Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Bloody Piece of Apron (Recovered)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    CitizenX
    29th December 2007, 01:01 AM
    [quote=Fisherman;125758]CitizenX writes:
    "Whites Row Synagogue which is the next street south of Dorset St and no more than a 100 yards away (as the crowflies). No 2 is directly opposite to Millers Court. It was originally a roman catholic church but was a Synagogue from 1870-1896"

    ...and thanks for that, CitizenX, though I think it slightly misleading to place it "opposite to Millers Court", since the entrance had the address 2 Whites Row.

    Sorry about that i meant parallel (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...rallel&spell=1) but kept spelling it wrong !! But shown on the map its is at the same end of the street and opposite (sorry parallel!!) millers court. But you are right that communitys were very densly populated in the area and it could change substantially from street to street.

    Cheers

    Kevin

    Celesta
    29th December 2007, 03:16 AM
    Thinking of what Linda says , Sam, if the piece of apron was used to stop blood flow a patch of blood would have been evident.Its hard to determine whether "one corner of the apron was wet with blood" meant just such a patch being present,or whether the corner of apron was just wet because he had used it to stem his own blood flow from a cut---and possibly the faeces was from having wiped himself after having an accident and making a mess down below ,due to all his excitement and fear, following the murder!

    Hi Natalie,

    Not to launch off into this again in detail, but I thought I would mention that after the Pinchin street torso was discovered, the police search turned up a petticoat that had been folded and creased and had been used as a menstrual pad. Apparently, this creasing was noticed by the police, so I am thinking that if the apron had been used for that purpose, it would also have been noted. Just a thought.

    Linda

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 04:11 AM
    Thanks for that interesting detail about White's Row, Kevin!

    I would say that it would not matter very much from what point on this circle you started the journey to George Yard – it would take you past housings that lent themselves eminently to the purpose of casting guilt on the Jews.

    I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed, and as we've already established, there were well-known Jewish enclaves littered throughout the area. It was emphatically not a case of a Jews and Gentiles being evenly interspersed throughout the district. There were noted, and easily discernable Jewish "hotspots", some larger and better-known that others, with the area between Mitre Square and Goulston Street being perhaps the most famous. Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square).

    I'm not saying for a moment that "Jew-implicating" was his primary incentive, but to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity.

    As for Dorset Steet not being Jewish, that is true, but synagogue-boasting White's Row was. Besides which, there may not have been any women with single accomodation available there. it is again worth repeating that not all "Jews-dunnit" clues need to be geographical; indeed, I believe the killer did attempt to implicate the Jews in connection with the Dorset Steet murder, but as with your "did Kelly go out again" tangent, that's a discussion for another thread!

    All the best,
    Ben

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 04:52 AM
    What I tried to point to was that your suggestion that the killer perhaps chose Eddowes murder site out of a wish to be provided with a heavily Jewish dominated area to pass through on his way home (if this was where he was headed) after the strike.

    Just to clarify, this wasn't quite my suggestion. The Mitre Square area itself was Jewish enough. I only submitted for consideration the possibility that the prevalent Jew-directed suspicion in the East End - fuelled, no doubt, by the (then) single piece of eyewitness testimony implicated a foreigner, in addition to the Leather Apron fuss - may have impacted to a greater or lesser degree on the killer's actions and movements.

    Ben

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 05:57 AM
    I disagree very stongly, Fisherman. It would depend which direction he headed
    His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.

    baron
    29th December 2007, 07:21 AM
    Fisherman,



    There is no disputing that Jewish prostitutes and brothels were non-existant.


    This is not true. In Fishman's book on East End radicals, he most distinctly talks about newly emigrated Jewish girls being lured into prostitution by seemingly, helpful Jewish men. I don't have my book here, but it seems to have been a very real and frequent happening.

    This is another reason that I think JTR might have been Jewish. In heavily concentrated Jewish areas, surely with Jewish prostitutes, none of the victims were Jewish. I find this either very coincidental or intentional.


    Cheers,

    Mike

    Fisherman
    29th December 2007, 12:26 PM
    Interesting, Mike; and given the character of the "world´s oldest job" I guess it´s not all that surprising if this is correct. I have not read the book you mention.
    You write that you find the fact that no victims were Jewish either very coincidental or intentional, but that would depend of the rates involved, would it not? "Very real and frequent", how does that translate into numbers and/or percentages? I have always encountered the view that Jewish girls were very improbable unfortunates, and even if Jewish girls were in the business, I would have thought them rare creatures.

    The best, Mike!

    Fisherman

    Fisherman
    29th December 2007, 12:53 PM
    Right, Ben!

    Let´s begin by ridding ourselves of a couple of misunderstandings!

    First, you write that the Rippers choice of Mitre Square because he wanted his escape route to move along Jewish housings, was not quite your suggestion. Thanks for that clarification. Maybe I read more into your wording than I should have. It had me slightly baffled, though, I must say.

    Next up, this:

    "Similarly, it cannot be claimed that "most" locations were in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs (both double event murders) and a synangogue (Mitre square)."

    Not sure where you are headed here, Ben. Suffice to say that I argue in the opposite direction here - I see nothing strange in the fact that the killings occured in the proximity of typically Jewish institutions. I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.

    More misunderstandings:

    I have never even tried to speak of these aras as representing "evenly interspersed" Jewish and Gentile population. I now fully well that anything but that applied. The people were to a great extent living in very outspoken enclaves of either Jewish or Gentile extraction. And, of course, if this had not been the case, the question of implicating the Jews by an intentional dropping of the rag in a Jewish enclave could never have come up, could it?
    What I am saying, though, is that the Jewish enclaves in the area were so many, and so much spread throughout, that the notion that a randomly thrown away rag would stand every chance of ending up among the Jews can never be dispersed.

    Moreover, when you write:

    "to argue that the killer never once considered taking advantage - easy, readily available advantage - of the fact that general suspicion was already Jew-directed, would be to discard the baby with the bathwater. Then there is the GSG message to consider. Frankly, I'd be amazed if he bypassed such an obvious opportunity"

    ...I honestly think that you are painting yourself into a corner, Ben. For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall? Why did he not bother to let one of the many cut loose organs join the heart on his way from Millers Court; no matter which route he took from there, he would in a minute or two be passing by housings that were to more than 95 percent inhabited by Jews. He would have had every chance in the world to place a slice of her liver in one of them doorways, or perhaps balance that broken away piece of her right lung on the doorknob of the synagogue in Whites Row.

    If failing to use the opportunity to drop the rag in a Jewish doorway would have amazed you, Ben, then why is it that you choose to disregard this?

    The best, Ben!

    Fisherman

    Sox
    29th December 2007, 02:35 PM
    The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.

    Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.

    CitizenX
    29th December 2007, 03:14 PM
    The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......I would hate to take a bet on the odds of that event. I could understand it, if he were in imediate danger of being caught, but before the double event the police were chasing shadows & myths.

    Too many Sherlocks & not enough Watsons.


    Hi Sox,

    You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...



    Kevin

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 03:57 PM
    Hi Kevin
    You could ask Timothy Evans [about killers deflecting blame onto somebody else] if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...
    Evans' circumstances there were entirely different to the situation in which Jack the Ripper found himself. For a start, Jack enjoyed greater freedom than Evans - he wasn't cooped up in a bedsit and married-with-children to his victims. Unlike Evans, there was no obvious association that would have led the police to "finger" him. Evans would have been well under the microscope as soon as Beryl and Geraldine were missed by family and friends, and he was in a very sticky situation which Christie was happy to exploit. In this he was helped - let's not forget - by some disastrous decisions taken by Evans himself.

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 04:18 PM
    Hi Fisherman,

    I think the same applies here as it does in the case of the final destination of the bloody rag: in a heavily Jewish populated area, there will be lots of Jews and Jewish institutions.

    Yes, but to end up in a "Jewish populated area", he must have gone there deliberately. He wasn't plonked there by some magical higher force. And given that Jews and Gentiles were not - not! - evenly dispersed throughout, it quickly becomes arrant nonsense to claim that a randomly discarded apron had a strong chance of ending up in a Jewish enclave after returning from all the murder sites. If we accept your suggestion that he was domiciled in reasonably close proximity to George Yard, the return journey from Miller's Court and Hanbury Street would not have taken him past heavily Jewish enclaves. I have argued that the rag was offloaded primarily for convenience because Goulston Street was en route home. Accepting – again – your suggestion that the killer resided near George Yard, White’s Row would NOT have been en route home. Hanbury Street itself was, however, Jewish populated and it was there – one of five Jewish Streets referred to as such by Charles Booth – that Chapman was killed.

