The Apron

[mariab]

"Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?"
Wasn't that one Ripper for every girl? (heh-heh)

After “alternative Ripperology“, "minimalist Ripperology“, it's time for a new approach, “monogamous Ripperology“.

But you evaded my other question?

Lynn, you've also “evaded“ deciding about the second translator and the macro-key search too. Are you interested in these ideas? Care to help out, perhaps? Please?

do you suspect that the Ripper murders were...
1) Unconnected one-off homicides.
2) Connected homicides, but individual assassins.
3) Partial connected homicides (3 by the same hand, for instance) and the rest unrelated?
4) 2-3 murderers working together, but with a purpose other than 'sexual serial murder'.

Don't try so hard Tom, your head is smoking.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Lynn. Consider yourself heard otherwise - the Ripper cut Chapman's clothing. But you evaded my other question? Okay, to be fair, I know you're not easily convinced by any person, so let me word it another way - do you suspect that the Ripper murders were...

1) Unconnected one-off homicides.
2) Connected homicides, but individual assassins.
3) Partial connected homicides (3 by the same hand, for instance) and the rest unrelated?
4) 2-3 murderers working together, but with a purpose other than 'sexual serial murder'.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[lynn cates]

1 little, 2 little, 3 little rippers

Hello Tom.

"Are you suggesting he didn't cut Chapman's clothes?"

Well, unless I hear otherwise.

"Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?"

Wasn't that one Ripper for every girl? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

"So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective."

Yes. Odd that he didn't do that to Polly or Annie. He just started with Kate.

Are you suggesting he didn't cut Chapman's clothes? Has Trevor sold you on his 'One Girl for Every Ripper' theory?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Lechmere]

Yes Jon - according to Donovan there was also a piece of black woollen scarf under the handkerchief.
This must have been considerably smaller than the half apron, and by the description smaller than the folded handkerchief. It would also presumably have been very bloody after the throat cutting.
Would the Ripper have undone it, fiddling around under the bigger bloody handkerchief and carried it off with the organs?
Or if he took it off after strangling Annie and before cutting her throat, why didn’t he take the handkerchief?
It isn't mentioned anywhere from what I can tell apart from by Donovan so I wouldn't place too much emphasis on it.

[lynn cates]

this could be the start of something big

Hello Mac.

"So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective."

Yes. Odd that he didn't do that to Polly or Annie. He just started with Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[Fleetwood Mac]

The upper part of the dress had been torn open Dr Brown.

I have a list of articles of clothing more or less stained with blood and cut Inspector Collard.

So, Jack is tearing and cutting at her clothes to make way for his objective.

The difference with the apron, of course, is that it could not be torn open from the front, as it was tied from the back (he couldn't simply pull the buttons and pop), so how does he gain access for his objective: he cuts the one item that is tied from the back.

Makes sense: the one item that was cut in two, was the one item that can't be ripped open from the front.

Edited to add: this idea would move away from the pre-planned knife wiping/organ carrying theory.

[Jon Guy]

With reference to Annie Chapman's neck scarf - it was still in place when she was killed, when she was examined and was among her possessions in the morgue.

Hi Lechmere

Indeed, she was wearing a neckerchief, and as Tim Donovan noted at the inquest:

She was wearing it on the Saturday morning when she left the lodging-house. She was wearing it three-corner wise round her neck, with a black woollen sort of scarf underneath.

The Eastern Post & City Chronicle
Saturday, 15 September 1888.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleets,

The proposition works already. All we're doing is examining the specific details associated with it, and determining whether or not it correlates with PC Long's description of the apron when found. In my opinion, it does so very well, especially if he wrapped it bandage-style as I've suggested.

Surely the details must fit the theory in order to engender a viable proposition?

[GregBaron]

Bold and cold...

A psychopath displays instinct, as we all do.

Bundy may have drove around with body parts, and others may have kept them at home, but the police would have had to have stopped them to work this out, and there was little chance of that happening.

The point with Jack is that it's being suggested that he deliberately walked into a place where the police were stopping people, he walked into that place an hour so after the murder, he walked into that place with incriminating evidence.

In other words, the argument goes that Jack was putting himself into a position where there was a good chance he would be caught and would hang.

