The Apron

[Fleetwood Mac]

a half apron, cut in half, is still big enough to do the job, i dont know, but couldn't he have also wiped his hands on her clothing.... can someone please check this for me.

she was probably a part time cleaner, or house to house hawking for cleaning work etc.

Good point, Macolm.

I believe she did a spot of cleaning for 'the Jews'.

Again, that would suggest full apron.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Phil,

If the killer plonked the organs into the corner of the apron and then hastily wrapped the remainder around them, bandage-style, you'd expect that corner to be the most saturated, with the outer layers remaining dryer, thus protecting his coat lining from any fluids.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. No, it isn't "rubbish", Trevor.

Hi Ben,

I suggested the same.

But, on reflection:

The argument goes that a big piece of cloth was needed to soak up the juices flowing out.

If these juices are flowing as the per the argument, then you would expect other parts of the apron to pick up the residue. The blood wouldn't be as pronounced but it would be there. Think of wrapping a bag of fish and chips. There is grease in the corner; there is grease on the rest of the paper; the grease is more pronounced in the corner where the fish and chips lie.

So, what we'd be saying here is this: a big piece of cloth was needed when actually it wasn't because only the corner was wet, the juices were flowing when actually it wasn't too bad as the outer layers of the cloth were unscathed.

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

[Malcolm X]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, it's not clear how big this apron was.

A half apron or a full apron.

But maybe we can put the pieces together if we understand why CE was wearing an apron.

Options:

1) She was baking cakes in and around Mitre Square.

2) She was protecting her clothes from dirt.

3) She was using it to keep warm.

4) It was a fashion accessory.

5) Jack had an apron fetish. They arranged to meet with CE wearing an apron.

I would go with 2 or 3, and to me that would suggest a full apron.

a half apron, cut in half, is still big enough to do the job, i dont know, but couldn't he have also wiped his hands on her clothing.... can someone please check this for me.

she was probably a part time cleaner, or house to house hawking for cleaning work etc.

[Tom_Wescott]

Why Berner Street and Mitre Square?

There is NO agreement on the meaning of the graffito (or even of the word Jewes - however spelled); there is no concensus that the killer wrote the words, and certainly no clear or even remote link from Goulston St to berners St.

Well, sure there are. The men of the Berner Street club would convene in Goulston Street to march and picket and head to Mitre Square which was as close as they could get to the Great Synagogue. Also, new Jewish arrivals would line up in Goulston Street for inspection upon coming into the city. It was here the Berner Street men would come to find new recruits and hand out copies of Worker's Friend. Also, as I've pointed out, at least one person from the club (Israel Sunshine) actually lived in the building where the apron was found. But I'm not saying any of this is relevant.

I think the simple answer is that the Ripper left from Berner Street and headed just over into City bounds where he killed a woman on City turf, and smartly chose to leave a portion of her apron back in Met turf. If you just set back for a minute and take the point of view that everything the killer did that night was intentional, you'll get a good idea of what the Ripper was really like, and he wasn't like the illiterate, uneducated, fly-by-your-pants and hope you get lucky schlump that has been pushed on us since the centenial. A guy like that wouldn't have made it to his second murder without being caught. But I appreciate that a large segment of vocal Ripperphiles will never accept that, though I'm not at all saying you're one of those.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Malcolm X]

if i do, you probably will

STEADY Malcolm - you tryin' to say we're a couple??

Phil

oh good, you're still smiling

[Malcolm X]

Phil
It has been obvious that reserachers have argued over the apron issue for some time now. Those arguments have been based on what has been written. In order for those to be advanced to the point of proving or disproving either or both I with the help of the medical experts set up the tests.

These tests and the photographic results showed a piece of white cloth which bloodied hands had been wiped on. The test also involved the placing of a uterus which had been removed straight from a living donor, this was also placed in a white cloth and the results photographed. Knife wiping on a white cloth was also a further test and the results of that photographed.