    For if the Ripper really was that keen on taking every opportunity that offered itself to implicate the Jews, then why is it that you show no amazement at the fact that he left this one and only clue, disregarding every other opportunity to follow it up? Why did he not write "Happy Channukah!" in blood on Mary Kellys wall?

    Are you serious? Or was that a little tongue in cheek?

    As with your "Why didn't he nail the bloody rag to the door in Goulston Street?" objection (which ignores all manner of practicalities), you're basically arguing that unless he implicated the Jews all the time, at every opportunity, in the most incredibly blatant and unsubtle manner imaginable, he wasn't implicating the Jews at all at any point. That's such a terrible argument, Fisherman. Come on. And you're accusing me, in inelegantly patronising language, of "painting myself into a corner".

    A discarded apron with an accompanying message (if the two were connected), and murders committed in close proximity to Jewish clubs and synagogues is unsubtle enough, in my view, but to expect something more outlandish is, well....outlandish. You can't, after all, get any more blatant than that absurd "villainous Jew" description offered up on the 12th November.

    Hi Sox,

    “The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else?.......”

    What??

    Shifting the blame onto an innocent party is about the oldest rule in the book if you’re the guilty party. Absolutely textbook. It doesn't matter if it implicates an individual or a larger party; it is still an oft-resorted to strategy of the guilty. Kevin’s Christie example is particularly apt. Christie shifted the blame onto the most obvious and available scapegoat around. Why expect anything less from Jack?

    Best regards,
    Ben

    CitizenX
    29th December 2007, 04:46 PM
    Sam,

    Your making the comparison of JTR with Evans the patsy rather than Cristie the murderer...but that's ok I get your point..

    You're absolutley correct in your assessment of Evans, he had below average intelligence and both the police and Christie exploited this.

    The point I was raising is that serial killers (like all criminals) will shift the blame when things get too close for comfort and the Jews (like Evans) were an easy patsy to exploit.

    To my mind that makes them the most unlikely suspects..

    Kevin

    ChavaG
    29th December 2007, 05:33 PM
    Sadly Ben is right. The white slave trade was carried on by Jewish pimps in London, New York, Buenos Ayres and Rio. The pimps would line up at the docks and single out young woman travelling alone. They'd profess to help them. And the rest was the subject of melodrama for years and years. I really wish I could say that there were no Jewish prostitutes in the East End but there were. And they worked for Jewish pimps. However research suggests that they worked in brothels rather than walking the streets.

    The thing is, the police might not have had any idea of who the Ripper was. But if he had been talked to by a cop, or if something happened that he thought might lead to him--even if such a thing was unnoticed--he might well take steps to lead suspicion away. The double event is doubly linked to Jews. None of the previous murders were. The Kelly murder--if in fact it is a Ripper murder--took place 6 weeks later, and maybe the heat was off by then. I don't think he was anti-Semitic or making any kind of a statement. He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.

    What I would love to do would be to get at all police records just before the double event to see who they were talking to...

    Celesta
    29th December 2007, 05:57 PM
    His choice was, basically, confined to Whitechapel Road or back-streets densely populated by Jews.


    And how often does a predator hunt outside his territory? Of course, there is no telling what JTR envisioned as his territory. Inside what we see as his territory were a substantial number of Jewish folk. Even so, none of the victims were.

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 06:00 PM
    He was simply blame-shifting. Much as Christie did.
    Christie's circumstances were entirely different to Jack's, Chava, and on the surface at least the Ripper's personal anonymity was bolstered by the lack of obvious connections with the deceased, and the general facelessness of the East End. He had absolutely no need to deflect suspicion anywhere at that point, because the police were fishing in a very big pond.

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 06:18 PM
    It wouldn't really have been a case of "deflecting" suspicion, Gareth, at least not primarily. It would have been more akin to ensuring (with minimal effort) that the investigative focus was sustained in a Jewish or "foreign" direction, as it would have been by the double-event, courtesy of eye-witness testimony from the previous murder, and fuelled by Leather Apron and the general anti-semitic undercurrent in the East End. The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.

    Great points, Chava.

    I particularly welcome your use of the word "simple", because that's what it is. Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Sox
    29th December 2007, 06:56 PM
    Hi Sox,

    You could ask Timothy Evans that if he hadnt been hanged in 1950 after John Christie shifted the blame of the murder of his wife and baby onto him...



    Kevin

    Oh? Interesting to note here is that Christie did not run to the police claiming that Evans had killed his wife and daughter, did not, in fact, leave a single clue to implicate him. John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.

    That is a billion miles away from leaving clues for a police force who had no idea who he was, as Sam very astutely points out.

    Ben is one hundred percent correct here, Jewish pimps have been in evidence for a long long time, and particulary flourished in Victorian times. As I said earlier, if there had been police hot on his heels then I could see sense in the killer helping fuel the press implication of a 'Jewish Ripper', otherwise not.

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 07:00 PM
    Hi Ben,The Yorkshire Ripper investigative team were also fishing in a big pond, but Humble's Geordie-incriminating hoax certainly played a part of keeping the investigative focus off non-Geordie Sutcliffe; thus demonstrating that generic scapegoats or misdirections can prove just as benefitial to the actual perpetrator as individual ones.
    The interesting thing to note is that Humble's non-Geordiness was a pure accident of his geography - it's not as if he went out of his way to speak in a Wearside accent. Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire, anymore than the deposition of the apron outside a Jewish dwelling was necessarily a premeditated act of "deflection" on the part of Jack the Ripper.Blame-shifting, whether out of necessity of simple desire, is the age-old look-out of the guilty party.More often out of necessity, perhaps? Certainly blame-shifting may happen in cases where the guilty party is a rather obvious suspect who feels that the net is tightening. However, that didn't appear to be remotely the case from Jack's P.O.V at the end of September 1888.

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 07:04 PM
    John Christie clearly did not want anyone to know about these deaths, and blamed Evans only to save himself from the noose after Evans had 'confessed'.

    He was taking advantage of the obvious scapegoat, Sox - simple as that. A scapegoat can refer to a generic group or race, or it could refer to an individual. Either way, it is in the interest of the guilty party to take advantage of both. An individual scapegoat worked for Christie to the same extent that a generic scapegoat (or falsely implicated group) worked for Sutcliffe. The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available. It is to the end of ensuring that future suspicion is not levelled the offender's way that these efforts are often directed.

    All the best,
    Ben

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 07:10 PM
    Hi Gareth,

    Although the result of his hoax was to misdirect the police, I'm sure the silly little man had no intention of drawing suspicion away from Yorkshire

    Oh, absolutely. The result, however, was that non-Geordies of the Sutcliffe variety received scant attention as a result of this unintentional misdirection on the part of John Humble. I brought up the Yorkshire Ripper investigation to demonstrate that misdirected blame at a group/accent/race can prove just as advantageous to the guilty party as misdirected blame at an individual. If the result of a discarded rag and hastily daubed message was to ensure that police inquiries remained Jew-focussed, with Gentile Londoners receiving consequently scant attention, it was heavily in the killer's interest to keep that false ball rolling. Blame-shifting isn't always carried out because of a close shave or a tightening net. It would have been a simple expedient that would have impacted upon future police inquiries...to his advantage.

    All the best,
    Ben

    CitizenX
    29th December 2007, 07:51 PM
    Sox,

    I cited the case of Christie/Evans in response to your statement

    "The chances of a serial killer purposfully shifting the limelight to someone else....."

    You didnt specifcally mention JTR....

    OK its a ripper board but thats splitting hairs ........

    Kevin

    Sox
    29th December 2007, 07:52 PM
    The police didn't need to be hot on the heels of the actual offender for suspicion-deflecting to be a prudent move, especially if the opportunities to do so were so readily available.

    This is the point we disagree on. Ordinarily I would be in favour of your opinion but not in this case because, invariably, serial killers enjoy the notoriety and bask in the 'limelight' of their shock horror tactics. That is why I would agree, but only if the police were in his back yard looking for clues.

    Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 07:53 PM
    Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection" and, as both Sox and I mentioned earlier, Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion either. Had Evans not walked into the police station and fessed up, Christie may well have preferred to have kept a low profile over the whole affair.

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 07:58 PM
    There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no?There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there )

    Ben
    29th December 2007, 08:06 PM
    Although it worked to his advantage, it's worth remembering that Sutcliffe was not the originator of the "deflection

    True, Gareth, but the fact that it did work to his advantage is the more salient point, I feel. It demonstrates perfectly that a whole host of potential suspects received very scant attention because they didn't have the right accent, and that it was acheived through minimal effort - one bloke with a tape. If such a reward could result for the perpetrator by expending such a small amount of effort (what amounted, really, to a "while I'm here..." consideration), I've no doubt that he'd seize it.