Using Ted Bundy as an example, as bizarre as it is, the police would have had no reason to stop him and therefore the risk he was running was minimal (except perhaps a head rolling out the car door or something when he parked up and tried to get out, much to the consternation of Mrs Brown who's only popped out for some fish and is looking forward to a fish pie when she gets home and so she rings CSI Miami to sort it out).

Anyway, do you know of anyone who has pulled such a stunt? If you want to understand human beings then look at whay they do, and if something is so unusual it means that there's an exceedingly good chance that Jack was no different in that he wouldn't have done such a thing either (unless of course he had no other viable option).

I agree, Fleetwood, that the psychopath doesn't want to be caught. My point is that boldness and lack of normal fear reactions are part of his disorder. As I said, the preppy murderer watched his crime scene as it was discovered. We know that psychopaths have inserted themselves into investigations of their own crimes.

I don't know of a specific example that jives with this scenario but the reason is probably because they weren't caught.

With that said, I don't believe the killer returned with the apron, I believe it more likely that Long missed it the first time.

I still have heard no comment on the idea that the apron contained Jtr's own blood!


Greg

[Ben]

Hi Fleets,

My point is that this was once deemed to be a simple proposition: he took organs; he took cloth; the popped the organs into the cloth. Now, we moved to ifs, buts, maybes, posibilities to make this proposition work.

The proposition works already. All we're doing is examining the specific details associated with it, and determining whether or not it correlates with PC Long's description of the apron when found. In my opinion, it does so very well, especially if he wrapped it bandage-style as I've suggested.

[Trevor Marriott]

I agree with all of that, Ben.

My point is that this was once deemed to be a simple proposition: he took organs; he took cloth; the popped the organs into the cloth.

Now, we moved to ifs, buts, maybes, posibilities to make this proposition work.

Perhaps there a simpler proposition with fewer variables to as to why he cut the apron.

Or if in fact the killer did cut the apron piece ?

Because if you elminate the organs being taken away, the handwiping and the knife wiping what are you left with ?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It depends how absorbent the material was, Fleets. The organs probably did leave a residual trace on the outer "layers", but they were most conspicuously concentrated on the corner that directly juxtaposed the organs. My point was that the larger the rag, that greater the chances of the killer's clothing remaining gunk-free.

I agree with all of that, Ben.

My point is that this was once deemed to be a simple proposition: he took organs; he took cloth; the popped the organs into the cloth.

Now, we moved to ifs, buts, maybes, posibilities to make this proposition work.

Perhaps there a simpler proposition with fewer variables to as to why he cut the apron.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If the murderer is a psychopath Fleetwood, he doesn't think or feel as normal humans do. The preppy murderer in Manhattan some time back returned to the scene of his crime with others and watched from a stoop. Ted Bundy drug a dead body up the stairs of an apartment building in which others lived and drove around with detached heads and hands in his trunk. If Jtr was a psycopath and not a schizophenic, we can't make guesses about his behavior based on what we would do, so yes it's possible he returned to the streets with incriminating evidence on his person. Obviously, based on the murders, this individual did not possess a normal fear factor.

I don't have anything further to add.


Greg

Hi Greg,

A psychopath displays instinct, as we all do.

Bundy may have drove around with body parts, and others may have kept them at home, but the police would have had to have stopped them to work this out, and there was little chance of that happening.

The point with Jack is that it's being suggested that he deliberately walked into a place where the police were stopping people, he walked into that place an hour so after the murder, he walked into that place with incriminating evidence.

In other words, the argument goes that Jack was putting himself into a position where there was a good chance he would be caught and would hang.

Using Ted Bundy as an example, as bizarre as it is, the police would have had no reason to stop him and therefore the risk he was running was minimal (except perhaps a head rolling out the car door or something when he parked up and tried to get out, much to the consternation of Mrs Brown who's only popped out for some fish and is looking forward to a fish pie when she gets home and so she rings CSI Miami to sort it out).

Anyway, do you know of anyone who has pulled such a stunt? If you want to understand human beings then look at whay they do, and if something is so unusual it means that there's an exceedingly good chance that Jack was no different in that he wouldn't have done such a thing either (unless of course he had no other viable option).

[Ben]

Practically speaking, the blood/juices should have soaked through to the outer layers, not just the corner.

It depends how absorbent the material was, Fleets. The organs probably did leave a residual trace on the outer "layers", but they were most conspicuously concentrated on the corner that directly juxtaposed the organs. My point was that the larger the rag, that greater the chances of the killer's clothing remaining gunk-free.