The Apron

[John Bennett]

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

Certainly one account says that it was stained as if cleaning hands/ a knife. Dr. Gordon Brown stated:

"On the piece of apron brought on there were smears of blood on one side as if a hand or knife had been wiped on it"

(Inquest report, The Times, 5 Oct 1888).

[Ben]

We'd have to see how the apron was stained to get any reasonable idea and unfortunately there seem to be different accounts as to exactly HOW it was stained.

Indeed, John. A good point.

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

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

i keep telling you why i think it's linked to Dutfields and who i think killed Stride, in fact in quite a lot of detail, yes i can only give you conjecture/ speculation, this is the problem.

this is the same as you saying that MJK was killed by someone else, it's pure speculation only, all of this is, i'm deffo not insulting you, i'm just putting forward my theory, it's you that's taking it personally, no idea why.

i have no axe to grind, only my theory, i never insult anyone, but i'm very fixated and dogmatic, maybe it's this that's annoying you.

i'm only online once a day and i quite often miss posts, so if i've ignored you i'm sorry, so if these's something that you really want to talk about...i.e is MJK a copycat, you must open your own post because if not i'll definitely miss it.

[Phil H]

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

[John Bennett]

In response to one or two recent comments from other posters regarding the supposed "simplest" explanation, the removal of the rag purely for cleaning purposes (which people suggest he did en route home in full view) is most emphatically nothing of the sort. He could easily have cleaned off the visible, incriminating signs of blood and fecal matter in less time that was required to remove the piece of apron.

All the best,
Ben

I guess the real reason for the removal of the apron is open to conjecture. Containing the removed organs? Wiping of hands/knife?

We'd have to see how the apron was stained to get any reasonable idea and unfortunately there seem to be different accounts as to exactly HOW it was stained.

But the apron piece WAS removed, that much is certain. And the simplest explanation is that the killer dropped/threw it into the doorway, though as with everything Ripper-related, that explanation can also be picked apart.

[Phil H]

many of the police/ historians think that this belongs to JTR/ Eddowes and that it's maybe about anti-semetism, this is a long time before even you and i were born...... but it's me that's saying that it's also linked to Dutfields too.

Malcolm, I am old enough to remember when all the speculation was that "Juwes" referred to the three masonic killers (Jubela, Julbelo and Jubelum as I recall) of Hiram Abif and thus was a link to freemasonry. Huge amounts of energy - all fruitless - were expended on following the red-herring, set off by Stephen Knight (who appears to have had a deep-seated anti-masonic bias). So tin-pot, half-baked, ill-argued fantasies by a new generation of ripper-enthusiasts are hardly going to impress.

THERE IS (and never has been) ANY CONCENSUS ON WHAT THE GRAFFITO MEANS WHOMEVER WROTE IT.

this is a long time before even you and i were born......

NOT that long before I was born in comparative terms. I could still have spoken to people around at the time. We have people on this site who visited Hanbury St in the 60s before No29 was demolished - so there is no real issue about the passage of time.

But more important, the point is irrelevant. MOST historical period which are studied are about periods more remotely in the past than JtR. Yet people still take an interest - they do so by means of well-established, well-tried and fairly simple logical processes and rational argument that constructs cases for peer review.

SO...

Before trying to dismiss my points, please:

LIST the "many of the police/ historians [who] think that this belongs to JTR/ Eddowes and that it's maybe about anti-semetism" [your spelling]

and ITEMISE, as it is you "that's saying that it's also linked to Dutfields too" your reasons for believing that to be the case. You seek to dismiss my arguments with an airy wave of the hand, but do not cite an reasons for refuting me.

That is neither informed nor well-mannered.

The impression you give is that you are simply regurgitating conjecture, speculation and surmise, which is neither impressive nor convincing and useless to anyone.

Phil

[Ben]

Wasn`t Chapman`s scarf missing? I think it was Donovan who described her as wearing a scarf when she left Crossingham`s.

Very good point, Jon. A scarf would have been ideal for such a grisly purpose too.

Hi Steve,

If the killer lived alone, and/or had plenty of viable containers lying around, I'm sure he would have availed himself of them. But given the likelihood that he was a member of the working class poor and lived in some sort of shared accommodation, he may have been compelled to make use of whatever rags he found on his victim, especially when they were freely available, and could so easily have afforded his clothing some protection from organ fluid seepage. I might agree that overcoats are traditionally "thick, heavy items", but in this case, the probable killer of Eddowes was wearing a pepper and salt "jacket", which suggests a lighter garment (both in colour and weight).

Nor do I believe we can safely deduce that the killer's home, or other place of safety, was close-by because he dared not walk the streets for too long with body parts about his person. We are not talking about a "normal" person here.

A study of other serial killers would indicate a tendency to minimize any risk that isn't associated with the primary goal of murder and, in this case, mutilation. For instance, the fact that the killer wasn't strictly "normal" evidently didn't preclude him for having the foresight to avoid heavy blood-staining or allowing his victims to cry out etc.

In response to one or two recent comments from other posters regarding the supposed "simplest" explanation, the removal of the rag purely for cleaning purposes (which people suggest he did en route home in full view) is most emphatically nothing of the sort. He could easily have cleaned off the visible, incriminating signs of blood and fecal matter in less time that was required to remove the piece of apron.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

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.