    We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.

    Which, on reflection, was entirely possible. There had been quite extensive house to house enquiries no? Had they spooked him?

    Quite possibly, Sox. Or perhaps he was anxious that a few two may witnesses had clocked his ostensibly non-Jewish mug on the night of the double event?

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Sam Flynn
    29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
    We don't know that Christie did not initiate the deflection of suspicion. Being the more dominant personality, he could have encouraged Evans to flee, thereby inviting inevitable suspicion.
    Possibly, but the mere departure of Evans (and, for all anyone would have known, Beryl and Geraldine) could have been relatively easily explained away by Christie. Whether Christie would have risked stirring up a hornet's nest by directing Evans to squeal to the Merthyr plod - the specific act of "deflection" in this instance - is another matter.

    Sox
    29th December 2007, 08:17 PM
    There had, Sox, but the best/worst was yet to come. If the Ripper felt under pressure leading up to the "Double Event", then his valves must have been close to bursting over the next few weeks. If ever he'd have felt the need to deflect blame, it would have been felt ever more acutely leading up to, and immediately after, the Kelly murder - which, of course, might well have given him the opportunity to do so. (But let's not go there )

    I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I have never really been in favour of these so-called 'clues'. I would go further and speculate that the 'gap' between Eddowes & Kelly was a direct result of the double event, I think he knew Stride or Eddowes, maybe even both.

    Comment


    • #17
      Celee
      29th December 2007, 08:45 PM
      Hi,

      The only clue the piece of apron tells us is the Ripper was heading back into the Eastend of London. Everything else is up in the air. Did he write the Graffito? If he did I doubt he was a Jew. "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" refers to the death of Christ, in my opinion, blaming the Jews for Christ death. I doubt that a Jew would have wrote the message.

      If the Ripper was responsible for the Goulston St. graffito then it proves that the dear boss letter and others said to be written by the Ripper,that are sighned Jack the Ripper, are fakes. If the Ripper sighned the letters Jack the Ripper he would have sighned the graffito Jack the Ripper.

      He may have just thrown the apron down to get rid of the piece of bloody cloth after he cleaned his hands and he may not have had any knowledge of the writing on the wall.

      He may have lost the piece of apron while entering a room. It is a shame that the officer did not check the rooms. The PC. might have been scared to come face to face with Jack the Ripper.

      In my opinion the women took Jack to the place that they felt comfortable with. I do not believe he took them. I think he killed Kelly indoors because she entertained clients in her room.

      I do not believe the Ripper was trying to blame the Jews for the murders.

      Your friend,

      Brad

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 09:05 PM
      Hi Brad,

      If he did I doubt he was a Jew. "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" refers to the death of Christ, in my opinion

      Then why no mention of Christ? If that was uppermost in his mind, I feel he'd have been rather more explicit on this point. As for the hand-wiping suggestion, why didn't he get this out of the way at Mitre Square. It takes as much time to hand-wipe as it does to remove a segment of apron.

      Best regards,
      Ben

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 09:10 PM
      As for the hand-wiping suggestion, why didn't he get this out of the way at Mitre Square.
      He was out in the open there, with two police-beats to consider, and he was standing or crouching over a ripped-up corpse. Not the most comfortable of circumstances to be scrubbing away.
      It takes as much time to hand-wipe as it does to remove a segment of apron
      ...not if you've got dung on your hands, Ben.

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 09:14 PM
      Hi Gareth,

      He was out in the open there, with two police-beats to consider, and time was of the essence.

      Exactly. Which is why I don't believe for a moment that he'd waste time at the crime scene removing an apron segment unless he had another purpose for it besides hand-wiping.

      not if you've got dung on your hands, Ben

      Five seconds tops to get the worst of it off.

      But we've had this argument a good few pages ago.

      All the best,
      Ben

      Trevor Marriott
      29th December 2007, 09:16 PM
      Celesta
      I agree with you.
      The apron piece was discarded not placed or hidden for any ulterior motive.

      I dont want to go into how it came to be discarded because that argumemt has been done to death on here.

      It was found under the archway screwed up not , to me that shows it was discarded and not deliberatly dropped. It woud not have been visible to anyome walking past the entrance and i woyuld sugest that anyone entering the building would not have paid any attention to a scrweed up piece of rag. Which leads me back to the question as to why the apron piece and graffiti caused the pc to stop and closely examine.

      The graffiti has nothing to do with the murders of JTR. and none of the letters were written by JTR

      Trevor Marriott
      29th December 2007, 09:18 PM
      FAO Sam
      Surely if he had wiped his hands on it the apron piece would be smeared with blood not spotted. and besides after wiping his hands as you suggest he would have disposed of it long before he go to Goulston st

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 09:25 PM
      Five seconds tops to get the worst of it off.
      ...visually, perhaps - but you're forgetting the most evocative, noticeable and traceable sense of them all, Ben.

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 09:33 PM
      FAO Sam
      Surely if he had wiped his hands on it the apron piece would be smeared with blood not spotted.
      It's not the blood I'm particularly worried about, Trevor, and I daresay neither was it the Ripper's primary concern after his unfortunate "mucky dip" in Mitre Square. Besides, there is about as much testimony that said that the apron was smeared as says it was spotted.
      and besides after wiping his hands as you suggest he would have disposed of it long before he go to Goulston st
      I'm suggesting that he waited until he was a few blocks clear of the murder scene and in a suitably dark archway in which to scrub up more effectively.

      Trevor Marriott
      29th December 2007, 09:37 PM
      Well sam

      you know where i stand with regards to the suggestion that the killler removed the organs so I wont add any more fuel to the fire.

      Celesta
      29th December 2007, 09:39 PM
      Celesta
      I agree with you.
      The apron piece was discarded not placed or hidden for any ulterior motive.

      I dont want to go into how it came to be discarded because that argumemt has been done to death on here.

      It was found under the archway screwed up not , to me that shows it was discarded and not deliberatly dropped. It woud not have been visible to anyome walking past the entrance and i woyuld sugest that anyone entering the building would not have paid any attention to a scrweed up piece of rag. Which leads me back to the question as to why the apron piece and graffiti caused the pc to stop and closely examine.

      The graffiti has nothing to do with the murders of JTR. and none of the letters were written by JTR

      Trevor,

      Yes, I think the simpler explanation sets easier with me, too. I think he tossed it. Perhaps he even hid in the archway area for a moment, prior to the constable comng around. I'm not convinced that he wrote the graffitti either, though I don't reject the possibility entirely. I'm also not convinced that he was implicating anyone. Oh for a sketch of that piece of cloth! I believe it would tell volumes.

      Take care.

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 09:40 PM
      you know where i stand with regards to the suggestion that the killer removed the organs so I wont add any more fuel to the fire.Thanks, Trev. Of course, if you're right then the notion that he used the rag to transport the organs is completely out of the question.

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 09:44 PM
      Hi Gareth,

      It would have required water - no less - to get the remainder of the "mucky dip" off his hands. A five second scrub would have been as effective as a two-minute scrub in the absence of a water source, which is why I've always found it difficult to accept the idea that the rag was removed solely for handwiping purposes.

      Best regards,
      Ben

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 09:55 PM
      It would have required water - no less - to get the remainder of the "mucky dip" off his hands.
      Puddles, Ben, puddles. Heavy rain, and a stiff breeze blowing in from the North-West... Goulston Street doorway facing North-West and open to the elements.
      which is why I've always found it difficult to accept the idea that the rag was removed solely for handwiping purposes.
      Would he have stuffed his excrement-streaked hand into his pocket and sauntered out into the night, or would he seek to cover up this rather malodorous embarrassment, as well as protecting his clothing from contamination, by improvising a cover?

      All this I've posted before - it's part of what I hope is a coherent and consistent picture.

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 10:03 PM
      Hi Gareth,

      If there were puddles in Goulston Street, there would undoubtedly have been several in Mitre Square itself, or failing that, a five-second wipe on the rag, and a dunk in a puddle on the way home would have sufficed. There still wouldn't have been any need to remove a portion of the apron (wasting precious hand-wiping moments) unless he had another purpose for it, such an organ-transporting.

      All this I've posted before - it's part of what I hope is a coherent and consistent picture.

      I understand, and it is both of those things, believe me. I just exhibit a slight preference, on balence, for the organ-transporting theory....which I also hope comprises a a coherent and consistent picture.

