, if he did misrepresent his actions, because it would be admitting dereliction.

No-one was anticipating a city kill... supposedly...although neighboring City streets and alleys were being searched at the time of Kates death, ...and I dont think its unfair to suggest that on some nights some men doing beats might have skipped a laneway check, or slightly abbreviate a route if all seemed quiet and under control.

I dont suggest he was a bad cop, just one that on that night, may have been caught making a small white lie... , because someone got killed during his beat, and on his route.

Cheers Monty

[Dan Norder]

There are a number of different reasons that the killer could have taken the part of the apron. Unfortunately there are people who, like with so many other things in this case, refuse to admit that we just don't have enough facts to say with any certainty what happen and try to rule out so many of the scenarios based upon the most flimsy rationalizations.

If the apron section was taken explicitly for the purpose of validating that the message on the wall was written by the killer and not one of the many other people out there hoaxing messages, that certainly works.

If he took the apron to carry the organs obviously he at some point got the organs where he wanted them and didn't need the apron anymore, that works too. Suggesting that he would have had to have discarded the apron first doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. He takes the organs home, cooks them or stores them or whatever, and then wants to get rid of the filthy apron section to limit the evidence or to remove the smell or also to validate the message on the wall.

If he took the apron part to clean his knife and/or hands with as he escaped, it's ridiculous to say it would have taken less time to do so there before he leaves as the point is he wanted to leave right away and it cutting the apron off would have taken mere seconds (and the idea that a knife couldn't cut an apron is simply not accurate).

He could have used it, as suggested earlier, to wrap a cut on his hand or something.

Maybe the part of the apron came off as a natural result of gutting Eddowes and it got caught in his boot or something, and as he left at some point he spotted it and then tossed it aside.

Maybe that hypothetical dog ran off with it.

When we are faced with very little information, we need to recognize the fact that there are countless different scenarios that could all be plausible. For some odd reason people seem unwilling to do that. They first start talking about what they for some reason consider slightly more likely, then it become a lot more likely in their heads, then all the other scenarios have some odd reasons why they couldn't possibly be right, and then at the far end of the scale of deceiving oneself we have the people who try to claim that not only is their theory the best one but that no other theories even exist (such as how Paul Begg chose to describe the incident in his deceptively-titled book, Jack the Ripper: The Facts).

People need a basic reality check here.

[Monty]

Michael,

Monty on the timing, my bet is that Harvey didnt actually walk down Church Passage to the square

Have you the evidence that contradicts Harveys inquest testimony?

Monty

A couple of comments on some recent points....

Monty on the timing, my bet is that Harvey didnt actually walk down Church Passage to the square entrance on that pass, which allows for a minute or two extra with the victim. If Lawende did see Kate with Jack, he has less than 8 minutes roughly to get her to the location, do all he does, and leave before anyone arrives. I think on this murder he needed those extra minutes, cause my bet is wiping his hands and cutting apron sections wasn't part of a plan. If he cleaned the knife after cutting the colon and getting feces on his hands, he might even be ticked off enough to slice her face. If he didn't do that first after the throat.

I dont think its reasonable to assume the cloth is in the entrance to the Model Dwellings from starting in Mitre Street, and it was still just being used to clean himself, and on record, it wasn't recorded as being seen there until almost 3am anyway. Dropping the cloth while still holding organs makes no sense if he used it to carry them, and the closer to home he drops it the worse off he will be in terms of leaving tracks or a traceable path.

If the cloth was there and not seen 1st PC pass, I would have to agree it makes sense he used it to wipe himself while he had the organs in his pockets. What doesnt make sense is having organs with blood and feces uncovered in a coat pocket that may be his only coat, when he has a cloth he has taken that could be used, ...nor does it allow for the man to have learned something from Annies kill and having organs to transport from that site, or that he was quite possibly well prepared at that site and at Kates.

If the cloth was not there until almost 3, then you have to almost conclude that somewhere within a 10 minute walk range, was a place he could drop off the organs. It is unreasonable to assume if the cloth was not there till approx 2:50 ish, that he still had cloth and organs on his person since leaving Mitre at 1:43ish.

That 10 minute walk to a bolt hole is not limited to a location between himself and Goulston from Mitre Square, ....meaning, it may have actually been in the opposite direction..deeper into the City, but he still had time to go there, drop his loot, get back on the streets to Goulston, and leave the apron. In which case it was likely used to misdirect.

What makes a piece of cloth worth taking to a killer while in the middle of activities that might bring back the death penalty if caught....yet its not valuable enough to keep longer than at most 1 hour?

To Transport.....and once contents are dropped off...its returned to the streets, discarded....to misdirect seaches.

This was not a confirmed Ripper Double Event night for those who still wonder about that,...it could easily be...

- 2 separate non-Rippers
- Ripper City killer, thug East End killer
- Ripper East End killer, City thug killer
- 2 Ripper based in the City kills
- 2 Ripper based in East End Kills
- Thug at Berner, more than one man at Mitre
- More than one man at Berner, more than one man at Mitre

The wounds inflicted on the first victim required only a knife and a predisposition for violence...hmmm, anarchist club location...hmm, the second victim has injuries that are associated with the style of Jack the Ripper.....but some that havent been.