So, we're left with a situation where either Jack dropped it between 2.20 and 2.55, which would mean Jack couldn't raise his head above the parapet until that time, or PC Long was mistaken, or someone else put it there.

no, how do you know EXACTLY what serial killers have done, that arguement from you isn't watertight.

i would've returned to Dutfields, but it does follow logic that the apron was already there in Ghoulston st, just not noticed, for sure....... but to be honest, this doesn't matter at all does it, because for me, it's, does this Graffiti refer back to Dutfields ?

the itty bitty stuff wont help you at all, because any killer can be like this, you will not recognise JTR in this lot at all, it's the overall picture that you're after...... all this lot will tell you two things only:- JTR was not insane and he was not from the rich upper classes, in other words all of this tells us nothing!

i.e 4 years ago it was :- who killed Stride? so as you can see, i havent come very far in 4 years

[Malcolm X]

the connection is very strong, L.Stride was killed at Dutfields, the graffiti is refering back to that location,

I assume that somehow you are referring to the word "Juwes" or "Jewes" in the graffito.

Precisely how does the graffito refer back to Dutfield's Yard (if you'd said the IWMC I might have been more impressed)?

How does "Juwes" or "Jewes" so certainly make that connection? Why not link it to Mitre Square and the nearby Synagogue?

My suspicion is that you NEED to link Goulston St, the killer of Eddowes and Berner's St because otherwise the evidence that "Jack" killed Stride is too flimsy to contemplate.

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.

Phil

as far as you believe yes, but others like me believe that the link is very strong indeed.

many of the police/ historians think that this belongs to JTR/ Eddowes and that it's maybe about anti-semetism, this is a long time before even you and i were born...... but it's me that's saying that it's also linked to Dutfields too.

i believe this because the speculation/ theory seems to be quite strong, it is far more likely to be all connected than not...

is it sheer fluke that serial killer no 2 just happened to kill Stride on Jewish ground, on the same night that Eddowes died later on ?........ I DOUBT IT

as for who killed her, well yes anyone could have done this i suppose, but to sit on the fence casting down stones on either side, is not an option for me.

as such i think JTR killed all 3 of these women.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Yet he would have had usually several minutes head start and by the time the alarm was raised that would be ten minutes. He could be the best part of a mile away by the time a search was actually mounted. That explains why he wasn’t found by people alerted from the crime scene.

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.

So, we're left with a situation where either Jack dropped it between 2.20 and 2.55, which would mean Jack couldn't raise his head above the parapet until that time, or PC Long was mistaken, or someone else put it there.

[Fleetwood Mac]

My suspicion is that you NEED to link Goulston St, the killer of Eddowes and Berner's St because otherwise the evidence that "Jack" killed Stride is too flimsy to contemplate.

I don't subscribe to the author of the GSG being Jack.

I don't, however, agree with the idea that without it there is nothing to connect Stride to Jack.

The most important point being this: Stride was laid down and her throat coat in a fashion consistent with Jack, as if done for some wider purpose. Of all the other murders that we are aware of at the time in that area, how many of the victims had their throats cuts in that manner with the the victim lying on the floor?

Anyway, slightly off-topic, but it brings us neatly back to the writing and it's importance, or lack thereof, to the case.

[Phil H]

the connection is very strong, L.Stride was killed at Dutfields, the graffiti is refering back to that location,

I assume that somehow you are referring to the word "Juwes" or "Jewes" in the graffito.

Precisely how does the graffito refer back to Dutfield's Yard (if you'd said the IWMC I might have been more impressed)?

How does "Juwes" or "Jewes" so certainly make that connection? Why not link it to Mitre Square and the nearby Synagogue?

My suspicion is that you NEED to link Goulston St, the killer of Eddowes and Berner's St because otherwise the evidence that "Jack" killed Stride is too flimsy to contemplate.

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.

Phil

[Malcolm X]

Or, he would have had to have rolled her over to gain access to the bow, which would have led to more blood being on his person. Would seem expedient to simply cut the apron, which would explain why the cut piece was so large, and why didn't use one of the many pieces of cloth on Eddowes at the time.

very true, please see my earlier post

there's plenty of room to clean yourself, this piece of apron cloth is very large, it'll be about 14'' wide by about 2ft 6'', JTR might also have washed his hands in a nearby puddle !

[Fleetwood Mac]

why? he was in a hurry, and couldn't be bothered to undo the back

Or, he would have had to have rolled her over to gain access to the bow, which would have led to more blood being on his person. Would seem expedient to simply cut the apron, which would explain why the cut piece was so large, and why didn't use one of the many pieces of cloth on Eddowes at the time.

[Malcolm X]

'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.

In terms of why he took it, then that's an altogether different question which does not negate the aforementioned proposition.

hay that's quite good, it's tied at the back yes, but isn't it open at the back too, i'll just ask my mother ...yes it's open at the back, but it's not shown in the artwork, so the bit that's still left behind is probably out of view behind her dress, with the whole of the front part cut and ripped off.

why? he was in a hurry and couldn't be bothered to undo the back, you say that she still had cleaning cloths in her pockets..... yes, i very much doubt that JTR had enough time to check her pockets

and deffo not afterwards why ? his hands were covered in blood, no blood is mentioned on anything in her pockets, he wiped his hands/knife on the apron piece later.....

where did he put the organs ?..... no idea ! probably in the apron piece and then when cleaned, directly into his pockets...... no idea!

but..... if he was planning to mutilate that night, along with the chalk, he might have had a piece of his own cloth too, or even a small container, yes now this is highly likely.