      Cheers,
      Ben

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 10:09 PM
      If there were puddles in Goulston Street, there would undoubtedly have been several in Mitre Square itself, or failing that, a five-second wipe on the rag, and a dunk in a puddle on the way home would have sufficed.
      As I said earlier, "He was out in the open, with two police-beats to consider, and time was of the essence."
      I just exhibit a slight preference, on balence, for the organ-transporting theory....which I also hope comprises a a coherent and consistent picture.
      Quite reasonable, except inasmuch as I fail to any issues with stuffing a pair of small organs into a coat pocket, and - with the apron discarded - where would he then carry his trophies?

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 10:27 PM
      As I said earlier, "He was out in the open, with two police-beats to consider, and time was of the essence

      Granted, but I feel that very "time was of the essence" factor is what militates most stongly against the "removing the rag just for wiping" premise.

      and - with the apron discarded - where would he then carry his trophies?

      Pockets, after giving them a jolly good wipe in that doorway, with most of the fluid having been absorbed into the apron.

      Ben

      Fisherman
      29th December 2007, 10:31 PM
      Ben!
      I will begin by borrowing the map Sam used on another thread. It is an 1890 one, showing both the murder sites and the extent to which Jews lived in the area. The dark blue housings are housings where the dwellers were 95-100 percent Jews.
      Now, what you write is "If we accept your suggestion that he was domiciled in reasonably close proximity to George Yard, the return journey from Miller's Court and Hanbury Street would not have taken him past heavily Jewish enclaves."
      How you can claim this, Ben, I simply don´t understand, given what the map shows us. Of course there were more or less intricate routes that would have kept him mostly away from the Jewish housings, but the fact of the matter is that he would never be many steps away from them whatever route he used, no matter which murder we are discussing.
      To find George Yard on this map, draw a vertical line straight down from Chapmans murder site. On the spot where that line crosses another line, drawn between the murder sites of Stride and Kelly, something looking slightly like a red cross is formed by some red-marked buildings, and that´s where George Yard lay. The dark blue areas were areas inhabited by +95 percent Jews, remember.
      Now, Ben, you claim that the two routes from Millers Court and Hanbury Street to George Yard would not have taken the Ripper past Jewish dominated areas.
      Instead the map shows us the exact opposite; he would have to travel through/past a barrage of Jewish settlings in both cases in order to reach George Yard!

      http://forum.casebook.org/attachment...7&d=1195602720


      As for whether I was serious or not when I suggested that a killer bent on implicating the Jews would have had numerous occasions to do a better job of it than to toss a rag in a doorway where a few of many thousands of Jews lived - yes, I am completely serious. Of course I was making drastic examples, but it would make no difference where I chose the examples on that long line from total subtlety to shock effects; the fact of the matter is that we have no, zero, rien, nada evidence that he ever did ANYTHING along these lines other than that one time in Goulston Street. Which is why I was consternated by your belief that it would have been "amazing" if he did not pounce upon the opportunity provided by the rag and the Jewish doorway. And which is why I wondered why your amazement did not come into play in equal amounts by the fact that he never took a single one of the hundreds of opportunities to implicate Jews at his hands at any other occasion. And which is why I feel that we better not let our fantasy run away with us on this issue. Like I said before, I believe that the numbers of Jews and Jewish housings dilute the worth of this notion far beyond worthlessness.

      As for my "inelegantly patronising language" I am truly sorry if you feel offended. It never was my meaning. English is not my native tongue, and I will inevitably make a number of mistakes as I go along, but I feel that with the aid of the other posters here, I should be able to avoid most mishaps.

      When it comes to your words on shifting guilt as being one of the oldest tricks in the book, there is no reason to argue with that; it has been around asa long as us humans have.
      But if you take a look at the serial murder cases we have on record, I think you will find that it is quite a rare thing to see, in any case when it comes to a killer who does not feel that the law is hot on his heels.
      How many cases do we have where we know that the killer tried to focus the interest of his hunters on somebody else? There are hundreds of serial killer cases, but I can´t come up with a single one off hand where this applies. Surely other posters will have something to say on the matter, and there will probably be the odd case, but the outcome will be decidedly in favour of those who say that this is a very uncommon trait, I feel.

      All the best, Ben!

      Fisherman

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 10:51 PM
      [SamF: Where would Jack have stowed the organs afer the apron was discarded?] Pockets, after giving them a jolly good wipe in that doorway
      No need to wipe them, or swaddle them, in the first place, I'd suggest - unless he were wearing a light beige jacket.

      PS: I was going to say "Why not wash them in a puddle in Mitre Square", Ben, but that would've been mingy of me Which brings me onto...
      I feel that very "time was of the essence" factor is what militates most stongly against the "removing the rag just for wiping" premise.
      The exact opposite, I feel. The apron, it would appear, had already been cut through along with innumerable other layers of Eddowes' clothing (see earlier posts), and it would have been secured with one quick tug and a whip of the knife.

      And it's not just wiping, of course...

      "Oh, Christ! I've got $hit all over me 'and!!! Quick wipe on the body should do it. No good that is!!! Made it worse - it's squidged between me fingers nah! Gawd all-bleedin-mighty, it don't 'alf pong! Gotta get out this stuff off of me somehow, stop it gettin on me clowse! {Oh, no! Got a bit on the knees of me trahsers already!} Can't do much abaht it 'ere... I'll grab this clawth and wrap me 'and in it. I'll sort fings aht in a jiffy when I'm aht of 'arm's way."

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 10:55 PM
      Hi Fisherman,

      Of course there were more or less intricate routes that would have kept him mostly away from the Jewish housings, but the fact of the matter is that he would never be many steps away from them whatever route he used, no matter which murder we are discussing.
      To find George Yard on this map, draw a vertical line straight down from Chapmans murder site

      Forget vertical lines, Fisherman.

      If the killer had returned from any of the murder sites by walking as the crow flies, he'd be smashing through several buildings. Again, some further clarification may be in order. I've no doubt whatsoever that the killer took the most direct route back to his bolt-hole after completing each murder. To whatever extent he sought to take advantage of the "Jewish problem", I don't believe he'd expose himself to unnecessary risk by deviating from his course. Depending how close he lived to George Yard - as per your orginal suggestion - he would not have gone through many, if any, Jewish-recognised settlements at all. This is fully borne out from the map Gareth provided.

      the fact of the matter is that we have no, zero, rien, nada evidence that he ever did ANYTHING along these lines other than that one time in Goulston Street.

      Committing two murders (as per contemporary police view) in close proximity to two Jewish clubs and a synagogue would rather militate against your "zero, nada" assertion. Committing one murder adjacent to a Jewish club, then another murder in close proximity to another Jewish club, and then dipositing an apron in the most recognised Jew-locale in the district, with an accompanying message "The Juwes are the men that will not be blamed for nothing" all seems a bit Jewy to me.

      Unless you're arguing for a string of freak coincidences occuring in quick succession, I think it's a pretty safe bet that the Jew factor was somewhat on the agenda that night.

      And which is why I wondered why your amazement did not come into play in equal amounts by the fact that he never took a single one of the hundreds of opportunities to implicate Jews at his hands at any other occasion.

      I'm not amazed, because I believe he did precisely that.

      But if you take a look at the serial murder cases we have on record, I think you will find that it is quite a rare thing to see, in any case when it comes to a killer who does not feel that the law is hot on his heels.

      You won't find that at all. It would depend if there was a convenient individual or group to scapegoat, as there unquestionably were in the cases of Christie and Jack the Ripper. That's acutely case-specific. So arguing that a minority of killer resort to this strategy wouldn't advance your case at all, as every such case would require the existence of a readily available scapegoat or "fall-guy". If none existed, they don't "count".

      As for my "inelegantly patronising language" I am truly sorry if you feel offended.

      Sorry about that. I was a little snippy there.

      Best regards,
      Ben

      Sam Flynn
      29th December 2007, 11:10 PM
      I will begin by borrowing the map Sam used on another thread. It is an 1890 one
      Hi Fisherman,

      I've since had it confirmed that the map was published in 1899, but you may not have been aware of that. Suffice to say, the distribution of Jews would not have changed much since 1888, as is borne out by the consecutive censuses of 1881 and 1891. If anything, the increasing popularity amongst Jewish families of "modern" social housing in erstwhile predominantly "gentile" areas (like Flower & Dean) would have evened things out across the "Gaza Strip" of Commercial Street by 1899. I would thus expect that the Jewish population density would have been rather more concentrated in those areas west of Commercial Street and south of Whitechapel Road in 1888.