People think Im joking when I say you cant assume that this mysterious killer even existed, let alone killed anyone, but taken on face value, each murder is still unassociated, and unsolved. And in case you want to suggest only Jack could do such things, look at the 6 or so they didn't associate with Jack.. and the Torsos...Its obvious that Jack wasnt the only bad guy around.

Dont restrict your thinking based on someones Canon, or opinions.

Best regards all

[Monty]

Eddowes had enough money to get herself mullered by 8.30pm.

Or somebody did.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Excellent post NoV

Everyone seems to beleive that there was an abundance of feculant matter that probably was not the case due to her having not eaten for a long time and her not consuming suffiient amounts of food that day to swell the colon to the extent of causing a massive release when it was cut.

So he may not have had as much on his hands as some would suggest. Certainly if he did wipe his hands on the apon piece he didnt leave much on there. Besides in the real world he would have wiped his hands on her clothing prior to leaving the scene. Forget about all this rubish about him cutting the apron piece and taking it away to wipe his hands it just didnt happen.

[Suzi]

Hi all-

It's not beyond the bounds of possibililty that the piece of apron was used merely to clean up hands/knife etc then dropped off (IMHO) in an already 'graffitied' doorway at the trot- and that the bits and pieces were safely (!) pocketed in a dark coloured coat of some kind as chummy scuttled off to his hideyhole to do with 'the bits' whatever he did with these 'trophies'.

(Presumably not just hook them out from behind his bowtie though!!!)

As to explaining his pocket contents to 'his wife'............where did SHE come from??

Suzi

[NOV9]

How you get from:



to:



?

Seems there are like large space thingies between those claims and that conclusion.

--J.D.

Earlier post I was trying to link a different killer other than Jack to Sam.

I was wondering if your handle was Doctor X for a reason?

So if you understand the digestive system, on the time it takes for the food she consumed to reach the colon area, and how much food Eddowes had in her stomach. Then you could tell if there were a lot of sh*t in the intestines. Sounds to me like she did not have enough money to by food, so how much sh*t do you think could possibly be in her intestines?

I'm asking this because, it seems there is a lot of sh*t concerns about Eddowes and the apron.

This may be hard to follow, because of my lack of education in grammar and spelling.

Thanks for your patience

NO9

[NOV9]

Wonder if--assuming he wrote the graffito--that he was not just playing silly buggers. Left the piece of apron to give validity to his graffito.

--J.D.

Lets just say he did carry the organs in the piece of apron, would it be more of an impact to leave the apron with the organs in it?

I think that if he had the time to cut up Eddowes, he also had the time to wipe his hands at the site, coming home with blood on his hand, hell then how would he explain the organs in his pocket to his wife?

[Observer]

Hi again Monty

Can't quite grasp what you're getting at Monty, could you explain please?

Observer

[Monty]

Hi Observer,

What if the Ripper didnt miss Long though?

Just thoughts, nothing more.

Monty

[Observer]

Hi Monty

Split second timing, with Long missing the Ripper by seconds. The same applies regarding Mary Kelly and why she was not detected by Prater, or Cox, leaving home again after her sing song.

Hi Caz

It stands to reason therefore that the killer lived reasonbly near to Goulston street.

Observer

[caz]

Hi Observer,

It's a scenario that was suggested, I believe, by Jon Smyth (sp?) some years ago, and suggested since by several others.

It would address the argument that no bloodstained killer fleeing from his murder scene with organs and knife on him would dream of lingering anywhere en route to write a meaningless message on a wall.

In this scenario, once the apron piece is safely on the ground, he is merely an antisocial graffiti artist with no apparent connection to the murders. After all, that's what can and has been claimed about the message - no apparent connection to the murders.

Tidy.

If you are trying to promote the idea that a Jew is responsible, it doesn't work if you put "I'm a Jew and I am responsible - please see pinny below as proof". But you can pander to a public perception and strengthen it by making an anonymous statement like "The Jews won't be blamed for nothing" and underlining it with evidence of something to blame them for.

Love,

Caz
X

[Monty]

Guys,

I cant help remembering Gavin Bromelys article on the Eddowes murder.

He plausibly argued that it was possible for Jack to have escaped prior to Harveys trip down Church passage at 1.42am.

Therefore Jack may have left the Square approx 1.41/2am.

The time it takes to get to Goulston Street is roughly 3 to 4 mins at a brisk walk.

Lets say Jack went straight to Goulston St, his arrival would have been approx 1.46am.

Taking Longs beat time of 35 mins, working back from when he says he was certainly in Goulston Street (2.20am), puts Long in the same place at ??

Monty

[Doctor X]

Wonder if--assuming he wrote the graffito--that he was not just playing silly buggers. Left the piece of apron to give validity to his graffito.

--J.D.