Now all the photograhic results clearly do not match the decsription of the apron piece found in Goulston St. Now with these tests you cannot get much closer to re creating the scenario as is suggested so I can only go with these. I cannot see why people are looking to reject the results.

This whole thread is just going round and round and is going nowhere. Clearly for whatever reason some are so blinkered that they will not accept new aspects of the case and cling desparately to the old issues,

well lets see the photos then, but the trouble is we dont know exactly what the original looked like, but it is said that it looked like a knife/ hands were wiped on it.

to keep the apron small in your pocket and to soak up the max blood, you would put the organ on one side and wrap the cloth around it like a portion of chips

[Phil H]

if i do, you probably will

STEADY Malcolm - you tryin' to say we're a couple??

Phil

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Trevor,

Yes, it's not clear how big this apron was.

A half apron or a full apron.

But maybe we can put the pieces together if we understand why CE was wearing an apron.

Options:

1) She was baking cakes in and around Mitre Square.

2) She was protecting her clothes from dirt.

3) She was using it to keep warm.

4) It was a fashion accessory.

5) Jack had an apron fetish. They arranged to meet with CE wearing an apron.

I would go with 2 or 3, and to me that would suggest a full apron.

[Malcolm X]

I think, Malcolm, that your and my approaches are simply too far apart. I'll just keep my distance from your posts in future.

Feel free to open a thread, of course, but whether I'll post there I have no idea.

Phil

if i do, you probably will

[mklhawley]

Phil
It has been obvious that reserachers have argued over the apron issue for some time now. Those arguments have been based on what has been written. In order for those to be advanced to the point of proving or disproving either or both I with the help of the medical experts set up the tests.

These tests and the photographic results showed a piece of white cloth which bloodied hands had been wiped on. The test also involved the placing of a uterus which had been removed straight from a living donor, this was also placed in a white cloth and the results photographed. Knife wiping on a white cloth was also a further test and the results of that photographed.

Now all the photograhic results clearly do not match the decsription of the apron piece found in Goulston St. Now with these tests you cannot get much closer to re creating the scenario as is suggested so I can only go with these. I cannot see why people are looking to reject the results.

This whole thread is just going round and round and is going nowhere. Clearly for whatever reason some are so blinkered that they will not accept new aspects of the case and cling desparately to the old issues,

Spot on.

[John Bennett]

Hi Phil,

If the killer plonked the organs into the corner of the apron and then hastily wrapped the remainder around them, bandage-style, you'd expect that corner to be the most saturated, with the outer layers remaining dryer, thus protecting his coat lining from any fluids.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. No, it isn't "rubbish", Trevor.

I think the discrepancies in the various descriptions of the stains make it difficult (for me at least) to determine what may have caused them.

But Ben's hypothesis is not 'rubbish', Trevor. It is quite plausible.

Dammit, why didn't they photograph/sketch the damn thing!!!?

JB

[Malcolm X]

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

We don't know what he did, but he took the cloth.

We don't know that he was acting very logically or under what time pressures he was working.

But please feel free to disagree Trevor. After all I disagree with almost all (if not all) your theories.

Phil

ha ha

he cleaned his hands/ knife after he had finished.... does this make sense, on the apron piece

he put...... oh for God's sake

[Trevor Marriott]

But even the cleaning of the hands is not consistent with how it was described. Look at it logically the killer has killed and mutilated Eddowes his hands are covered in blood now if he is going to wipe his hands surely he would do it before taking steps to cut the apron and do it on her clothing at the scene not taking it away. I am sorry I dont buy the theory of the hand or knife wiping.

We don't know what he did, but he took the cloth.

We don't know that he was acting very logically or under what time pressures he was working.

But please feel free to disagree Trevor. After all I disagree with almost all (if not all) your theories.