      Fisherman
      29th December 2007, 11:30 PM
      Ben advices:
      "Forget vertical lines, Fisherman"

      What I did was to point out where on the map George Yard lies, Ben. I strongly suspect that this did not evade you. Still, for some reason, you use these words to imply that I was suggesting that the Ripper took the way the crow flies from the murder sites to George Yard. I did not do that. What I wrote was that he would have walked THROUGH/PAST Jewish housings, and THAT is very well borne out by Sams map. The area between Millers Court and George Yard, for example, is deep blue almost altogether, whichever way you look at it.
      Now, as for "the Jewish agenda" on the night of the double event, my belief remains that there never WAS a double event from the outset; I am convinced that the Stride killing was not a Ripper deed. Thus, I am left with the problem of explaining just the one Jewish club, that in the vicinity of Mitre Square. And here we are faced with a choice, the way I look upon it: Did the Ripper choose that area because a/ he felt certain that it would do a lot of good for his efforts to implicate the Jews, or b/ because the area around St Botolphs church was a well-known market for those who sought for prostitutes? Let´s not forget here, that if he DID do Stride, he would have been in an almighty hurry to find that second victim.
      By the bye, just how many buildings, clubs, synagogues, shelters, were there in Whitechapel back in 1888? If you wanted to commit a murder within the circle suggested by the fice canonical murder sites, just how far away from the closest Jew-implicating building could you come? Even in the totally Gentile-dominated Dorset Street, the nearest synagogue was just a stones throw away!
      Ergo no "string of freak coincidences". I don´t see how anybody taking a stroll through Whitechapel in 1888 would have named the fact that he saw numerous synagogues, Jewish clubs and Jews on the street "a string of freak coincindences". It is gross overrating, as far as I am concerned.

      Next point:
      "You won't find that at all. It would depend if there was a convenient individual or group to scapegoat, as there unquestionably were in the cases of Christie and Jack the Ripper. That's acutely case-specific. So arguing that a minority of killer resort to this strategy wouldn't advance your case at all, as every such case would require the existence of a readily available scapegoat or "fall-guy". If none existed, they don't "count".

      Way too convenient, Ben. And way too simple. That would be discounting the serial killers who take pride in their deeds, and who would NEVER have them ascribed to anybody else. And it would be disregarding the fact that any serial killer always has a chance to scapegoat others, for example by planting evidence. It is common practice in some types of crime, like for example drug trafficking, but when it comes to serial killers it is very uncommon - if it exists at all. Disregarding it would be doing logic an unjustice.

      On your remarks on my language: No hard feelings, Ben! Being English-speaking yourself you would be a better judge of my shortcomings than I would be, and I can live with that.

      All the best,
      Fisherman

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 11:30 PM
      Hi Gareth,

      No need to wipe them, or swaddle them, in the first place, I'd suggest - unless he were wearing a light beige jacket.

      ...Or pepper 'n' salt.

      It would have grossed his pockets out big time, and I rather suspect our medically ignorant f(r)iend would not have known about the full extent of organ seepage. The apron was there to fully protect the inside of his coat - he may as well have availed himself of it.

      I'm sure a puddle for a pooey hand (sound like the title of a John Steinbeck novel!) would have been at hand well in advance of Goulston Street, again, without having the need to remove an apron segment.

      Cheers,
      Ben

      Fisherman
      29th December 2007, 11:37 PM
      Sam!

      Thanks for the information on the map, it carries importance. I side with you on the issue that there would have been little change, though. Moving Jews would have moved inbetween the dark blue "enclaves".

      The best, Sam!
      Fisherman

      Fisherman
      29th December 2007, 11:44 PM
      Ben writes:
      "I'm sure a puddle for a pooey hand (sound like the title of a John Steinbeck novel!) would have been at hand well in advance of Goulston Street, again, without having the need to remove an apron segment."
      Whats wrong with this chronology: Bloodied and mucky hands-take a piece of the apron to wipe the hands with and get the hell out of the square-wipe the hands as well as it could be done until people start showing up on the streets-tuck it in your pocket to conceal it, while shoving your hands into your pockets too-proceed eastwards til you find an empty street with a pricacy-offering doorway-dip your hands into one of the rain puddles outside the doorway and slip in-clean your hands and dry them-throw away the rag-head home.
      I think that this is a very simple solution to a very simple problem. No need to bring anything else on the stage.

      The best!
      Fisherman

      Ben
      29th December 2007, 11:49 PM
      What I wrote was that he would have walked THROUGH/PAST Jewish housings, and THAT is very well borne out by Sams map.

      No it isn't, mate.

      N-o-o-o-o, it isn't.

      I've noticed you've hopped from the ripper being domiciled in the general vicinity of George Yard to George Yard itself, but regardless, any return journey from Hanbury Street and Millier's Court would not have taken him through predominantly Jewish dwellings. To go through one would have meant deviating from his course, and probably having to double back afterwards. Too risky.

      Now, as for "the Jewish agenda" on the night of the double event, my belief remains that there never WAS a double event from the outset; I am convinced that the Stride killing was not a Ripper deed. Thus, I am left with the problem of explaining just the one Jewish club, that in the vicinity of Mitre Square

      To be "convinced" (wow) that Stride did not fall afoul of Jack the Ripper seems fabulously over-confident to my mind, but each to his own. I personally consider it beyond the realms of random coincidence that both double-event murders were committed in very close proximity to a Jewish club...and a syanagogue to boot with Mitre Square. That said, I can perfectly accept that the St. Botolphs soliciting area did impact, to a degree, upon his choice of Mitre Square as a potential hotspot. But one should not preclude the other.

      By the bye, just how many buildings, clubs, synagogues, shelters, were there in Whitechapel back in 1888? If you wanted to commit a murder within the circle suggested by the fice canonical murder sites, just how far away from the closest Jew-implicating building could you come

      Ah, this is something that ought to be clarified immediately. It isn't remotely the case that a random choice of murder site would stand an equal chance of occuring in "accidentally" close proximity to a Jewish club as anywhere alse, and although I appreciate that you intended no malice when you accused me of "grossly overstating" things, you are quite misinformed on this point.

      Way too convenient, Ben. And way too simple. That would be discounting the serial killers who take pride in their deeds, and who would NEVER have them ascribed to anybody else.

      Which ones are these? The ones that advertise their identities?

      And it would be disregarding the fact that any serial killer always has a chance to scapegoat others, for example by planting evidence.

      Depends on the availability of the scapegoat. Depends on the scapegoat being scapegoatable enough. Depends if the police picked up on such efforts if ever they were resorted to. You're assertion that it would be "uncommon" for guilty party would not seek to shift blame onto others is, once again, based on unnacceptable and overconfident assumptions, coupled with an apparent disregard for the "specifics" in each case.

      Best regards,
      Ben

      Comment


      • #18
        Ben
        29th December 2007, 11:54 PM
        Whats wrong with this chronology: Bloodied and mucky hands-take a piece of the apron to wipe the hands with and get the hell out of the square-wipe the hands as well as it could be done until people start showing up on the streets-tuck it in your pocket to conceal it

        And he bungs his organs.....where?

        Straight into his pockets, when the IDEAL opportunity presented itself to provide to protect his garments from coming into contact with freshly removed viscera?

        Not in a million years, as far as I'm concerned. Not very plausible.

        No need to remove the apron. It would have taken as much time to remove the worst of the gunk from his hands as it would to seperate the apron piece...or near enough. If puddles provided a water source, they were available in Mitre Square and the general vicinity. Again, it would have taken the same amount of time to dunk hands in a puddle as it would to remove an apron piece.

        I think that this is a very simple solution to a very simple problem. No need to bring anything else on the stage.

        Only if you have the confidence to be "convinced" that the GSG, for example, was not ripper-authored. I'm neither confident nor convinced in that regard, and nor should anyone else be. If I had that confidence and conviction, a lot of things would be supremely simple, but alas, alack. I've said all this before, and will probably start copying and pasting after a while. Gosh, these things do go on, don't they? I know we're all as guilty as eachother on that score, but foooooookin 'eck!

        Best regards
        Ben

        Sam Flynn
        29th December 2007, 11:58 PM
        ...Or pepper 'n' salt.
        Ben, pepper and salt fabric can just as easily be dark, as I've shown.
        It would have grossed his pockets out big time, and I rather suspect our medically ignorant f(r)iend would not have known about the full extent of organ seepage.
        He may have had an idea after Hanbury Street. Not much blood at all, really.
        The apron was there to fully protect the inside of his coat - he may as well have availed himself of it.
        That's what I'm saying... but what was the unique feature of the Mitre Square murder that might suggest that any special protection was needed?
        I'm sure a puddle for a pooey hand (sound like the title of a John Steinbeck novel!) would have been at hand well in advance of Goulston Street, again, without having the need to remove an apron segment.
        But then he would probably have had to have trolled along his escape route casting about for a safely-located puddle, all the time wafting a hand like Freddy Kruger after an absent-minded trip to the lavatory. I can't quite see that, somehow.

