The Apron

[Steven Russell]

It's an interesting slant, Tom but I'm not convinced.

Your man would have to have been pretty confident that
a) the apron piece would be found,
b) it would be matched to the other portion,
c) it would be linked to the graffito, and
d) the meaning of the graffito would be understood.

Otherwise why bother with the whole enterprise?

Three out of four ain't bad I suppose but what you call the traditional explanations seem simpler and therefore more attractive - to me at least.

With regard to a), I wonder what condition the streets were in? That the apron was noticed at all suggests they may not have been so filthy and full of garbage as one might think. I suppose they must have had some sort of bin men or street cleaners and I know there were horse dung collectors.

Best wishes,
Steve.

[Tom_Wescott]

The simple truth of the apron

Yes Steve,

It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene.

Monty

To be fair, I think you might be throwing stones at glass houses here. After all, you're among the throng who dismiss PC Long's sworn testimony regarding the missing 30 minutes between the Ripper fleeing Mitre Square and the apron and graffiti being discovered.

Steven and Simon,

You guys are hitting upon the point I've been making for years. The traditional ways of explaining the necessity to take the apron half simply do not cut it (pardon the pun). He did not need it to wipe his hands or knife or carry organs. There's one over-riding practical purpose for the apron, and that was to qualify the graffiti. Period. This is supported by those missing 30 minutes that so many are anxious to right off with 'Long was mistaken/lying'. The Ripper left Mitre Square and, as we would suspect, went somewhere safe to clean up, change, deposit the organs, and head back out. He then left the graffiti and apron piece. It is not evidence that he was 'heading back towards Berner Street' as typically claimed, although he may have been. He likewise might have been heading the opposite direction.

In order to dispose of the graffiti as evidence, researchers have had to first create unworkable excuses for his taking the apron, and then completely dismiss the testimony of a police officer. Does this work for you? It sure doesn't with me.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Hunter]

I've just been through the Sourcebook looking up all references to the apron. One thing is clear: It is the portion found with Eddowes' body which shows "spots" of blood; the Goulston St. piece is much more heavily stained, Dr. Brown even stating, "... as if a hand or knife had been wiped", and PC Long, "... covered in blood".

It amazes me how some dismiss the testimony of those who were at the scene.

Exactly.

[mariab]

The apron was half full.

Is that an optimist's view or what? ;-)

[Supe]

Trev,

Oh so now the killer can see perfectly in the dark so as to see a tear in an apron which was drawn up along with all the other clothes and cut along the tear.

Considering all the years you have been around and the two books you have written (you did write them, correct?) one would think you would have some rudimentary knowledge of the several murders. As it is, no one cut along a tear -- in the dark or upon a sunny say. There was a patch in the apron, covering a tear, a hole, a burn, whatever, and the apron cut divided that patch, thus providing proof positive the two parts were from the same apron.

If you are going to shoot your mouth off do learn the facts.

Don.

[Wickerman]

Hi Simon,

It is possible that the killer's impoverished circumstances and living conditions meant that he didn't have much in the way of spare cloth lying around, and that he therefore fully intended to make use of the victim's apparel for the purposes of organ transportation.

It's equally possible that he needed the organs well wrapped so as not to soil the inside of his nice leather bag...

[Wickerman]

Out of control is spot on, frenzied and ferocious attacks but are we to be believe that suddenly he regains control to carefully remove organs and carefully cut a piece of apron ?

And......carefully write a coherant piece of poetic graffiti, and all this after being a staggering drunk in Berner St.?

Sounds like a real dog's breakfast of a theory...

Jon

[Scott Nelson]

Does anyone know if this was a half apron or a full apron?

The apron was half full.

[Monty]

Hi Chris,

Why do you think the killer had time to wipe his hands in the square? Seeing as we have possible interventions for Watkins, Harvey and Morris.

Re cut or tear.

The inquest testimony is quite clear, it was cut. As the parts were matched and identified via a repair and matching its far easier to cut through a repair than tearing. I see no issue regarding cutting, that knife was sharp enough to cut through some pretty tough matter in Eddowes body.

Monty

Here's the post, point out where I said he cut along the tear.

Then, when you cannot, state its yet another thing you got wrong.

Monty

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi all,

Does anyone know if this was a half apron or a full apron?

[Trevor Marriott]

Evidence, provided by those at the scene, supports that the lighting was adequate.

As for cutting along the tear, no one has stated that.

You should read more you bore rather that promote theory as fact.....and its I before e.

Monty

I think you ought to read and digest your own post first before running to correct my spelling especially the part where you mention cutting along the tear.

I think you need to go back to Specsavers and ask them to remove the rose tint from your spectacles.

[Monty]

Oh so now the killer can see perfectly in the dark so as to see a tear in an apron which was drawn up along with all the other clothes and cut along the tear.When is reality going to kick in. So many outlandish theories people are clinging to in the beleif that the killer took the organs.

Evidence, provided by those at the scene, supports that the lighting was adequate.

As for cutting along the tear, no one has stated that.

You should read more you bore rather that promote theory as fact.....and its I before e.

Monty

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Chris,

Why do you think the killer had time to wipe his hands in the square? Seeing as we have possible interventions for Watkins, Harvey and Morris.

Re cut or tear.

The inquest testimony is quite clear, it was cut. As the parts were matched and identified via a repair and matching its far easier to cut through a repair than tearing. I see no issue regarding cutting, that knife was sharp enough to cut through some pretty tough matter in Eddowes body.

Monty

Oh so now the killer can see perfectly in the dark so as to see a tear in an apron which was drawn up along with all the other clothes and cut along the tear.When is reality going to kick in. So many outlandish theories people are clinging to in the beleif that the killer took the organs.

[GregBaron]

They cut me...

The missing time element is when he was getting a bite to eat.

Good one Scott. And yes, he would have to scoop his porridge with his off hand which is quite awkward.

This gets even better. Suppose when he was cutting down the abdomen he hits a button (someone else also suggested this) and the knife slipped and stabbed him in the hip or thigh. This angers him greatly. Before he bails, as he feels the blood running down his leg, he cuts the apron piece and stuffs it down his trousers to soak up the blood. When he nears his residence, he reaches down to grab and discard the apron so as not to take evidence into his bolt hole.

He blames the 3 Jewish guys who cost him a couple of valuable minutes which made him rush and cut himself. He pens the graffiti.

Brilliant.

Now either pc Long missed the apron originally or Jtr did step into a den somewhere to treat his wound.

I love it....



Greg

[niko]

I've just been through the Sourcebook looking up all references to the apron. One thing is clear: It is the portion found with Eddowes' body which shows "spots" of blood; the Goulston St. piece is much more heavily stained, Dr. Brown even stating, "... as if a hand or knife had been wiped", and PC Long, "... covered in blood".

Just mentioning this as a few people seem to think the spots were on the G. St. piece.

Best wishes,
Steve.

Hi Steve, I mentioned this before, the "spot's" of blood on the piece of apron found on Eddowes body. I belive that the blood "spot's" were caused by something dripping blood on to the apron, like what ?

(1) The removed organ's, "nah"

(2) The knife, "nah"

(3) A cut on Jack's hand, "nah impossible"

All the best, Agur.

niko