Phil

Phil
It has been obvious that reserachers have argued over the apron issue for some time now. Those arguments have been based on what has been written. In order for those to be advanced to the point of proving or disproving either or both I with the help of the medical experts set up the tests.

These tests and the photographic results showed a piece of white cloth which bloodied hands had been wiped on. The test also involved the placing of a uterus which had been removed straight from a living donor, this was also placed in a white cloth and the results photographed. Knife wiping on a white cloth was also a further test and the results of that photographed.

Now all the photograhic results clearly do not match the decsription of the apron piece found in Goulston St. Now with these tests you cannot get much closer to re creating the scenario as is suggested so I can only go with these. I cannot see why people are looking to reject the results.

This whole thread is just going round and round and is going nowhere. Clearly for whatever reason some are so blinkered that they will not accept new aspects of the case and cling desparately to the old issues,

[Phil H]

I think, Malcolm, that your and my approaches are simply too far apart. I'll just keep my distance from your posts in future.

Feel free to open a thread, of course, but whether I'll post there I have no idea.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

malcolm

I'm not taking anything "personally", I assure you. What I am doing is to seek to remind people that there is an "historical method" which is designed for exactly such purposes as these. It's about standards and the reputation of the JtR case as an acceptable subject for study.

I was vastly impressed and encouraged by the emergence of a vastly superior (in comparison to earlier works) methodology around 1987. Since then we have all been assisted by the publication (Evans & Skinner) of the files and correspondence, and by other scholarly books. We also have sites like this which allow a level of discussion and debate in real time, unthinkable when I was younger.

Is the only purpose of all that effort to be that sites like this send us back to the journalistic approach and cranky explanations that we had in the 60s and 70s?

The difference between us Malcolm, on looking at how the evidence is handled, is that I do not try to link anything into a theory, or to justify my conjectures or questioning of the evidence into any sort of argument or theory.

I couldn't give a cuss who killed Stride, to be honest. Kidney's responsibility or not is of tangential interest to me. But there are enough differences between that murder and others to suggest that another hand MIGHT have been responsible, and once you ask that question you also allow a view - well, if "Jack" didn't kill Stride, what does that say about Eddowes and the timings.

NOTE - I have simply asked questions. I have not sought to elaborate or conjecture anyone's movements, motives or actions.

As to MJK - again there are clearly differences between her murder and earlier ones in the series. So one asks questions.

What I find is that others don't want to ask the questions or examine their implications. Even though it is clear that the media had a huge hand in the way we perceive the case.

On the number and identity of victims - its is OK (it seems) to question whether some earlier and later killings might be added to the series, but not the canonical five? Why? If there were more killings than five, MM was wrong! If there were less he was wrong!! Either way the number is just one man's view - and he is quesioned deeply about other matters. Why not on the five I wonder?

I also, by the way, have come to believe that there are arguments to justify including McKenzie in the total.

Also, there is I think, a faily well established concensus (I seem to recall a poll) that somewhere there must be earlier murders or attacks by JtR. Nichols seems to confident to be a first time. So again the numbers and identity of victims can be questions.

But again, please note that I have not built anything on my questions, I have not extraolated my thinking into a theory. Why - because to do so would be premature and IMHO amateur (in the worst meaning of that word).

I therefore will continue to seek to save those who indulge such whims from themselves.

Phil

i'm afraid that i'm into theories only, but nowadays i stick to a theory that's far more realistic, than the ones that i used to have years ago, i usually leave others to correct my faults, because i do get my facts wrong.. even so, my theory is definitely not stupid, because stupidity is :- Royal Conspiracy/ FM/ SICKERT/ LEWIS CAROLL

but i've got a very stong imagination and i'm quite good at detecting things, so i think that you and i can definitely work together.

lets open a thread maybe tomorrow about this MJK Copycat thing, because i need to refresh myself over this murder and maybe we can bounce some good ideas off each other, because i'm definitely open to new ideas.

this thread is getting tired anyway, just like it did all those years ago.