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 12:09 AM
        Hi Gareth,

        Ben, pepper and salt fabric can just as easily be dark, as I've shown

        Yeah, but what it if was light? What if there was a little more salt than pepper? As for Hanbury Sreet, he probably did take the organs home in a make-shift rag, but decided to ditch it en route when he adopted the same grisly practice at Mitre Square, quite possible because he found himself in a Jewish hotspot and thought "While I'm 'ere...".

        Cheers,
        Ben

        monty
        30th December 2007, 12:55 AM
        Assuming Jack wore such a jacket.

        Trevor Marriott
        30th December 2007, 02:14 AM
        I think people are getting to carried away with this fecal matter. It is accptde that the colon was cut but because Eddowes was probably mal nourished there may have been very liitle waste to come out.

        I would suggest that as she had recently been murdered there would have been more blood than faceal matter to contend with. from him handling some of the internal organs (notice i say handling and not removing or taking away)

        Fisherman
        30th December 2007, 02:15 AM
        Ben writes:
        "No it isn't, mate.

        N-o-o-o-o, it isn't."

        Wrong map, perhaps? On mine it is quite evident that the routes offered to him took him through OR PAST (a pity that these are the largest letters offered, since I have written "through or past" in every post - and you have disregraded the "past" every single time.)
        I also find the "too risky" part slightly curious, given the Rippers business. He assaulted, killed and mutilated women out on the East end streets. He could not have been all that opposed to risk-taking, could he? Still, I see and acknowledge your point, Ben. I dont, however, acknowledge that he would not have walked past or through Jewish housings, for that he most certainly would.

        As for my conviction that Stride was not killed by Jack, I stand by it. I fail to see why this impresses you that much. To me, it´s no "wow!" at all.
        Havent you got unprovable convictions on the case? Such as Kelly not leaving her room after Blotchy? Such as there being no reason to believe that Killeen spoke of a pen-knife in the Tabram case because the width of the wounds was smallish? Such as the Ripper carrying Eddowes´organs away in the apron?
        Come now, Ben, we are not speaking of evidence here. We are speaking of personal convictions reached after giving a number of matters some hard thinking. If you want to point to the great importance of Strides murder happening close to a Jewish club, you are perfectly welcome. But surely you must see that I am entitled to another stance. It´s not as if I just made it up either; I have written two dissertations on the subject, both pointing to why I am convinced that Stride does not belong to the Rippers tally. So if you please...?

        Next up:
        "It isn't remotely the case that a random choice of murder site would stand an equal chance of occuring in "accidentally" close proximity to a Jewish club as anywhere else"

        Please, Ben; offer me the benefit of a doubt even if you think I am daft. There is no place on planet Earth where "a random choice of murder site would stand an equal chance of occuring in "accidentally" close proximity to a Jewish club as anywhere else". How could there be?
        And this was - of course - never stated by me. What I DID say, however, was that the area surrounded by the five canonical sites would have held great numbers of synagogues, Jewish clubs, Jewish shelters, Jewish shops. In fact, there would have been so many of them that it would be very hard to find large areas where they were NOT around, and there would always be such an institution not very far away from whatever spot you chose. How far? I could not say, but how far away from the Jewish club opposite Church Passage was Eddowes found? It was not as if she was lying on the doorstep, was it? Twenty meters away, perhaps? Thirty?
        Would thirty meters away from a Jewish shpo do the trick? Fifty meters away from a Jewish cemetery? A hundred meters away from a synagogue? Dilution, Ben, is what I am talking of here.
        I think this is all reaching into something that in all probability was never there, and I suspect the Ripper would have had a good laugh at the idea of it. Maybe he would even have been impressed: Pretty nifty, that!

        As for scapegoating serial killers, I would be thrilled to hear of them, suffice to say.

        Onwards:
        "and he bungs his organs ...where?"

        But they were not his organs, they were Eddowes´. There, I got to have a go at YOUR language, Ben!

        Apart from that, he had them in his pockets from the outset, or in something else he had brought along. My guess is the pockets, though: less suspicious-looking that way.

        "Not in a million years" is of course your answer to that, and I can only say...Wow!

        And you are of course right, Ben; we do close in on cutting and pasting time now, but that´s where anybody playing the Last Man Standing-game ends up, is it not?

        Have a good nights sleep, Ben - I will!

        The best, friend!
        Fisherman

        Trevor Marriott
        30th December 2007, 02:43 AM
        While you are all arguing about routes etc.

        Why dont you consider the fact that he did not go back into Whitechapel as ypu all seem to think.

        If you look at the murder sites they are all a stones throw away from main throughfares would be quicker and easier for him to go that way he would get lost in the crowds. "Why put your head in the lions mouth unnecessarily" !!

        This could also indicate that the killer did not want to venture to far into unknown territory looking for his prey ,and to be fair he didnt on all occassions

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 02:44 AM
        Wrong map, perhaps? On mine it is quite evident that the routes offered to him took him through OR PAST (a pity that these are the largest letters offered, since I have written "through or past" in every post - and you have disregraded the "past" every single time

        But Fisherman, "through" and past" mean different things, don't they? I'm no pedant, but the distinction is crucial. Why? Because to venture through a noted Jewish enclave between Dorset Street/Hanbury Street and the general area you've suggested for the ripper's bolt-hole would have meant deviating from the most direct and convenient path of retreat home, something I've never suggested happening in connection with the Mitre Square escape, and there we are talking about a far more densely populated Jewish enclave. Jew-bothering would have been a secondary consideration to making good his escape.

        Havent you got unprovable convictions on the case? Such as Kelly not leaving her room after Blotchy

        I'd describe the above as the most parsimonious and reasonable explanation permitted by the extant evidence, yes, but I'd never say I'm "convinced" about it. It's too long ago - not enough evidence. The problem here isn't so much that your dismissal of both the Stride murder and the GSG as ripper-generated constitutes a particularly disasterous theory. The problem is that you're using these controversial, minority-endorsed opinions to pour doubt - and a hint of disdain - on other theories. You've used your dismissal of both to arrive at a perceived "simple explanation" in connection with the "bloody rag" issue, and that's all well and good until you say things like "no need to bring anything else to the stage".

        Well, I'm sorry, but something was already "on the stage" whether you give it credence or not, and had been since 1888; two murders committed in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs, a bloody rag hurled into one of the most well-known Jewish Steets in the district, next to which was daubed a message mentioning "The Juwes".

        That was all "on the stage", and that's the stuff you've dismissed in order to dismiss some of my suggestions.

        So if I'm to tread carefully here by not being overtly critical of your Stride-related stance, could I ask that you extend the same courtesy to the premise I'm advancing, rather than just using your controversial arguments to somehow ennervate my own?

        What I DID say, however, was that the area surrounded by the five canonical sites would have held great numbers of synagogues, Jewish clubs, Jewish shelters, Jewish shops.

        Granted, and it is also a fact that a very small minority of viable murder sites would have fallen in as close proximity to Jewish clubs as Berner Street and Mitre Square were. Both were committed in such areas, and the notion that this happened accidentally, and in pretty quick succession, doesn't really convince me.

        Apart from that, he had them in hi pockets from the outset, or in something else he had brought along. My guess is the pockets, though: less suspiciouslooking that way.

        Nah, not pockets. Not directly. Oh heavens no, no pockets!

        No need.

        There was useful apron portion there. He didn't need to get his pockets sullied with potentially incriminating gunk.

        we do close in on cutting and pasting time now, but that´s where anybody playing the Last Man Standing-game ends up, is it not?

        I sense you're probably kidding, but you're not really in this for the "last man standing" rush, are you? I reckon you're better than that, Fisherman. I reckon you know better that to try to "win" the argument through verbosity and prolixity and "let's see who has the most stamina!" silliness, and I trust you'll prove me right.

        Best regards,
        Ben

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:20 AM
        I think people are getting to carried away with this fecal matter.There was a young lady of Clewer
        Who tripped and fell into a sewer,
        She instantly died,
        And was dumped by the tide
        At Richmond, where nobody knew her
        It is accptde that the colon was cut but because Eddowes was probably mal nourished there may have been very liitle waste to come out.
        I've often wondered about that myself, Trevor, but since there was evidently enough fæcal matter to "smear over" the small intestines and transfer itself to the apron, it's fairly clear that there was a decent (indecent?) quantity of the stuff.

