The Apron

[Ben]

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.

[Trevor Marriott]

That's the one, John.

From the Times' recording of the Eddowes inquest, 12th October:

By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

This is possibly more consistent with organ-transportation than hand/knife-wiping, in my opinion. Although he may well have done both.

Rubbish

[Phil H]

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 H]

One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

This is possibly more consistent with organ-transportation than hand/knife-wiping, in my opinion. Although he may well have done both.

I don't follow that logic.

If a "bag" was formed to carry something, you would expect the CORNERS to be held in the hand, gathered up, and thus be furthest from the most likely point of deep staning - THE CENTRE, where the bleeding body parts would rest longest.

If a corner was. particularly heavily stained, I would surmise that it would be while close to the body, perhaps resting on a fresh cut, but unnoticed by "Jack" in the darkness.

Phil

Phil

[Trevor Marriott]

John, I endorse all you say.

The point though is that over-elaboration of the motive for removing an apron-piece is neither needed nor convincing.

In almost every case I have seen (probably all) the poster proposing a complex motivation and sequence of events has an axe to grind - a personal theory that requires such a theary. That, in my view, is putting cart before horse.

As taking cloth to carry extracted organs is not evidence in other murders in the alleged sequence, I prefer to emphasise the cleaning rag view as the most obvious and immediate solution. I have NO axe to grind.

Phil

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.

[Phil H]

You are back to your scurrilous interpolation of your own comments within other's posts. Please desist.

But he didnt need to do that

We don't know WHAT he needed to do or not. Siomply that he removed a piece of material. My preferred explanation introduces the least surmise, as i see it. I prefer it to your ornate fripperies, at least.

and besides if he had done as you suggest he has gone an awful long way before discarding it.

Again, the term "long way" is judgemental, given that we know nothing of his state of mind, preoccupations, delaysor anything else. But it was, I believe, shown long ago, that on the most logical route between the murder site and Goulston St, the archway was the first convenient opening he was likely to find.

Phil

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Trevor. Precisely.

I appreciate a voice of reason, and not just bluster.

Cheers.
LC

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi FM

'Wrong'?

I certainly can't prove it.

But, it's not a bad argument at all.

In terms of logisitics and practicality:

Think about it. A full apron, tied at the waist from the back, she's on her back: how exactly does he pull this thing up in order to do his mutilation bit? Either he reaches round the back and unties it (tricky when she's lying on her back), or he cuts the apron.

But we dont know the size of the apron could have been a small one as i previoulsy posted. Everyone is suggesting it was a full length one.
In terms of why he took it, then that's an altogether different question which does not negate the aforementioned proposition.

[John Bennett]

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.

Yes, isn't this where we get that old chestnut about the head being held on by the scarf that was occasionally peddled by authors in the early 20th century?

[Ben]

That's the one, John.

From the Times' recording of the Eddowes inquest, 12th October:

By Mr. Crawford. - He had not noticed the wall before. He noticed the piece of apron first, and then the words on the wall. One corner of the apron was wet with blood.

This is possibly more consistent with organ-transportation than hand/knife-wiping, in my opinion. Although he may well have done both.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Phil

There is no need for any of this spurious elaboration.

"Jack" killed Eddowes, cut off some material to clean himself up, discarded it in an open doorway and went home. End of story.

But he didnt need to do that and besides if he had done as you suggest he has gone an awful long way before discarding it.

If we go down this conspiratorial ratholes we'll soon be asking not who was JtR, but who was the only person in London not involved.

If some of this stuff appeared in an undergraduate history essay you'd get Z minus for misuing evidence, not arguing logically and creating scenarios out of whole cloth. It may be fun, but it's neither big nor clever, let alone grown up.

Phil

[Phil H]

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

[Lechmere]

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.

[John Bennett]

Indeed, John. A good point.

Didn't one of the witnesses recall that it was heavily saturated in one corner?

All the best,
Ben

Yes, I believe so. And PC Long said that part of it was wet with blood.

[GregBaron]

Abnormal psychology...

How many serial killers have willingly returned to within range of the police search with incriminating evidence on their person? That really should tell a story, because as human beings our base instincts are the same: if you wouldn't do it, and I wouldn't do it, and the rest of this board wouldn't do it, and known serial killers didn't do it; then it's fair to assume Jack didn't do it.

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