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:36 AM
        But Fisherman, "through" and past" mean different things, don't they? I'm no pedant, but the distinction is crucial. Why? Because to venture through a noted Jewish enclave between Dorset Street/Hanbury Street and the general area you've suggested for the ripper's bolt-hole would have meant deviating from the most direct and convenient path of retreat home
        Leaving aside the Hanbury Street and Dorset Street murders, it's self-evident that any Ripper living east of Mitre Square in the general vicinity of Hawksmoor's church (I'll not nominate specific bolt-holes, for the sake of a quiet life!) would, in avoiding the main thoroughfares, pass through numerous back-streets with a significantly high Jewish population. Whether "through" or "past" it makes no difference. The point is that, whichever random (or deliberate) doorway he picked to duck into and dump the apron, it would - without a shadow of doubt - have stood a very good chance of being that of a dwelling with a significant number of Jewish residents.

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 04:16 AM
        Hi Gareth,

        Leaving aside Hanbury and Dorset Street (which wouldn't have necessitated traversing Jewish Streets to arrive at the bolt-hole Fisherman mooted), we've only got Berner Street, Buck's Row and George Yard, and the latter two are irrelevent since the Jew-focus only kicked in after Nichols' murder.

        Best regards,
        Ben

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 01:07 PM
        Leaving aside Hanbury and Dorset Street (which wouldn't have necessitated traversing Jewish Streets to arrive at the bolt-hole Fisherman mooted), we've only got Berner Street...
        I'm not trying to establish a pattern or find a bolt-hole, Ben - I'm only interested in the Ripper's trajectory after Mitre Square, which would have inevitably taken him through densely-populated Jewish streets if he were heading back towards Commercial Street, and was avoiding the main arterial roads.

        Fisherman
        30th December 2007, 02:03 PM
        Lets take it from the end here, Ben!

        Of course its no last-man-standing game. It just carries ridiculous likenesses to it at times. And thanks for holding a hope on my behalf on the issue!

        As for whether you may be convinced of something that happened in 1888 and left very little tangible evidence, I must once more point to the fact that you yourself is pretty convinced that the Ripper did not carry the organs away in his pockets. "Not in a million years" leaves very little room for doubt, does it not? To me, it carries great likeness to "no need to bring anything else to the stage".

        Personally, I think that the driving force behind most peoples interest in the Ripper holds a fair amount of passion; those who approach the subject in a totally scientific and unpassionate manner are very few, if any.
        The convictions will be there, and they will add both good and bad things to the research. My conviction on the Stride case was not there from the beginning; I set out as a firm believer that she was a Ripper victim, but the more I learn about the case, the more I believe that she really does not belong here. That, however, does not mean that I stop reading when somebody claims that she WAS a Ripper victim. I listen, I weigh, and I come up with a belief, for beliefs are what we are left at the mercy of.

        As for the GSG, I fail to see where in this discussion I have claimed it irrelevant? True, I do not see it as the Rippers work, but I am less convinced here than I am in the Stride case. Keeping it very short, I find the wording too unclear to clearly implicate the Jews, I think it strange that there was a piece of chalk at hand, and there is also the issue of the darkness - PC Long only saw it when he shone his light on it, so maybe the Ripper could not have written it without a light. Still, I do not discount it, although I am very much more against than for.

        On the bolt-hole matter, I am not saying that the Ripper stayed at George Yard. I am only using it because it is much in the centre of the five canonicals and because the way he took from Mitre Square leads in that general direction.

        As for "through" and "past", there is no much reason to dwell on the issue further, since Sam has taken care of it in much the same manner as I would have.

        Finally:
        "So if I'm to tread carefully here by not being overtly critical of your Stride-related stance, could I ask that you extend the same courtesy to the premise I'm advancing, rather than just using your controversial arguments to somehow ennervate my own?"

        First off, I don´t think that I have ever asked anybody to tread carefully on the Stride issue; I could discuss that all day long, and I would much welcome any barrage or crossfire on the subject. I rather feel that it is far too little discussed, and I actually believe it baffling that everybody does not hold the same opinion on it as I do (well...). Or, to put it another way; I am truly convinced that she was not killed by the Ripper.
        I have exchanged blows over the matter with many a poster, and nothing has shaken my stance in the least. So I don´t mind battling it out on the topic, Ben!
        That aside, I respect your wish to keep the debate civil. I would be the last one not to defend your right to hold you own opinions, and the first one to admit that you may of course be right!
        Still, when you speak of my "controversial" standing points, I think it applies poorly here. My theory of the bloody rag holds nothing but the simplest of elements: the need to clean up, to flee, and to rid himself of incriminating evidence. You are the one who embroiders on the scapegoating part, and who sees numerous tries on the Rippers behalf to incriminate the Jews. There lies the controversy, and that´s where speculation of other issues than mere practicalities enters the issue.

        All the best, Ben!
        Fisherman

        Trevor Marriott
        30th December 2007, 02:42 PM
        Now I know casebook readers like to debate controversial issues and there have been many as far as the apron piece is concerned.

        But I will add another to the pot.

        What if the killer did not cut/tear remove and dispose of the apron piece what if it was planted there by a police officer, namely Dc Halse.

        He admitted he first went to the crime scene, then he states he went off on his own and admits to being in Goulston St around 2.20am. Staing he stopped and checked 2 males. Now that would have taken him a little while i suggest.

        Pc Long states that the apron piece wasn’t there at 2.20am. and he then finds is at 3.05am.

        So if it were the killer who dropped/discarded it he was taking a chance with two police officers in that area around the time he is alleged to have dropped it.

        In relation to Dc Halse he then goes to the mortuary and just happens to notice that the apron has a piece missing

        It is not unheard of for police officers to plant evidence what if he cut/ tore the piece from her apron at the crime scene then planted it intending to go back later and claim some glory for finding a vital piece of evidence. However that idea may have been scuppered as Pc Long found it first

        I am not saying this did happen but in the light of the the mystery surrounding the apron piece should be considered

        jdpegg
        30th December 2007, 02:47 PM
        Hi Trevor,

        Certainly, you are full of interesting ideas, but I wonder where you find the evidence to support such a hypothesis, after all the null hypothesis can only be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis, should there actually be some evidence for it. At least that what I was taught at school

        Jen

        Trevor Marriott
        30th December 2007, 03:00 PM
        Jennifer
        please go and read the inquest reports then clearly confirms times and movements of Dc halse and Pc Long.

        No more of an hypothesis than those that suugest the killer removed the organs and took them away

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 03:09 PM
        Hi Fisherman,

        Keeping it very short, I find the wording too unclear to clearly implicate the Jews, I think it strange that there was a piece of chalk at hand, and there is also the issue of the darkness - PC Long only saw it when he shone his light on it, so maybe the Ripper could not have written it without a light

        Fair enough. I used to be squarely on the fence on the matter myself, but having contemplated it a little further, I'm rather swayed by the fact that three senior police officials - Charles Warren, head of the Metropolitan Police; Donald Swanson, who had overall charge of the murder investigation; and Henry Smith, second in command of the City Police - all believed that the GSG was not only ripper-authored (as Robert Anderson also believed), but was a deliberate ploy to implicate the Jewish community.

        So when you argue:

        You are the one who embroiders on the scapegoating part, and who sees numerous tries on the Rippers behalf to incriminate the Jews. There lies the controversy

        ...I cannot responsibly accept it. Of course I'm not embroidering, or offering up anything controverial. I'm simply endorsing a widely held police view at the time because I see the intrinsic merit in it. I also think that this copper-endorsed piece of evidence (mentioning "the juwes") assumes a telling resonance when taken in conjunction with the fact that two murders, committed within the last hour, were committed in extremely close proximity to two Jewish clubs. Conversely, your simple, minimalist explanation is based on a rejection of two very major, and widely held police views, and for that very crucial reason, your take on matters in not the most simple, and it certainly isn't the less controversial.

        As for "cleaning up", I really don't want to get bogged (!) down in this again, but I'll cheerfully accept that he used the rag purpose, but the fact that he removed it suggest that hand-wiping wasn't its sole purpose.

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:12 PM
        What if the killer did not cut/tear remove and dispose of the apron piece what if it was planted there by a police officer, namely Dc Halse. Pc Long states that the apron piece wasn’t there at 2.20am. and he then finds is at 3.05am.

        So if it were the killer who dropped/discarded it he was taking a chance with two police officers in that area around the time he is alleged to have dropped it.
        Hi Trevor,

        Thanks for that thought, but I see at least two difficulties with the notion.

        Minor point: I suggest that the Ripper only had one officer to worry about, as it's quite probable that he had deposited the apron long before Halse arrived.

        Major point: Halse was by no means alone in Mitre Square - by the time he'd headed off towards Goulston, policemen Outram, Holland, Marriott, Harvey and Watkins were almost certainly there, as was George Morris, and Dr Sequeira had arrived. Even if he had the motivation, which I very much doubt, Halse would have had a tough job to remove the item and conceal it about his person without being noticed.

        Trevor Marriott
        30th December 2007, 03:20 PM
        Well like i said in the post no one can say for sure. besides the Doctor didnt arrive straightaway and i am sure all of the officers in the interim period did not all arrive together and after they all did arrive were not standing over the body with their fingers up the a.....s so it unfair to say it could not have happened

        jdpegg
        30th December 2007, 03:25 PM
        BTW, I was under the impression that Halses's beat in fact didnt go into the square further then the end of the passage - not sure where that came to me from, and it may be wrong. Did I pick it up at Wolverhampton?

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:27 PM
        As for "cleaning up", I really don't want to get bogged (!) down in this again, but I'll cheerfully accept that he used the rag purpose, but the fact that he removed it suggest that hand-wiping wasn't its sole purpose.I agree, Ben - shoved into a pocket, it could quite easily have doubled up as means to stop the excrement being transferred from his hand onto his clothes.

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 03:30 PM
        Absolutely, Gareth. It could have doubled up as a means of preventing any undesirable substances from "touching cloth"!

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:32 PM
        Well like i said in the post no one can say for sure. besides the Doctor didnt arrive straightaway and i am sure all of the officers in the interim period did not all arrive together and after they all did arrive were not standing over the body with their fingers up the a.....s so it unfair to say it could not have happened
        It's perfectly fair to say that it was very unlikely to have happened. Remember, Watkins kept watch over the body whilst Morris went for reinforcements - and he was there whilst the others arrived. And, for another thing, I bet you they did stand over the body for a good few moments afterwards, wondering at the horror of it all.

        jdpegg
        30th December 2007, 03:35 PM
        Dear Trevor,

        as you well know, I am not disputing at all the movements of the Police Officers as stated in the Inquest papers, or contemporary sources. No, not at all, what I am disputing is the evidence for your fanciful notion that Halse planted the apron piece, evidence, which, so far as I understand it, does not actually exist outside the realms of your imagination. Or am I wrong?

        Jen

        Sam Flynn
        30th December 2007, 03:36 PM
        Absolutely, Gareth. It could have doubled up as a means of preventing any undesirable substances from "touching cloth"!
        As you know, Ben, I have strong reservations about how "undesirable" those minimally oozy organs would have been.

        Ben
        30th December 2007, 03:41 PM
        Undesirable enough to opt for the "no ooze" option over the "some ooze" one, I'd wager

        <div

        Comment


        • #19
          Halse planted the apron?

          Why?

          Monty




          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • #20
            Good probable point Mont there -but it of course could have been 'Mr Runaway Wipey Hands' too I suppose. I think the only thing we can be sure of here (in the many FEW things we can be sure of is that whatever else this piece of 'unpleasantness' came from the 'er other side of Kate's apron.
            How and when it got there is something else again as is who placed it there
            A wonderful conundrum that is a real 'what if' 'what how/who' with me too.....somehow I can never shake the policeman from my mind though!

            Suz x
            Last edited by Suzi; 02-27-2008, 01:54 AM.
            'Would you like to see my African curiosities?'

            Comment


            • #21
              Sorry Folks, cant seem to locate page 3 of the archive, anyone !

              Anna

              Comment


              • #22
                Eddowes Apron

                Can anyone tell me if it is documented as to what the colour of Eddowes apron was or am i right in assuming that it was the standard white apron which victorian women wore

                Comment


                • #23
                  Hello Trevor,

                  yes the piece of white apron was produced at the inquest:

                  PC Long: I was on duty in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, on Sunday morning, Sept. 30, and about five minutes to three o'clock I found a portion of a white apron (produced). There were recent stains of blood on it

                  All the best
                  IchabodCrane

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    eddowes apron piece

                    Thank you for that information.

                    Does anyome know which part of the apron piece was missing i.e left side, right side, half way down, or bottom centre ?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Hey Trevor,

                      The Times reported that the apron was found hanging loosely around her.

                      Brown states that the apron left with Eddowes was a corner with a string attached.

                      From that Id say a diagonal cut with the upper part remaining with the body and lower found by Long.

                      Cheers

                      Monty




                      Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

                      http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Eddowes apron &amp; apron piece

                        Thank you for that information another aspect i would seek clarification is with regards to the matching of the apron piece to the apron.

                        Was it matched because it had previoulsy been torn off and repaired presumably by Eddowes or matched solely because it fitted a piece of the apron that was missing

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hi Trevor

                          This is what Dr Brown said at the inquest.

                          Coroner] Was your attention called to the portion of the apron that was found in Goulston-street? - Yes. I fitted that portion which was spotted with blood to the remaining portion, which was still attached by the strings to the body.

                          There was something else about running repairs found on both portions but I can`t see anything relating to that at the moment.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            (continued from the No Bloody Piece of Apron thread on the Annie Chapman board)

                            ...cut his finger.

                            It absolutely fits. There is a large amount of blood in the corner of the rag and then smears etc. When you cut your finger and wind a piece of material around it, you don't start with the middle of the material, you start at one corner. Starting in the middle makes the material too cumbersome. I think he managed to slash himself with his knife in the dark, and then had to do something quick to stanch the blood so he cut off a piece of apron and wound it round. YOu will say that if he did that, there would be blood on the cloth that soaked through the original flesh-to-cloth point. And there would be. But if he puts the point of the corner directly on the wound--which is how I've always done it under such circs, and how I think most people do--the layers of cloth would still be in the corner area. And if it's bleeding pretty freely to start off with, there would be a big splodge right in the corner.

                            In the Chapman thread I argued that he had to have come with some kind of receptacle for the organs he planned on taking, otherwise he puts himself at risk of being caught with blood dripping out of his pockets or out of the makeshift transport he's found at the scene. He's not stupid. It would be easy to bring a piece of oilcloth or whatever, and put the goods in there. Then walk through the streets innocently and no one will be any the wiser. Nothing he takes from the corpse will hide the blood that will come along with the organs he takes with him. And nothing is missing from Chapman's body save those save organs. Her clothes are all intact and her possessions seem to have been scattered around a bit, but there's nothing there to suggest he was able to find a place to put his trophy in. No menstrual napkins near the corpse, so he didn't take one to use for transport. If she was menstruating she would have had more than one cloth.

                            So if he had something to use with Chapman, the chances are good, IMO, that he had the same something to use on Eddowes. He takes the cloth for another reason, and I do believe he took it because he nicked himself while having such a good time with her body.


                            And I hope it gave him a raging case of septicaemia!
                            Last edited by Chava; 04-08-2008, 06:53 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Chava,

                              Previously on the this thread (Dec. 07, before the crash) I also expressed my thought that it was plausible that he cut himself in Mitre Square (as have many others, I believe). The description of the blood distribution on the apron piece could be compatible with a hastily applied cloth wrap over a bleeding wound, as you stated. Sometimes I think the apron piece may have been a bit large for such an application, but we don't know precisely how big it was, and he was in a hurry. It was also quite dark, and wouldn't have known the severity of the cut until he could see it clearly. The 'cleaning his hands and knife' idea never seemed likely to me, considering how far he carried it, and other material available at the scene. Organ transport is a viable option, but I tend to think he would come prepared for the tasks he wanted to complete. I.E., he wanted to slice prostitutes to pieces, so he brought a knife along instead of trying to find one en-route; and he had previously taken organs, so I feel it is likely he would come prepared for that eventuality as well, whether it be his pockets or a separate container/cloth. My opinion is that the taking of the apron piece was a response to an unexpected event. Possibly a cut on the hand. Then again, maybe it was taken specifically to deposit in some location for the police to find.

                              *Speculation Alert*
                              So he cuts himself, and it puts him out of work for awhile, and also puts him through considerable pain. He's so angry about it that when he can work again, he makes sure he has ample time and better light. Maybe the ferocity of the MJK attack was prostitute-payback for the suffering he endured from a nasty, painful, infected cut.

                              I don't suppose there are hospital/medical records available that may have recorded the treatment of such an injury, assuming it was severe enough to seek medical treatment?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Addendum

                                Reference my post immediately above, it seems the Royal London Hospital has patient records back to 1883. I wonder if their patient records are complete enough to reveal the nature of patient injuries/conditions? I'm sure someone in the last 120 years has done this, but if Jack cut his hand with Eddowes (necessitating the apron scrap), and for some reason he went to the London for treatment (astronomical odds, but within the realm of possibility), maybe his name, or likely an alias, is written in the hospital register sometime after Sept. 30? Someone just do a quick , easy , simple search of the patient records for Oct. 1888, find the guy with the giant slice in his hand or septicemia, and we can wrap up this little mystery and all go out for a few pints. My favorite beverage on earth is a nice cool pint of Boddingtons.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X